tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post5402602867438456093..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: Thanks!EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-71685220492464715252014-06-17T17:44:17.329-04:002014-06-17T17:44:17.329-04:00In discussions on Twitter with Pielke Jr., one may...In discussions on Twitter with Pielke Jr., one may get the idea that he'll only consent to "discuss" if one first assents to the proposition that he is The Authority -- and then, at appropriate time, he will use the old argument-from-authority to say you don't know what you're talking about. <br /><br />Slippery, indeed. <br /><br />And a-historic. Fact is that cap-and-trade has usually worked before, and there is only a coincidental, temporary link between CO2 emissions and GDP. <br /><br />Of course, he has a paper to cite, so to him, the points are not debatable. Once one accepts all his premises as valid, there's not much to discuss, is there?<br /><br />In short, he's an intelligent design creationist on climate -- he's not technically arguing that there is no warming nor that we shouldn't do anything about it, to him; he is arguing that IF there was global warming, what is proposed is unlikely to stem it, if we accept that no human action means anything in climate. <br /><br />He's the Francis Beckwith of climate change.Ed Darrellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10056539160596825210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-38862995382347066572014-06-09T11:41:27.687-04:002014-06-09T11:41:27.687-04:00I quote from the link I gave above, as it seems so...I quote from the link I gave above, as it seems so pointed:<br />-----<br /><a href="http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html" rel="nofollow">"Four Dogs Defense" ... the tobacco industry used it for decades to successfully deflect charges that cigarettes cause cancer. Despite volumes of documents proving of their deception in the form of the tobacco papers, the same companies today mount the same defense, albeit with diminishing success.<br /><br />You might also be familiar with this strategy not only because of tobacco, but asbestos, lead, bisphenol A or any number of chemicals or "benign" products (sugar, alcohol, etc.) currently on the market.<br /><br />... tactics the industries used to stall regulation. It focuses on three chemicals, trichloroethylene (TCE), formaldehyde, and styrene, which have been on the market for decades despite proof they cause morbidity and mortality. </a><br /><br />Tactics industries _continue_ to use:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.ijpc-se.org/position.htm" rel="nofollow">Despite grave warnings, put forward by a variety of cancer, public health, and regulatory agencies, regarding the health hazards of all types of asbestos, controversy continues to be fomented by powerful moneyed interests. This has permitted some countries to promote continued use of asbestos. The IJPC-SE therefore undertook the development of a Position Statement that, for the first time, puts forward, from an epidemiologic perspective, the clear evidence confirming that all forms of asbestos should be banned.</a>Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5548776707967971142014-06-08T00:51:40.790-04:002014-06-08T00:51:40.790-04:00http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/upshot/best-of-b...http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/06/upshot/best-of-both-worlds-northeast-cut-emissions-and-enjoyed-growth.htmlHank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91211409250549540702014-06-07T21:10:28.856-04:002014-06-07T21:10:28.856-04:00Question:
Hello Roger,
Have you corresponded di...<i>Question: <br /><br />Hello Roger,<br /><br />Have you corresponded directly with Dr. Paul Krugman about your disparaging remarks regarding his cogent critique of your letter to the Financial Times?</i><br /><br />No way will he do that. He needs a forum to weasel and hedge.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10932995485556929292014-06-07T20:33:03.430-04:002014-06-07T20:33:03.430-04:00Since Roger the Dodger won't post my question ...Since Roger the Dodger won't post my question to him regarding his hyperbole about Paul Krugman taking him to task regarding his letter to the Financial Times will you post this for me?<br />Question: Hello Roger,<br />Have you corresponded directly with Dr. Paul Krugman about your disparaging remarks regarding his cogent critique of your letter to the Financial Times?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11551477918415674646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11561716554015271492014-06-07T14:13:59.054-04:002014-06-07T14:13:59.054-04:00My earliest substantive interaction with RP Jr., p...My earliest substantive interaction with RP Jr., probably going on 10 years ago, was on his primary gig of questioning whether forthcoming climate damages should be a present concern for policy. I pointed to strong evidence that this was the case (IIRC the specific topic may have been sea level rise), RP Jr. pointed to uncertainty about exactly when the damages would kick in and to the (IPCC?) use of a 2050 time frame, saying in effect that post-2050 damages could reasonably be ignored and that anything pre-2050 was sufficiently uncertain that policy could reasonably neglect it. IOW, same as he's ever been. Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-13153455562197110912014-06-07T13:49:14.265-04:002014-06-07T13:49:14.265-04:00Roger has a paper that indicates that it would tak...Roger has a paper that indicates that it would take more than 200 years for a trend in TC damage in the US to emerge. What is clear from the paper is that he does that by finding the time at which at least 95% of his models have a statistically significant trend (with respect to the 20th century trend). So, if one was being statistically correct, what one should really conclude is that it is virtually certain to have emerged within about 200 years. Roger, however, has a habit of writing this in a way that makes it seem that it will take more than 200 years, rather than less than 200 years.<br /><br />I redid his whole analysis and got the same basic result, but pointed out - in fact - that there was a 95% chance of it emerging between about 2050 and 2250 (i.e., it could be in the next few decades, or could take more than 200 years). <br /><br />In my post, however, I said "So, Roger is right", followed by an explanation of why it's a bit subtler than you might infer from what Roger says himself. You can probably guess what Roger tweeted about my post. Roger the Dodger indeed.And Then There's Physicshttp://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-76362591422886523002014-06-07T12:56:47.095-04:002014-06-07T12:56:47.095-04:00To elaborate a bit -- the trick is to try to defin...To elaborate a bit -- the trick is to try to define the limits of what's "arguably possible" by ruling out the inconvenient costs. <br /><br />A discussion, just for example, like this (<b>emphasis added</b>, paragraph breaks added for online readability)<br /><br />http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/nr_newsletters/ed/201212_ed.authcheckdam.pdf<br /><br />Environmental Disclosure Committee, December 2012<br />DEFENSIBLE COST ESTIMATING FUNDAMENTALS IN THE CONTEXT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DISCLOSURE<br /><br />".... Traditionally some reporting entities may have assumed that environmental liabilities<br />were not material to their overall financial bottom lines.<br /><br />However, over the past decade of the post–Sarbanes-Oxley era, a focus on the quantification of contingent environmental liabilities has become more prominent.<br /><br />That is, the need to specifically quantify the magnitude of costs associated with an environmental liability has been required or requested more and more frequently.<br /><br />This task of quantification has always been complicated by the inherent uncertainty in estimating an<br />unknown (such as, what might have happened underground decades ago), often based on limited data<br />and information, as well as the highly site-specific aspects of many environmental liabilities. For example, a similar historic industrial practice in one location may have resulted in minimal impact—but in another location may have resulted in significant environmental liabilities. <br /><br />The task of appropriately valuing environmental liabilities is made more complex in the face of changing financial accounting regulations (such as those focused on contingent asset retirement<br />obligations and disclosure of <b>liabilities associated with greenhouse gases</b>); prudent business practices in the context of increasing corporate cash flow concerns and ankruptcies; pressure from shareholders to provide corporate transparency, and ongoing litigation risks."Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-27552979881179158522014-06-07T12:56:28.833-04:002014-06-07T12:56:28.833-04:00"plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere.."
If ..."plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere.."<br /><br />If the science policy gig goes south, RP can always get a job writing scream plays for porno fliks Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-58827610044495255302014-06-07T11:43:52.405-04:002014-06-07T11:43:52.405-04:00Chuckle.
At this point, he's a lobbyist. Pus...Chuckle. <br /><br />At this point, he's a lobbyist. Pushing the claim that regulation is politically impossible is what defines him as a lobbyist.<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/04/25/septic-org/#comment-45629<br /><br />https://epafacts.com/full-page-ad-highlights-epa-threat/<br /><br />http://acronymrequired.com/2011/10/the-four-dog-defense.html<br /><br /><br /><br />Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-42093822765000947702014-06-07T11:04:12.653-04:002014-06-07T11:04:12.653-04:00Good points Dano...he is called "Rodger the d...Good points Dano...he is called "Rodger the dodger" after all. Cornering him is time consuming, he is even more slippery than a second-hand car salesperson.<br /><br />Posting this here form another thread at Eli's for continuity:<br /><br /><i>"....It has been a very bad few months for poor Pielke Jnr., no wonder Roger is imploding and has now resorting to saying things like this in public (from his Twitter account):<br /><br /><b>"...Otherwise, plz go wag your c*cks elsewhere..."</b> Pielke Jnr. 2014<br /><br />[H/T to Andy for the quote]<br /><br />Odd thing for him to say to say given that Roger is always doing the same on the intertubes and before Congress.<br /><br />Best part is that the above quote is clear evidence that Roger has really lost the "debate", amongst other things :)"</i>Albatrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14444036939651524737noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-19562294394782397122014-06-07T10:55:37.210-04:002014-06-07T10:55:37.210-04:00Roger Pielke Jr. has spent a career trying to inse...Roger Pielke Jr. has spent a career trying to insert himself into the public gallery of talking climate heads and misdirecting us about climate policy, including recurring misleading testimony at the behest of denialist Congress-types. Now he says there's a lack of political will to implement strong carbon pricing. There's something perverse about that. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/26/republicans-congress-climate-change-testimony-risk" rel="nofollow">Linky 1</a> <br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/fivethirtyeight-pielke-downplay-climate-damages.html" rel="nofollow">Linky 2</a> <br /><a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/pielke-jr-mcintyre-assist-christy-extreme-weather-obfuscation.html" rel="nofollow">Linky 3</a><br /><a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/critique_of_pielke_jr_statements_on_drought.pdf" rel="nofollow">Linky 4</a> (PDF)<br /><br />- WheelsOCAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-86246292526318603272014-06-07T08:59:57.046-04:002014-06-07T08:59:57.046-04:00Bunnies must always keep their eye on the ball and...Bunnies must always keep their eye on the ball and ask for evidence for the assertion. And not let the other person distract, hand-wave, dissemble, or change the subject when they don't produce evidence or the evidence they produce doesn't back their claim. <br /><br />If bunnies do this, 99.375% of the time you get what poor hapless RP Jr just did.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-32786917243139930502014-06-07T08:34:11.891-04:002014-06-07T08:34:11.891-04:00"Wag your cocks"? Classy."Wag your cocks"? Classy.Adamnoreply@blogger.com