Friday, February 27, 2009

Will the Real Roger Pielke Please Stand Up?


A while back I wrote a piece from a book by Roger A. Pielke, Jr. called The Honest Broker. In my article I mentioned the four idealized roles of scientists in Pielke's view: The Pure Scientist, the Science Arbiter, the Issue Advocate, and the Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives. After I published the piece it was pointed out to me that Pielke is a "climate skeptic." Since I'm about to write a follow up piece on another concept Pielke raises in the Honest Broker, I thought it worth looking into Pielke further. And here the plot thickens.

To begin with, there are two Roger A. Pielke's, Jr. and Sr. Both are professors and both have expressed their concerns about climate science. And both have been offered by climate skeptics as "one of their own." Ironically, the Wiki article on Roger A. Pielke, Sr. says that he "has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." In fact, Pielke, Sr. has said:

the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf).


Similarly, Pielke, Jr. is often used as an icon of the skeptics, yet he too is not so much of a critic as the skeptics would have you believe. Dylan Otto Krider, founder of Whoslying, "a nonprofit devoted to correcting statements that do not responsibly reflect objective reality," today writes in a "Skepticism Examiner" blog called "Who is Roger Pielke, Jr." about his knowledge of the man and what he really thinks about climate change. It's an interesting article and I highly recommend that people read it.

The point is that all of us must be very careful not to simply take at face value what we hear on the news or read in blogs. It is always wise to get information from multiple sources and, whenever possible, go to the original source of the information. Believe it or not, people have been known to "reinterpret" information, either intentionally or through intellectual indolence.

1 comment:

  1. The article rightly observes the distortions in the press and blogosophere, concluding:
    =============
    The point is that all of us must be very careful not to simply take at face value what we hear on the news or read in blogs. It is always wise to get information from multiple sources and, whenever possible, go to the original source of the information.
    ===============

    Well now this sounds very nice in theory. But the deceivers understand the practice much better. They understand that their 'marks' simply do NOT have to time to do this research on every topic they read about in the morning papers.

    They also understand that even those who do have the time, do not have the inclination and vice-versa.

    These are the scientific principles of mass deception that worked so well for the tobacco companies, the pesticide companies, Rush Limbaugh, etc.

    I suggest we call these algorithms for deception "fogarithms", since they are 'algorithms' for producing fog to hide the truth the industry does not us to see.

    ReplyDelete

All comments that address the topic of the post will be accepted. Please note that abusive comments are unacceptable at all times. Personal attacks are never appropriate and will be deleted.