Comments on: Interview with Brad Johnson, Center for American Progress

By: Collide-a-scape » Blog Archive » Collide-a-scape >> Climate Furies

Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:48:16 +0000

[...] spokesperson and others.) So let me direct readers over to Prometheus, where Roger has posted the entire interview with Johnson. I think Wonk Room readers would find it interesting [...]

By: Politicizing Science - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

Politicizing Science - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:32:42 +0000

[...] (Dr. Pielke Jr. has some thoughts at the Prometheus blog on doomsaying scientists and other questions raised by my column about his book.) [...]

By: Parse Error

Parse Error — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:59:04 +0000

The problem with liberals “spreading the wealth” is that they lead one to believe they are spreading it from the obscenely wealthy down to the middle and lower classes, while it seems to me that more often than not, they are really spreading “wealth” if one can call it that from the working poor down onto the non-working poor. Some sort of tax rebate scheme seems to be gaining some popularity, but it’s only stated purpose is to offset some of the economic impact of other policies. The issue barely touches the wealthy, if at all; they can or already have purchased the latest and greatest in energy-saving appliances and put solar panels on the rooftops of their well-insulated homes, and so on. Businesswise, where it cuts into the bottom line just lay people off and cut pay for the rest. The people who are down low enough to qualify for government assistance and/or private charity can lean on that. Everyone in between gets a raw deal, and the further you go down on the income spectrum before reaching that point, the more desperate the situation becomes, leaving many people to wish they had never bothered to join the workforce at all since the people who didn’t usually become better off than those whose income they live off of.

By: Maurice Garoutte

Maurice Garoutte — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 17:16:45 +0000

It’s not only possible to disagree with some policies of a president you support, it’s absolutely necessary; unless of course you have a few hundred million dollars to run for the office. But you should agree at the core.

Spreading the wealth around is a central theme to President Obama’s agenda. The motive for cap and trade is more to spread the wealth not to control CO2.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.2b04b3e135c9639d2bbf7a45f32c5bad.201&show_article=1

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:37:41 +0000

15- Maurice, yes it is possible to support a president and disagree strongly with some of his proposed policies.

By: Maurice Garoutte

Maurice Garoutte — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:10:00 +0000

You support President Obama but are opposed to the actions of his idea factory CAP (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1861305,00.html).

You say that you plan to continue to support President Obama but you are opposed to a Cap and Trade plan that is central to his plan to increase government control of society and industry.

Compartmentalization keeps us sane but you might want to reconsider some of those conflicts.

By: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Roger Pielke, Jr. — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:57:18 +0000

11- David, My sample size is small, I would hope that the methods of Joe Romm and Brad Johnson are not SOP at CAP

13- Stan- Is Happer “misrepresenting the science”, well that depends on whether he was presenting his views as his views or those of the scientific community at large. If the former, then no, if the latter then yes.

By: stan

stan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:35:48 +0000

Princeton physics prof, Will Happer, testified yesterday. “Happer’s statement summarizes his views on the current state of climate science, concluding that there is little basis for the “frightening scenarios” of the future.” http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjJhMDUzMTVkNzY3ZjVlYTAwOTkyMjk1NzUzZTFkMTc=

“Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is ‘positive feedback.’ With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative.”

It would appear he thinks that California may manage to remain fit for humans. Is he misrepresenting the science?

This appears to be a clash between the climate models and the climate. Happer’s making the politically incorrect choice of going with the climate.

By: Kmye

Kmye — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 07:22:37 +0000

Funny…when I first read this post, fresh, my initial impulse was to comment asking how likely people thought it would be that this interview would ever be published elsewhere but here. I refrained, thinking it was a bit of a petty thought, but then, per #3, it turned out, petty or not, that intuition was correct.

FWIW, it appears, at least for the time being, that Dr. Pielke’s comment @ Think Progress was allowed. Still, as demonstrated by the choice of interview questions, and the editorial treatment of the resulting answers, it’s sobering to be reminded how certain politically motivated groups respond to ANY deviation from their accepted line of thought. That this type of thinking and action is tied by them to science…

By: David Bruggeman

David Bruggeman — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 04:55:44 +0000

Roger,

Do you extend that criticism to all of CAP? My reading of their work suggests that your criticism is more accurate for their climate folks, who seem to borrow their style points and tactics from folks at Gristmill or Real Climate.