Talk:Roger A. Pielke

message: 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)
replies: text: That's an excellent idea.  Go for it.--CurtisSwain (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Disamb

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Complaint 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Formatting request 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  ...a somewhat nuanced position...