1. With respect to the point you start with: â^À^ÜNY Times Article: â^À^ÜA scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activityâ^À¦ Pielke Sr. Response: â^À¦the Earthâ^À^Ùs climate system has warmed, and human activities certainly have contributed.â^À^Ý From this, its still pretty hard to tell what your opinion on the role of CO2 in warming the earth is. There is essentially no-one left who says that CO2 has no effect; even the Michaels and Singers of the world admit that CO2 warms the world; what they dispute is the degree to which that has occurred. I havenâ^À^Ùt followed your links, but nothing you say above indicates explicitly whether you accept that CO2 has been the dominant cause of warming over, say, the last 30 years. Your phrasing, probably unintentionally, is very similar to that of the skeptics, and is ambiguous. To clear this up, Iâ^À^Ùd be interested to know if you accept the IPCC conclusion most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities? Comment by William Connolley â^À^Ô August 23, 2005 @ 4:23 pm 2. William, you seem to want an unequivocal answer to a nuanced question. Dr. Pielke Sr. has clearly stated that he believes humans have an effect on Earthâ^À^Ùs climate system and Iâ^À^Ùm not aware of any serious contention on that point. What scientists cannot do (although you appear to wish the good professor to do) is state with certainty that human use of x volume of fossil fuels results in n degrees globally-averaged temperature increment. Would that the situation were so simple and the climate so clearly understood. What is clear is that we cannot simply â^À^Øtwist the knobâ^À^Ù and dial down atmospheric carbon dioxide, nor could we realistically predict the outcome of so doing because we are not examining a sufficiently broad range of climate forcings (hazards of fixation on a few greenhouse gases). Dr. Pielke appears to want to understand the climate system while you seem to want to know where he fits in the political system (something serious scientists assiduously avoid). With apologies to Dr. Pielke for having chipped in on a question directed to him. Regards Barry Hearn Comment by Barry Hearn â^À^Ô August 23, 2005 @ 10:53 pm 3. Barry, as you say â^À^Ühe believes humans have an effect on Earthâ^À^Ùs climate system and Iâ^À^Ùm not aware of any serious contention on that pointâ^À^Ý. Thats precisely my point: RPs answer is an answer that anyone can give: it provides no information about his opinion. Now, as to nuances: â^À^Üexactly how much influence have humans had?â^À^Ý is nuanced, as are a variety of other questions. But â^À^Üdo you accept â^À^Ømost of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities?â^À^Ùâ^À^Ý isnâ^À^Ùt very nuanced at all. RP Jr has given his opinion on it very clearly, and repeated it just recently: â^À^ÜAs I have written often on these pages, I accept the IPCC WGI consensus position on climate changeâ^À^Ý (here). So I think youâ^À^Ùre being rather over-defensive of RP Sr. Comment by William Connolley â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 3:05 am 4. It is possible that it was an accidental typo, but you appear to have done your own bit of mischaracterising by dropping a word out of your response to the NYT article. Compare: NY Times Article: â^À^ÜA scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere.â^À^Ý (my emphasis) with: To state that I have â^À^Ülong disagreed..that global warming stems from human activityâ^À^Ý is a completely erroneous characterization of my perspective. That little word â^À^Ümainlyâ^À^Ý is an important one. I trust you will be happy to confirm that its omission in your second â^À^Üquoteâ^À^Ý was indeed an accident (and thus Revkinâ^À^Ùs article was, as you claim, an erroneous mischaracterisation of you perspective). James Comment by James Annan â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 7:00 am 5. William, youâ^À^Ùre asking for either agreement or disagreement to a question. Dr Pielke is saying, it appears to me, that he doesnâ^À^Ùt think the question can be answered yet. Youâ^À^Ùre not asking for a scientific ansawer: youâ^À^Ùre asking him to affirm or deny whether he holds to the True Faith. Comment by Charlie (Colorado) â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 9:51 am 6. William, youâ^À^Ùre starting to sound like Bahner on the other side. The whole point here is that RP strenusouly claims that Revkin misrepresented him. Whether RP thinks that anthropogenic GHGs are 25%, 50%, 75% or 100% of observed warming is irrelevant, because Revkin didnâ^À^Ùt even try to make that distinction. Revkin just simply said that RP disagrees with a dominant view. RP says I do hold that dominant view. Youâ^À^Ùre asking him to clarify down to a decimal place where in that â^À^Üdominant viewâ^À^Ý he sits. Why? That might be worth a later post, but it is a distraction from this one, which is about being mischaracterized by one of the two or three most prominent science journalists in the US. Comment by kevin v â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 9:58 am 7. As discussed in the National Research Council Report (http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/), there are a multitude of anthropogenic and natural climate forcings which affect much more than the heat content changes of the climate system. The relative contribution of each of these forcings to any particular climate metric is a daunting challenge. Indeed, even the IPCC Statement for Policymakers summary figure (see Figure ES-2 in http://www.nap.edu/books/0309095069/html/3.html) acknowledges that a number of climate forcings for the top of the atmospheric radiative forcing have a very low level of scientific understanding. Thus even accepting the IPCC conclusions does not mean that there are not major uncertainties on the relative contributions of each climate forcing. Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 10:52 am 8. William-I want to further clarify the one comment that you made: â^À^ÜYour phrasing, probably unintentionally, is very similar to that of the skeptics, and is ambiguous.â^À^Ý Our view on climate is certainly not that of a skeptic and was summarized in the testimony I gave to a Subcommittee of the U.S. Househttp://energycommerce.house.gov/107/hearings/07252002Hearing676/Pielke,Sr.1144.h tm. I presented this view as President of the American Association of State Climatologists, and was representing this professional organization. Our research has clearly demonstrated that human activities have very significant effects on local, regional and global climate. What we have shown, however, is that the important climate forcings include the radiative effect of CO2, but also include other first-order climate forcings such as the biogeochemical effect of additional CO2, land use/land cover change and the diverse effects of aerosol emissions. To define me as a â^À^Üclimate skepticâ^À^Ý is completely wrong. Indeed, by including the diversity of climate forcings, those who focus primarily on CO2 as the anthropogenic climate forcing are the true climate skeptics. Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 11:20 am 9. Roger - in #7, you havenâ^À^Ùt answered my question: whether you accept (as it seems RP Jr does) most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities?. Your statement Thus even accepting the IPCC conclusionsâ^À¦ is also ambiguous: does it mean that you do, or that *if* you did, thenâ^À¦? Re #8: your view may not be that of a skeptic, but I can only read your words. The AASC statement (this I presume) also reads fairly skeptically (its accepts human influence, but ducks trying to quantify them). #5: Iâ^À^Ùm asking, does RP accept the IPCC statement I quoted. That *is* a question that can be answered. I would accept it. RP Jr would accept it. If RP Sr thinks that the science is too uncertain to clearly accept it, then he doesnâ^À^Ùt accept it. But Iâ^À^Ùd be interested to know which. #6; I donâ^À^Ùt much care what Revkin said. Iâ^À^Ùm interested in RPâ^À^Ùs opinion. Lastlyâ^À¦ the testimony you refer to made the (in retrospect) mistake of believing the MSU instead of the GCMs, so is in need of revisionâ^À¦ Comment by William Connolley â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 4:42 pm 10. While naivety can be charming, anyone who thinks that newspapers will explain complicated ideas without error is foolish. The nature of the thing speaks against you, and there is little use complaining. They will never publish a 10000 word clarification of a 1000 word article. This is a lesson that Fred Singer and Greenpeace know well and why we have blogs. Finally, I find US state climatologists a very curious group with respect to their positions on climate change. It strikes me that anyone who claims that they are politics free wins a free trip to Disneyland. Comment by Eli Rabett â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 7:19 pm 11. William: You ask if I think if â^À^Ümost of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities?â^À^Ý I do. In 2001 I wrote, â^À^ÜOur findings should be interpreted to suggest that humans have an even greater effect on climate than suggested by the IPCC.â^À^Ý http://blue.atmos.colostate.edu/publications/pdf/R-230.pdf . I would encourage you to actually read my research papers. I find it ironic that you are trying very hard to label me a skeptic when in fact my view, readily available in many peer-reviewed publications, is for a far greater human influence on climate than suggested by the IPCC. We need to move beyond surfce temperature as the predominate climate metric as it has overshadowed attention to other climate metrics that have more important effects on society and the environment. I would think that you, as a practicing climate scientist, would agree that the global earth system is complex enough to allow room for far more than just two perspectives on climate science. Comment by Roger Pielke Sr. â^À^Ô August 24, 2005 @ 9:15 pm 12. Great comment Eli. I was once a member of this curious group. It is like being a climate scientist, once you get it on your record you canâ^À^Ùt get if off. Any statement issued by a group that includes a contingent of â^À^Ücrackpots anonymous,â^À^Ý you may know to whom I refer, has to be taken with a grain of salt, or is it a sip of grain. I respect Roger P.Srâ^À^Ùs dedication to his role as president, but my opinion is that one can be too aggressive in loading resumes and this may have been one of those times. Anyway some kind of statement had to be endorsed, never-the-less one has to live with the good and the bad. Good judgement would lead me to ignore poor judgement. However as I learned from this group of state climatologists, most people of sufficient reputation to get these positions hold them because they have gotten to a place in their career where they only submit research proposals that have objectives they can live with, yea or nea, thus are intended to support a perspective. They all do it, which forces any unbiased analyst to sift through both what they have and what they have not said. Blogs, which are merely he said, she said (gender is a non issue here but the point is they are so like a marital fracus) cat fights that add little in the end except that people (some scientists qualify) are funny. Comment by Alan Bender â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 8:51 am 13. Roger - Iâ^À^Ùm sorry if you thought I was trying to label you a skeptic. To be clear, Iâ^À^Ùm not. From my perspective, some of your earlier statements were ambiguous. Not skeptic, not not, just ambiguous. But #11 is perfectly clear, and thank you for it. I would argue that others found your words ambiguous too: #2 and #5 appear to believe that you were *not* prepared to be as clear as comment #11 is. I also agree with your last paragraph. If Revkin has a comment facility, Iâ^À^Ùll tell him he has you wrong! Comment by William Connolley â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 9:07 am 14. William Connelly writes, â^À^ÜThats precisely my point: RPs answer is an answer that anyone can give: it provides no information about his opinion.â^À^Ý You mean, sort of like the IPCC TARâ^À^Ùs statement that â^À^ÜThe globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C (Figure 5d) over the period 1990 to 2100â^À³ provides no information? Or if you think that statement DOES provide information, why havenâ^À^Ùt you labelled as â^À^Ütrueâ^À^Ý or â^À^Üfalseâ^À^Ý my statements about the IPCC TARâ^À^Ùs thoughts on probabilities? http://markbahner.typepad.com/random_thoughts/2005/07/comments_to_pro.html#comme nt-7358771 Comment by Mark Bahner â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 10:51 am 15. Mark, at this point the debate over the TAR is becoming a little historical. You may have observed a rush of major papers in the last few months; this is because the deadine for incorporation of research results into the FAR is drawing very near (this fall sometime, I think). Of course, while I think a pretty good picture is developing as to the results themselves, we wonâ^À^Ùt know (officially, anyway) what broad conclusions will be drawn by the IPCC until the FAR comes out. In any case I think people are in a mode of looking forward to that, which may be part of the reason why youâ^À^Ùve had a hard time getting much interest in your eight points. Rudeness might also have something to do with it. Comment by Steve Bloom â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 1:14 pm 16. FWIW, the story in the Coloradoan is now linked on the front page of Drudgereport.com, so you might be seeing some increased traffic. Comment by ian â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 1:48 pm 17. It really is too bad that the science of global warming has turned into so much political baloney. No objective viewer can believe any of the conclusions. Comment by bill â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 2:33 pm 18. I for one, am not surprised at the poor reporting of the NYT. It is nothing new. The NYT routinely spins news to meet itâ^À^Ùs editorial slant. Sadly they think that is news. In the 70s we were told another Global Ice Age was not a possibility, but an absolute. Still waiting. The NYT routinely ran â^À^Ønewsâ^À^Ù pieces to support that viewpoint. Today we see the same thing, only now it is Global Warming. Will tomorrow be â^À^ÜGlobal Normingâ^À^Ý? *lol* no that would be ignored. You have to have extremes to get and keep funding, so back the Ice Age! Comment by Mark â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 3:14 pm 19. Whatâ^À^Ùs clear is whether you agree with â^À^Üthe dominant viewâ^À^Ý or not was of no concern to the New York Times. If someone resigns from a committee and that committee holds the political view the Times does (its long been a foregone conclusion objectivity does not exist at the NYT) then the Times is going to characterize that person as a contrarian with a minority view. Your view does not appear so contrarian, but the Times likes the committeeâ^À^Ùs conclusions and does not want anything to detract from those conclusions. Comment by Scott â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 3:32 pm 20. I am not a scientist, but I was interested in the bottom line â^À^Ô about whether Roger Pielke believes human activity is the main cause of global warming in the last 50 years. In his August 24, 2005, 9:15 response to William, Roger said: You ask if I think if â^À^Ümost of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities?â^À^Ý I do. Thatâ^À^Ùs pretty unambiguous, and I was surprised, because I assumed the way he protested the NYT article that he believed humans contributed only partially. I can tell you that as a nonscientist and from a readerâ^À^Ùs perspective, all I cared about from reading that article is whether he disagrees with Bush or not. Bush has been portrayed in the press as believing that humans contribute little or nothing to global warming. Roger says they do. The NYT reporter failed because he bent the facts to fit into his need for controversy. What he should have said was that a prominent climate scientist working for George Bush disagrees with Bush. Thatâ^À^Ùs the news. Most readers donâ^À^Ùt care about the nuances. Comment by Chris â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 4:26 pm 21. As a layperson, I just wish that I could trust science in this area. Question: is there any funding available for the contrary hypothesis â^À^Üthat global warming as a function of human activity is not occurring?â^À^Ý Would any university or government agency sponsor research based on such a hypothesis? In my own neck of the woods (Seattle, WA) our summers and winters have been hotter over the past ten years than the previous decade? Does that really mean anything in meteorological time? I once visited a high atmosphere weather researcher at Caltech in Pasadena, CA. He told me that the issue about chloroflorocarbons was bogus because (Iâ^À^Ùm paraphrasing) thereâ^À^Ùs a â^À^Übarrierâ^À^Ý up there that made it darned near impossible for the chemical to get up and affect the ozone layer. Iâ^À^Ùve never heard anyone else talk about it - one way or another. Anyone know if itâ^À^Ùs true? If so - what does that say about the issue of trying to get rid of CFCs from the environment because they affect the ozone layer? In politically charged environments, it is very difficult for this layman to know whatâ^À^Ùs true and whatâ^À^Ùs smoke and mirrors. Guidance would be very much appreciated. Thanks. H. Comment by Harry â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 5:27 pm 22. Hereâ^À^Ùs a question for ye scientists, coming from one who is not. Of all the variable forcings upon which there is general scientific consensus - which one of those do we have some control over? Since the science is so complicated in regards to the outer troposphere and carbon radiation, what do we actually know is a variable that we have an effect upon and can change? As a layperson, forgive me for suggesting that the human effect would be the one which we have some control over. Yes, climate science is extremely complicated and no the mainstream media will never elucidate the complexities and reductive truths of science to their audiences - for instance, I find it very interesting that you use the term global warming, whereas a supposedly liberal paper like the NY Times uses the phrase â^À^Üclimate changeâ^À^Ý - a phrase discovered by pollster Frank Luntz to cause a less emotional reaction in readers and thus perpetuated by Republican talking points. On the subject of politics vs. truth, there is one single issue which scientists could address forthwith - that YES there is a single general consensus amongst climate scientists that there is a direct correlative connection (no matter the details) between human impact and global warming. Whatever the complexities, that is a fact used consistently by those who believe there is no impact and would like for the world to remain ignorant to such. Comment by Guy Fawkes â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 6:01 pm 23. I think most commenters missed the point. The real question: Would a reasonable, non-scientific reader (like me) of the Times article be left with an accurate representation of Pielkeâ^À^Ùs views? I had never heard of Pielke before. The Times article gave me the impression that he believed that global warming is the result of a)normal weather fluctuation and b)land use policies. That impression does not seem to be accurate. Comment by layperson â^À^Ô August 25, 2005 @ 7:40 pm