I can only guess that Pielke will come up with a "but I get invitations to talk from ALL across the political spectrum" excuse.

Right.

He got an "invitation" to write for the Cato Institute's Regulation Magazine, and now he's getting an "invitation" to speak from the Republicans in Washington. I'm sure there's no direct link.

Benny Big Eye

I'm sorry, but this is just a cheap ad hominem. Great red meat for the Grist audience, but this can hardly be called journalism.

If you're going to play this game, the only way this makes any sense as a line of argument is if you are also willing to make the same implicit argument against the others who have been invited to testify. "I hear from reliable sources that the Democrats on the committee specifically requested Piltz."

What matters here is not who invited who, but what they actually say. Roger's testimony is available. How about a critique of the testimony, rather than an ad hominem attack?

A rather odd understanding of the term.

My only concern is that the Democrats have three people advocating for them, and only Roger Pielke Jr. is advocating for the Republicans.

It seems a little unbalanced.

Benny Big Eye

Grist readers may find this a useful counter point to Umbra's column yesterday whose rule of thumb seemed to ascribe too much "objective neutrality" to anyone with the title of scientist (though I agree with her basic conclusion in this specific case).

Derek Supple

An ad hominem is an argument against one's personal characteristics (for example, by pointing out who invited the speaker) rather than the substance of one's argument. David has something of a history of offering ad hominem arguments against the good Dr. Pielke Jr., rather than addressing the substance of Roger's arguments. Grist readers would be well served if David were to familiarize them with the substance of Roger's arguments, rather than simply slapping on a tribal label (the Republicans invited him!) which makes it easy to dismiss him without considering what he's saying. It plays to the sort of "cognitive miser" behavior that Matthew Nisbet so eloquently talks about - the way people take their cues from opinion-makers and labels rather than engaging the substance of arguments.

How does pointing out that Roger is affiliated with Republicans an ad hom attack. You still haven't answered that.

Does pointing out that Roberts works at Grist also an ad hom?

Your point is a bit opaque. But keep hammering on it over and over again.

Benny Big Eye

But then, why did he start off saying "cherry picking is not science abuse"? Could it be... because he is just courting attention? He's certainly getting it--and it's interesting that it's the Republicans who are most interested in his unhelpful contributions to the debate...

And there are cases where his reasoning isn't even very sound. Check out this argument he makes against Chris Mooney's Republican War on Science:

http://bookclub.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/12/23250/577

I look forward to David's analysis of Pielke's testimony after the hearing. But given Pielke's reputation, I think in this forum David has the right to rhetorically roll his eyes a bit at the Republicans inviting Pielke...

"The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case."* What other relevance is there to linking Roger to the Republicans and right other than to denigrate his views without actually addressing them? "Guilt by association" is a classic ad hominem. You've done exactly that, but more explicitly than David, in your comments. The right likes Roger, therefore his ideas can be dismissed. It's an appealing shortcut, but is clearly insufficient.

That's fine for you to do that if you want, Benny, but David's a journalist. Journalists have special obligations in this regard - to address substance, rather than play to the prejudices of their audience.

* http://www.answers.com/ad+hominem&r=67

I am not sure what Pielke is saying in his testimony, however, some of his publications argue that there should be a renewed focus on adaptation (not to the exclusion of mitigation!). Talking about adaptation removes the debate about whether or not climate change is natural or human-induced as we must adapt to climate variability in whatever form is comes.

Unfortunately, such a nuanced argument about the politicization of science and society's response to climate change, is often misconstrued (what the Republicans may be doing) or misunderstood (what is happening on this blog).

Phd Student, IGERT Urban Ecology Fellow, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University

If you read his blog it sometimes gets to the point where he argues for the sake of arguing rather than making any really substantive points. Its hard to figure out what his point is.

I made a comment on RealClimate and he took that comment an said it was a comment by climate scientist Judith Curry. He was trying to provoke a response and he was publicly misquoting me and Judith Curry to do it.

I wrote on RC that I liked the NRDC's and Environmental Defense's web pages on global warming and then Rodger took that comment and said it was from Dr Curry and said that she was publicly endorsing ED and the NRDC.

He later complained that no one criticizes environmental groups. When I called him on that he backed down from that position. I think he got caught up in the debate and acted without thinking about what he was really saying.

If their rent comes from industry sources and they take industry friendly positions regardless of the facts, they are no longer scientists.  

Heidi Cullem's  point in calling for the ouster of those who take the money and ignore the science.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Why is that? Are you telling me that it's an illegitimate question to ask -- further, that I have some sort of journalistic obligation not to ask the question? That's a peculiar sort of journalism.

grist.org

Asking questions is just the first step. Journalism is about answering them.

You have a journalistic obligation to answer this question for your readers by a substantive discussion of what Roger says, rather than simply and repeatedly dismissing him by labeling him as a member of the opposing tribe. You're not really asking questions here, you're slapping a label on Roger and presuming that is sufficient. That's a peculiar sort of journalism indeed.

Obvious statements with sinister italics do not prove anything (And, to second jfleck, suggestively dangling unanswered questions in front of readers is NOT journalism). Every person who testifies in front of congress must be specifically requested by somebody. That's why there is really no such thing as neutral testimony, as Pielke would be the first to tell you, and as he highlighted on his blog recently:

"Scientists must recognize that when they testify at such hearings, they are participating in a political event, not a scientific one. When issues are highly polarized, a hearing may be a useful tool for adding to the public record or building support for a particular policy position, but it should not be seen as a way to impose scientific rationality on politics."

Full link here

Everyone in that room is there for political reasons, whether you agree with his/her opinions or not. To single out one person based on that premise is silly.

From Mr. Honest Broker himself: "But Mooney seems to think that his readers don't need to know a scientist that he agrees with, Michael Oppenheimer, serves as a "science advisor" to a left leaning group, Environmental Defense..."

http://tinyurl.com/22xe4q

Benny Big Eye

Some context here, please. Roger's not using the passage you selectively quote from to label or criticize Oppenheimer. He's merely pointing out Chris Mooney's double standard: labeling the conservative connections of scientists like Legates,  with whom he disagrees, while not labeling the liberal connections of the scientists like Oppenheimer, with whom he agrees. Which, ironically, is precisely the tactic David has used here.

As always, the real scientists teach the real lesson, which is --- trust, but verify.

He was sworn "to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" so we must presume he tried his best.

Ho, ho, ho!  A journalist! Good one!  

Mark Bahner