14 January 2011

Another Deal for Joe Romm

Joe Romm shows up in the comments of an earlier thread and makes a request of me:
Now it's time for you to concede that R&D alone can't possible deliver on the massive scale in the timeframe needed to achieve the stabiliation at around 450 ppm CO2 that we both agree on.
Joe obviously hasn't done his homework, so I have, once again, offered him a deal:
While you are free to define a "wedge" however you like, you are not free to assign to me views that I do not hold.

I am happy to concede that "R&D alone" cannot result in low stabilization goals (in the same way I will will concede to you that the earth is not flat, ManU is thus far undefeated this season and 2+2 = 4).

In fact, if you actually read what I have written, you'd already know that (according to Brad DeLong you review books without reading them, tsk tsk).

So let me extend an offer -- I will send you a free copy of The Climate Fix. In return you will agree to read it and write up a review which I will post here on my blog, unedited. Be as critical as you like, but don't make things up.

Until you do so, you then agree to stop mischaracterizing my views simply because you do not know what they are.

If these terms are unfair, then just explain. Deal?


  1. I'll go with the earth not being flat and 2+2=4 , but after Sunday I hope your other concession is made false.

    C'mon you Spurs!

    Sorry for the tangent.
    I enjoy the blog.
    Thanks for posting.

  2. Joe has gone silent.

    Do you think it was the "don't make things up clause"? ;-)

  3. I'm very much looking forward to reading your book, Dr. Pielke. I'm a senior undergraduate at a small liberal arts school in Texas, and for my Capstone I'm strongly considering doing a paper related to the discrepancy in viewpoints between the public at large and climate scientists regarding climate change. Obviously, there are many things that are at play there (not the least of which is that it's largely a political issue), and I'm excited to delve deeper into it.

    If amazon.com delivers as promised, this time tomorrow, I'll have already jumped into your book!

    And as an aside, good to know you're a United supporter!

  4. -4-Cameron

    Thanks much for your comment. Please do report back on the book, and feel free to ask any questions ...

    But I must come clean, I am a Gunner through and through ;-)

  5. -5 to you Roger. A Gooner? (-5 because that's what Spurs need to get ahead in the league)

    I am now obligated to link to this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVqJnt-9TsY

    Good luck having another go at Barcelona. Maybe this year...

    Obviously all in good fun.

  6. Sorry, gentlemen, but there's more chance of Joe Romm discovering the virtues of civility than there is of Spurs winning tomorrow.

  7. Roger,

    Completely off-topic, but I wanted to ask you a question on a subject you've spent a good deal of time on. Judy Curry has a post up on the attribution of extreme weather to climate change (1.15.11). In it, she quotes Santer's testimony on how they use climate models to make these attributions.

    I find the Santer quote to be jaw-dropping. Hubris anyone? Wow. Just wow.

    My question -- is this for real? Are there really a lot of "scientists" who are on board with "analysis" like this? I have a really difficult time believing this could be so.

    Oh, and a side question -- Have any of these people ever experienced cross-examination as expert witnesses from a first-rate lawyer on their theories? Because there is something about having someone carefully deconstructing the weaknesses in one's theories in embarassing detail in front of a jury which tends to make one a little more careful about making sweeping statements.

    I suspect that some of the really brilliant stats gurus who constructed the extraordinarily complex models for Wall Street (that failed) are going to enjoy that experience in some upcoming cases.