"Popular Mechanics" not "Popular Science."<br><br>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/5/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/2009/07/03/gavin-schmidts-interview-on-media-hype-on-climate-science-issues/" target="_blank">http://climatesci.org/2009/07/03/gavin-schmidts-interview-on-media-hype-on-climate-science-issues/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 7/5/09, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ted Moffett</b> <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:starbliss@gmail.com" target="_blank">starbliss@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div>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). </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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?"</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>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:"</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/" target="_blank">http://climatesci.org/</a></div>
<div>
<h2>July 3, 2009</h2>
<h3><a title="Permanent Link: Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/2009/07/03/gavin-schmidts-interview-on-media-hype-on-climate-science-issues/" target="_blank" rel="bookmark"><font color="#6078bf">Gavin Schmidt’s Interview On Media Hype On Climate Science Issues</font></a></h3>
<div>Filed under: <a title="View all posts in Climate Science Misconceptions" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/category/climate-science-misconceptions/" target="_blank" rel="category tag"><font color="#6078bf">Climate Science Misconceptions</font></a>, <a title="View all posts in Climate Science Reporting" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/category/climate-science-reporting/" target="_blank" rel="category tag"><font color="#6078bf">Climate Science Reporting</font></a> — Roger Pielke Sr. @ 10:50 am </div>
<div>
<p>I was pleased to see an interview of Gavin Schmidt in Popular Mechanics on July 3 2009 with the headline <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529953,00.html" target="_blank"><font color="#6078bf">“5 Climate Studies That Don’t Live Up to the Hype”</font></a>[and thanks to Joe D'Aleo for alerting us to it!].</p>
<p>This news article is refreshing, after the Real Climate’s recent overstatement on climate (<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/2009/06/30/real-climates-misinformation/" target="_blank"><font color="#6078bf">see</font></a> and <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/2009/07/02/response-by-roger-a-pielke-sr-to-the-real-climate-weblog-more-bubkes/" target="_blank"><font color="#6078bf">see</font></a>), 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. <a title="Permanent Link: More bubkes" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/langswitch_lang/sp" target="_blank" rel="bookmark"><span style="COLOR: #335522">More bubkes</span></a>].</p>
<p>The article is introduced with the text</p>
<p><em>“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.”</em></p>
</div></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>At the website below are Pielke's views on climate science which are critical of the IPCC:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://climatesci.org/main-conclusions/" target="_blank">http://climatesci.org/main-conclusions/</a></div>
<div>--------------</div>
<div>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:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/#more-692" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/more-bubkes/#more-692</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>NASA's Gavin Schmidt's bio:</div>
<div> </div>
<div><a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/" target="_blank">http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/gavin-schmidt/</a></div>
<div> </div>
<div>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett </div></blockquote></div><br></blockquote></div><br>