Talk:Roger A. Pielke

Disamb
There is no obvious reason to priviledge Sr over Jr - both are about equally famous. So I'd rather move RAP to RAP (Sr) and make RAP a disambig. Comments? William M. Connolley 19:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC).
 * That's an excellent idea. Go for it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Complaint
The entire last section starting with "Yet, Pielke has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of cherry picking data to support an alarmist view of the science[2]. Pielke has reached the following conclusions with respect to climate science on his weblog:

following bullet point list of items taken from Pielke's web site which I will not repeat.

Without saying much more this is rhetorical ("Yet, Dr. Pielke...") based on individual interpretation and personal political point of view (POV)... and should be deleted.

Example - bullet point criticizing Pielke for saying ... "Global and regional climate models have not demonstrated skill at predicting climate change and variability on multi-decadal time scales"

I do not know a climate modeler including the IPCC 4 participants that would agree with this criticism - climate models are parametric models having initial boundary condition bias, interpretation bias and linked system computational issues. It simply is not possible to make quantitative predictions for more than 1 or 2 decades... what Pielke must have meant by "multidecadal models..."

I have not met Pielke but from the edits it appears that Dr. Pielke is getting smeared. DBecher Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 06:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand quite what you are complaining about. For example, "Global and regional climate models have not..." is a direct quote from RAP. I personnally agree with you that it isn't sensible, but I don't understand how it can be "smearing" him when its a quote he himself has put up. Or have I misunderstood you? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you miss my point...

1. On the specific point of Pielke saying it is not possible to make multidecadal models ... your note suggests that you believe that multidecadal forcasting models are robust in predicting long term warming, something that is simply not true and THAT is Pielke's point.

2. If I were Pielke I would vehemently object to someone making a post on my bio and views simply to try to discredit me. First of all I (and Pielke) are not this important, secondly as a living breathing human being I should at least be consulted.

Insofar as Wiki is concerned it is supposed to be non ideological, I suggest to leave yours at home.

Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Dbecher the bullet point list on the article is the official position (verbatim) of Pielke Sr. It is presented on his website (and gets pointed to by Pielke each time he is asked for) as his official position. I suggest that you check the reference. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bullets are directly from Roger's web site. My intent is to make sure that this has a NPOV from someone writing a living biography. This typically is done either because someone is familiar and is a fan or because they have views that do not agree with the person they are biographng.

I did not agree/like the opening sentence under On Climate Change heading, "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Meaning of nuanced does not fit here (expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning - OED). And ..."sometimes taken for skeptism" - by whom? Where is the reference? Skeptism is a relative term depending on the commenters POV. Did Pielke say this about himself? If not it risks POV which should be avoided in living biographies.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * can't immeadiately find the "skeptic" thingy. Take it out if you like; ever since he started shouting on his web site I've been of the opinion that he has crossed the invisible line William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added two references, to specific instances where Pielke has been misquoted/misunderstood - precisely because his views (as the list indicates) is nuanced - the first one includes a rejection of the sceptics part. Btw. i fail to see that having a nuanced view is contentious? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Confklict - referee
Kim, the point is not to make up a third person biography that has Point of View and this has Point of View ... I suggest Pielke the living biographee should be the one to resolve what he wants cherry picked to represent his statements and opinions and views rather than have someone else say his views are nuanced and he is considered by some to be a skeptic.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem? A biography should describe the person that it is about in a neutral and non-POV way. That Pielke has a nuanced view on climate change is an accurate description of him - there is nothing inherently biased about this (not even implicitely imho). On the other hand he has been described as a sceptic by several media and (quite notable) by Sen Inhofe in several reports. Pielke denies this vehemently, and while i agree with WMC that he may by now have stepped into real sceptic land, it is irrelevant for the biography - but that he is stating that he isn't a sceptic is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Without giving away too much in terms of privacy, I'm personally acquainted with the individual who originally wrote the nuanced bit. There can be no doubt whatsoever that it reflects his own views. (Full disclosure, Roger was my Ph.D. advisor and I have avoided editing this article for that reason.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you be a bit more specific? As i read the above i can't decipher whether you mean that the person who wrote "nuanced" is expressing his personal POV - or if he is expressing Pielke's POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the ambiguous antecedent -- there's no doubt it reflects Roger's own views. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. And thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to be an obstructionist and I will pursue. I do not believe Roger Pielke has or would call his opinion "nuanced" as this is a relative term, as is "skeptic" both depending on the eyes of the person expressing opinion.  A person's nuanced intent in calling Pielke's views nuanced or skeptical is much different than another persons depending on POV.  I cannot imagine why it is difficult to make a third person living being biography factual - Pielke ---this, Pielke has done ---that, and Pielke has said ---this.  Maybe we are being too clever by half. The meaning of James Inhofe (a super skeptic) referring to Pielke as a skeptic is very different from and advocate saying the same thing. One is supporting and the other is condemning.  Keep it simple.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Dh's position. KDP has found us a nice source for RP not wanting to be called a sceptic William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you explained to us why you consider having a nuanced view is problematic? From what i've read on his blog and elsewhere, this is in fact what he has, and what his bullet-list shows. I also can't understand why you object to us saying that Pielke objects to being a sceptic, especially with the sources given. He is often misunderstood by media (and people like Inhofe) and characterized as a sceptic - take a look at the long discussions that we've had on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - where there has been a push to get Pielke on the list. Specifically because people misunderstand his attitude. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had rested. As it stands, I believe this furthers confusion and controversy on Pielke’s views on climate change. I do not know him personally but doubt if he would agree with this and he might even consider it pejorative or inflammatory.

This is WP:LB, it contains:

1. A background section briefly lists his academic and professional credentials;

2 Expository “On climate change” NOT on climate change ! But as put in the very first sentence …. Pielke’s “somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.” My concern is on how this is presented and not on the broader climate debate or Roger as a scientist or involved party of the discussion.

Consider including -- what has Roger done, of any value, does his work warrant some discussion? This WP:LB article doesn’t care. By your acknowledgement and implication of the article Pielke’s position on climate change is an ongoing subject of debate – this is controversial for readers with different POVs. The article seems to want to put on public record some ongoing controversy about Pielke views. What is the purpose?

I was interested in the Pielke references containing his rebuttal against accusations that he is a skeptic – these were linked to Roger’s former Climate Science web site (shut down - replaced by another with focus only on science discussion to avoid POV / personal attacks).

I said that … “nuanced” and “skeptic” are relative terms subject to interpretation by readers and using these in a neutral biography furthers confusion or controversy. If I am called a skeptic by Uber skeptic Inhofe what does that mean? That Inhofe embraces me because I match his value system? … Or that Inhofe thinks I am not skeptical enough? If an Uber advocate (say, e.g., Pachauri) said I was a skeptic this could range from a) accusing me of being a self confirmed flaming denier to b) someone who might have been incorrectly misunderstood on one statement? I realize this sort of classification is dealt with probably for the same reasons on the List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming. However even more than The List, the Pielke article is even more clearly WP:LB and should not present with an intent to further controversy suggesting a label.

By the way I looked over with interest the discussion on The List…. and I conclude that Pielke is judged a) to allowed to be considered as a scientist b) that he understands the difference between projection and prediction / forecast and c) otherwise does not fall under any other classifications used by the judgers.

As for being nuanced, I personally think this is garble here… compared to what? Not the Mainstream, Pielke avoided being put on that List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream …

How about getting Pielke to vet this bio? Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided (Jan 21, 2008) a very clear response to KDP (Jan 15, 2008) which supported whast I had said... There were no further comments and it's Feb 7. As said this is too clever by half, let's use caution and use simple language where there is any possible controversy such as trying to mold someone's character bssed on our opinions. I am modifying the part in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbecher-hamburg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I cannot imagine that you do not understand what I said. Why would KDP and WMC choose to further controversy about some non existant debate on Pielke being labeled a skeptic or not in this article. It has not shown to be the case and the article stands just fine without it. WMC made his opinions clear about Pielke when he said "ever since he started shouting on his web site I've been of the opinion that he has crossed the invisible line William M. Connolley (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)" - this is inappropriate and unprofessional. I stand on my argument that debating what is a skeptical is relative and without clarification of intent may be damaging and pejorative. The whole issue of trying to propagate labels with terms such as skeptic is not ok in a LPB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbecher-hamburg (talk • contribs)
 * As documented in the references - Pielke is often cited in mainstream media as a "sceptic". He resents this (imho for good reasons) - and has in at least the two referenced cases, strongly reacted to this. We have no reason to believe that Pielke doesn't still feel this way (in fact from my readings on his blog - i'd say its pretty certain that he hasn't).
 * On the other hand, Pielke doesn't have a mainstream view on the science (which he also makes very clear), thus the nuanced bit. (something which i'll point out that we have had a former student of his confirm).
 * If you really feel for this - then please ask Dr. Pielke in an email whether or not he finds the sentences accurate. Iirc Dr. Pielke has commented on his WP biography before, so why shouldn't he again? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pielke will not give you a usable answer - he has avoided doing so in the past. But it doesn't really matter - we can't use a private email anyway, except to clarify the ambiguous. Calling Pielkes position nuanced was true two years ago. Its getting less nuanced all the time, and the ref'd post re IPCC errors is silly. But he does disclaim being a skeptic. I'm still unsure why Dh is so worried by all this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Skeptic or not is not the point
I don't some sort of problem as WMC suggests. And I do not have a position on Pielke. KDP and WMC want to focus on the point of whether or not Pielke is a skeptic or not (this is the opening line of the substance part of the article). This is not my point – point is you shouldn’t be talking about this in a biography. It is not relevant. And I don’t give a hoot what a former student has said about his PhD adviser. Has anyone established the former student as a spokeman for Pielke's background and character. I have worshiped / cursed (choose one) my PhD advisor many times, and so what. It is not relevant. Skeptic is a relative term in the eye of the beholder and should not be a point of debate in a WP:LPB. Doesn't matter if Pielke is a skeptic or not, and doesn't matter if a reference is given to outside sources. You include this, for what, to say that this has been a subject of debate... and so what. Mentioning a non existent controversy in a wiki biography wouild appear to be done only to further some idea that whether Pielke is a skeptic remains some sort of debate or controversy  This has no place in a wiki biography.59.12.64.132 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. The label "skeptic" is one that some people hate and others love to flaunt. Why is it irrelevant in a bio? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The article statement says “Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he renounces .”   My point is, by whom and by what definition.   This is part of a bigger problem with trying to label people.

Including this in Pielke’s WP:BLP says there some sort of ongoing debate on whether Pielke is or is not a skeptic.


 * Yeeees... and this is fair enough, because there is, though its hardly a raging one. But whenever 2 climatologists get together and end up discussing RP Sr, the question "is he a skeptic or not"? comes up. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 1. The “skeptic” label is a relative semantic that requires a point of reference or comparison (unless you are a Sophist and doubt everything). By some definitions you would be called a skeptic, by others just the opposite. We are both skeptics on climate change by some measures – if you deny this you are not a scientist. Since calling “A” a skeptic cannot be verified or falsified without context it is a nothing, nonsense statement.


 * I don't agree. Pielke is often "claimed" as a skeptic by the skeptic side. Its hard to know precisely how to define the sketpic side, but we all know what it is. Please don't take refuge in the dictdef of a skeptic. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 2. Including this in the opening statement of the substantial paragraph of the Pielke WP:LPB “(Roger Pielke) On Climate Change” furthers the idea that there is some sort of ongoing debate / controversy on whether Roger Pielke is or is not a skeptic. So it appears your only reason for including it is to make the point that this is somehow debatable. From Point 1 this is a nonsense statement. The point is not whether the statement is true or false, there is no way to validate, so it is a nonsense statement and should be deleted. Leaving it furthers an unsupported declaration that - this debate is ongoing and there is still some possibility that Pielke could yet be deemed a skeptic. It is possibly pejorative and prejudicial. If you don’t have to include why would you want to?

Article says “Pielke has denied accusations about him being a skeptic on climate change”  is not the point.

Point 3. Moreover, as you and KDP alerted earlier, there was a lot of discussion and debate on whether to include Pielke on the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The authoring group extensively discussed placing Pielke on this list and could not justify doing that– as I understand it that group gave labels to a large group of scientists deemed to have made “X” or more statements opposed to the said “mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.”

The point is not about whether A, B, and C are skeptics or not, or on the “list opposing the mainstream science.” In assigning such relative semantic labels you really do need to have a statistically significant and objective measure of the total population deciding the outcome supporting the labeling. A group of people representing one side of an argument does not do it.


 * You seem to be a bit obsessed by the relative semantic labels fun. But in fact that doesn't apply to the wiki list, which is based on fairly objective criteria based on what people have said. The large discussion around RP's inclusion was because he is deliberately ambiguous. Personally I would now consider him a skeptic, but thats only my view William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You said “what is the big point, that some people love being called a skeptic and some hate being called a skeptic. “  I don’t believe you said this in response to my earlier points!


 * You are correct not to believe this, because I didn't say it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since KDP and WMC do not like this, I have come up with an alternative that does not make any deletions.

“… a condition worse than blindness… is seeing something that isn't there.” (Hardy)Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces [1][2]. Notably, Pielke’s view is supported by the decision after by authors of the Wikipedia article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, to not include Pielke on their list. Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That doesn't quite make sense. "This ambiguity is reflected in the debate over whether to include him..." would, but we're not allowed to ref wiki for things like that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Coming into this late, I can see exactly the point that Dbecher-hamburg is making. To simplify the matter, it needs merely to be observed that "skeptic on climate change" in itself is a meaningless designation. The reader has no way of knowing what is meant by "climate change" or "skeptic". Fred Singer believes in "climate change" as does Richard Lindzen as does Roger Pielke Sr. as does James Hansen. Does this mean there are no skeptics? RAP's criticism is directed at the IPCC. He is not skeptical on "climate change" and there's nothing "nuanced" about it. He is critical of the IPCC and that's what the article should say. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are simplifying beyond what Pielke's position is. He is not "only" (or "completely") critical of the IPCC - he thinks that some current climate change research is moving in a wrong direction. His stand is primarily on regional climate change vs. global. Thus his view is nuanced, and cannot simply be captured as "GW sceptic", "critical of the IPCC", .... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not simplifying anything, whereas you have completely simplified RAP's position in this statement. It is a fact that Pielke Sr. is highly critical of the IPCC. But being highly critical of something does not imply a total rejection of everything said. In fact it doesn't imply a rejection of anything said. It's a question of what is emphasised and what is excluded, and that's what Pielke criticises them for fiercely. Ross McKitrick is also obviously highly critical of the IPCC but he doesn't disagree with everything they've done either. Neither does Fred Singer. No one's view can be captured as simply "GW sceptic". (And this is why the "list of scientists opposing climate change" page is completely bogus in trying to "box" every skeptic with the end result being a misrepresention of the views of nearly every one of them... another matter...) The very fact we're having this discussion betrays the fact that you are seeing this whole debate (=you the editor and this why the article reveals your own POV) in terms of "party memberships" rather than "scientific viewpoints." There is nothing "nuanced" about his position on "climate change" however. It's quite clear. See Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change If you want "nuanced" consider positions on quantum mechanics. Pielke's position on climate change on the other hand could be understood by high school students. The problem is people just don't like the fact that he's "crossed the floor" and "voting with the skeptics" on a number of issues. Alex Harvey (talk) 23:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - but Singer is (regardless of the measure used) a GW sceptic. And he is about as far from Pielke Sr. as can be thought of. Pielke acknowledges every single part of the major IPCC consensus in the link you gave. He is (from what i can read there) a Kyoto sceptic (which is policy - not science) though. His being "highly critical of the IPCC"-part is certainly not evident in that perspective. Try to separate policy (Kyoto) from science (IPCC WGI). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Now he's a "Kyoto-skeptic"? You've got to be kidding me. Do I have to find all the hundreds of criticisms he's made about the IPCC? You go on "from what I read there"... In other words, you are conceding that you've appointed yourself as owner of this article on ROGER A. PIELKE SR's LIFE yet you have very little knowledge of the material. Yet that isn't stopping you from blocking the edits of people who DO understand the material.
 * Correct?
 * The subtext of this article is, "Pielke has a nuanced position on climate change. Pielke is tricky. Handle with care. If you are not a climate scientist, we the Wikipedia Editors advise you NOT to read Pielke."
 * Getting back to the point: do you agree or disagree that the designation "skeptic on climate change" is meaningless unless "skeptic" is defined and "climate change" is defined within the context of the article? Alex Harvey (talk) 02:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)No. Incorrect. I'm not the owner of the article or claim to be ... nor am i unfamiliar with Pielke Sr.'s writings. Perhaps you should tone down your assumptions and personal comments, and instead be specific in what the problem is (with references). And no, i believe most people know what sceptic in this context means, if they are unaware of it - then they will read the references. (we have 2 for this particular sentence). My "from what i read" is directed towards you reference, which i just read again.
 * My references to Kyoto, where based on Pielke's rather explicit rejection of the current policy direction with regards to climate change (ie. how to address AGW) and thats something quite different from the scientific aspects of climate change. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you know the material, how is it then that you are denying that Pielke Sr is highly critical of the IPCC?
 * I'm not denying anything (why would i?), your statement is just too sweeping and general to make sense. How is he highly critical? In which way? What does the IPCC is too conservative indicate? ... --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed rewrite of 'climate change' section
I would like to rewrite the section on Pielke's views on "climate change" based on what RAP has written himself at: Currently the article is biased by the undue weight given to discussion of the question "is RAP a 'skeptic' on 'climate change' or not?", and furthermore, the article is suffering badly from lack of clarity since "skeptic on climate change" / "nuanced position on climate change" are meaningless designations unless both "nuanced" and "climate change" are further qualified within the context of the article. Does anyone oppose this? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Climate Science Group's Main Conclusions
 * Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change
 * I'm rather confused as to what you think is undue weight. We have exactly one sentence addressed by two references, and that in a section that is entirely focused on Pielke's explicit stated views on climate change. The whole could do with a rewrite though, so that most of it isn't a verbatim copy of the main conclusions ref. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 04:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if you're happy for some sort of rewrite I guess it's better if I just get on with it. Yes, look, it's one sentence, but it's the first sentence. If it was one sentence at the end of a 500 word section, it would be in proper context, and it wouldn't have undue weight. As the first sentence in the crucial section on his views on climate change it puts controversy ahead of his actual views. That's hardly fair. Maybe it was unintentional. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay a draft is here: User:Alexh19740110/RAP Does anyone have any complaints so far? Alex Harvey (talk) 07:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes - i have one: You are not writing an essay - but an encyclopedia. (the last part is completely WP:OR btw). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I've written one paragraph that factually states Pielke's actual views with reference to reliable sources. In what way is this more like an "essay" than an "encyclopedia"? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The section with "In his written testimony" is written in a way that is appropriate for an essay - but not for an encyclopedia. It enters territory where you are telling a story from a specific perspective, rather than presenting the bare facts. ... Its cherry-picking POV land (not extremely so - but still :-). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think see your point about WP:OR although that's only because I haven't got around yet to justifying this with Pielke's actual statements. Is that the only problem? Alex Harvey (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to use secondary sources, instead of primary. The 2 prime references that you gave (main conclusions and perspective) are good ones though, since they are written with precision in mind.
 * The very first sentence "but he does not believe that it is the only anthropogenic climate forcing, nor even necessarily the most important one" is too vague - it leaves out the most important part of Pielke's viewpoint, which is that regional and local changes are more important than global ones, and that most metrics used globally are unimportant (trending towards unusable) on a reg/local scale (here CO2). [as a sidecomment: Be careful in general to separate Pielke's comments into global and reg/local ones... His writings can be deceptive if you have the wrong context (ie. not the one Pielke is referring to) in mind...]
 * Hope my comments help ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. There is nothing "vague" about that text... I have read it several times and I cannot but conclude that the meaning of the sentence is quite clear. The trouble you are having with it, apparently, is not vagueness, but that it's saying something other than what you want it to say.
 * Actually its vague, in that it indicates that Pielke may consider GHG's a smaller anthro forcing on the global scale - which i rather doubt. There is no doubt that he considers it so on the reg/local scale though. Its as i said earlier a question of context. Here you are speaking in general (incl. global).
 * 2. How can secondary sources be preferrable to primary sources when the subject is Pielke's personal view of something?
 * Because primary sources are subject to interpretation, cherry-picking and weight. Secondary sources have already done the work regarding weight etc. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3. To say that something is "more important" is a POV. "Importance" is relative. More important to you? to me? to Pielke? to the world? Wikipedia/encyclopedias are about the facts. If you want to claim that something is more important, then you need to prove it. It is a fact that Pielke has on many occasions, when trying to clarify his view on attribution of climate change, opened with the material I am opening with. He has explicitly stated that this view is to be used whenever there is doubt on what his view is. Allow me to quote:
 * There continues to be misunderstandings on my viewpoint on the role of humans within the climate system. This weblog is written to make sure it is clear, and can be used whenever someone asks the question as to where does Pielke Sr. stand on this issue. [my emphasis]
 * Yes? The trouble here is that you are writing something that interprets Pielke's words - you aren't quoting verbatim. When you do so, you risk that your interpretation takes things out of context and importance. If you read the whole, then you will notice that Pielke considers the reg/local picture more important than the global one, and that he considers emphasis on the global metrics wrong. That is the major take-home message. Btw. you are entirely correct on importance - which is why you should find secondary sources, and not rely on your own (or my) reading of Pielke. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * [snip, moving on to the section Pielke has emphasised with bold font]
 * This next section is policy - not science. Its Pielke's personal advocacy - make certain that you separate this from the science. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results (such as reported in the 2005 National Research Council report) that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report. To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information. [emphasis in original]
 * The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.
 * My summary of Pielke's view on attribution of climate change is very consistent both in substance and emphasis with Pielke's own summary of his own view on attribution of climate change. [From Roger A. Pielke Sr.’s Perspective On The Role Of Humans In Climate Change]
 * I agree that the point about regional vs global needs to be included, but in the next paragraph. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Read it again. Pielke's most important point, and thus what you should focus on, is reg/local. Not global. (as a sidenote: please use italics instead of bold - bold is shouting, italics is emphasis). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Kim, do you agree or disagree that section Pielke has given in boldface is the section I have included? Assuming you agree, are you suggesting that the "most important" point is the point Pielke has chosen not to highlight with boldface? Alex Harvey (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, don't worry, I see your point; he's added boldface emphasis in his quote which wasn't in the original. Which means we still have the fact that when he communicates this to non-scientists (e.g. in the testimony to the House of Reps that I am using) he has chosen not to open with this point, and I think the reason is obvious: because regional vs global is a little technical. Again, for the Wikipedia article, I am standing by my belief that the subtler issue of regional vs global should come in the second para. If you don't agree then we'll need to seek arbitration because I have already seen in the history of this article that yourself & WMC have overruled about 10 other editors who have tried to remove "nuanced" and I frankly believe you are still trying to make this whole thing look as "nuanced" as possible. It doesn't need to look "nuanced" however because RAP's view is very easy to understand when it is given a fair presentation. Alex Harvey (talk) 03:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NPA and WP:AGF, since these seem troublesome for you. If Pielke is so clear, then please answer these questions: Is radiative forcing the major impact on global climate? If not - then what forcing is the major one? In Pielke's view - is the Anthropogenic impact larger than the "natural" one?
 * Yes, i am trying to make you see the nuances in Pielke's views. If you want to seek arbitration - then feel free, i'm certainly not going to stand in the way of it. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

This is frustrating and time-wasting and I could better improve the Wikipedia by continuing to write this section. Anyway, here is the WP:SPS relevant policy:
 * Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
 * Self-published ... sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field [although Pielke is...], so long as:
 * 1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
 * 2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
 * 3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
 * 4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
 * 5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

This material by RAP about RAP's own view is certainly not affected by any of these 5 points. I'm now going to write the second paragraph based on the same material. Alex Harvey (talk) 04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you'd like to reconsider #5? You may also want to read WP:PRIMARY. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, here is all the evidence I should need to justify my wording "...nor even necessarily the most important [forcing]":
 * Our paper demonstrates that land-use change impacts regional and global climate through the surface energy budget, as well as through the carbon cycle. The surface energy budget effects may be more important than the carbon-cycle effects." Pielke et al. 2002

This is making precisely the same logical point as found in my wording thus my wording is neither vague nor misrepresentative of RAP's view. Alex Harvey (talk) 05:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are aware that the surface energy budget is over land - right? And that globally land is in the minority :-) ? You are now entering the territory that i warned about earlier: Cherry-picking and original research without considering weight. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, firstly a peer-reviewed article and in these cases articles where RAP shares authorship with many other authors are no longer SPSes right...? Secondly you're ignoring the fact that he's a professor of meteorology and therefore qualifies as expert in the field. Thirdly that thing about the value of secondary sources can hardly apply in this specific scenario when the subject matter in question is the current view of X about Y. This is rather ridiculous, and that policy is surely not meant to apply in this scenario. If we want to know of Julius Caesar's opinion on some aspects of Roman politics, we don't prefer the views of Tacitus or Suetonius but rather the self-published writings of Caesar himself. If we suspect a bias then we do our best to correct it accordingly. In this case there is no good reason for RAP to be biased in favour of misrepresenting himself. Meanwhile there are many reasons to suspect biases in many secondary sources that concerns themselves with RAP's view. I would argue that no one will write about RAP's views unless they are either for or against his views. I find it extraordinary that this seems to imply that Wikipedia prefers a very biased secondary source about living person's view on a matter over the living person's carefully worded statement on his views.

On 'surface energy budget exists over land'. This is quite beside the point. The issue is not whether he is right but what he actually believes. I provided evidence that justifies my wording. We could also argue about whether humans can alter the ocean albedo, see ocean albedo changes. (Updated Alex Harvey (talk) 01:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC))
 * The surface energy budget here is rather important - since you are interpreting the statement as global - and land is only a small percentage of the globe. It's entirely possible to agree completely with Pielke's paper, and still be within the scientific consensus.
 * Your statements on primary sources goes against WP policy, and your rationalization gets beaten up regularly on WP:BLP/N and WP:RS/N (try following the debate there once in a while). That we two disagree on what P is really saying, gets right to the culp of the issue... That we should be using secondary sources, so that we (as editors) do not have make interpretations...
 * That aside: If you once more try to read the various references given, you will notice that there is a guiding aspect to every single one of them.... That Pielke considers regional/local climate change more important than the global metrics. And that is what should/must be reflected, just as prominently (WP:WEIGHT) in our representation of his views. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, (1) do you know of a discussion of WP policy that exactly parallels this one, i.e. a precedent for preferring secondary sources over the primary, self-published sources of an expert in a field on the subject of the said-expert's view on the field for which he is an expert?

(2) Do you actually know of any reliable secondary sources for RAP's views? If so a pointer to these would be most helpful. Here is one: Panelist Who Dissents on Climate Change Quits by Revkin. Trouble is, this is obviously biased, and biased against your position. But you'd say it's still preferrable because (1) the perception of bias is my POV; (2) it's a RS therefore preferrable to RAP's SPS. I think this policy, if you're right about it, is clearly absurd.

(3) On the point above, however, I'm going to back down for the moment; I think you're right that the phrase I've given in the context doesn't justify my wording in my context, although I'm pretty sure that I'll shortly find other published writings that do justify my wording. Alex Harvey (talk) 07:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright what about this then: "Human climate forcings have a more significant role in altering the weather than does a global average increase in the radiative effect of an increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2. This does not mean that we should not work to limit the increase of this gas in the atmosphere, but it is not the dominate [sic] climate forcing that affects society and the environment." This seems to justify an even stronger wording than I have given (which was "but he does not believe that it is the only anthropogenic climate forcing, nor even necessarily the most important one.") Alex Harvey (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with his statement on weather (depending on timescale) - does that make me an IPCC sceptic? UHI (Urban Heat Islands) in cities change the microclimate significantly... The trouble is once more that you are trying to emphasize on global/general, when Pielke is talking regional and local in specific. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure he talks about "weather" because climate does after all affect the weather... But again he goes on to state "[atmospheric CO2] is not the [dominant] climate forcing that affects ... the environment." You're arguing that perhaps this is carelessly worded? I can't see how you can possibly expect this argument to win.
 * But let's take a step back. All other things being equal, unless there is some way of properly quantifying the effect of the atmospheric CO2 forcing on climate relative to other forcings, it follows as a matter of course that my wording is the correct one. He clearly doesn't believe that


 * (a) regional/land-use forcings are properly quantified. Agree?
 * No. I do not agree that regional/land-use forcings are properly quantified. And more to the point: Pielke wouldn't agree on that, thats the whole issue. We may know roughly how the physics works on a global scale - but when it comes to reg/loc we are (kinda) lost. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I may have tricked you into inadvertantly agreeing on this point. ;-) You missed the beginning of my sentence, "He clearly doesn't believe that (a) regional/land-use forcings are properly quantified." So we agree on point (a). Alex Harvey (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (b) He clearly doesn't believe that the atmospheric CO2 forcing is properly quantified either (cf. his arguments against the temperature record, his recently submitted paper to IJoC where he has argued that there is no evidence for the tropospheric "hotspot" from the thermal wind equatoin thus declaring himself with Douglass, Christy et al on this issue (Christy is actually a co-author on this paper) and against Santer et al's position. Agree?


 * No, i do not agree. Tropospheric warming in the tropics over land is a regional issue. I rather doubt that Pielke is siding with Douglass (in fact he dismisses the paper as not peer-reviewed)... What he does is stating that it should be scrutinized scientifically (which it won't be, because its not peer-reviewed). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, you've said you don't agree here, but then you've passed without comment over the paper appearing below where Pielke, Christy et al. state very clearly... well I'm not going to type it again; see immediately below. It would be hard not to conclude that this paper does not side with Douglass given that he states that the Allen & Sherwood result diverges from all other observational data. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See Pielke Sr., R.A., T.N. Chase, J.R. Christy, B. Herman, and J.J. Hnilo, 2009: Assessment of temperature trends in the troposphere deduced from thermal winds. Int. J. Climatol., submitted


 * Quoting the abstract: "Recent work has concluded that there has been significant warming in the tropical upper troposphere using the thermal wind equation to diagnose temperature trends from observed winds; a result which diverges from all other observational data. ..."


 * (c) Therefore, it follows that if neither atmospheric CO2 forcings nor any other forcings are properly quantified, that the default case applies, viz. "...[one] does not believe that atmospheric CO2 is the only anthropogenic climate forcing, nor even necessarily the most important one." (updated).


 * Try to leave out your own personal conclusions. Thats called original research, and has no place at all on wikipedia. And if you read the paper its about regional warming not global. (hint: tropical troposphere). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Finally you didn't respond to the other points I made above. Alex Harvey (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim, you haven't responded. A response is necessary since frankly if secondary sources are required, and there aren't any, then the article should be deleted.

Today's post at Pielke's blog seems to provide clear evidence that my wording is a correct description of RAP's position Open Letter by the Cato Institute on Climate Science. He comments on statements in the Cato Letter:


 * The computer models forecasting rapid temperature change abjectly fail to explain recent climate behavior.

This is a robust conclusion both on the global scale (e.g. see) and on the regional scale (e.g see and see).

Alex Harvey (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And just how is it clear evidence that your wording is a correct description? Does Pielke take a stand on the Cato letter itself? (hint: No). Does he endorse it? (hint: No). Does he comment on some of the text? (hint: Yes). So all you can conclude is that Pielke agrees with some of the text. (otherwise he'd probably be a signee). Btw. (on a personal level): you are aware that its quite correct to assert: that "recent climate behaviour" is abject - and still think that models are correct? Its a question of what you've asked of the models... Models are not weather predictors - they are climate projections, climate models are not built for nor are they supposed to be correct on a timescale shorter than an average over decades. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly say that he doesn't take a stand on the Cato letter itself? There is not a single statement in his response to suggest that he disagrees with any part of it.
 * He reproduces the ENTIRE Cato letter on his blog.
 * He explicitly states his agreement with ALL of what he calls its "specific statements."
 * He does not explicitly state disagreement with ANY of the statements.
 * He passes without comment over the non-specific statements, viz. "We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated." and "Mr. President, your characterization of the scientific facts regarding climate change and the degree of certainty informing the scientific debate is simply incorrect." It's pretty clear that he agrees with the second statement. On the first, it is not of relevance to MY point however; I am not saying that he argues there is no case for alarm.

There are a number of reasons Pielke may have have chosen not to sign the letter. Perhaps he disagrees with the opinions of too many of the signees even without disagreeing with the letter itself? But to say that this post on his blog hasn't "endorsed" it is absurd.

On your personal note, am I aware that "it's quite correct to assert: that "recent climate behaviour" is abject - and still think that models are correct?" My POV is not relevant to the Pielke article and neither is yours. What is relevant is that Pielke disagrees with this statement. He very definitely does NOT believe the models are correct. Alex Harvey (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alex, its possible to agree with specific sentence, and disagree with the conclusions, as well as considering the specific sentence irrelevant. Your analysis of Pielke's comments implicitly lays value to his not disagreeing with specific statements. If you read the RC comments, then there isn't a disagreement with the statements either. The dispute here lies in: Are the 3 statements relevant. And Pielke doesn't comment on that at all. As for your "It's pretty clear that he agrees with the second statement" i have to say: Sorry but its not clear. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on Kim..... This is just getting ridiculous.

You are now seriously saying that it's not clear that Pielke disagrees with Mr. Obama's assertion that the science is settled? In the interests of demonstrating that you are serious about this dialogue, I ask you please to withdraw that remark. Dr. Pielke's entire blog, every single day, is devoted to spreading awareness of what he regards as a fact that there are unresolved issues, like the tropospheric temperature trends, and that the science just isn't settled, no matter how loudly and often Al Gore and the IPCC insists to the contrary. If you want to say otherwise then I have to say at this point that it is not possible to continue discussing this.

The remainder of your response is also unsatisfactory in that as I have pointed out clearly and just as Pielke himself has made perfectly clear, he is not merely not disagreeing -- he is positively agreeing with every specific (i.e. every falsifiable) statement that the letter makes. There is a single point of ambiguity -- one single point! -- where Pielke is silent: does he or does he not agree that the case for alarm is overstated? On that single point, I agree, yes, Pielke committed himself either way. And knowing Pielke's ideas well, I'd say the reason is simple enough to guess at: he does think there is a case for alarm, just not the same case that the IPCC is making... Alex Harvey (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Pielke state that he agrees or disagrees with Obama's statement?
 * Is it possible to agree with all the "falsifiable" statements, and still agree with the IPCC assessment?
 * (my answers: No, Yes) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Pielke state that he agrees or disagrees with Obama's statement? (YES, of course he does, elsewhere...).
 * Is it possible to agree with all the "falsifiable" statements, and still agree with the IPCC assessment? (NO. Oh for heaven's sake... how can you say "models abjectly fail to explain recent temperatures" and claim that you're secretly still in agreement with the IPCC position? But perhaps there is a need for more evidence that Pielke disagrees with the IPCC position? The fact that everyone just knows this doesn't do it for you? The fact that Pielke rants about it just about every day on his blog just won't quite convince you? Then refer to the explicit statements I already gave above.) Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh what the heck, one more time Pielke:
 * Policies that focus on CO2 by itself are ignoring definitive research results ... that humans have a much broader influence on the climate system than was communicated in the 2007 IPCC report. To neglect these other climate forcings represents a failure by policymakers (and the media) to utilize this scientifically robust information.
 * The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies. [emphasis in the original.......] Alex Harvey (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well. So you agree that he doesn't comment on Obama's statement. Do you have an explicit disagreement that you can quote from elsewhere? Or is it simply a "it must logically follow" argument? (original research)
 * Sorry - but climate models aren't build to be predictions, or to be accurate on the scale (temporal and geographic) that you are (and the Cato document is) stating/implying. So its absolutely possible to agree with statements, and still agree with the climate models. This btw. is one of Pielke's arguments. That models cannot predict, and that results from them should never be used as predictions. (which is what he is often quoting Trenberth for saying as well). Climate models != Weather models. As i've said many times here: Pielke's argumentation lies in the regional/local climate change is distinct and not directly inferrable from global metrics, therefore global measures will do little to nothing to address regional/local issues.
 * The whole issue here lies in that distinction between regional/local and global. Policies addressing CO2 will only address global issues, but will not adress regional/local issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Interesting form of Wishful thinking - neither politics nor policies is yet really global, any policy that doesnt taken into account local developments - as the desinterest of China and India to take part in relevant reduction of Climate Gasses - will fail. --Polentario (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Formatting request
Is there any way that y'all could format your comments in such a way that's logical for others to read them? Right now, it looks like a massive contradiction, but it's hard to tell because there's so much back and forth, multiple threaded comments, and some without signatures. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 06:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The Argument
Thanks Atmoz, I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps you can help to find some middle ground here then. Currently, the article states that Pielke's position is "nuanced" which I read as (1) a euphemism for "unclear" or "obfuscated" and thereby smearing Dr. Pielke; and (2) however one interprets "nuanced", there is no reference given for it, so it is a POV; it is original research, and moreover, it is, in the view of many, including myself obviously, as well as Dbecher-hamburg above, and all the other editors who have tried to remove it only to have their edits reverted, it is just plainly wrong and certainly not suitable for inclusion in the article.

I cannot for the life of me find anything unclear in Pielke's position on climate change -- perhaps his position was unclear once? I don't know -- but I do believe I can see why KDP says it's unclear: It is unclear only when contrasted with the IPCC position, where certainty has been, in the opinion of Pielke, falsely exaggerated. Yes, compared with the false certainty of the IPCC and in particular the SPM, Pielke's position might seem unclear (as would the position of Lindzen and all the other skeptics -- after all, seriously, how much easier is it to understand Pielke's position as stated in his blog than it is to understand the Iris hypothesis...?). But there's not a word of his position that is genuinely unclear: he just says, we don't know. We don't know climate sensitivity to CO2 well enough (and with the 3 or so degrees of uncertainty in the range given by the IPCC themselves, who could disagree?), and if we don't understand CO2 sensitivity, where the IPCC give level of understanding as "high" then how much can we possibly pretend to understand of the other factors when they're nearly all given as understanding="low" to "very low"?

At any rate, I am trying to rewrite the section User:Alexh19740110/RAP and we're stuck, unsurprisingly, :) on the wording of the first line. I've provided a number of quotes above that I think pretty clearly justifies my wording. KDP continues to assert that it's all too unclear, and therefore no one can be sure.

Finally, KDP raised a valid point about reliance on primary sources. I think the policy allows primary sources in this instance because Pielke's blog and other writings are by an expert on the subject of the expert's own views of something. In any case, there are no secondary sources available as far as I can see, other than a single very biased Revkin article. Alex Harvey (talk) 08:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to AGF here that Alex has accurately described the crux of the argument. If not, KDP please feel free correct any comments. First, as I wrote on Lindzen's talk page, and it applies to everyone: show it, don't tell it. Pielke has a nuanced position on climate change? At present, there is no reference to back up that statement. But even if there were, it would be better to show why it's thought that Pielke has a nuanced position. What makes it more nuanced than the typical climate scientists opinion? Is it that he is more critical of the IPCC? Then say that. Is it because he think land use / land cover changes are important? (And he most certainly does.) Then say so. Saying he has a nuanced position is a cop out. WRT the IPCC, don't go there, please. Sensitivity is 3C per doubled CO2, plus or minus a little. If Pielke disagrees with this, then say so in the article, but don't use the talkpage as a soapbox. Other comments: too many quotes. Quotes are only used by writers unable to use effective prose. (Atmoz, 2009) Pielke's statement that CO2 is a first order forcing, and that there are other 1st order forcing is entirely consistent with the IPCC. For example, the cooling effect of aerosols is a first order forcing. "Believe" is a word that has unpleasant connotations. Try not to use it in an article on a scientist. Pielke has argued that land use changes are climatically more important than represented by the IPCC,[1] and have caused a larger temperature increase than CO2 since whenever.[2] Or something like that. But make sure the references actually back up the statements. The paragraph starting with "In this way, he has sought..." has original research issues. Sought is another bad word. How do you verify that someone has sought something? Especially something as eccentric as "differentiat[ing] his position... from the views of 'sceptics'". What's a 'sceptic'? Why is it important in a biography about Pielke? And are there any reliable sources that has compared his views with the 'sceptics'? To answer, the views of the 'septics' aren't important to a biography on Pielke. Just give Pielke's position, don't moralize it. So what is Pielke's position? Read his peer-reviewed journal articles. I think he has most of them available on his website. Source everything you can to these documents, but doing so without crossing the line into original research. Try to limit the amount of material taken from his blog. Sorry for the long post, hope it helps a little. -Atmoz (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm only going to comment on one thing in the above - since i agree with most everything in it. The "nuanced" statement is referenced (in the article - not in the proposed rewrite), it could be addressed as original research, but the two references (corrections to respective newspaper articles) show that journalists often mistake Pielke's comments as "classically sceptic". At the moment, i feel that the current section is better than the proposed one, specifically because it "shows instead of tells". Pielke has put alot of effort into those statements. It would (as i said earlier) be nice to have a rewrite of them, so that they aren't taken verbatim from Pielke's position page - but as far as i can see, such an attempt is going to end up in original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And now a short reply, since I'm going to be running (literally) out the door in a minute or two. I don't think either of the two sources for the nuanced statement actually show he has a nuanced position. That's not saying he doesn't have a nuanced position. I think those references would be better supporting a statement like: Pielke's view on climate change has been reported in the mainstream media as being skeptical of human-caused global warming.[1][2] He has responded that his views have been mischaracterized,[3] and with allegations of media bias.[4] (Refs 1 & 2 would be the original media reports, and 3 & 4 would be his responses.) -Atmoz (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Today's Pielke blog reports an interview.


 * interviewer: How is your research helping to relieve the situation or at least spread awareness of it?


 * RAP: Our research has shown that the focus on just carbon dioxide as the dominate human climate forcing is too narrow. We have found that natural variations are still quite important, and moreover, the human influence is significant, but it involves a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, including, but not limited to the human input of CO2. These other forcings, such as land use change and from atmospheric pollution aerosols, may have a greater effect on our climate than the effects that have been claimed for CO2.

It doesn't get any clearer than this. THIS is the message he wants to communicate, he tries to communicate it just about every day on his blog, and there is no doubt about it. If KDP's position is that this is a "nuanced" position, KDP is free to have that opinion and I am free to disagree with it. The first line however on RAP's view on climate change should be faithful to what he has said here. Does this sound fair? Alex Harvey (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Atmoz, I agree with your comment on the third para where I have gone off into OR land. I'll consider how I can rewrite or just delete it. Meanwhile, would you agree that the quote I have given directly above justifies the wording I have given in the first line? On the second para, I feel quoting this text in full is worthwhile because Pielke himself reproduces the same text over & over again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexh19740110 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

His skin is blue?
Something is seriously wrong with that picture we have of him! The Squicks (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pielke Sr. has a degrees in Meteorology and is not a climatologist. There is a difference.This makes it sound like he has equal weight in the field, especially in light of today's article in the Washington Post. Anyone who quotes Anthony Watts has no credibility. Watts is also a meteorologist as is William Gray. There's a hint of a trend here. Marky48 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Plain Nonsens. Pielke sr. is one of the most frequently researchers in the climatology field. --Polentario (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

...a somewhat nuanced position...
Re this What does "somewhat nuanced position" actually mean? I can put him in a box. He's a mesoscale modeler who thinks regional stuff is important. -Atmoz (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. But where he isn't easy to put "put in a box" is on his view on how forcings upscale and downscale. His position is certainly quite allot more nuanced than what you can read in the IPCC or US CCSP reports, it is also quite alot more nuanced than the views that are attributed to him from various commentators on the sceptical side of the issue (or from the mainstream commentators for that matter). The wording provides context here, it states (imho) to the reader: Read the views carefully, consider them, and don't jump to conclusions - because it is quite a bit more complex than a fast reading suggests. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

... Nuanced again
Many people are uncomfortable about your use of the world "nuanced." There are really two parts to Pielke's position. He says natural influences of climate variations are important, and human influences involve a diverse range of first-order climate forcings, that include but are not limited to human produced CO2. This statement seems quite reasonable and defendable. In re to feedbacks as I understand it Pielke does not accept certain feedbacks as having satisfactory demonstration to be considered absolute truth or "probable with high confidence" as compared to the IPCC FAR and the US CCSP reports (which ape IPCC on these matter). In fact as you know the positive feedbacks cause significant amplification of the projected temperature rise and therefore expand the millennial rise projected in temperature which has provided a lot of fodder to the climate alarm. The reference to opinions of others about Pielke Sr is not appropriate in a bio as this is third hand and does not represent any kind of meaningful sampling for painting a conclusion about the man. Stick to facts and what he has said. If Pielke Sr's stated positions differ from IPCC and US CCSP it would be quite interesting to just lay them out and show how they differ (... if you do, you also need to clearly state why he holds such positions). Since he goes to great length to carefully word his positions it seems inappropriate to gloss over with vague generalizations such as calling out Pielke's "nuanced opinions." I would add that giving this shape to the bio likely helps to bring attention to Pielke and for that he might be grateful. Frank decarlo (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm i don't think that we are giving the opinion of others about Pielke in the article, except in the one case where people are often confused about Pielke's position, where we explicitly reference Pielke's corrections, and not the opinions of others. The nuanced part is (as has been discussed earlier) an attempt to stave off the "Pielke is a sceptic/denier/ " or "Pielke is an adherent of AGW...." - since Pielke's position is quite a bit more (well..) nuanced than it is often portraited in the MSM and in the blogosphere.
 * As for the comparisons of Pielke's views vs. the IPCC and SAP - we can't do that unless there is a secondary reliable source that does this. It would be interesting - yes. But would be original research seen from a WP point of view. The best we can do, is to reference Pielke's rather precise description of what his base views are (the bulleted list). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK on that, and I know of, and can provide, published quotations with peer reviewed references to Pielke Sr positions on the two points I mention, as you appear to now agree to incorporate this if these are provided. b.t.w. I happened to look at de.wiki = German version of Pielke Sr and it is remarkably different, simple and straight forward indicating that different local language reviewers have enormous control over the content plus different language versions are not synched at all. Enttäuschung es ist. Frank decarlo (talk) 12:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)