[Vision2020] Yet Again: Re: Correction: Re: IPCC Critic Pielke & IPCC Author & NASA Scientist Schmidt's "Meeting Of The Minds"

[Ted Moffett]

"Popular Mechanics" not "Popular Science."

On 7/5/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The web link to the post on Roger Pelke's climate science blog that praises
> NASA's Gavin Schmidt's "Popular Science" interview on "5 Climate Studies
> That Don't Live Up to the Hype" was incorrect.  This is the correct web
> link:
>
>
> http://climatesci.org/2009/07/03/gavin-schmidts-interview-on-media-hype-on-climate-science-issues/
>
> On 7/5/09, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Recent and past Vision2020 discussion regarding anthropogenic climate
>> change has sometimes been polarized, with explicit or implicit charges that
>> the opinions are based on personal bias, propaganda, junk science,
>> politics, an uncertain so called consensus becoming dogma (if you think
>> anthropogenic warming seriously doubtful, with minority views not given
>> their due) or "well established consensus science" being subjected to
>> unrealistic standards demanding "absolute" certainty (if you think the
>> science that humans are altering climate reliable).
>>
>> The climate science community's integrity has come under vigorous attack,
>> with assertions they are "sheep" blindly following a peer consensus that
>> human impacts are altering climate, pushing a political agenda aimed at
>> government regulation (IPCC scientists described as "European socialists,"
>> as New Saint Andrews librarian Ed Iverson phrased it in a Moscow/Pullman
>> Daily News Op-Ed), or pursuing selfish career or monetary exploitation of
>> anthropogenic warming for grants, research funding, professional publishing
>> kudos, or popular book sales.  But the fact there is debate among scientists
>> on climate change argues that the scientific community is open to
>> disagreement, with scientists who are skeptics given a prominent voice in
>> the media.  Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University, who appeared
>> on MSNBC national cable news expressing views skeptical of global warming,
>> and science fiction writer Michael Crichton, who expressed his doubts about
>> global warming before the US Congress, are examples. Crichton made money
>> from his book "State of Fear," that expresses skepticism about anthropogenic
>> warming science
>>
>> I've followed the polarized politicized climate of debate on this issue
>> with dismay, given that it portends a low probability of significant action
>> to address climate change.  The public in large numbers dismisses the
>> scientific consensus that humans altering climate is a significant problem,
>> or they simply do not want to assume costs of emissions reductions
>> (lifestyle changes, higher taxes or energy costs). Politicians are
>> influenced by these voters and the influence of money (lobbying, campaign
>> funding) from the private sector aimed at blocking legislation to lower
>> greenhouse gas emissions that may negatively impact their bottom line.  What
>> is often absent is a calm balanced wide ranging survey of the published
>> science, coupled with a long term analysis of the economic costs of climate
>> change.  Of course, if the climate scientific community is mostly "sheep,"
>> what's the point of surveying published scientific findings that amount to a
>> lot of "ba, ba, baah?"
>>
>> Which brings me to the point of this post, a "meeting of the minds," if
>> I may call it that, between two scientists, one a critic of the IPCC,
>> another an IPCC lead author: Roger Pielke and NASA's Gavin Schmidt.  It's
>> encouraging to discover that a climate scientist, Pielke, who might
>> otherwise be at loggerheads with an IPCC author, can praise his views on
>> some issues.  The impression often given in the media that the scientific
>> community is divided into warring polarized politicized camps on the issue
>> of climate change is an exaggeration that encourages the public to have far
>> more distrust of the objectivity of scientists than is justified.  There are
>> a wide variety of views with a lot of subtly and variation.  This argues
>> against the view that the consensus on anthropogenic climate change is based
>> on blind conformism among scientists who are not examining the evidence.
>>
>> Below read Pielke on Pielke's climate science blog praising Schmidt for
>> Schmidt's July 3 "Popular Mechanics" interview regarding the article "5
>> Climate Studies That Do Not Live Up to the Hype:"
>>
>> http://climatesci.org/
>>  July 3, 2009 Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science
>> Issues<http://climatesci.org/2009/07/03/gavin-schmidts-interview-on-media-hype-on-climate-science-issues/> Filed
>> under: Climate Science Misconceptions<http://climatesci.org/category/climate-science-misconceptions/>,
>> Climate Science Reporting<http://climatesci.org/category/climate-science-reporting/>— Roger Pielke Sr. @ 10:50 am
>>
>> I was pleased to see an interview of Gavin Schmidt in Popular Mechanics on
>> July 3 2009 with the headline “5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to
>> the Hype” <http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529953,00.html>[and thanks
>> to Joe D'Aleo for alerting us to it!].
>>
>> This news article is refreshing, after the Real Climate’s recent
>> overstatement on climate (see<http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/>and
>> see<http://climatesci.org/2009/07/02/response-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-to-the-real-climate-weblog-more-bubkes/>),
>> as it provides a balanced presentation of the subject by Dr. Schmidt.
>> Hopefully, this will translate to more balance, and less personal criticisms
>> on Real Climate than we have seen repeatedly in the past and as recent
>> as this week [e.g. More bubkes<http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp>
>> ].
>>
>> The article is introduced with the text
>>
>> *“A leading climate scientist argues that overbroad claims by some
>> researchers—coupled with overblown reporting in the media—can undermine the
>> public’s understanding of climate issues. Gavin Schmidt, a NASA climate
>> modeler, author and PM editorial advisor, concurs with the consensus view
>> that the planet’s temperature is rising due largely to human activity. But,
>> he says, many news stories prematurely attribute local or regional phenomena
>> to climate change. This can lead to the dissemination of vague,
>> out-of-context or flat-wrong information to the public.”*
>> --------------
>> At the website below are Pielke's views on climate science which are
>> critical of the IPCC:
>>
>> http://climatesci.org/main-conclusions/
>> --------------
>> And below is recent discussion on Realclimate.org regarding Pielke's
>> criticism of Realclimate content that is mentioned in Pielke's post on
>> Schmidt's "Popular Science" interview:
>>
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/#more-692
>>
>> NASA's Gavin Schmidt's bio:
>>
>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/
>>
>> ------------------------------------------
>> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090705/072d1614/attachment.html