4 ms·

Interesting take by a scientist who was a witness in this trial: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/fal

by timmg 3y ago

Interesting take by a scientist who was a witness in this trial: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence

bluefirebrand 3y ago
Thank you for sharing this. It's interesting to see this perspective.
mikeyouse 3y ago
[flagged]
- graphe 3y ago
  What makes someone a scientist? Who else did he witness?
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    > What makes someone a scientist? When discussing climate change? A degree in climatology or meteorology or anything relevant. Pielke's father for instance is a PhD meteorologist (and prominent climate denier) so if he had weighed in, saying "this other scientist has an opinion" would be entirely fair. I generally like Pielke Jr's pushback - it is important to consider the ramifications of what's being proposed and to have accurate info, but describing him as a "scientist that testified" really downplays his role. > Who else did he witness? Not sure what this question means..
    - graphe 3y ago
      I asked what is a scientist, not what is a climate scientist. You said he frequently witnesses other irredeemable characters, such as whom?
- thinkingtoilet 3y ago
  Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure the OP conveniently forgot to mention that which is typical and not surprising.
  - timmg 3y ago
    In what way do you think my post was misleading?
    - thinkingtoilet 3y ago
      Saying he's a "scientist" while talking about climate change and failing to mention he's not a scientist in the relevant field. It's like going to a doctor to get something looked at and finding out they got their doctor in ethno-musicology. Yes, they are a doctor. No, they shouldn't be diagnosing medical issues.
      - timmg 3y ago
        He is absolutely a scientist and he has done a lot of work in understanding trends in damage from natural disasters (which is super important in understanding the effects of climate change.) If anything, the post above is "spreading disinformation" about Pielke Jr.
- timmg 3y ago
  > he is a political scientist, not an actual scientist, He is an "actual scientist" by any measure. He has many peer-reviewed papers. One of the things he's spent the most time researching is around costs and trends in damage from extreme weather. It is ironic that someone would make a post like this when we are talking about a blogger claiming that a different scientist's work was invalid.
  - mikeyouse 3y ago
    It's amusing how the HN sentiment shifts on the validity of social sciences degrees depending on the topic at hand.. IMO, if your PhD is outside of "STEM", you probably shouldn't call yourself a 'scientist'. There are plenty of english literature PhDs who have many peer-reviewed papers, and none of them are 'scientists', so no I don't buy that a PolySci or Econ researcher are scientists "by any measure". In any case, don't listen to me, listen to a certain Roger Pielke Jr.: > Now I am not a climate scientist and just like I accept the consensus of the IPCC, I am compelled to accept the consensus of the hurricane community.
- itsoktocry 3y ago
  >he is a political scientist, not an actual scientist, and is a frequent witness for the looniest of right-wing congressmen Straight to the ad-hominem, dismissing the POV based on titles and associations.
  - epistasis 3y ago
    The entire blog post is judgement calls, it's eminently fair to call into question his judgement. Particularly is somebody goes by "The Honest Broker" but instead seems to prefer partisan political fights. So in sum: if he frequently has partisan politics, that's pretty important to know. Almost no climate scientists get active in partisan politics because they don't want it to taint the perception of the science. Since the perception was tainted anyway, and acceptance of facts and science have become so politicized along partisan lines, I think there are more scientists who are open to working with politicians, at somewhat of a distance.
burkaman 3y ago
I think this is interesting to read and constructive for the discussion, but "a scientist who was a witness" is a fairly misleading description. This is not like an independent expert that was just called in for the trial, which is what I first thought when I read your description, this is someone with a very long (10+ year) history of personal conflict with Mann. That doesn't mean anyone should discount his opinion, but it's very important context for reading the post. > As I said at the trial, Mann has not been the best colleague to me, but I am fine even so. Who knows what demons haunt him and why he behaves the way that he does. I do hope he can find peace at some point. Clearly this person's perspective is driven by more than just being "a scientist".

by timmg 3y ago

Interesting take by a scientist who was a witness in this trial: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/false-equivalence

bluefirebrand 3y ago

Thank you for sharing this. It's interesting to see this perspective.

mikeyouse 3y ago

[flagged]

graphe 3y ago
What makes someone a scientist? Who else did he witness?
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  > What makes someone a scientist? When discussing climate change? A degree in climatology or meteorology or anything relevant. Pielke's father for instance is a PhD meteorologist (and prominent climate denier) so if he had weighed in, saying "this other scientist has an opinion" would be entirely fair. I generally like Pielke Jr's pushback - it is important to consider the ramifications of what's being proposed and to have accurate info, but describing him as a "scientist that testified" really downplays his role. > Who else did he witness? Not sure what this question means..
  - graphe 3y ago
    I asked what is a scientist, not what is a climate scientist. You said he frequently witnesses other irredeemable characters, such as whom?
thinkingtoilet 3y ago
Thanks for the clarification. I'm sure the OP conveniently forgot to mention that which is typical and not surprising.
- timmg 3y ago
  In what way do you think my post was misleading?
  - thinkingtoilet 3y ago
    Saying he's a "scientist" while talking about climate change and failing to mention he's not a scientist in the relevant field. It's like going to a doctor to get something looked at and finding out they got their doctor in ethno-musicology. Yes, they are a doctor. No, they shouldn't be diagnosing medical issues.
    - timmg 3y ago
      He is absolutely a scientist and he has done a lot of work in understanding trends in damage from natural disasters (which is super important in understanding the effects of climate change.) If anything, the post above is "spreading disinformation" about Pielke Jr.
timmg 3y ago
> he is a political scientist, not an actual scientist, He is an "actual scientist" by any measure. He has many peer-reviewed papers. One of the things he's spent the most time researching is around costs and trends in damage from extreme weather. It is ironic that someone would make a post like this when we are talking about a blogger claiming that a different scientist's work was invalid.
- mikeyouse 3y ago
  It's amusing how the HN sentiment shifts on the validity of social sciences degrees depending on the topic at hand.. IMO, if your PhD is outside of "STEM", you probably shouldn't call yourself a 'scientist'. There are plenty of english literature PhDs who have many peer-reviewed papers, and none of them are 'scientists', so no I don't buy that a PolySci or Econ researcher are scientists "by any measure". In any case, don't listen to me, listen to a certain Roger Pielke Jr.: > Now I am not a climate scientist and just like I accept the consensus of the IPCC, I am compelled to accept the consensus of the hurricane community.
itsoktocry 3y ago
>he is a political scientist, not an actual scientist, and is a frequent witness for the looniest of right-wing congressmen Straight to the ad-hominem, dismissing the POV based on titles and associations.
- epistasis 3y ago
  The entire blog post is judgement calls, it's eminently fair to call into question his judgement. Particularly is somebody goes by "The Honest Broker" but instead seems to prefer partisan political fights. So in sum: if he frequently has partisan politics, that's pretty important to know. Almost no climate scientists get active in partisan politics because they don't want it to taint the perception of the science. Since the perception was tainted anyway, and acceptance of facts and science have become so politicized along partisan lines, I think there are more scientists who are open to working with politicians, at somewhat of a distance.

burkaman 3y ago

I think this is interesting to read and constructive for the discussion, but "a scientist who was a witness" is a fairly misleading description. This is not like an independent expert that was just called in for the trial, which is what I first thought when I read your description, this is someone with a very long (10+ year) history of personal conflict with Mann. That doesn't mean anyone should discount his opinion, but it's very important context for reading the post. > As I said at the trial, Mann has not been the best colleague to me, but I am fine even so. Who knows what demons haunt him and why he behaves the way that he does. I do hope he can find peace at some point. Clearly this person's perspective is driven by more than just being "a scientist".