Prometheus Reader Feedback Forum

November 24th, 2005

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

As we celebrate a Thanksgiving holiday today, we thought that it might be useful to extend thanks to the many Prometheus readers, commentors and emailers. We appreciate the interaction and lively exchanges. We’d like to hear from you feedback about the site, its content and how it might be improved. Feel free to use the comments here or send us an email.

10 Responses to “Prometheus Reader Feedback Forum”

  1. Benny Peiser Says:


    I understand that the British Government’s response to the report of the House of Lords Select Committee report on the economics of climate change is expected to be published next week.

    Given Britain’s new interest in re-assessing the actual costs, benefits and cost-effectiveness of its contentious Kyoto-driven policies, I would like to see more thorough debates about this newly emerging focus, including predicted economic and health benefits of moderate warming for countries such as the UK and the US; see

    I think that cost-benefit analysis will increasingly serve as the key guiding principle of any prudent and economically sustainable climate change policy. That’s the main mandate and responsibility of any democratically elected government.

    In a nutshell, governments are increasingly trying to establish which course of action will prove to be more cost-effective for their nations: forgoing cheep energy due to mandatory emission cuts (a la Kyoto) against the cost of adapting to whatever moderate climate change may throw at us in the next two or three generations. After all, why should countries sacrifice their social stability and economic competitiveness for climate change policies that may prove to be utterly cost-ineffective?

    Benny Peiser

  2. 2
  3. Steve Bloom Says:

    Benny, this is why everyone loves economists: You 1) effectively discount to zero the effects of climate change beyond two or three generations (what, 60 years?), and 2) want to limit the discussion based on your assumption that the change will be moderate (whatever that means).

    But, do let’s have the debate, only making sure to first consider the validity of your assumptions. This is actually already topical for this site due to Roger’s prior assertion that we should not be concerned with strengthened tropical cyclones beyond 40 years in the future. IMHO, such a cut-off cannot be justified in a non-arbitrary way.

  4. 3
  5. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    Steve- Thanks, but the attribution over when we should be concerned about strenthening tropical cyclones goes to Kerry Emanuel at MIT and he says 50 years. I am happy with simply saying “for the foreseeable future.”

  6. 4
  7. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    We’ve decided to keep this feedback forum going by featuring a link to it at the top of the Prometheus main page. So even as this partular post sinks into the archives, we will continue to solicit reader feedback. Thanks!

  8. 5
  9. Steve Bloom Says:

    I thought he said that he didn’t think there would be a detectable signal for 50 years, which isn’t quite the same thing as saying a policy response would be precluded. In any case, the “forseeable future” sounds rather more open-ended.

    I do have to apologize for attributing the 40 year figure to you — it turns out it was Bahner’s interpretation of the “forseeable future.” BTW, have you defined what you mean?

  10. 6
  11. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Steve- Thanks. My views, and those of several colleagues, are presented quite clearly in this paper just out:

    Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch, 2005. Hurricanes and global warming, Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, November, pp. 1571-1575.

    A number of policies for better preparing for hurricanes make good sense today. Greenhouse gas reductions are not high on that list (though greenhouse gas reductions do make sense for other reasons). This is more than you want, I am sure, but we discuss hurricanes comprehensively in this book, which is not a bit dated, but the policy recommendations are still pretty current:

    Pielke, Jr., R. A., and R. A. Pielke, Sr., 1997: Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society. John Wiley and Sons Press: London.

  12. 7
  13. Jim Clarke Says:


    Thank you for the site and keep up the good work. There are those who dismiss your site and others, because they do not conform to the traditional roles of the journals, which is true. We live in an information age, however, and it is not realistic to believe that the very limited, monthly publications would continue to be the best way to deliver scientific research and/or the discussions generated by it.

    The internet is filled with a lot of bad information, but a look back at journal articles of the past would not likely present a much better success record. Not only does the internet allow for a much faster vetting of the scientific issues, it allows the debates to include much more information about the details and participants, while throwing a brighter light on the whole process.

    This site, and countless others like it, are here to stay, and science will advance more quickly than ever as a result of this expansive exchange of information!

    Thanks again!

  14. 8
  15. Dano Says:

    I hate to disrupt this thread, but my feedback:

    Positive: if you’re upsetting both sides, you must be doing something right.

    Negative: don’t let the above comment wash out my other comments on providing examples.

    Oh, yes: basic HTML in comments plz: /a, /b, /i.

    Keep up the good work, sir.



  16. 9
  17. Paul Says:

    Is rationality breaking out all over?

    Stars must ‘check science facts’

    Check this BBC link:“>

  18. 10
  19. Amy Says:


    Read more about Amy