Read here and here. Yesterday was unique in a sense that it had Roger Pielke, Jr. (the "Honest Broker") criticizing Sarah Palin for her innocuous, politician style comments about Climategate, and then lauding the Tom Friedman's climate-crisis hysteria NYT's column. Usually, Roger is a good source of climate/economic/energy information, without needless partisanship or snark, but....
it would seem Roger is feeling a need to assure others he is a 'liberal-man' and can bash Palin with the best, while making sure to kiss-the-ass of the critical liberal overlords, such as Friedman.
I really don't want to get into the mindset of the liberals' derangement syndrome about Palin but here's her statements that provoked the Pielke broadside:
Palin: "This [email] scandal obviously calls into question the proposals being pushed in Copenhagen. I've always believed that policy should be based on sound science, not politics."
Pielke: You won't find two more wrong statements in an op-ed anywhere in 2009.
That's it - two sentences that Roger feels are the "two most wrong statements in an op-ed anywhere in 2009." Did we say hyperbole? Did we say exaggeration? Did we say, WTF? Go to his Palin post, again, and read what he says. Then read what the commenters say. Let's just say this was not one of Roger's finer moments and should remind everyone that most scientists are political advocates who have a definite agenda, which means one can't trust much what they say about science unless a heavy dose of due diligence is done. Climategate has proven that in spades.
Regarding Tom Friedman's pundit column, one can only assume that Roger's praising a global warming hysteria meme is a sure sign a certain individual is working on improving his relationship with the New York Times. With that snark behind us, let's take a look at multiple Friedman's statements that may be a collection of the most "wrong" statements in 2009."According to the Precautionary Principle, it is appropriate to respond aggressively to low-probability, high-impact events — such as climate change."
"In a few instances, they revealed some leading climatologists seemingly massaging data to show more global warming and excluding contradictory research."
- And if that is so, we then need to attack both Iran and North Korea immediately to avert potential nuclear terrorism, which has greater than a 1% probability of happening. Or, there's greater than a 1% chance of the mega-tsunami striking the U.S. east coast, swamping NYC and Washington, DC. In the national interest, all citizens must move away from the almost assured path of destruction,now, since it's been "predicted" by a computer model and could happen at any time.
"Yes, the climate-denier community, funded by big oil, has published all sorts of bogus science for years."
- A few? Seemingly? Roger, possibly you could have pointed out to your friend Thomas that he is hugely understating the facts and important issues.
"The evidence that our planet, since the Industrial Revolution, has been on a broad warming trend outside the normal variation patterns"..."has been documented by a variety of independent research centers."
- Roger, do you think the "denier" label thrown around by Friedman is appropriate for your father, or has he become expendable? In essence, Friedman is talking about your father. Funded by big oil? Bogus science? Is it possible you might just grow some cahones to call Friedman out on these often repeated, blatant fabrications that liberals love to slander opponents with?
“Despite recent fluctuations in global temperature year to year, which fueled claims of global cooling, a sustained global warming trend shows no signs of ending"
- Roger, Medieval Warming? Roman Warming? Holocene? If you don't have the information at hand to point out Tom's ignorance, point him here for a remedial review of climate history and here for an education on 'urban-only' global warming. And Roger, the research centers he refers to are the ones that have fabricated surface temperatures that sooo many scientists take issue with.
"As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped."
"It’s all a game of odds. We’ve never been here before."
- Roger, could you explain to Friedman about the physics of CO2 and its logarithmic nature? Unless, of course, you don't believe in physics.
"We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is “irreversible” in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash “catastrophic” warming."
- Actually, the odds are definitely in our favor since the world has been "here" before, multiple times, and we humans have an amazing capacity to adapt.
"Well, during a transition period, we would have higher energy prices."
- No, the majority of peer-reviewed science states that CO2 does not stay in the atmosphere a very long time, Roger. Unleash "catastrophic" warming? Sheessh, a liberal, boogeyman campfire story that has no scientific basis, other than being a climate model prediction (think MEGA-TSUNAMI) that you could have easily shot down as a scientist. Notice though, how Friedman does not mention the failed climate models as a reason to move forward on 'cap & trade.' He's not as dumb as his previous statements indicate and deserves praise for at least that.
"But gradually we would be driving battery-powered electric cars and powering more and more of our homes and factories with wind, solar, nuclear and second-generation biofuels. In short, as a country, we would be stronger, more innovative and more energy independent."
- Really, just a transition period? But then energy prices would be lower, later on? Is this some new Friedman energy/economic model the world does not know about that you can elaborate on, Roger? (I do remember as a kid "experts" predicting electricity costs would be close to zero with nuclear energy. Damn those experts, wrong again.)
- Roger, we would be stronger because we will have to transfer trillions mandated by the UN climate reparations scheme? Stronger because energy-sensitive industries will move overseas? Stronger because the liberal-Friedman, big government solution will require more regulations, more bureaucrats and more consumer taxes be paid? Our country will become more innovative because it drives battery powered cars? We will become more innovative because our homes have solar water heaters? We will become more energy dependent because at night the wind dies down and the sun goes to sleep? We will become more energy independent because nuclear plants will not be allowed to replace coal plants in the U.S.? Roger, could you have possibly pointed out to Friedman that he really doesn't get it, like at all? All of these stronger, innovative, and independent statements are ludicrous, liberal nonsense.
So, am I being unfair? Pielke Jr. calls Palin's two sentences "nonsense." But then praises Friedman, despite a column, sentence-after-sentence, filled with liberal global warming, climate change and energy nonsense.
Update: To understand Roger's position better, it is important to appreciate that he is the ultimate "decarbonization" fanatic. Read here what he thinks, and always factor that in when reading his posts - his often mentioned "decarbonization" mantra does not seem to be tied to economic, political and/or military reality, but what the heck. He's almost always a good read, except on those rare occasions when the "Honest Broker" facade isn't too convenient, as in the Palin/Friedman postings.