If “Pielke is probably the most debunked person in the climate science blogosphere who claims to believe in a 450 ppm CO2 target”, then you wouldn’t have any problem debunking him in a public debate…right?

[JR: Wrong question. The question is why waste any time on him at all? He isn't a scientist and doesn't dispute the science and asserted on this blog we must stabilize at 400 to 450 ppm CO2. So not much to debate there. And he certainly isn't an expert on climate solutions. Like I said, he simply isn't relevant to the debate anymore, and his "voluntary" decision to abandon his more widely read website for a much more obscure one suggests a diminishing audience.

The fact that he is so widely debunked should tell you that he puts out a lot of misinformation and disinformation. It is a waste of my time to give him a platform to spread mis- and dis-information and then have to use all my time debunking it. Look, I mostly try to ignore him, but he is prolific and popular with a small slice of the media -- as is The Breakthrough Insitute -- so I devote maybe 1% of my posts to him. But now that he is voluntarily gone into obscurity, I hope to devote far less time to him.]

You’re very kind to respond so completely. Your thoroughness on your blog is just amazing.

I’ve been looking to see (and support) who the Carl Sagan of climate change can be. Al Gore does a phenomenal job but through no fault of his own his political background polarizes an unfortunately high percentage of the population.

I just spoke with Neil deGrasse Tyson about speaking more about climate change and he’s smart, funny and can fill any-sized auditorium with his personality and voice, but he doesn’t appear interested.

You are – and will continue to be – one of my greatest hopes in this area, and I’d like to support your efforts all I can.

The greatest carbon offset is to be helping all of us kick our carbon habit, so traveling to do that is actually admirable (while there’s much traveling that is not).

And as a primary caregiver myself, I applaud your decision and devotion. Interestingly, Pielke, Jr also strikes me as a devoted father. And he rides a scooter around Boulder, so I don’t think he’s personally going to get us to 1000 ppm by himself.:) Someday I hope you’ll reconsider this offer – I’m known for moderating discussions where vehement disagreements have ended in hugs and the combatants singing “Kumbaya” with their arms around each other – I’m not kidding.

Thanks Joe.

[JR: Thanks. All CAP bloggers are independent from editorial oversight. Of course, one of the main reasons I came to CAP is that they had already publicly endorsed the 2°C warming target. Once you have accepted the urgent need to come as close as possible to that target, then I think you have to take the kind of hard-edged approach I do -- unless you're RPJ, in which case your public pronouncements on the science all are merely a head fake. As for the debate, I'm about to post a comment on that.]

While you did say later in your comment thread that you were just trying to be snarky, your earlier comments to Roger on the same thread make it pretty clear that you had thought that “some wise people” were responsible for an essentially non-voluntary closure of Roger`s blog.

[JR: You can't be serious. You really can't tell that the "some very wise people" line was further snarky needling of Roger? my father always said that unless you explicitly label every single snarky or humorous thing you write as humor, you can be sure people will write in angrily.]

I don`t know why you don`t simply acknowledge that you don`t really have information that his blog closure was anything but voluntary, even while you (and we) ponder why he would close the Prometheus platform and start his own blog. That path would seem to offer greater credibility.

[JR: I have already done that. How else would you interpret the sentence "Yes, I'm happy to if acknowledge that it seems to have been "semi voluntary" -- but like I said, who really voluntarily shuts down a very popular blog to launch an obscure one?" People do lots of things "voluntarily" that they would never do if they had not been motivated by external forces -- walking the plank I believe it is called. You are willfully misinterpreting that which I said with humor and willfully ignoring what I have clearly written as a serious. In short, you are beating a dead horse, which makes me wonder about your motivations. It is one of those semantic debates that Pielke enjoys pulling people into as to whether the word "voluntarily" really applies to somebody who shuts down a very popular blog in order to open a more obscure one and offers no logical explanation for that odd behavior? I will leave that to linguists. This horse is dead and I think we can bury it along with Prometheus.]

How is it “obviously…a crock”?

I agree with andrewt’s assessment of the accusation of plagiarism made by RPjr:

“In venues where acknowledgements of people who point out errors are normally included, omission of such an acknowledgement would be impolite and unprofessional but not plagiarism.”

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 08/ common-decency-goes-long-way.html?showComment=1249737931665#c83842967445994439

And of course we don’t know whether Hu McCullough’s correction was received, or if it was, whether it was the first one received. There is even some dispute about whether corrigienda in Nature usually include acknowledgments or not.

But even if the facts are as alleged, it still doesn’t rise to plagiarism. Not even close.

Here’s a real example of plagiarism, in case you missed it:

http://deepclimate.org/ 2009/ 06/ 30/ suppressed-carlin-report-based-on-pat-michaels-attack-on-epa/

Now for some reason, RPjr had problems figuring out whether or not the Alan Carlin/Patrick Michaels “suppressed” report was plagiarism. But he seemed to hold that even if it was an unsolicited, plagiarized pastiche of pseudo-scientific nonsense, it should still have been allowed to circulate as an official EPA internal review. Okaaaay …

Thanks for your typically eloquent reply about my suggesting a debate between you and Roger Pielke, Jr, who is a obviously a big fan of ClimateProgress because he immediately e-mailed me saying he’d gladly accept an invitation to have a public discussion that I would moderate.

While I might disagree with Roger in certain key areas, I know him personally and have always found him to be reasonable and civil in discussions. I can’t see him trying to shout you down, interrupting or using other inappropriate and unintelligent tactics.

We could host the event in Boulder and I know many NOAA, NCAR, CIRES, INSTAAR, NSIDC and NREL directors and senior scientists who would attend and support your positions. In fact my hope is that you and the process could recruit more of them to become uncharacteristically blunt scientists, something I’ve been working on helping them become for many years.

Although my career has completely shifted to helping communicate climate change and related issues, I’ve been a working, produced and award-winning screenwriter and I know what audiences like, and one of those things is (appropriate) conflict, not the agreement which unfortunately often puts audiences to sleep. I’m sure you’ve noticed how your postings involving conflicts with Roger can get hundreds of comments.

We could webcast on your website, create links for your audience, and help you get your word out however you’d like.

Of course I’d need to give Roger the same opportunities to make his points. While I’m still trying to understand your areas of conflict, in many other areas of discussion I’ve seen Roger think more creatively, completely and with more full-cost accounting than I usually see.

And as the physical science becomes better established, I think we need to hear increasingly from social scientists (Pielke, Jr. is a social scientist, his father is a physical climate scientist) also.

I think the results would be high-energy, insightful, illuminating, entertaining, and yes, funny. I’d insist the conversation be as engaging as possible without any of us resorting to name-calling, figure-pointing, personal insults or profanity.

Any number of world-class discussants could be involved in break-out sessions and we could have a truly world-class event that moves the conversation forward, as you’ve done so eloquently in your response and postings.

In addition to a Boulder event, we’d be happy to also consider D.C., New York, L.A. (where I’m planning events at Cal Tech and UCLA), etc.

I think if you did this once you’d like it – and grow your already considerable audience, which is something I’d like to see happen also.

Thanks Joe,

Richard Brenne

[JR: I appreciate the offer, but I don't accept many long-distance speaking engagements these days because I work at home with my 2 1/2 year old daughter; it's not an efficient use of my time (I communicate to a great many more people through CP -- with some 7000 subscribers now and an equal additional number who visit every day), air travel is increasingly unpleasant, and I am trying to minimize my carbon footprint.

So I don't see any upside for me, CP, or future generations in debating Pielke.]

“Yes, I noticed that too. Obviously it’s a crock.”

How is it “obviously…a crock”?

As to Watts and Pielke Sr. it should have been obvious to anyone paying attention that they were pulling on the same thread, starting with Sr’s manuscript on weather stations in Colorado. Among the amusement is that the Colorado State (Fort Collins) station the old guy was in charge of was right next to a parking lot, as well as close to a bunch of trees.

Related- He’s just one-upped his previous accusation against a RC of blogger of “stealing” with a new accusation of “plagiarism”.

Yes, I noticed that too. Obviously it’s a crock. How tiresome it is to have to keep whacking all those moles – it’s a good thing folks can take turns.