John McCormick

"The ever helpful David Roberts of Grist Magazine points out that an op-ed in the Washington Times yesterday makes the same logical error that I point out in this post below made by Patrick Michaels -- namely that short-term predictive failures obviate the need for action. The op-ed quotes me and says that I am "not previously a global warming skeptic," which is correct, but implies that somehow I am now . . . sorry, wrong. It also quotes my conclusion that climate models are "useless" without the important qualifiers *for decision making in the short term when specific decisions must be made*. Such models are great exploratory scientific tools, and were helpful in bringing the issue of greenhouse gases to the attention of decision makers. I've emailed the author making these points, asking him to correct his piece."

Also, why do you assert that I never contacted Zarembo or Rahn?  In fact I contacted both right after I learned of their articles.  Of course, you could have emailed me to ask -- please do so in the future before you post incorrect information.

Thanks!

"Not previously a global warming skeptic" sure makes it sound like he is one now, doesn't it?"

It sure does -- which is why you should have emailed Roger about the quote before attacking him.

Anyone who wants to get a sense at how the enforcers of climate orthodoxy on both left and right restrict the debate over solutions, just witness the way Roberts and Joe Romm conspired with the right-wing Washington Times' to slime Roger Pielke.

It started out innocently enough. Roger pointed out on his blog that if a recent Nature article is right that the next decade would bring global cooling, not warming, then climate models aren't very useful for making short-term predictions. Roger writes:

This means that from a practical standpoint climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global climate policy. I am sure that some model somewhere has foretold how the next 20 years will evolve (and please ask me in 20 years which one!). And if none get it right, it won't mean that any were actually wrong. If there is no future over the next few decades that models rule out, then anything is possible. And of course, no one needed a model to know that.

Don't get me wrong, models are great tools for probing our understanding and exploring various assumptions about how nature works. But scientists think they know with certainty that carbon dioxide leads to bad outcomes for the planet, so future modeling will only refine that fact. I am focused on the predictive value of the models, which appears to be nil. So models have plenty of scientific value left in them, but tools to use in planning or policy? Forget about it.

Enter one Richard Rahn at the Washington Times who quotes Roger utterly out of context and implies that Roger has suddenly become a skeptic:

Roger A. Pielke, environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, and not previously a global warming skeptic, reacted to the Nature article: "Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming policy."

Roger has never been a skeptic and still isn't one. For 15 years he has called for immediate action on climate change -- both mitigation and adaptation.

Dave, the way you and Romm use personal attacks and innuendo, rather than argument, one might conclude that you are part of the The Assault on Reason we've been hearing so much about.

By way of contrast, the Times' Andy Revkin wrote a thoughtful blog post about the original Nature piece in question and asks: "Can Climate Campaigns Stand a Decade of Cooling?"

I'd say climate campaigns can withstand a decade of cooling. The question is whether enforcers of climate orthodoxy can.