Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. describes himself as:
“a professor of environmental studies… [and] a Senior Fellow of The Breakthrough Institute, a progressive think tank”.Dr. Pielke also hosts an often insightful blog.
My (primary) problem with Dr. Pielke is his willful failure -- despite several reminders -- to honor a promise he made on 7/31/09. On that date, I posted a request:
“I would (respectfully) still like to see you articulate how you came to conclude that a policy response aimed at reducing CO2 emissions was advisable.”Dr. Pielke responded:
“Thanks. I have discussed this on many occasions on the blog, in articles, and in Congressional testimony. But your question is fair. I'll make a point to address it directly in an upcoming post.”Dr. Pielke is very much aware that I have reminded him several times of this as yet unkept promise. On 10/20/09, I said:
“Again, I remind you of your 7/31/09 promise to enumerate why you believe it is necessary and advisable for governments to intervene in an effort to reduce CO2 emissions.”This time, Dr. Pielke replied (with an inexplicable emoticon wink):
“You'll get an answer, I promise, it is in the [soon to be released] book”There are two problems with that reply:
1) It absolutely fails to honor his promise to “address it directly in an upcoming post”.
2) Addressing this critical issue “in the book” is a convenient way to avoid an inconvenient debate (just like Al Gore, James Hansen, Joe Romm, et al).
On 11/3/09, Dr. Pielke stated:
“I don't think it fruitful to wage a political battle by challenging ‘deniers’ on matters of science”That comment seems to validate my conclusion that -- just like Al Gore, et al -- Dr. Pielke prefers to avoid an inconvenient debate.
In the minds of true believers (and, I count Dr. Pielke as one), “the science [on AGW calamity] is settled” and all that remains is to sort out the proper policy response (Dr. Pielke’s bread and butter).
I would MUCH prefer for Dr. Pielke to address this himself. But, as he continues to dodge the question, I can only speculate as to his rationale. From what I have read from Dr. Pielke, I see two components to his conclusion that governments around the world must intervene to reduce CO2 emissions:
1) Agreement with the conclusions of the (demonstrably biased) IPCC.
2) What I regard to be a very ill-advised embrace of “The Precautionary Principle”.
Dr. Pielke - feel free to correct me. I will happily amend this post.
For balance, I want to give Dr. Pielke credit where credit is due:
1) Let’s just accept that Dr. Pielke -- for whatever reason -- earnestly (and sincerely) believes government intervention is both necessary and potentially productive.
2) Given that predisposition to (counter-productive) government intervention, I can -- at least -- note that Dr. Pielke, in my view, is a force for reason and moderation against the most extreme, irrational and destructive elements among the public policy tyrants. In taking this stance, a very public dispute has arisen between Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. and Dr. Joe Romm.
3) Dr. Pielke is normally (but, not always) quite reasonable (in my view) in publishing comments in his blog which are contrary to his views.
My only purpose here is to encourage Dr. Pielke to keep his promise. If Dr. Pielke is going to advocate for imposing his views upon the rest of the world through force of law, the LEAST he can do is offer his rationale for advocating that approach in a forum where the premise can be openly debated and evidence (pro and con) can be presented.
In the unlikely event that any of the above links become broken, let me know. I have all the necessary screen shots (and more) to reproduce the evidence.
(which Dr. Pielke might find to be inconvenient to his political agenda).