Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The Ill-Stars take the field


Roger Pielke Sr. heralds a new bunch hawking their wares as climate consultants, and an ill star group they are. The demeriti among them, and there are many, certainly have a bunch of time on their hands. However mice shouldn't take the list too seriously. This is the braindead child of Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist who we last met as author of the Fraser Institute Summary for Making Bad Policy, one of the last doors in the Exxon AR4 Advent Calendar

He set up a booth at the American Meteorological Society meeting and asked anyone who had an interest in what they planned to leave their names and addresses.

Like from a melting ice cap, the rodents of denial who left their names are already jumping ship. Chip Knappenberger, from New Hope Environmental Services (Pat Michaels' chop shop) said:

To my direct knowledge, some of the “experts” listed were not contacted by ICECAP, and in fact, have no idea as to who or what ICECAP is. So clearly, they should not be referred to as “our experts” which carries an air of association when done exists. This is not good form and this misunderstanding should be cleared up by the ICECAP management
Which is a nice was of saying Pat and I and our friends have our own things, include us out. Chip says he talks to others besides Pat. Joe D'Aleo has an interesting reply:
Icecap is funded by private individuals and think tanks not associated with the oil or major corporations.
Eli understands such formulations, CEI is not associated with Exxon, except for getting some funding from them, so Exxon can pass the money to us through them, or something like that. It is called implausible deniability. The effort does have the stink of Regenry Press, Pajama Media, etc. typical US right wing money washing . But you can see that Chip was right, and there will be others leaving the list soon by reading D'Aleo's description of how the experts "joined" Icecap:
The experts listed were all informed that the effort was underway and agreed to help provide their expertise or allow us to use their material or link to the material on their sites. We told them for that material, we would list them as contact experts and link to their sites or books.....

All the members listed below the expert list signed up at the AMS annual meeting where we had a booth or via email. That list will grow.
D'Aleo pwnd S. Fred and Sally just like Siggie and Sally got everyone else with the Heidelberg Appeal, the Leipzig Declaration, the OISM petition! Irony is good.
  • Robert C. Balling Jr., Professor, Climatology, Arizona State University
  • Sallie Baliunas, Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
  • Thomas A. Birkland, Director of the Center for Policy Research University of Albany, Policy associated with sudden disasters. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper.
  • Robert Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, Australia
  • William Cotton, Professor, Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University
  • David Deming, Associate Professor, University of Oklahoma
  • James R. Fleming, Professor, Colby College. Not clear he is a real Ice Capper
  • UPDATE: Well that was a good guess, see the comments.
  • Mel Goldstein, Chief Meteorologist for News Channel 8 in Connecticut.
  • Vincent Gray, Expert Reviewer IPCC
  • William Gray, Meteorologist
  • Douglas V. Hoyt, Solar Physicist and Climatologist
  • Warwick Hughes, Earth Scientist
  • Craig D. Idso, Founder, Chairman of the Board, and former President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Sherwood D. Idso, President of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
  • Madhav Khandekar, retired Meteorologist, formerly with Environment Canada
  • David Legates, Associate Professor in Climatology, University of Delaware, still another victim of the Kaine shuffle
  • Joseph E. Luisi, Former Chief Meteorologist for Delta Airlines
  • Anthony Lupo, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia
  • Pat Michaels, Research professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia, the original Kaine shuffle victim
  • Tad Murty, Adjunct Professor of Earth Sciences and Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa
  • James O’Brien, Director Emeritus of the Center for Ocean-Atmospheric Prediction Studies at Florida State University
  • Gary Sharp, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study
  • S. Fred Singer, President of the Science & Environment Policy Project
  • Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama
  • George Taylor, Faculty Member, Oregon State University’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences....Note NOT Oregon State Climatologist, another victim of the Kaine shuffle.
  • Hendrik Tennekes, Former Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
  • Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator, ACRIM Experiments Somehow Eli doubts this, take a look at the list of ACRIM C0-Is

27 comments:

Anonymous said...

Speaking of denialists and other such attention seeking sycophants....Roger Pielke Jr. is now apparently an expert on international travel and economics.

From a story in the conservative "New York Sun."

A professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, Roger Pielke Jr., said calls to reduce international tourism will impact local economies long before global warming. "The effects they will have, to the extent people follow them, will be more immediate and much larger on tourist destinations than will the effects of climate change, which will take place over decades or more," the professor said. "Until someone invents an airplane that runs on non-greenhouse gas-polluting fuel, it really is an intractable part of the problem. Why not do the easier things first?"



So I'm just wondering....Is there *anything* for which Roger is not an expert source of journalists?

Anonymous said...

According to wikipedia, "Rats are opportunists. They eat anything they find that remotely looks like food" and "If they have the choice between a food that will need a fight to get, and another food that will not, they take the food that does not need a fight."

...unlike rabbits, which are finicky eaters,

fergus brown said...

Uncle Eli; Roger won't answer my question (does he now wish to be associated with the stance associated with the people on Icecap's list?)(my questions are in the comments to the post on CS).
Have I persistently misunderstood his intent on CS? I have always placed RP Sr in a special cage of his own when it comes to challenging the orthodox view. Is this a signal from him that he now wants to join the other rodents in their cage, or is he just doing a friend a favour?
In the comments, Joe asks that we reserve judgment on his site; I have said I will do and wait for comments to appear from more 'orthodox' scientists. How long should I wait?
Regards,

Anonymous said...

Fergus, both RP Sr. and his son, little Pielke, are always reaching out to statistical outliers. It's a behavior that his common to both of them.

But neither of them likes to be called on it, and their standard tactic is to ignore anyone who points this out.

Anonymous said...

their standard tactic is to ignore anyone who points this out."

I don't know about Senior (who, as a working scientist, probably does ignore most of the chatter), but Junior is very sensitive to what people are saying. He may pretend to ignore it, but that's different.

In fact, a while back he was clearly peeved at the editing of his wikipedia entry.

"I could not care less about my wiki entry, but just let me note that this and this and this and this (and this and this and this) are not accurate...Not that I care or anything, mind you..."

Anonymous said...

Icecap?

Micecrap

Anonymous said...

Here is the whois information that shows who registered the site.

It looks like D'Aleo is running this out of his house.


WHOIS information for: icecap.us:

[whois.nic.us]
Domain Name: ICECAP.US
Domain ID: D11216396-US
Sponsoring Registrar: SCHLUND + PARTNER AG
Domain Status: ok
Registrant ID: SPAG-35224601
Registrant Name: Joe D'Aleo
Registrant Address1: 18 Glen DR
Registrant City: Hudson
Registrant State/Province: NH
Registrant Postal Code: 03051
Registrant Country: United States
Registrant Country Code: US
Registrant Phone Number: +1.6035954439
Registrant Email: jdaleo6331@aol.com
Registrant Application Purpose: P2
Registrant Nexus Category: C11
Administrative Contact ID: SPAG-35224601
Administrative Contact Name: Joe D'Aleo
Administrative Contact Address1: 18 Glen DR
Administrative Contact City: Hudson
Administrative Contact State/Province: NH
Administrative Contact Postal Code: 03051
Administrative Contact Country: United States
Administrative Contact Country Code: US
Administrative Contact Phone Number: +1.6035954439
Administrative Contact Email: jdaleo6331@aol.com
Administrative Application Purpose: P2
Administrative Nexus Category: C11
Billing Contact ID: SPAG-32126886
Billing Contact Name: Hostmaster ONEANDONE
Billing Contact Organization: 1&1 Internet Inc.
Billing Contact Address1: 701 Lee Rd.
Billing Contact Address2: Suite 300
Billing Contact City: Chesterbrook
Billing Contact State/Province: PA
Billing Contact Postal Code: 19087
Billing Contact Country: United States
Billing Contact Country Code: US
Billing Contact Phone Number: +1.8774612631
Billing Contact Facsimile Number: +1.6105601501
Billing Contact Email: hostmaster@1and1.com
Technical Contact ID: SPAG-32126886
Technical Contact Name: Hostmaster ONEANDONE
Technical Contact Organization: 1&1 Internet Inc.
Technical Contact Address1: 701 Lee Rd.
Technical Contact Address2: Suite 300
Technical Contact City: Chesterbrook
Technical Contact State/Province: PA
Technical Contact Postal Code: 19087
Technical Contact Country: United States
Technical Contact Country Code: US
Technical Contact Phone Number: +1.8774612631
Technical Contact Facsimile Number: +1.6105601501
Technical Contact Email: hostmaster@1and1.com
Name Server: NS51.1AND1.COM
Name Server: NS52.1AND1.COM
Created by Registrar: SCHLUND + PARTNER AG
Domain Registration Date: Fri Oct 20 18:11:35 GMT 2006
Domain Expiration Date: Fri Oct 19 23:59:59 GMT 2007

Anonymous said...

James R. Fleming is certainly not a climate denier. He has written extensively on the history of climate change, including Historical Perspectives on Climate Change (Oxford, 1998, 2005), a new biography of Guy Stewart Callender, who formulated the modern theory of anthropgenic global warming, The Callendar Effect (AMS Books, 2006), and new essay, The Climate Engineers (Wilson Quarterly, 2007) warning of the dangers of technological fixes.

Fleming was contacted by D'Aleo by e-mail. He declined to join ICECAP, but links to his books are apparently present on that website.

Fleming's complete profile is available at http://www.colby.edu/profile/jfleming

Not really anonymous, this is James R. Fleming writing without actually joining the blog.

Anonymous said...

Fleming, if you didn't agree to be listed as an expert, then you should contact D'Aleo.

He has listed you, regardless of you wishes.

Mus musculus anonymouse

Anonymous said...

The Whois info above shows the host is 1&1 Web Hosting
www.1and1.com/hosting

--
hr, impatient with the blog authentication

Anonymous said...

I think Mr. Fleming points out the problem with assuming anything about the people on that list.

Just because some clown links to you or something you have written on his web site does not mean you agree with him, that you have anything to do with him -- or even that you know him.

Anonymous said...

Dr. Fleming, you should contact D'Aleo and tell him to remove you name from his list of "experts" on his site: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/experts

Anonymous said...

That's not the only place they're featuring you --- you're their number one on the 'blogosphere' list of experts claimed to be saying there are too many possible explanations for climate change to decide from.

You even came in above Pielke Jr. among their preferred experts.

Slick looking site, someone's spending money ...

EliRabett said...

Prof. Fleming, Rabett Run operates a strict anonymouse protection program. Our motto is you are what you write and we enjoy putting the good stuff up as a post. Eli also tries to be kind to visiting eyeballs.

(Be careful, some of the mice can get underfoot)

Steve Bloom said...

OT: Is it just me, or does RP Sr. seem to be going off the rails somewhat?

fergus brown said...

You're only saying that because you're not his favourite bunny at the moment, Steve... :)

It may seen that Roger is in a bit of a wundary ATM, since there isn't much yet to pick at in the IPCC which hasn't already been gone over, but OTOH, his perspective on climate change does appear to be popular, still, as well as persuasive.
Regards,

EliRabett said...

Steve, RP Sr. is honest enough that he knows he is holding a losing hand.
That is peturbing, but I don't know if he will be able to work through it.

Anonymous said...

The only thing more disturbing than RP Sr. is his son, little Pielke. At least the father can look back and say with all honesty, "Sure I went off the rails, but I did a lot of great work before I went cuckoo."

Roger Pielke Jr. has no such body of research to fall back on. It's all blather from the get-go.

fergus brown said...

I think you are being a bit unfair here. Whatever his motives, Roger is doing a very important job, which I would be reluctant to trust to most: he is challenging the assumptions and science of the IPCC by means of science, rather than polemic, and is at least consistent in the views he holds. I also think that the vulnerability paradigm is an important concept, which should (and I suspect will) get more attention and be used more in discussion and analysis of the effects of climate change.

I'd also venture to suggest that Roger's 'position' - that the IPCC and policy makers place too much emphasis on CO2 emissions whilst overlooking other important matters is particularly popular; for evidence, see: http://fergusbrown.wordpress.com/ , where a 'live' opinion poll is under way.

You'll know that I enjoy challenging Roger at times on his site, but I also respect him and his position, even if it is not one which I share.

There; I've gone OTT about a little bit of teasing. Siily me. Roger is perfectly capable of justifying himself. He probably wouldn't even agree with what I've said here. It's just what I think.
Regards,

EliRabett said...

Fergus, the problem with RPS's position is that there is an elephant in the room and he is looking at the mouse problem (I know the anonymice are no problem).

Some years ago Hansen and others published on the idea of attacking the other forcings first (black carbon, methane, etc.) because they were easier to deal with in order to BUY TIME to ramp up on CO2. If you analyze the problem, CO2 has the nasty property that it has a long residence time, especially as compared to the other forcings. Thus things you do today affect what happens for the next few hundred years. You can't not deal with it.

Worse, RPS appears not to recognize that one of the major issues with land use is increased CO2, and that land use has both positive and negative forcings associated with it.

Recently he is starting to emphasize everything he can dig out that hints that "there is no global warming"

So you are certainly not getting a balanced view there. What also concerns me is the increased polemical nature of his postings, but who am I to complain, a mere bunny of the field.

Anonymous said...

Adapting is something that people are going to have to do -- and will do -- in any case, so "arguing for adaptation" is basically a waste of breath -- meaningless, really, since things like a rise in sea level are not going to occur over night. As sea level rises, people will either move inland or they will build dikes or build them higher). It is really that simple.

Humanity does not need people like Roger Pielke arguing the case for adaptation. It will happen regardless of anything he says. Does he really think people are goingto wait around as the sea level rises and do nothing?

Because of the long residence time of CO2, on the other hand, we do need people arguing for mitigation now. In fact, that's the only thing we need people arguing for -- and that is precisely why the IPCC places most of its emphasis on mitigation.

fergus brown said...

Mouse; you make a clever and salient point. However, we can throw a Lomborg at this one and say, ok, we have enough to buy six mousetraps or one elephant gun; what should we do?
Of course, after you've shot the lephant, you can always turn the gun on the mice, but in the meantime, a lot of lumps of cheese are going to suffer unnecessarily. Given a finite budget, how best to spend it?
Regards,

guthrie said...

Or, you scare the elephant by firing the gun over its head and it stomps on the mice?


(No offence to the anonymice intended)

Anonymous said...

"Given a finite budget, how best to spend it?"

That argument does not cut the cheese, to stay with the current theme.

In most cases, the old "ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" statement is very accurate and there is good reason to believe that it will apply in this case as well.

Mitigation should be treated as an investment. It should be treated precisely the same way that the insurance industry handles future risks.

They don't say, "if we spend money on hurricane straps and other things to make houses more 'hurricane-proof', we won't have it later for clean-up." Hurricane straps to tie the roof (if not your mother) down are a very cheap way of protecting against the complete loss of the roof -- and the house.

Besides, does anyone really believe that any money not spent on mitigation now will necessarily be spent on adaptation later?

We hear the argument all the time from people like Lomborg (perhaps he should start a Lomblog), that "Instead of spending money on mitigation, we should spend the money on anti-poverty measures."

Not only does it assume that any money not spent now on mitigation will automatically be spent on anti-poverty measures in the future, it also assumes that the two are mutually exclusive, which need not even be the case.

Adam said...

Also, why pick on mitigation measures and not pick something else to cut back on, to fund anti-poverty measures?

Finally, some mitigation measures will have anti-poverty measures built-in. For example, by reducing the amount fuel that someone needs to burn, you reduce the amount that they need to buy or collect.

fergus brown said...

I don't necessarily disagree with either of you, but I think it's important to distinguish between the timescales of mitigation effects relative to adaptation measures. Surely, the elephant-poop in the equation is the long-term consequence, and, in climate terms, the real problem, whereas the mousetraps serve to convince the electorate that efforts are being made to protect their cheese supplies.

Too much adapt vs mitigate nonsense avoids this precise point. Of course the effects of mitgation aren't going to be seen for a while; so? Of course adaptation is going to protect more vulnerable people more quickly; so?

There's not much argument to be made against a combination policy, but I'd still say my point was valid; in the real world, we know, right or wrong, that a finite amount of resources, and a finite (imagined)risk to economic growth (like that's the be-all and end-all) is going to go into tackling the problem of climate change.

Jeffrey Sachs has some interesting points to make on the subject and related issues in the Reith Lectures, currently being broadcast in the UK on Radio 4 (also available as a podcast and on the world service - and with post-transmission transcripts also available; I would recommend it to anyone who thinks we have a problem.

Sorry about the long post.

:)

bookworm said...

Now that "global warming" has ground to a halt for the past 8 years in spite of increasing CO2, we must find a new topic for panic and junk science. Let's try "global cooling" for a while (again).

Surely this is anthropogenic, as well, isn't everything?