Man Based Global Warming....

Yes - he was a lead author so of course knows about that of which he speaks when he refers to the political aspects of the IPCC as well as many of the lightly qualified participants. He is also a strong critic of AGW hysterics.

 

Roger Pielke's website is a good place to start.

 

Why don't you start with peer-reviewed work?

 

Why don't you? You recommended we get our information from RealClimate. "Climate Science by Climate Scientists"

I went there and found that their first Wiki topic is "How to talk to a GW skeptic"

A scientific website that has talking points? Sounds more like a political website to me.

 

That's a blog. Not peer reviewed work. However, within that blog you can find discussions of peer reviewed work.

Second- if you are talking to a skeptic of global warming you are by definition having a discussion with someone that is misinformed, or wants to be misinformed. That one section talks about how to explain the scientific process and what the scientific consensus is.

Did you actually read it? That link:

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

is a list of references that show how all the points raised by contrarians in threads like these is the product of misinformation.

 

I did read some of it until it was clear that the author was picking and choosing data to make his point while lampooning skeptics for doing the same. Example from "100 years is not enough":

"Robert Rohde's website, Global Warming Art has a nice graph of many reconstructions of Holocene temperature, regional and global, all super-imposed with an average of all of them combined, shown below. This represents the best estimate available of global temperatures in the Holocene.

Thus one can reasonably believe that it is warmer now than at any other time in at least the last 10,000 years."



To take Rohde's Holocene temperature data which clearly shows a cooling trend and then pick one year 2004 as proof of man-made global warming is ridiculous. The recent proxies inset shows doesn't help his case either. It shows a 500 year tend of warming (~0.5C) followed by 600 years of cooling (~0.75 C) followed by the most recent 400 years of warming (1.25 C).

 

If man-made global warming is even remotely as large a threat to the earth and man as proposed by Al Gore in his movie how can a climate scientist as distinguished as Lindzen dispute that claim? As much as Al Gore would lead us to believe that someone like Lindzen is a rogue funded by exxon and/or shell he does not seem to be alone in distinguished scientists or meterologists skeptical of man-made global warming to varying degrees.

 

You obviously didn't bother looking at the site, since it is loaded with references, links, and discussions of peer reviewed studies and he has published on the order of 300 peer reviewed studies himself. In case you need his bio:

Roger A. Pielke Sr.

Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder
Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins


B.A., Mathematics, Towson State College, 1968
M.S., Ph.D., Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, 1969, 1973
He is currently a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES and a Senior Research Associate at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences (ATOC) at the University of Colorado in Boulder (November 2005 -present). He is also an Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University and has a five-year appointment (April 2007 - March 2012) on the Graduate Faculty of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana.
Pielke has studied terrain-induced mesoscale systems, including the development of a three-dimensional mesoscale model of the sea breeze, for which he received the NOAA Distinguished Authorship Award for 1974. Dr. Pielke has worked for NOAA's Experimental Meteorology Lab (1971-1974), The University of Virginia (1974-1981), and Colorado State University (1981-2006). He served as Colorado State Climatologist from 1999-2006. He was an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina (July 2003-2006). He was a visiting Professor in the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona from October to December 2004.
He has served as Chairman and Member of the AMS Committee on Weather Forecasting and Analysis, and was Chief Editor for the Monthly Weather Review for 5 years from 1981 to 1985. In 1977, he received the AMS Leroy Meisinger Award for "fundamental contributions to mesoscale meteorology through numerical modeling of the sea breeze and interaction among the mountains, oceans, boundary layer, and the free atmosphere." Dr. Pielke received the 1984 Abell New Faculty Research and Graduate Program Award, and also received the 1987/1988 Abell Research Faculty Award. He was declared "Researcher of the Year" by the Colorado State University Research Foundation in 1993. In 2000 he received the Engineering Dean's Council Award from Colorado State University.
He authored a book published by Academic Press entitled Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling (1984) with a 2nd edition in 2002, a book for Routledge Press entitled The Hurricane (1990), a book (co-authored with W.R. Cotton) for Cambridge Press entitled Human Impacts on Weather and Climate (1995; 2nd Edition 2006), a book (co-authored with R.A. Pielke, Jr.) entitled Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society published in 1997 by John Wiley and Sons, and was Co-Chief Editor (with R.A. Pielke, Jr.) of a book entitled Storms, published by Routledge Press in 1999.
Roger Pielke Sr. was elected a Fellow of the AMS in 1982 and a Fellow of the American Geophysical Union in 2004. From 1993-1996, he served as Editor-in-Chief of the US National Science Report to the IUGG (1991-1994) for the American Geophysical Union. From January 1996 to December 2000, he served as Co-Chief Editor of the Journal of Atmospheric Science. In 1998, he received NOAA's ERL Outstanding Scientific Paper (with Conrad Ziegler and Tsengdar Lee) for a modeling study of the convective dryline. He was designated a Pennsylvania State Centennial Fellow in 1996, and named the Pennsylvania State College of Earth and Mineral Sciences Alumni of the year for 1999 (with Bill Cotton). He is among one of three faculty and one of four members listed by ISI HighlyCited in Geosciences at Colorado State University and the University of Colorado at Boulder, respectively.
Dr. Pielke has published over 330 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, co-edited 9 books, and made over 700 presentations during his career to date. A listing of papers can be viewed at the project website: Reviewed Publications, Pielke Research Group. He also launched a science weblog in 2005 to discuss weather and climate issues. This weblog was named one of the 50 most popular Science blogs by Nature Magazine on July 5, 2006 and is located at http://climatesci.org.





I'd say he's qualified to comment on climate science.

 

LOL. Good one! Real Climate is such a joke. It's run by Gavin Schmidt who is nothing short of a fulltime Real Climate cheerleader for AGW, James Hansen, and Michael Mann. Despite his salary being paid by the US taxpayer, he appears to spend most of his time as a RealClimate blogger. Besides which, I don't believe the guy really does any research himself - he is just a climate modeler. Garbage In, Garbage Out.

Any ounce of credibility and impartiality Schmidt and Real Climate ever may have had was long ago lost.

 

Ah come on - Algore knows more about climate than Lindzen. After all, you're talking about the guy who invented the internet!

 

Tim you are missing the point.

Roger Pielke doesn't agree with Alric so Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group News is just a "blog".

On the other hand RealClimate agrees with Alric so it is "Scientific".

 

He can comment all he wants but is only what he publishes what matters. Can you find some of his published work that states either that:

1) There is no warming.
2) It is not anthropogenic?

 

You do see that arrow pointing to the 2004 temperature on the right axis right? The highest point on the graph?

That is the point.

True this may have happened in the past but at least for sure it has not happened in the past 2k years.

 

Right. Realclimate includes references to peer reviewed journals.

 

Nah, I'll start with this list...

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When these 45 organizations decide to change their position, I'll be sure to notice. Fair enough?

 

Yay! It happens so rarely, that I'll make sure everybody sees it again.

 

Oh I see it. His statement is true, 2004 was warmer than the average for the last 10,000 years.

This is his evidence to disprove the statement by skeptics that "100 years of data is not enough". So to disprove skeptics that say the last 100 years of increasing temperatures isn't enough data to prove globe warming he offers a graph of 8,000 years of decreasing temperatures and then points out a single year as proof that the globe is actually warming. I'm sold

 

I've tried to point out several times how framing emission reduction around the GW debate can be a non-starter.

Why not cut C02 emissions in an economically responsible manner EVEN IF THERE ARE NO MEASUREABLE CLIMATE IMPACTS? Every time we talk about GW, the fact that we need to clean up our act gets swept under the rug - because people want PROOF that it'll help the climate problem... or why bother? I mean why bother innovating to save money and energy? Why worry about our health? Why be concerned with clean water and air at all, if it doesn't effect the climate?

And I have to offer this quote one more time:

 

BINGO!!!!

All the vitriol an BS aside,, as Wilfred Brimley once said,,,"It's the right thing to do!"

Regardless of any side of the argument, there is no good reason not to reduce emissions in a reasoned, thoughtful way. If it turns our that naysayers are right, I will drink a toast to them. If the tree hugging climate change/global warming nuts are right,,, I'll drink a toast to them. Every one wins,, except perhaps the status quo!


Icarus

 

That's fine by me. I just don't want to cut CO2 at any cost or without considering the economic impacts.