Food Fight

UPDATE: Roger jumps the shark. The shark wins.

Well, Ethon said so. Such joy, first the Supercalifragiliciousfeakonomics Climate Pie breaks out all over (well here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and maybe here, but later) and then Ethon's favorite food group goes toe to toe with Brad DeLong at the new place, Brad being smart enough to keep the less expensive cuts out of his blog, does manage to call Roger, well careless on purpose. Roger does not take well to this and blows it into a second post.

Some highlights from brad (yes it is Delong and not the brad at Sadly No)

Well, how about: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/08/another_pielke_train_wreck.php ?

"The thing about a Roger Pielke Jr train wreck is that you just can't look away. Check this one out. Pielke claims that there were 1,264 times as many news stories about a Michael Mann study that suggests that hurricanes are at a 1,000 year high as about a Chris Landsea study that found no increase in hurricanes over the past century. (Mark Morano , of course, links to Pielke's post.) The fun is in the comments as folks try to explain to Pielke that there is a film director called Michael Mann and that maybe Pielke shouldn't count those stories. Pielke comes back with the claim that restricting the search to "Michael Mann" + nature + hurricanes + Aug 13-15 gives 1,412 stories. Some folks might wonder how restricting the search gives you more results, but not Pielke. In fact, if you read what Google says at the link Pielke gave it says that there are "about 20", and if you look at all the results there are just 11..."

and

Re: "Yes, I did butcher a Google search. But when pointed out I corrected the mistake and apologized. But it is not really relevant to this post is it? Five years of blogging and a few hundred publications, and that all you've got? Really?!'

Well, how many do you want?

I do remember that what knocked my view of your work over the edge was one of your attacks on Hansen.

Ah. "[Pielke] claims that [Hanson's] scenario B was off by a factor of 2 on CO2. This sounds like a lot until you discover that means that emissions grew by 0.5% per year instead of 1% a year. And that works out to scenario B having the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere within 1% of what has actually happened. Pielke is being much more than a little unfair by calling a prediction that got within 1% of the correct answer as not being 'particularly accurate or realistic'."

With material like this who needs to blog.