Comments on: Why can’t Roger Pielke just admit he was wrong?

By: Paul K

Paul K — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:32:11 +0000

Ted Nordhaus,
Joe Romm, by his own repeated declaration, is not an environmentalist and should not be referred to as one.

By: Teryn Norris

Teryn Norris — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 02:19:12 +0000

Joe, it should now be clear to your readers just how much you’ve misrepresented Pielke’s work. Why should we conclude that your attempt to paint Pielke as ignorant represents anything but malicious intent?

It’s not rocket science to draw the link between historical levels of energy and carbon intensity. If there was one error Pielke made, it was assuming that his words wouldn’t be twisted and exaggerated by you.

By: Ted Nordhaus

Ted Nordhaus — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 01:30:13 +0000

STOP THE PRESSES!!!

Joe Romm promises to forswear slander, ad hominem attack, guilt by association, and conspiracy theory henceforth. How about starting with an apology to all those whose reputations you’ve sullied and names you’ve dragged through the mud over the last few months, Joe?

If Joe indeed sticks to his pledge all that should remain is misinformation, misrepresenting the arguments of those with whom he disagrees, and semantic hairsplitting when called on aforementioned misinformation. But hey, you’ve got to start somewhere. Fake it till you make it, Joe.

For a primer on how to parse Joe’s disingenuous attacks, we’ve posted a helpful guide to the new environmental politics of personal destruction at:

http://thebreakthrough.org/ blog/ 2008/ 04/ deconstructing_joe_romm_a_prim.shtml

By: elbarto

elbarto — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:14:57 +0000

Joe, respectfully I think you are getting a little semantical. Energy intensity, carbon intensity, decarbonisation all seem pretty irrelevant when the more likely scenarios presented by the IPCC all point to increasing total GHG. That is the problem, not intensity. Even worse when you realise actual total emissions are towards the high range of IPCC projection.

I think the IPCC definition of decarbonisation is also wrong. To me, decarbonisation means are reduction in total fossil consumption. That is what needs to happen, what do we need to do to achieve it?

By: Dano

Dano — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:54:36 +0000

I’m on neither side here, as I’ve objected to Roger’s careful redefinitions many times, and the parboiled hyperbole by our guest I object to as well.

All extremes are error. The reverse of error is not truth, but error still. Truth lies between extremes. — Cecil

As I’ve said before, it is pointless to gin up silly arguments with people who are going in your general direction.

Now, Roger may want to start later and go 25º to the right of Joe, but you don’t help direction society by silly adolescent screaming about how having a different opinion means you are completely wrong and you need to be “debunked” and “refuted” and yada.

Crikey.

The effect is the same as delaying by other tactics.

Best,

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:32:22 +0000

But the post does not contain a simple admission that Pielke was wrong. It does show what Pielke might have argued had he not put up the wrong chart.

But the right chart doesn’t make his case so much for him.
Carbon intensity has been dropping for decades. I’ll post on this shortly.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:08:15 +0000

The following post shows how significant Joe’s objection is:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/ prometheus/ archives/ climate_change/ 001383carbon_intensity_of_.html