 |
 |
 |
|
|
        |
| |
|
|
|
Arguing Both Sides at Climate Progress
Those guys at Climate Progress seem to want things both ways -- the analysis in our article is both "debunked" and an authority. Maybe Joe Romm should set the record straight?
by Roger Pielke, Jr. I haven't engaged much with Joe Romm of late, but I can't let this one pass. When Tom Wigley, Chris Green and I published our analysis of the spontaneous emissions reductions built into all IPCC scenarios (PDF), Joe Romm put up a post titled: "Why did Nature run Pielke's pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?"
So it was with some surprise that I read over at the Cato-Unbound climate policy debate Joe invoking our Nature paper as evidence in support of the idea that the IPCC scenarios have built in assumptions about aggressive reductions in carbon and energy intensities. I have long argued that Joe and I differ in our interpretation of the significance of the Nature paper's findings, not the analysis itself. However, Joe never posted up an apology for mistakenly trashing our paper or a correction noting that in fact, he finds the analysis sound. This leads to the embarrassing circumstance in which Joe Romm is over at the Cato site using our paper to support his arguments while his Climate Progress guest blogger Ken Levenson is arguing on Joe's behalf at another online debate at the Economist arguing against the analysis in the Nature article, explaining that "Joe actually thoroughly debunked that Nature article too" linking to several of Joe's many articles trying (unsuccessfully) to "debunk" our analysis. Those guys at Climate Progress seem to want things both ways -- the analysis in our article is both "debunked" and an authority. Maybe Joe Romm should set the record straight? 7 COMMENTS:
Roger,
A simple point: I don’t speak on Joe Romm’s behalf. I wouldn’t presume. Please, you shouldn’t either.
Posted by: kenlevenson
at August 27, 2008 9:00 PM
Ken-
You guys at Climate Progress have an interesting gig. Joe says two different/opposing things at different times and you cherry pick the one most convenient for the argument that you are in, while disavowing responsibility for what Joe has said. Clever. To bad the Bush administration is over, you guys might have helped in their PR machine ;-)
But seriously, how about a direct question for you (since you aren’t speaking for Joe), do you accept the analysis in our Nature paper, yes or no? If no, why not?
Roger,
Perhaps my use of the word "thoroughly" in exuberance is the problem.
What Joe was debunking, as I referred to it in the context of the Economist debate was the central conclusion of your Nature report - that of alleged IPCC assumptions of spontaneous decarbonization, and the resulting need for breakthroughs. The IPCC argues for aggressive policy action and technology deployment - logical enough unless we're all insane. So by thoroughly I merely meant the central point.
However, even with your central point debunked, I don't think that excludes the possibility of your report containing useful analysis.
Therefore, on the other hand, at Cato, Joe seems to be referring to your Nature report in regards to the rates of energy intensity and CO2 levels. Joe may or may not be right - that detailed scientific discussion, I readily admit, is way above my pay grade.
Yet it seems plausible that your paper in Nature while being wrong about the need for breakthroughs may still be correct regarding potential emissions projections.
The two takes on your Nature report don't seem mutually exclusive to me.
Well Ken, while I appreciate the olive branch in the form of pleading "no contest" the technical arguments, if you have a look at what I was arguing at The Economist and that you were suggesting has been "debunked" it was exactly the technical analysis that you now seem to accept (indeed the links to Joe's work that you provided also critique the technical arguments):
"We published a paper on this subject in Nature earlier this year. We found that the energy technology challenge has likely been grossly underestimated by the IPCC and most analyses that assume large amounts of spontaneous decarbonization of the global economy.
You can see our paper online here:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., Wigley, T., and Green, C., 2008. Dangerous assumptions. Nature, Vol. 452, No. 3, pp. 531-532.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2593-2008.08.pdf
To provide the world with vastly more energy, while at the same time limiting carbon accumulation in the atmosphere will require every tool at out disposal, and almost certainly a few not yet in existence. To argue against further R&D is just a bad idea.
Roger Pielke, Jr.
Professor, University of Colorado"
http://www.economist.com/debate/index.cfm?debate_id=11&action=comments
I don't see the work "breakthrough" in there anywhere, and I clearly distinguished what we found from what I conclude from that analysis.
Increasingly, it looks like Romm and his followers are simply anti-R&D, whereas the folks you find at this site are all for aggressive deployment of existing technologies AND R&D. As I said at The Economist, to argue against further R&D is just a bad idea.
Roger,
No one is arguing against R&D and innovation, nor deployment - it's simply a matter of emphasis and priorities.
You say you're for deployment but make R&D breakthroughs a prerequisite for success.
From my perspective R&D is acknowledged as an absolute must but would argue that deployment of existing technology is the key to success.
And because R&D is used as a crutch for many to argue against taking action now - I believe the emphasis is rightly placed on deployment.
Ken-
Maybe next time rather than using the phrase "thoroughly debunked" to characterize our work, you might consider instead using the fine nuanced prose you wrote above.
Roger,
I readily agree that "thoroughly debunked" was not the right choice of words. I think you should acknowledge that your claim of "us" arguing against any R&D is a strawman.
Again, I don’t think it’s the analysis per se that’s being criticized - it’s the conclusion. It’s agreed, that yes, if the world continues the insanity of the Bush/Cheney decade we are doomed. It’s clear that China went on it’s binge following Bush/Cheney’s abandonment of Kyoto. It’s not a particularly useful conclusion unless you think we are doomed to Bush/Cheney World indefinitely.
But it is completely rational to assume that the Bush/Cheney nightmare will end and with it China will resume it’s decarbonization efforts as it had prior. If this is a reasonable assumption - it’s not a dangerous assumption.
Of course we need to work like heck to move beyond Bush/Cheney - and it seems to me, that to succeed in that we need to emphasize deployment.
My fear is that misplaced conclusions of doom, like that in “Dangerous Assumptions”, will inhibit our will to fight climate change through aggressive deployment and instead it’s all R&D all the time….we’ll just want the pill fix.
And to the extent that “Dangerous Assumptions” is pulled out to argue for breakthrough technologies, like at the Economist - it feeds inertia, not action.
So let’s invest in the R&D - as it will be hugely beneficial. But the prerequisite to success are not breakthroughs per se. The prerequisite to success is rapid/aggressive deployment.
Post a comment |
|
|
|||
Privacy : Contact : Site Map |
||||||||
