Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
– FOREWORD: WUWT readers probably remember when the now head of NASA GISS, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, could not stand to be seen on the same stage with Dr. Roy Spencer. Gavin decided to hide offstage while Dr. Spencer had finished his interview with John Stossel, rather than be subject to some tough questions Dr. Spencer might have posed in a debate with him on live TV. Gavin knew he’d lose, so he acted like a child on national TV and hid from Dr. Spencer offstage. It was one of the truly defining moments demonstrating the lack of integrity by mainstream climate scientists.
Now, Dr. Schmidt seems to be hiding from those inconvenient questions again, as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes below. Dr. Schmidt also hides from me, having blocked WUWT on Twitter, so I’d appreciate it if some other WUWT readers would let him know of this publication. Dr. Schmidt is welcome to publish a rebuttal (or simply answer the questions) here if he wishes. He has my email. – Anthony Watts
Questions for Gavin Schmidt – Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails. If he were a scientist without leadership responsibilities in the climate community, he certainly can choose to ignore my request. However, he is a Director of a major US federal laboratory and, as such, he (or his staff) should be responding to such requests. As of today’s date, he has not answered any of the questions.
By posting these questions, I am encouraging others to respond to the science issues I have raised, as well as be used in the future when Gavin is required to testify, such at a House and/or Senate committee. In your comments, please focus on the scientific issues and avoid any comments on motives, personal attacks etc.
My questions to Gavin follow:
Gavin,
Below are my questions that you agreed to look at in your tweet. I have copied to Judy as her weblog is an appropriate place to present this Q&A if she agrees. Judy might also want to edit and/or add to the questions.
Thank you for doing this. It shows that there is room for constructive debate and discussion on these issues.
1. There is a new paper on global albedo Stephens et al 2015
Click to access albedo2015.pdf
There is also a powerpoint talk on this at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Lorenz/Lorenz_Workshop_Talks/Stephens.pdf
Among the conclusions is that
“Climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism, although they broadly capture the correct proportions of surface and atmospheric contributions to the TOA albedo. A high model bias of albedo has also persisted since the time of CMIP3,mostly during the boreal summer season. Perhaps more importantly, models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry.”
Q: How do you respond to this critique of climate models with respect to the GISS model?
2. In 2005 Jim Hansen made the following statement regarding the GISS model [https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]
“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”
Q: What is the GISS update to this summary including the current estimates for the imbalance?
3. There are questions on the skill of the multi-decadal climate prediction models in terms of their use for regional impact studies for the coming decades. These models have been tested in hindcast runs. What are your answers to the following:
When run in hindcast (over the last few decades) where the forcings of added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols are reasonably well known:
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting average observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting observed regional extreme weather statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional extreme weather statistics?
4. The issue of value-added by regional downscaling has been discussed in
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf
Among our conclusions is that
“…downscaling has practical value but with the very important caveat that it should be used for model sensitivity experiments and not as predictions….. It is therefore inappropriate to present [downscaling of multi-decadal climate projections] results to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”
Q: Can regional dynamic and/or statistical downscaling be used to increase the prediction (projection) skill beyond that of available by interpolation to finer scales directly from the multi-decadal global climate models predictions?
5. There is considerable debate as to where heat has been going in recent years since the temperature increases at the surface and troposphere have flattened. On example of this discussion is in the post
Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?
6. The paper
Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf
writes the following
“This paper diagnoses the spatial mean and the spatial gradient of the aerosol radiative forcing in comparison with those of well-mixed green-house gases (GHG). Unlike GHG, aerosols have much greater spatial heterogeneity in their radiative forcing. We present a measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. The NGoRF is introduced to represent the potential effect of the heterogeneous radiative forcing on the general circulation and regional climate.The heterogeneous diabatic heating can modulate the gradient in horizontal pressure field and atmospheric circulations, thus altering the regional climate.”
The paper
Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, P. Dirmeyer, C. McAlpine, A. Carleton, R. Hale, S. Gameda, A. Beltrán-Przekurat, B. Baker, R. McNider, D. Legates, J. Shepherd, J. Du, P. Blanken, O. Frauenfeld, U. Nair, S. Fall, 2013: Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.3736. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/r-374.pdf
…shows that such heterogeneous forcing also exists for land use/land cover change.
Q: What is the relative role of land use/land cover change relative as well as added aerosols with respect to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases in affecting local and regional climate and changes in regional climate statistics?
6. In our post at Climate Etc
An alternative metric to assess global warming – http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/
we wrote
“We present this alternate tool to assess the magnitude of global warming based on assessing the magnitudes of the annual global average radiative imbalance, and the annual global average radiative forcing and feedbacks. Among our findings is the difficulty of reconciling the three terms.”
Q: Please provide your best estimate for the terms.
7. The book
DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rightful Place of Science Series
Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes by Roger Pielke, Jr.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/dcc/index.html
discusses the role of changes in climate in recent decades on disasters.
Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?
Roger Sr.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
According to Amazon Climate Change–the Facts temporarily out of stock and only recently published!
mine is tracked to arrive today!
I’ve got mine sitting right beside me on the table! It came this morning…neener…neener…:) I plan to pass my copy along to my legislative representative (a neighbor and friend) when I’m done with it.
It is hard to respond to these questions, when you normally just need to say “it is worse than we thaught”. And the average of models must be right, even if no single model or run will give anything like our climate.
With all due respect to Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., those are not difficult questions for such an eminent scientist such as Gavin Schmidt.
Q: How do you respond to this critique of climate models with respect to the GISS model?
A: All models are wrong but some are useful.
Q: What is the GISS update to this summary including the current estimates for the imbalance?
A: 0.6 +/- 17
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting average observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting observed regional extreme weather statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional extreme weather statistics?
Q: Can regional dynamic and/or statistical downscaling be used to increase the prediction (projection) skill beyond that of available by interpolation to finer scales directly from the multi-decadal global climate models predictions?
A: See #1
Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?
A: It’s not; we don’t need no stinking metrics!
Q: What is the relative role of land use/land cover change relative as well as added aerosols with respect to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases in affecting local and regional climate and changes in regional climate statistics?
A: Whatever we need it to be to make our models work and keep the meme alive.
Q: Please provide your best estimate for the terms.
A: Refuse to read or respond to anything from JC.
Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?
A: The role of all weather is to aid in keeping the meme alive through media hype and misperception.
I would like for him (Gavin) to answer questions even his chauffeur should be able to answer. (Apologies to Jerry Clower)
What in your opinion is humanity good at?
A) Altruistic cooperation and sacrifice for the common good.
B) Adherence to authorities dictates for our own good such as prohibition.
C) Exploiting resources for our benefit, adapting to our environment, adapting our environment, and technological advancement.
D) Peaceful coexistence and living low environmental impact lifestyles.
Which strategy for combating climate change (if its a problem) best matches humanity’s strengths?
A) Voluntary global agreements limiting the use of the cheapest energy source available.
B) Mandatory global limitations on the use of the cheapest energy source available.
C) Global education on peaceful coexistence and low environmental impact living.
D) Improving infrastructural and environmental circumstances at the local and regional level while researching and developing a next generation energy source.
What ended the Stone Age?
A) Stone shortage.
B) Development of bronze for tool making, obsoleting stone tools.
C) Global moratorium on stone mutilation.
D) Stones uprising.
What in your opinion will end the fossil fuel age?
A) Thermonuclear war.
B) Fossil fuel shortage.
C) Development of a next generation energy source(s), obsoleting fossil fuels.
D) Edicts from
alien overlordsour wise leaders based on guidance from infallible experts.E) Unprecedented global cooperation to leave fossil fuels in the ground.
Evaluating climate models is something of a no-win proposition in that they never can be “right” because they don’t model the actual climate. They never get the same answer twice since climate is chaotic- even if the model’s start point is programmed to 20 decimals at some point they will exhibit chaotic behavior. The fact that they all have to use numerical analysis the computers cannot reproduce an analog regime accurately enough and they cannot solve many equations accurately- the finite representation of the calculations results in a residual error, which in a system of non-linear partial derivatives always generates accumulating errors.
I liken it, in a way, to judging figure skating- none of the judges have exactly the same preferences, none can always give the exact same score for an error, and they all have some biases they may not even know. So different groups of judges will give the same performance different scores. All they can hope for is that each of the contestants makes one or more obvious mistakes so the judges can judge based on major errors and not have to deal with fine nuances.
And those are the problems with climate models. They can’t show fine, but very real nuances such as cloud cover, or localized weather, they can’t make consistent runs, they can’t show if they’ve run themselves off the rails so to speak.
Aircraft engineers face many of the same problems on a smaller, simpler scale so while they cannot exactly calculate a predicted performance through a combination of “close enough” fluid dynamics models, experience, and practical judgement they can get very close and make useful predictions of a planned aircraft’s performance. But aircraft engineers have a hundred years of experience and probably millions of well publicized mistakes to inform their newest designs.
Does this imply that Ben Santer is the Tonya Harding of the climate science ice capades?
Maybe he’s still reading everything. Does that book have an Executive Summary for Policymakers?
It has to be extremely hard for these people to see their world crumbling before their eyes.
As the knowledge becomes better on how all of the climate drivers fit together (mostly through WUWT it seems) and the future actually doesn’t seem so dire, panic has to be setting in. If they really are smart they have to see the current climate cycle isn’t moving in their direction, and quite possibly will be moving the other way at a faster pace.
Almost every prediction they have made has been false: sea ice falling, global temperatures rising, extreme weather events increasing, snow never falling in England, sea levels rising faster…. And after this year’s el Niño there will be the inevitable central Pacific cooling and if global temps don’t respond to the current el Niño and rise a little, there could be quite possibly a crash to under the mean in a few years.
Sooner or later the facts always catch up to the myths, unless of course, you are in a George Orwell novel.
The poor dude is a math junkie, not a climate specialist. The fella is scared people will find out that he has no training in the field. Does he have any physics background at all, any experimmental background?
You need no training , only unquestioning faith in ‘the cause ‘
I believe Gavin is exhibiting “self preservation bias”.
I also suspect,,,,,, the questions are flowing in from congress on the justification for the adjustments to the temp records. I would love to see a congressional hearing on that in the near term. The dancing from such would make “Dancing with the Stars” look like amateur hour.
Popcorn futures will skyrocket…..
They should of gotten Bill Nye. He is even better at lying and being extremely condescending.
Gavin’s response: “Shut up!”, he explained.
Gavin is following the same set of instructions as the EPA Director, and that is to stick with the policy marching orders no matter what truth or science process lies just inches off the path. That is what separates it from anything of science.
There’s nothing wrong with Dr. Gavin Schmidt’s educational background.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/research/rae-2008/21
Educationally he’s as qualified as anyone on either side of this “debate”.
It doesn’t matter what his qualifications are, how high his IQ is, or our popular his ideas are; what matters is whether A) tests of his hypothesis confirm or refute it; B) whether underlying assumptions are valid; and C) whether reasonable conclusions are drawn from it.
For example, even if CAGW was slam dunk established it is not an automatically reasonable conclusion that [insert any emission limiting strategy here] will actually work.
Ph D , piled higher and deeper
Letters after the name do not make the man .
PHD aka Praying Heaven Downward
Preconceived Hypothesis Disorder
He must be wondering how all that talent tucked him into such a wicked corner.
=================
Hey Pere,
Go where
James Hansen
Has his lair.
It’s not fair,
Terrible rare,
To expect me
To speak clair.
=========
This is why I love Watt’s website. Freedom of scientific inquiry lives here!
@ur momisugly Anyone Still Wanting to (eyeroll) Defend Schmidt’s Refusal to Answer EASY Questions:
Schmidt has opened the door to such questions as Dr. Pielke’s by asserting his competence to answer them (and, lol, in the course of it, confirming his IN-competence by his often ridiculously inaccurate answers) by making such public statements as these:
April, 2015
“Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, spoke last week at the Seventh International Conference on Climate Change: Impacts and Responses held in Vancouver. Here is an edited version of an interview he gave to The Sun:
Q: Is it too late to reverse the effects of climate change and global warming?
A: The time scales in the ocean, in the land and in the ice mean that we are not going to see a reversal of global warming for centuries. …
{LOL — laughing because this is SOOO ignorant! 1) overall, earth has been cooling for centuries; 2) recently, the temp. warming has stopped}
***
A. We have to have a price on carbon because right now it’s still free to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So if you put a price on carbon that is commensurate with the damage that carbon-dioxide emissions cause, then people will be smarter. … and moving away from oil for transportation. *** ”
Source: http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Global+warming+here+stay+says+NASA+scientist+with+video/10978871/story.html
*******************************
NASA Director simply = P.R. guy for Big Wind (and Tiny-but-Tenacious Solar).
Lying to put bread on the table, poor, widdo, fella.
Disgusting.
And if CO2 does no harm, it should have no price.
The jury is out on whether it does any harm, but from the way that the planet is greening, we can already see that it does a lot of good.
If it does good, should a reward be paid to those who produce carbon?
There is a new tax for the government to take from its people and give to the carbon producers.
Problem it redistributes weath in the developed world from poor to rich (as wanted by those who govern us) but does not redistribute wealth to the developing world.
So, did “Judy” “agree”..? If so it would be nice to have a LINK. If “she” didn’t “agree” Why not?
I checked her site but didn’t find the questions…..”wattsup” with that?
For starters, he is not a climatologist and shouldn’t bill himself as such, or allow himself to be so billed. He’s a computer modeler, and arguably the crummiest of a crummy lot.
Judy was going to post both the questions and Gavin’s answers (and any follow up Q&A). Gavin did not answer.
I think the larger question beyond Gavin Schmidt’s competence in his job is why NASA is spending our thinly-stretched taxpayer dollars to run a research unit in one of the most expensive places in the country – New York City! It makes NO sense except to justify bankrolling Columbia University faculty and staff to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
Then there is related question – why are we funding yet ANOTHER climate modeling group in the U.S. government when we already have a center of excellence at NCAR (and similar at NOAA)? The GISS Model E is a crappy code which is STILL poorly documented (despite recent “updates”) and nowhere near as good as NCAR’s CESM. Why do we pay two groups to do the SAME modeling? Yet another waste of taxpayer dollars…
GOP members of Congress are asking some of the same questions.
Since GISS has become such a BS mill, best just to shut it down. Or at the very least take away its climate modeling brief and move it out of NYC.
4 letters NASA.
NASA carries more clout than any other acronym with the general public when it comes to science.
The NASA brand is critical for climate alarmists and they will fight tooth and nail to keep from losing it.
No one give ls a damn about NOAA or NCAR.
“The GISS Model E is a crappy code which is STILL poorly documented (despite recent “updates”) and nowhere near as good as NCAR’s CESM. ”
There’s a good climate model? Did it get something right? When does it say will Earth become a Venus-like inferno?
Re: #3 — 2 years ago.
The AGW activists do NOT want dialogue.
They want & need only preachers, priests, and evangelizers.
Gavin Schmidt only wants to “inform” the world with his opinion. He wants to preach from on-high, the doctrine of global warming from the religion of the Green God. He is a priest, plain and simple.
The perfect scenario, which should never be forgotten, was him getting up and leaving John Stossel’s set and Dr Spencer coming in and sitting down, with a grin as wide as he could fit on his face. Somebody who knows how, should make an infinite loop of that moment on youtube.
It is the most absolutely anti-science & obstinate, act of fear and arrogance that I have ever seen.
It should be carved into the marble frieze above the columns of the entrance to the Cathedral to Gaia.
Like most progressivism, the Warmists follow to a tee the characteristics of Groupthink.
Groupthink is often characterised by:
■A tendency to examine too few alternatives;
■A lack of critical assessment of each other’s ideas;
■A high degree of selectivity in information gathering;
■A lack of contingency plans;
■Poor decisions are often rationalised;
■The group has an illusion of invulnerability and shared morality;
■True feelings and beliefs are suppressed;
■An illusion of unanimity is maintained;
■ Mind guards (essentially information sentinels) may be appointed to protect the group from negative information.
Here is my most recent e-mail to Gavin Schmidt (on April 22nd) which has remained unanswered. He had been replying earlier and gradually moved from answering some of the questions to going silent. The origin of these question goes back to a set of tweets on his site Gavin Schmidt@ClimateOfGavin.
“Gavin. I am asking for your views on several subjects. If I were a reporter for the Economist or other major publication , would you still relegate my queries to such a low priority? Or if you were asked these questions as part of testimony at a House or Senate committee?
You are not just a scientific colleague but have a senior federal government position. This does obligate you to respond even if you delegate to your staff.
You asked for patience. Okay – please tell me when you will be able to answer the questions. At some point, we will just post the questions to you. I prefer, however, a constructive discussion between us which can than be posted.
Roger Sr”
I have posted on WUWT since it has become clear these questions are too inconvenient for him to address (or delegate to his staff). In years past, colleagues would be glad to engage in such constructive discussion.
P.S. Please focus on the science in your comments, not on his behavior.
rpielke,
Since he has presented no science, his silence is all that we can comment on. Or were you hoping that no one would say anything UNTIL he responded…..?
I would like science response regardless if he responds or not.
[Rather, “.. a scientific response regardless .. “? .mod]
Just what kind of “science responses” do you wish from us? Can’t say I have any desire to play the role of Surrogate Gavin for you.
I’m unqualified to surrogate a science response, but would welcome an attempt to do so.
Rat like Gavin Schmidt scurries into a dark corner to avoid the bright light being shone on him.
More like a cockroach, IMO.
I have posted on WUWT since it has become clear these questions are too inconvenient for him to address (or delegate to his staff).
I’m curious how you might think this post on WUWT will facilitate a meaningful conversation. It seems odd to suppose that publicly “calling out” a colleague will do anything but reinforce partisan behaviors. One might be excused for thinking this is simply theater.
He is not a colleague. He is the Director of GISS with a very major and public role in the developing the science basis for gov’t policy.
It became obvious long ago, that there never was a chance at “meaningful conversation”.
Perhaps it’s an attempt to shame him publicly to reply. In fact, these questions are not that controversial nor difficult. I too would like to know what the latest ocean heat estimates are in the models.
“Colleague” was your term, not mine. Regardless, my question was “What do you hope to achieve with this post?”
Well, this is one U. S. taxpayer (I pay Mr. Schmidt’s salary) who was glad to have such malfeasance (yes, “mal,” for it is clearly intentional and not mere negligence) exposed.
Mr. M0sher, Mr. Schmidt DOES work for Mr. Pielke.
Questions testing his basic competence for his job should be answered.
The debate actually is over, has been for a while, and they know it. That is why they’ve refused to debate, or even discuss the actual science. Pretty tough to, when all they’ve got is pseudoscience.
If the debate is actually over, then all relevant answers should already be known, which means there should be no reason for them to be afraid to answer questions. They should be happy to educate us, unless they’re afraid their answers will reveal the truth, that no debate was ever held, and that they are only pretending to know the answers.
The debate is over, however the conclusion reached is not one they want to talk about.
Rogue bureaucratic Federal Agencies doing only what is in “their” best interest excludes any principles such as truth. There is no fear of applied punishment for their incredible pathetic lawlessness.
Have you stopped beating your data yet?
Gavin was Dr Doom hand-picked successor, has he is know to to have the ‘right views’ , while like others in ‘the Team’ if he where not on the CAGW bandwagon it would be hard to see him getting any serious job in science, given his wholesale rejection of good scientific pratice .
So it looks like a dog , walks like a dog and barks like a dog , then a dog is what get and why would you expect anything else .
Hey, hey, hey! #(:))
Heeeeere’s Gav….. er…. Tommy Flanaygan (okay, okay, he’s TRYING)!
He got help!
(yeah, a little relapse here and there, but he is on the mend — now in recovery!! Clean and honest for…. (look at watch)…. 10 minutes, now!)
Hopefully, all his L.A. (Liars Anonymous) friends will give him the courage to appear on WUWT!
I find it really irritating to read sentences like the following:
“Gavin decided to hide offstage while Dr. Spencer had finished his interview with John Stossel, rather than be subject to some tough questions Dr. Spencer might have posed in a debate with him on live TV. Gavin knew he’d lose, so he acted like a child on national TV and hid from Dr. Spencer offstage.”
Either everyone who holds a PhD ought to be called “Doctor”, or else everyone ought to be referred to by their given names.
Please just be consistent, otherwise it looks like you’re playing favourites.
I disagree. Someone who has demonstrated that they are not worthy of the respect given to a professional, due to their childish behavior, should not be referred to with a meaningless (in their case) honorific.
Russ r writes “I find it really irritating to read sentences like the following:”
I think Roger might have been irritated as well when he wrote that.
Roger…wrote that.
It’s my impression that’s Anthony Watt’s FORWARD to Roger Pielke, Sr.’s post.
Yes, I believe you’re right.
Wow. Guess you missed the concept of “earning respect”.
In summary, the answer to all your questions is that the human race is doomed by inevitable climate catastrophe. You are trying to nitpick. The science is settled. It is chaos that prevents the truth to be seen. I am the eggman coo-coo-cajoo.
Maybe his zipper malfunctioned. Climate change is insidious you know.