"Roger Pielke Jr. describes the distorting of climate science" Topic

"Summary: Scientists and journalists play a vital role in the public policy debate about climate change, explaining the reports of the major climate agencies. Here Roger Pielke Jr. describes an example of how they too often misrepresent those findings, distorting the debate and feeding the public's loss of confidence in science as an institution…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

You mean the guy who has a poli-sci degree and is director of the Sports Governance Center within the Department of Athletics at Colorado U? There is a lot of distortion and misrepresentation going on in Climate Science and Pielke ought to know.

First off, he is not a climate scientist.

Second, he is not anti-AGW.

Third, he has been aptly excoriated for his spreading of misinformation:

link

Looks like argumentum ad verecundiam to me.

link

And finally, the blog Fabius Maximus is hardy a disinterested body in all this. They are a slightly more literate version of Climate Depot. Never let the facts get in the way of a good by-line, right Larry Kummer?

link

I only have one thing to say on the subject …

VIVA DOGGERLAND!!!

Dan :)
TMP link

Or if your NASA just change the facts to match your needed outcome.

VIVA DOGGERLAND!

It doesn't require a climate scientist to see that there is distortion on both sides of this argument about the degree humans play a part in climate change.

Indeed. But most of what one side says these days is generally embraced right away as gospel, and anyone who simply questions their conclusions is often seen as a heretic, a denier, or worse.

Dan
PS. Bowman and Martin, I want to thank you for at least listening to my questions/concerns, and for understanding some of my frustration.

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Seriously. They listened to me here:

TMP link

In other places the reception to simple questions is typically immediate attack and belittling.

Dan

……and anyone who simply questions their conclusions is often seen as a heretic, a denier, or worse.

If you are basing your questions from reading blogs by gym directors (Pielke) or ex-Inhofe speech writers (Marc Morano) and their ilk, instead of climate scientists, then I think naive is a better term.

It's not productive to discuss the opinions of a layman who has been shown to not understand the topic he is opining on. One example of Pielke at work:

link

Hey, no attacks on the AGW religion allowed.

Hey, no attacks on the AGW religion allowed.

I don't mind constructive attacks – that how science works. It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying the earth is flat while at sea with a working GPS in hand, as well as the points refuted a thousand times that I find problematic…

Dan
PS. Bowman and Martin, I want to thank you for at least listening to my questions/concerns, and for understanding some of my frustration.

Dan, I'm a educator as well as an researcher. While AGW isn't my field of expertise – I'm a Financial/Economic Geographer – I am exposed to the latest in AGW in the professional journals and conferences I attend. I actually enjoy teaching and explaining thing, but I apologize if I get a bit terse if it's something that's as uncontroversial as the statement of liquid water being wet. I hope you understand it's not against you personally.

Hey, no attacks on the AGW religion allowed.

Hey Bill, we need a facepalm emoticon.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of saying the earth is flat while at sea with a working GPS in hand…….

No kidding! Lol.

Defenders of the faith unite!

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand