Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 Next
Comments 55301 to 55350:
-
jimspy at 03:38 AM on 17 August 2012The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
If deniers have their doubts about Doran & Zimmerman, how hard would it be for them to try to duplicate the study, "correcting" the methodologies they find fault with, and perhaps expanding the participation? It certainly wouldn't be expensive for them - they could pay for it with the money found in the Koch brothers' couch. That they haven't even attempted to do so speaks volumes, and in fact strikes me as another nail in the coffin. -
Hyperactive Hydrologist at 03:31 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Tom, Good posts at 88 and 111. I found reading all those definitions particularly useful. I notice they differ in, some respects, to the IPCC definitions although the IPCC is specifically referring to Climate Change. Does expenditure on reducing vulnerability get factored in when calculating economic costs? What about environmental losses how are they accounted for? And what about the social impacts? It seems to me that approaching this issue from an economic perspective makes it very difficult to draw any definitive conclusion. There is also the danger of ignoring many other critical issues relating to disasters. -
BWTrainer at 03:26 AM on 17 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
Which is why the latest Texas republican party platform is against teaching critical thinking in schools. -
vrooomie at 02:55 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger, you may reject dana's 'characterizations' of your remarks, as is your wont and right: However, as someone who's been actively reading this entire thread, who's watched the video of Field's testimony at *least* 4 times now, I can see *no* other interpretation/characterization of your words 'at variance' with dana's et al exegesis of them. Fields did not say what you infer he did say. You declaim the process of exegesis of a given scientist's recorded words, but when rigorous, well-documented exegesis of your own (and I'll go on record here) MIScharacterizations of Field's testimony, all you seem to be able to offer is...."let's agree to disagree." At this point, the only disagreement I can see extant is your outright rejection of commonly- and widely-held norms of scientific grammar, intent and sentence structure, *all* of which shows Field did ~not~ 'grossly misrepresnt SREX, or the IPCC. You may, at your convenience, reject my characterizations, however. Perhaps if you feel this strongly that Fields "...is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong.", then might it be to your best interests, professionally, to do a peer-reviewed rebuttal to his testimony? I had hoped that Fields himself might weigh in on this thread, too. Thanks! -
Martin Lack at 02:34 AM on 17 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Feel free to use my rebuttal to the Wall StreetSixteenThree: http://lackofenvironment.wordpress.com/2012/08/16/and-then-there-were-three/ -
Doug Bostrom at 02:30 AM on 17 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Cliff Mass replies on his blog: "That skepticalscience piece is FULL of serious technical errors. They are a climate advocacy groups run by non-atmospheric scientists. Groups like that ( and others of similar ilk, et.gClimateCentral)are part of the problem..." I've suggested to Cliff (who is in fact an admirably skilled meteorological researcher and runs some very excellent modeling efforts here in the Pacific NW) that if we are to evaluate arguments by affiliation and specialty rather than specific analysis then of course we'll go with Hansen's results. Hopefully he'll offer something more tractable for purposes of discussion than a caps-lock invocation. For what it's worth, I don't think Cliff is very well calibrated against the nuances of this matter. He's nothing if not extremely enthusiastic and that energy shows in everything he writes, right or wrong. -
Martin Lack at 02:27 AM on 17 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Dana, I have read this post (which is very good) but you do not address storm intensity -vs- heatwave intensity? For example, why (as WUWT appears to show here) do changes in storm intensity appear to be cyclical (rather than steadily increasing)? How can Hansen et al (2012) and Watts et al (2012?) both be true? Also, what criticism by Muller was Mann was reacting to in the 'On the Green Front' broadcast (yesterday - as embedded on WUWT above)? That is to say, has Muller been attacking Mann because of the sarcastic Tweet (to the effect that Muller is likely to catch up with climate science eventually)? What have I missed? -
RogerPielkeJr at 02:21 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-116-dana1981 Thanks, but I reject your characterization of my remarks. Of course, so far the discussion has only focused on 1 of the 5 issues that I raised with Field's testimony. Again, we shall agree to disagree. Thanks! -
vrooomie at 02:16 AM on 17 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
Also, isn't it *interesting* that such a bill would be introduced in Tennessee, where the Scopes trial took place? -
dana1981 at 02:13 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger @115"To ignore that science is to leave oneself open to charges of misleading the listener"
Yes, you have made that quite clear by yourself charging Field with misleading the listener (though I haven't seen anyone other than you level these charges). So here's where we started, with Roger claiming:"What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress."
And now we have whittled the criticism down to Field not explicitly stating that a clear connection between climate change and monetary disaster losses has not yet been made. We began with the claim 'Field is blatantly wrong' and have come to 'Field wasn't quite as explicit as I would have liked'. That's quite a large evolution. -
vrooomie at 02:05 AM on 17 August 2012Teaching Climate Change in Schools
I've been a docent at Dinosaur Ridge, for nearly 15 years; even back when I started, there would be groups of tours, mainly children, that when I'd be talking about the signs of ancient life and geology so richly displayed there, almost inevitably there would be a 'creationist' kid who'd challenge my ancient Earth ideas. Needless to say, it would be an *uncomfortable* moment, and it remains so. I guess all we ("we" being those who believe in the scientific method, data, and facts, both professional and lay persons) can do is to continue to battle this ...scourge. Thanks for the article, monkeyorchild. -
RogerPielkeJr at 02:05 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-114-dana1981 You write: " I'm left concluding that Pielke thinks that even mentioning the word "disaster" or monetary value losses is impermissable when discussing the link between climate change and extreme weather" No, it is not impermissible, of course, but a responsible and not-misleading discussion actually mentions the state of the science of disasters on monetary value losses in the context of climate change, when mentioning then issues together -- as SREX did quite well. To ignore that science is to leave oneself open to charges of misleading the listener -- not good for IPCC WGII Co-Chair testifying before Congress. Of course, the importance of sticking to the science when it comes to economic losses is a point I am colleagues have been making for >10 years, so it should not come as a surprise to anyone with the least familiarity with my work or views. Thanks! -
rustneversleeps at 01:51 AM on 17 August 2012The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Just to re-emphasize the points you make in the final section "Why is the climate science consensus important?", and your closing paragraph... cf. Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement, Nature Climate Change, November 2011. Abstract: "Although a majority of US citizens think that the president and Congress should address global warming, only a minority think it should be a high priority. Previous research has shown that four key beliefs about climate change - that it is real, human caused, serious and solvable - are important predictors of support for climate policies. Other research has shown that organized opponents of climate legislation have sought to undermine public support by instilling the belief that there is widespread disagreement among climate scientists about these points — a view shown to be widely held by the public. Here we examine if this misperception is consequential. We show that the misperception is strongly associated with reduced levels of policy support and injunctive beliefs (that is, beliefs that action should be taken to mitigate global warming). The relationship is mediated by the four previously identified key beliefs about climate change, especially people’s certainty that global warming is occurring. In short, people who believe that scientists disagree on global warming tend to feel less certain that global warming is occurring, and show less support for climate policy. This suggests the potential importance of correcting the widely held public misperception about lack of scientific agreement on global warming." And from the closing paragraphs: "Importantly, these findings are actionable: the myth of widespread disagreement among climate scientists over whether global warming is happening has little to no basis in truth, and it emerged, at least in part, as the result of a concerted effort to deceive the public. Purposive campaigns can be mounted to correct important misperceptions. "... efforts to `debias' audiences should repeatedly assert the correct information for example, `the vast majority of climate scientists agree that human-caused global warming is happening' because repeated assertions, in time, become more familiar and therefore more likely to be deemed true. This strategy is consistent with the literature on public information campaigns, which has long emphasized the importance of the repetition of simple, clear messages to communicate effectively with the public."Moderator Response: [AS] Fixed broken link -
dana1981 at 01:30 AM on 17 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
We've got a rebuttal blog post to that WSJ nonsense in the works, Lionel. Look for it next week. -
dana1981 at 01:28 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
At this point I think we've established that Pielke's problem is with Field even mentioning the word "disaster" in his testimony. So let's look at the context of each example and see if there is any ambiguity: 1) "As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear." I don't see any problems here. Clearly the types of disasters being discussed (e.g. hurricanes) are climate-related, and there is indeed a link between climate change and many types of extreme weather. 2) "The US experienced 14 billion-dollar disasters in 2011...The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes...." That's obviously correct. 3) "For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known." I know Pielke wouldn't have a problem with that statement. 4) "The evidence pointing to the driving force behind the extra risk (either the climate change of the excess speed) can be strong, but it is still difficult to predict exactly when and where disaster might occur." No issues there I presume. Climate change is certainly one driving force behind extreme weather-related risk. 5) "And just as many factors influence the risk of a car accident, the risk of a weather-related disaster is strongly influenced by disaster preparations, early warning, and the integrity of local infrastructure like buildings, roads, and the electricity grid." That's certainly true - a point Tom Curtis has made here. 6) "There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risk of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster." Very clearly and accurately stated. That's it. I'm left concluding that Pielke thinks that even mentioning the word "disaster" or monetary value losses is impermissable when discussing the link between climate change and extreme weather, even if the speaker does not link disasters and losses to climate change, which Field clearly did not. -
Lionel A at 01:25 AM on 17 August 2012Christy Once Again Misinforms Congress
Richard Lindzen coughs again in the WSJ citing John Christy's Senate Testimony in: 'Climate Consensus' Data Need a More Careful Look -
CBDunkerson at 01:16 AM on 17 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger wrote: "I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable." Which part do you believe isn't scientifically supportable? "climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters" or "disasters have economic impacts"? I have not previously seen you deny the first, and the second falls under the category of blindingly obvious. Are you really saying that a scientific case cannot be made for climate change having caused an increased incidence of heat waves (for example)? Or, in the even less plausible alternative, that heat waves have no economic impact? -
OPatrick at 23:09 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger #110 - on (a) I see nothing in Field's testimony that contradicts the point that we cannot yet with strong confidence link the disasters referenced directly to climate change (which is not, of course, the same as saying there is no link between them). On (b) clearly he was making such a link, though moderated appropriately as I noted. I note in your quote from Field that your ellipses have the effect of disguising the distinction between 'disasters' and 'climate and weather extremes'. The second set of ...'s includes a paragraph break, which I think is significant when reading his testimony. I don't see how you can realistically expect us to "agree to disagree" when you have made such strong statements as "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong" and "Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate". If you are prepared to moderate this language and accept that it was unjustified then I might be prepared to agree to disagree. -
Tom Curtis at 23:04 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Pielke Jr @104 pretends to ignorance of the basic terminology of his own field as a debate tactic. The term "hazard" is a standard technical term in disaster management, and is defined by the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNISDR) as follows:"Hazard A dangerous phenomenon, substance, human activity or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: The hazards of concern to disaster risk reduction as stated in footnote 3 of the Hyogo Framework are “… hazards of natural origin and related environmental and technological hazards and risks.” Such hazards arise from a variety of geological, meteorological, hydrological, oceanic, biological, and technological sources, sometimes acting in combination. In technical settings, hazards are described quantitatively by the likely frequency of occurrence of different intensities for different areas, as determined from historical data or scientific analysis. See other hazard-related terms in the Terminology: Biological hazard; Geological hazard; Hydrometeorological hazard; Natural hazard; Socio-natural hazard; Technological hazard. 30 Aug 2007"
A "natural hazard" is further defined as:"Natural hazard Natural process or phenomenon that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. Comment: Natural hazards are a sub-set of all hazards. The term is used to describe actual hazard events as well as the latent hazard conditions that may give rise to future events. Natural hazard events can be characterized by their magnitude or intensity, speed of onset, duration, and area of extent. For example, earthquakes have short durations and usually affect a relatively small region, whereas droughts are slow to develop and fade away and often affect large regions. In some cases hazards may be coupled, as in the flood caused by a hurricane or the tsunami that is created by an earthquake. 30 Aug 2007"
A "Disaster" is defined as:"Disaster A serious disruption of the functioning of a community or a society involving widespread human, material, economic or environmental losses and impacts, which exceeds the ability of the affected community or society to cope using its own resources. Comment: Disasters are often described as a result of the combination of: the exposure to a hazard; the conditions of vulnerability that are present; and insufficient capacity or measures to reduce or cope with the potential negative consequences. Disaster impacts may include loss of life, injury, disease and other negative effects on human physical, mental and social well-being, together with damage to property, destruction of assets, loss of services, social and economic disruption and environmental degradation. 30 Aug 2007"
Following this terminology, a hurricane is a hazard. If it remains at sea, far from any shipping, it is a hazard, but will not cause a disaster because nobody is exposed to it. That introduces the new important term, "exposure":"Exposure People, property, systems, or other elements present in hazard zones that are thereby subject to potential losses. Comment: Measures of exposure can include the number of people or types of assets in an area. These can be combined with the specific vulnerability of the exposed elements to any particular hazard to estimate the quantitative risks associated with that hazard in the area of interest. 23 Jan 2009"
Should that hurricane strike the shore near a settlement, it may still not cause a disaster even though people are now exposed to the hazard. That is because their houses may be robust enough, and their sea walls high enough to protect them from wind and storm surge. They would not be vulnerable:"Vulnerability The characteristics and circumstances of a community, system or asset that make it susceptible to the damaging effects of a hazard. Comment: There are many aspects of vulnerability, arising from various physical, social, economic, and environmental factors. Examples may include poor design and construction of buildings, inadequate protection of assets, lack of public information and awareness, limited official recognition of risks and preparedness measures, and disregard for wise environmental management. Vulnerability varies significantly within a community and over time. This definition identifies vulnerability as a characteristic of the element of interest (community, system or asset) which is independent of its exposure. However, in common use the word is often used more broadly to include the element’s exposure. 30 Aug 2007"
If, however, the people have poor building standards, or live in low lying areas. When people who are vulnerable are exposed to a hazard, then you have a disaster. Now, given that we now all know the meanings of the words involved consider Field's phrase, "extreme events that can lead to disasters". Given that Field is talking about extreme events, he is not talking about disasters per se, ie, about the serious disruption of a community etc. Rather, and very clearly, he is talking about natural hazards. The type of extreme events that can lead to disasters are hazards, by definition of the term hazard. Now, consider Pielke's position. He purports that any talk about "the kind of extreme events that can lead to disasters" is talk about disasters only, and not about hazards at all. In defense of his claim, he points out that Field does not use the term "hazard". That argument is akin to the argument that somebody who mentions "the organ that focuses and detects light" is really only talking about light, not eyes, for he mentions light but does not mention eyes by name. Bizarrely, given his profession, Pielke is in the position of an ophtamologist who makes that argument. His position really is that stupid. -
RogerPielkeJr at 22:47 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-108-OPatrick Thanks, if you believe that (a) Field was not linking climate change to disasters that have occurred in the past (only into the future), or (b) that he was not linking climate change to disasters at all, then clearly we will disagree on his statements. I do note that Field clarifies the phenomena that he is referring to explicitly in his testimony: "The 2011 disasters included a blizzard, tornadoes, floods, severe weather, a hurricane, a tropical storm, drought and heat wave, and wildfires. . . For several of these categories of disasters, the strength of any linkage to climate change, if there is one, is not known . . . For other categories of climate and weather extremes, the pattern is increasingly clear." He then goes on to discuss several of these "categories of disasters" in detail. I don't see much ambiguity, but accept that others read it differently. Fine. Seeing as we are well into the area of textual exegesis I do not see any point in further repetition, and we simply accept that we agree to disagree. That is OK by me, I appreciate the chance to present my views and your listening to them. Thanks! -
OPatrick at 22:32 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
(my last comment now currently refers to #105, not #109) -
OPatrick at 22:31 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger #109 - I can't see that either your comment #72 or your original blog post give a clear answer to my question. In your comment #72 the closest I can see is "I critiqued Field's testimony on 5 points: 1. Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes ... 3. Citing the NOAA billion-dollar disasters....", but these criticisms refer to supposed over-statements about the influence of climate change on currently observed 'disasters', whereas Field's point 3 is about increasing risk of extreme events, which can then lead to disasters - this seems to be more about future projections. In your blog post you say "Field's assertion that the link between climate change and disasters "is clear,"" - and it is clear, but that clarity comes from his moderation of the link via the words "...kinds of extremes that lead to...". -
RogerPielkeJr at 22:28 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-106-CBDunkerson Apologies, let me be more precise. You wrote: "From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts." I agree with your interpretation of what Field testified to. I disagree that it is scientifically supportable. I hope this is more clear. Thanks. -
CBDunkerson at 22:20 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
RogerPielkeJr wrote: "I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the ... case ... that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony." Ummmmm... that is not what I said and I specifically stated that I did not agree with your interpretation of Field's testimony. Seriously. When you can read something and come to a conclusion exactly the opposite of what the author stated it is time to take a step back and examine what has gone wrong in your thinking... and that applies equally to your 'reading' of Field's testimony. -
RogerPielkeJr at 22:04 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-103-OPatrick My objections are summarized in #72 above and detailed in my original blog post. Rather that replow plowed ground I simply point you there. I note that in -101-CBDunkerson is now making the opposite case from OPatrick and several others -- specifically that Field was indeed linking climate change and disasters ($$) and such a linkage is supportable. Here we are in agreement on how to interpret Field's testimony. Thanks! -
RogerPielkeJr at 21:49 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Let me try that again, looks like my comment disappeared. On Neumayer and Barthel, they conclude: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html On the claim that Field references "hazards" not ""disasters" -- the word "hazards" does not appear in his testimony, "disaster(s)" appears 12 times. Thanks! -
OPatrick at 21:46 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger #99 - can I clarify, which part of 3 do you object to? Is it that 'climate change leads to changes in the risks of extreme events' or that 'such extreme events can lead to disasters'? Also can I remind you that your case is that "What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate." Is this the case you are resting? -
RogerPielkeJr at 21:45 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-100-Tom Curtis While I assume that much of your comment will be taken away by the moderators, let me respond to the science. Neumayer and Barthel write of their study: "What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters." Discussed here: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/11/new-peer-reviewed-paper-on-global.html The word "hazards" does not appear in Field's testimony. Thanks! -
CBDunkerson at 21:45 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Logically, it would seem that if there is a clear link between climate change and an increase in certain kinds of disasters (e.g. heat waves) and a clear link between disasters of those kinds and economic impacts (e.g. loss of crops) then surely there must be a link between climate change and increased economic losses from those kinds of disasters... we just can't precisely differentiate between increased losses due to climate change and increased losses due to growing population and wealth. Whether climate change as a whole, rather than just in reference to specific kinds of disasters it is known to exacerbate, has had a positive or negative effect on economics thus far is even more difficult to sort out. From my reading, Field limited his testimony to issues which are scientifically supportable... climate change is increasing the severity of certain kinds of disasters and those disasters have economic impacts. He did not say that we can determine how much of the economic impact from those events is due to climate change vs other factors nor that we can determine what the net economic impact of climate change overall has been thus far. RogerPielkeJr's position thus appears to me a radical interpretation of the text. The contention that because Field mentioned economic impacts in the same sentence where he first mentions disasters must mean that the 'frequent' (actually only about a dozen times total) subsequent uses of the word must all be taken to be in the context of economics is unsupportable. Field's testimony was not some sort of legal contract where he was 'defining' how the word "disasters" would be used subsequently in the text as Pielke claims. Rather, Field was using plain English and each of his uses of "disasters" should be evaluated within the context of the sentence where it appears. -
Tom Curtis at 21:32 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Pielke Jr @94 attempts to spin my 88 as,"Commenters here are beginning to identify a basic problem with Field's testimony."
and"Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above."
Does he think nobody actually read my comment? His gall is beyond belief. However, let me make this quite clear for him: 1) Roger, I am appalled by your persistent attempts to spin this case, and to ignore fundamental distinctions central to your profession; 2) There is nothing wrong with Field's testimony. Contrary to your claim, he does not conflate hazards with disasters. Rather, you do by persistently treating him as talking about losses from disasters when he talks about hazards; 3) Your desperation in misrepresenting Field shows only that you are incapable of arguing against his testimony on its merits;Moderator Response: Inflammatory snipped -
RogerPielkeJr at 21:19 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-97-OPatrick I do not object o 1 or 2, 3 yes, obviously. The words "disaster," "billion-dollar" and "income" had no place in Field's testimony unless he were to discuss the science associated with economic losses, which he did not. -98-JasonB If we are reduced to discussing the effects of a comma, then I rest my case. As well, Field repeatedly uses the word "disasters" in his piece, after defining it the first time. I am in agreement with this commenter at my blog: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/08/ipcc-lead-author-misleads-us-congress.html?showComment=1343917020804#c5632425002505277530 Thanks! -
JasonB at 20:49 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
OPatrick #95, I think even "not unambiguous" is too strong -- it takes special effort to read the sentence as Roger wishes to. Punctuation matters. A comma may seem like a silly thing to be arguing about, but the only reason we're arguing about it is because Roger wants to ignore the structure of a sentence and what it actually says in order to construct his strawman. Now I can accept that initially it was an honest mistake -- goodness knows that there are hot-button issues for me that I often imagine someone to be talking about because they made the mistake of uttering the keywords I'm on the lookout for in the same sentence -- but I don't understand how, once the misunderstanding was pointed out, someone would persist, and even attempt to mischaracterise the point as arguing about the placement of a comma, rather than accepting that the real point is that Field was actually talking about the link between climate change and extremes (as he plainly stated). Scientific writing abounds with comments that "set the stage" for the work in question; if we started going through every paper's introductory paragraph and removed punctuation willy-nilly I'm sure we'd come up with all sorts of absurdities to waste time arguing about. Maybe even accuse people of "fundamentally misrepresenting" the scientific knowledge. But I see communication as fundamentally an attempt to convey information from one mind to another and prefer to look at what is actually written. All that sentence is saying is that there is a clear link between climate change and certain kinds of extremes -- the kind of extremes that lead to disasters. If he intended to say that there was a clear link between climate change and disasters or climate change and economic impacts he could have actually said that. He didn't. -
OPatrick at 20:47 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Roger #96 - where else in his testimony does Field use "disasters" in a way that you would object to? And do you object to anything in Field's own summary of his testimony: 1) Overwhelming evidence establishes that climate change is real 2) Strong evidence indicates that some kinds of climate extremes are already changing 3) Climate change leads to changes in the risk of extreme events that can lead to disasters ? -
ranyl at 20:42 PM on 16 August 2012Hansen's New Climate Dice - Hot, Loaded, and Misunderstood
Thanks Dana good post. It is interesting that the mean is shifting a lot and the curve is flattening, a similiar thing has been noticed in the Indian Monsoon details. Is this pattern sort of a choatic shift pattern? As in when a choatic system approaches a shift in regime its variance increases and its self similiarity increases, which sort seems to be happening in several systems, e.g. Arctic Sea Ice melt time series. And therefore with the mean already shifted could all increasing weather extreme's (keeping in mind a 3SD cold event is know a 4SD cold event, so a 2SD cold event is a 3SD cold event), be a prelude to a regime shift? A shift to a Pliocene climate? Surely any chaotic energetic system will try and equalise itself in the quickest way possible? Just speculating, and things are bad enough already, but it does look more and more like a summer ice free Arctic is closer and closer, (2012 none optimum weather for melt, but record melting occuring), so does anyone have a low down on what an ice free Arcitc in summer might mean for the world's weather systems? Not to mention and expanding tropics and poleward shifting jetstreams? -
RogerPielkeJr at 20:28 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-95-OPatrick Field defines "billion-dollar climate-related disasters" in his first paragraph (as you excerpted) -- clearly and unambiguously associating "disaster" with economic impacts. The word "disaster(s)" subsequently appears on average once per paragraph in his his short 12 paragraph testimony. The alternative, that Field was not referring to economic impacts when freqeuntly mentioning "disasters" I find implausible (others may disagree). Thanks! -
OPatrick at 19:57 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
RogerPielkeJr #94 - can I clarify that when you say "Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above." you are referring to this sentence in Field's testimony: As the US copes with the aftermath of last year’s record-breaking series of 14 billion-dollar climate-related disasters and this year’s massive wildfires and storms, it is critical to understand that the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear.? If so then I question your use of terms such as 'unambigously misrepresented' and '180 degrees wrong'. My reading of this sentence is that the first part 'sets the scene' by reminding senators of the practical importance of understanding the science on the impacts of climate change, the level of human and economic costs that could be involved, whilst the second part talks of links between climate change and extreme events that lead to such disasters without any necessary implications that these events are already occuring as a result of climate change. At the very least it is not unambiguous. -
Rob Painting at 19:37 PM on 16 August 2012Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
Dude in the first video sure smokes a lot. -
RogerPielkeJr at 19:25 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Commenters here are beginning to identify a basic problem with Field's testimony. It is not scientifically sound to use data/trends in economic impacts ("disasters") to say anything about trends (or lack thereof) in related climate phenomena ("extreme events") -- until such data has been properly "normalized." Hence, in my work I and my colleagues carefully explain that if you are looking for trends in climate variables, then look at climate variables, not data on societal impacts. Consequently, assertions of trends in extremes should not be conflated with patterns of disasters in any way without applying methods such as those in Neumayer and Barthel or our similar work (perfectly consistent with each other, BTW). Such conflation should certainly not appear in a single sentence a la Field's issue #1 that I listed above. The citing economic impacts or disasters in Field's testimony at all is problematic. Thanks! -
Tom Curtis at 19:04 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
OPatrick @92, Pielke Jr is correct that this is not a particularly nuanced issue. The distinction between natural events that cause a risk of losses to humans (hazards) and the losses actually caused is not difficult to make, and is a fundamental distinction in Pielke's area of expertise. So fundamental, in fact, that the SREX devotes its entire first chapter to making plain the distinction between hazards and disasters, and clarifying the related concepts. Nor is the distinction between the United States and Central North America (as shown on the map above) a particularly nuanced one. For those having difficulty distinguishing between the two, the former includes California and Florida. The later does not. Yet these distinctions which are part of Pielke's area of expertise seem beyond him when admitting them leaves him with no basis for criticizing Field's testimony. It must be very handy to have beliefs so adaptable to the rhetorical needs of the moment. -
OPatrick at 18:52 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Bob Loblaw #90 - it's worth repeating a quote from RPjr's post criticising Field's testimony: This is not a particularly nuanced or complex issue. What Field says the IPCC says is blantantly wrong, often 180 degrees wrong. It is one thing to disagree about scientific questions, but it is altogether different to fundamentally misrepresent an IPCC report to the US Congress. Below are five instances in which Field's testimony today completely and unambiguously misrepresented IPCC findings to the Senate. I don't think his original intention, at least, was to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want. -
JohnMashey at 16:59 PM on 16 August 2012The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Steve Forbes gets info from his buddy George Gilder (or his daughter). Gilder got it from Art Robinson. See first few minutes of this video. So, no surprise. -
les at 16:43 PM on 16 August 2012Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
"Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse" I see someone has put Joe Romms book into action ;) -
dana1981 at 14:40 PM on 16 August 2012The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
Forbes has really become a mouthpiece for Heartland Institute climate misinformation. If you see a climate-related article on Forbes, odds are very good that it's written by somebody with zero climate expertise, whose salary is paid by the fossil fuel industry, and that the content of the article is entirely wrong. -
skywatcher at 14:17 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
So after all this, we still seem to have Roger Pielke Jr blurring the distinction between temperature and precipitation events and associated losses. Four of his five points in #77 refer to losses and not events, the fifth is a cherry pick and is eviscerated as the SREX talks about change in the global pattern of droughts and not just one region of the US (see Tom's #89). I would like to repeat the question I put to Dr Pielke in #19, which is straightforward and demands a straight answer:In the light of evidence presented above that you have often blurred the distinction between extreme events and extreme losses, and being critically mindful of the distinction between the two ... Do you agree with the IPCC SREX report's assessment of the increase in extremes of temperature and precipitation?
I wonder if Dr Pielke is willing to answer that question? -
Bob Loblaw at 14:14 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
It is odd to see Roger Pielke Jr. (I'll abbreviate that as RPjr) finish his "agree to disagree" comment with a statement like "It is always a good political strategy in Congressional testimony to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want ;-) (That last comment is tongue-in-cheek)", as it seems that a good deal of his argument depends on attempting to imply ambiguity in others' statements that isn't there,while at the same time employing ambiguity in his own statements so that he can shift goalposts as needed. Any written language is imperfect, and words can have different meanings in different contexts. It is best to attempt to be precise, and precision often takes more words that imprecise language. For example, Field's testimony (quoted in the original post above) uses the phrase:"the link between climate change and the kinds of extremes that lead to disasters is clear."
As has been pointed out in the post (and reinforced in the subsequent comments), "Pielke Jr. misrepresents it as a claim about financial losses". Can we read Field's statement this way? What if he quoted Field as saying:"the link between climate change and ... disasters is clear."
??? This would be a pretty clear statement claiming what RPjr seems to want to believe Field said, but is the part left out (the ellipsis) important? Yes, it is. After all, why would Field put it in, if he could state the link explicitly in fewer words? What we have is a situation where Field is saying "we have a clear link from A to B, and B one of a group of things that can lead to C". RPjr is trying to pretend that it is a claim of a clear link directly from A to C. Is Field being deliberately vague? No. Is RPjr just misunderstanding, or is he attempting to play up something that takes advantage of what he hopes is something that we'll not read properly? Only he knows. Contrast this with RPjr's writing in his comments here. In #57, he said:"the fact that Field's testimony is at variance with the IPCC SREX is trivial to show"
Keep a close watch on what happens to the word "variance". That can have a number of meanings, but to the casual reader it likely means one of disagreement or discord. And RPjr's use of this in an attempt to imply that Field's testimony was inaccurate also suggests that this is the meaning he intended. Later, though. RPjr (in response to dana's quotes from the LinkIn Climate Policy site that RPjr pointed to) goes and says:"Obviously, there is no doubt that Field's testimony "goes beyond" what the IPCC SREX reported"
(Emphasis by bolding is mine, but quote are in RPjr's original comment.) Now, what is the difference between "at variance with", and "goes beyond"? In one context, perhaps the same thing - i.e., that the two are not exactly the same. In another context, they can mean entirely different things. "Goes beyond" could mean that there is disagreement or discord, but it can also mean that it expands on (without disagreeing), adds to, or improves upon the original. If RPjr means the latter, and does not mean to imply that Field's testimony was in discord with the IPCC SREX, then I could probably agree with him. RPjr's attack on Field's testimony is only consistent if you read "goes beyond" as "is in discord with", though, and right now I think the SkS post has a lot more credibility than RPjr. It may be that RPjr has just been sloppy in changing from "at variance with" to "goes beyond". It may be that his intention is "to leave enough ambiguity such that people can hear what they want". Or, perhaps it is just another example of bait and switch. Or, perhaps he is hoping that someone will agree with "goes beyond" based on the second meaning (adds to), and then RPjr will treat that as if he got agreement on "goes beyond" as if it meant the former (in discord with). I'm tempted to say again that only he knows, but it is possible that even he doesn't realize what he's doing. Whatever it is RPjr is selling, I'm not buying. -
Tom Curtis at 14:07 PM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
2) What the SREX says:"Nonetheless, there is some agreement between studies over the different time frames (i.e.,since 1950 versus 1970) and using different drought indicators regarding increasing drought occurrence in some regions (e.g., southern Europe, West Africa; see below and Table 3-2), although other regions also indicate opposite trends (e.g., central North America, northwestern Australia; see below and Table 3-2)."
What Field said:"The report identified some areas where droughts have become longer and more intense (including southern Europe and West Africa), but others where droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter."
(My emphasis) What Pielke Jnr says:"The US has seen a long-term decline in (midwestern) drought"
(My emphasis) What I say: Pielke Jnr is absolutely correct. There has been a trend to less drought in the US midwest. It is worthwhile noting why he restricts this claim to the midwest, and not the the USA as a whole. Below are the annual average precipitation trends for the US (1958-2008; first graph) and the drought trend for the same period (1958-2007; second graph). Both are from the Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report of 2009.
As can be clearly seen, there is a trend to reduced drought in the mid-west. But there is also a trend to increased drought in the south east, and in the west. Had Pielke Jnr not included his discrete little qualifier in brackets, his claim would have been dubious at best, and possibly false.
Given that, it is worthwhile reviewing what Pielke Jnr said about Field's testimony.
"Field conveniently neglected in his testimony to mention that one place where droughts have gotten less frequent, less intense or shorter is ... the United States. Why did he fail to mention this region, surely of interest to US Senators, but did include Europe and West Africa? "
So, Pielke Jnr roundly condemns Field for not making a claim to Congress that he cannot bring himself to make on a blog comment where he might actually be pulled up for inaccuracy. Of course, his defense for that condemnation is not that what Field said was true or false, but that it did not accurately reflect what was said by the SREX. There is only one problem with that defense. The SREX does not mention the United States, but Central North America. Central North America is a very specific location in the SREX, whose position is shown in figure 3.2, of which a (slightly modified) detail is shown below:
As can be clearly seen, Central North America is approximately the US midwest. So Pielke Jnr is condemning Field for not inaccurately calling the midwest the entire US, and for not attributing to the entire US facts asserted in the SREX only of the midwest.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:18 AM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
1) What Pielke Jr says:"Linking human-caused climate change to economic disasters via extremes is not scientifically supportable" What Field said in his testimony: Nothing on this topic. What the SREX actually says:
Economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters have increased, but with large spatial and interannual variability (high confidence, based on high agreement, medium evidence). ... Economic, including insured, disaster losses associated with weather, climate, and geophysical events are higher in developed countries. Fatality rates and economic losses expressed as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) are higher in developing countries (high confidence). ... Increasing exposure of people and economic assets has been the major cause of long-term increases in economic losses from weather- and climate-related disasters (high confidence). Long-term trends in economic disaster losses adjusted for wealth and population increases have not been attributed to climate change, but a role for climate change has not been excluded (high agreement, medium evidence). These conclusions are subject to a number of limitations in studies to date. Vulnerability is a key factor in disaster losses, yet it is not well accounted for. Other limitations are: (i) data availability, as most data are available for standard economic sectors in developed countries; and (ii) type of hazards studied, as most studies focus on cyclones, where confidence in observed trends and attribution of changes to human influence is low. The second conclusion is subject to additional limitations: (iii) the processes used to adjust loss data over time, and (iv) record length. [4.5.3]"
(Original bold, my underlining) What I say: Pielke Jnr's claim is a very strong one, implying, not that the evidence of a link between extreme events and increased losses is inconclusive, but that such links have been conclusively disproved. Not unsupported, but unsupportable. Given that losses due to climate related disasters have increased sharply, and at a significantly faster rate than losses due to geophysical activity, Pielke Jnr's claim is odd, and very strong. Of course, that fast rise in climate related losses is not conclusive because studies with normalized losses have shown slightly rising, or slightly falling losses from climate related disasters:
(Fig 3 from Neumayer and Barthel, 2011. The essential difference between the conventional approach (attributed to Pielke Jnr) and the alternative approach is suggested by Neumayer and Barthel is that the former must average over state or national data levels, while the later normalizes based on a 1 degree by 1 degree gris of economic data (see paper for details).)
However, as Neumayer and Barthel warn:
"Due to our inability to control for defensive mitigation measures, one cannot infer from our analysis that there have definitely not been more frequent and/or more intensive weather-related natural hazards over the study period already."
The SREX also warns:"Another general area of uncertainty comes from confounding factors that can be identified but are difficult to quantify, and relates to the usual assumption of constant vulnerability in studies of loss trends. These include factors that would be expected to increase resilience (Chapters 2 and 5 of this report) and thereby mask the influence of climate change, and those that could act to increase the impact of climate change. Those that could mask the effects of change include gradual improvements in warnings and emergency management (Adger et al., 2005), building regulations (Crichton, 2007), and changing lifestyles (such as the use of air conditioning), and the almost instant media coverage of any major weather extreme that may help reduce losses. In the other direction are changes that may be increasing risk, such as the movement of people in many countries to coastal areas prone to cyclones (Pompe and Rinehart, 2008) and sea level rise."
(My emphasis) Note that the assumption of constant vulnerability is known to be false. Modern houses are more resistant to wind damage than older houses. Areas vulnerable to flood or drought in the past are now less so because of the construction of dams, and so on. Because the total impact of these measures is hard to quantify, it is not known whether normalized losses if adjusted for changes in vulnerability would be rising or falling; and it is certainly not known with any statistical confidence which direction the trend is. What that means is that it is still a matter of scientific debate whether overall losses have increased in part due to global warming. That is, however, a far cry from Pielke Jnr's attempt to close out the debate. (Note: There have been several recent extreme events which resulted in very large losses and in which the extremity of the events is clearly attributable to global warming. However, it is also possible that events causing losses have been reduced in impact or frequency by global warming so that overall global warming has had no net impact, or has reduced losses. Therefore I do not consider those events germaine to assessing Pielke Jnr's claim as such - although he could easily be interpreted as denying even the existence of those events, or the scientific attribution of their intensity to global warming.) -
Philippe Chantreau at 09:14 AM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
Lots of hooplah for very little subtance, really: Field's testimony is consistent wth the existing litterature, including the SREX report. Dr Pielke Jr's representation of field's testimony is inaccurate. Christy's testimony is not consistent with the existing scientific litterature. No evidence has been brought to contradict any of these points in the OP. -
vrooomie at 08:19 AM on 16 August 2012Students sprout creative communications on climate change Inside the Greenhouse
As a native Coloradan, with family ties to UC-B that date to the turn of the 20th century, I'm proud of the work UC-B has done, and is doing in support of this critical issue. I've followed along, best I can (with my "inside contacts up at UC-B!) and I'm ~thrilled~ to read of your work. good luck, and I hope to see lots more of your posts on SkS! -
RogerPielkeJr at 07:50 AM on 16 August 2012Pielke Jr and McIntyre Assist Christy's Extreme Weather Obfuscation
-83-rojimboo Thanks for your interest in The Climate Fix ... a few replies on your comments: (-Snip-) Thanks!Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic response to off-topic snipped.
Prev 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 Next
