Talk:Roger A. Pielke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.


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).

[edit] Complaint

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 boundar codition bias, interpretation bias and linked system computattional 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)

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)
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)

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. [1] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the bullets are directly from Roger's web site. My intent is to make sure that this has a NPOV from someone writing a living biography. This typically is done either because someone is familiar and is a fan or because they have views that do not agree with the person they are biographng.

I did not agree/like the opening sentence under On Climate Change heading, "Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces." Meaning of nuanced does not fit here (expression or appreciation of subtle shades of meaning - OED). And ..."sometimes taken for skeptism" - by whom? Where is the reference? Skeptism is a relative term depending on the commenters POV. Did Pielke say this about himself? If not it risks POV which should be avoided in living biographies.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 01:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)

[edit] Confklict - referee

Kim, the point is not to make up a third person biography that has Point of View and this has Point of View ... I suggest Pielke the living biographee should be the one to resolve what he wants cherry picked to represent his statements and opinions and views rather than have someone else say his views are nuanced and he is considered by some to be a skeptic.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem? A biography should describe the person that it is about in a neutral and non-POV way. That Pielke has a nuanced view on climate change is an accurate description of him - there is nothing inherently biased about this (not even implicitely imho). On the other hand he has been described as a sceptic by several media and (quite notable) by Sen Inhofe in several reports. Pielke denies this vehemently, and while i agree with WMC that he may by now have stepped into real sceptic land, it is irrelevant for the biography - but that he is stating that he isn't a sceptic is relevant. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Without giving away too much in terms of privacy, I'm personally acquainted with the individual who originally wrote the nuanced bit. There can be no doubt whatsoever that it reflects his own views. (Full disclosure, Roger was my Ph.D. advisor and I have avoided editing this article for that reason.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific? As i read the above i can't decipher whether you mean that the person who wrote "nuanced" is expressing his personal POV - or if he is expressing Pielke's POV. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the ambiguous antecedent -- there's no doubt it reflects Roger's own views. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem. And thank you. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to be an obstructionist and I will pursue. I do not believe Roger Pielke has or would call his opinion "nuanced" as this is a relative term, as is "skeptic" both depending on the eyes of the person expressing opinion. A person's nuanced intent in calling Pielke's views nuanced or skeptical is much different than another persons depending on POV. I cannot imagine why it is difficult to make a third person living being biography factual - Pielke ---this, Pielke has done ---that, and Pielke has said ---this. Maybe we are being too clever by half. The meaning of James Inhofe (a super skeptic) referring to Pielke as a skeptic is very different from and advocate saying the same thing. One is supporting and the other is condemning. Keep it simple.Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand Dh's position. KDP has found us a nice source for RP not wanting to be called a sceptic William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps if you explained to us why you consider having a nuanced view is problematic? From what i've read on his blog and elsewhere, this is in fact what he has, and what his bullet-list shows. I also can't understand why you object to us saying that Pielke objects to being a sceptic, especially with the sources given. He is often misunderstood by media (and people like Inhofe) and characterized as a sceptic - take a look at the long discussions that we've had on List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - where there has been a push to get Pielke on the list. Specifically because people misunderstand his attitude. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had rested. As it stands, I believe this furthers confusion and controversy on Pielke’s views on climate change. I do not know him personally but doubt if he would agree with this and he might even consider it pejorative or inflammatory.

This is WP:LB, it contains:

1. A background section briefly lists his academic and professional credentials;

2 Expository “On climate change” NOT on climate change ! But as put in the very first sentence …. Pielke’s “somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces.”

My concern is on how this is presented and not on the broader climate debate or Roger as a scientist or involved party of the discussion.

Consider including -- what has Roger done, of any value, does his work warrant some discussion? This WP:LB article doesn’t care. By your acknowledgement and implication of the article Pielke’s position on climate change is an ongoing subject of debate – this is controversial for readers with different POVs. The article seems to want to put on public record some ongoing controversy about Pielke views. What is the purpose?

I was interested in the Pielke references containing his rebuttal against accusations that he is a skeptic – these were linked to Roger’s former Climate Science web site (shut down - replaced by another with focus only on science discussion to avoid POV / personal attacks).

I said that … “nuanced” and “skeptic” are relative terms subject to interpretation by readers and using these in a neutral biography furthers confusion or controversy. If I am called a skeptic by Uber skeptic Inhofe what does that mean? That Inhofe embraces me because I match his value system? … Or that Inhofe thinks I am not skeptical enough? If an Uber advocate (say, e.g., Pachauri) said I was a skeptic this could range from a) accusing me of being a self confirmed flaming denier to b) someone who might have been incorrectly misunderstood on one statement? I realize this sort of classification is dealt with probably for the same reasons on the List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming. However even more than The List, the Pielke article is even more clearly WP:LB and should not present with an intent to further controversy suggesting a label.

By the way I looked over with interest the discussion on The List…. and I conclude that Pielke is judged a) to allowed to be considered as a scientist b) that he understands the difference between projection and prediction / forecast and c) otherwise does not fall under any other classifications used by the judgers.

As for being nuanced, I personally think this is garble here… compared to what? Not the Mainstream, Pielke avoided being put on that List of Scientists Opposing the Mainstream …

How about getting Pielke to vet this bio? Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I provided (Jan 21, 2008) a very clear response to KDP (Jan 15, 2008) which supported whast I had said... There were no further comments and it's Feb 7. As said this is too clever by half, let's use caution and use simple language where there is any possible controversy such as trying to mold someone's character bssed on our opinions. I am modifying the part in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbecher-hamburg (talk • contribs) 18:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


I disagree. I cannot imagine that you do not understand what I said. Why would KDP and WMC choose to further controversy about some non existant debate on Pielke being labeled a skeptic or not in this article. It has not shown to be the case and the article stands just fine without it. WMC made his opinions clear about Pielke when he said "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)" - this is inappropriate and unprofessional. I stand on my argument that debating what is a skeptical is relative and without clarification of intent may be damaging and pejorative. The whole issue of trying to propagate labels with terms such as skeptic is not ok in a LPB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbecher-hamburg (talk • contribs)

As documented in the references - Pielke is often cited in mainstream media as a "sceptic". He resents this (imho for good reasons) - and has in at least the two referenced cases, strongly reacted to this. We have no reason to believe that Pielke doesn't still feel this way (in fact from my readings on his blog - i'd say its pretty certain that he hasn't).
On the other hand, Pielke doesn't have a mainstream view on the science (which he also makes very clear), thus the nuanced bit. (something which i'll point out that we have had a former student of his confirm).
If you really feel for this - then please ask Dr. Pielke in an email whether or not he finds the sentences accurate. Iirc Dr. Pielke has commented on his WP biography before, so why shouldn't he again? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Pielke will not give you a usable answer - he has avoided doing so in the past. But it doesn't really matter - we can't use a private email anyway, except to clarify the ambiguous. Calling Pielkes position nuanced was true two years ago. Its getting less nuanced all the time, and the ref'd post re IPCC errors is silly. But he does disclaim being a skeptic. I'm still unsure why Dh is so worried by all this William M. Connolley (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skeptic or not is not the point

I don't some sort of problem as WMC suggests. And I do not have a position on Pielke. KDP and WMC want to focus on the point of whether or not Pielke is a skeptic or not (this is the opening line of the substance part of the article). This is not my point – point is you shouldn’t be talking about this in a biography. It is not relevant. And I don’t give a hoot what a former student has said about his PhD adviser. Has anyone established the former student as a spokeman for Pielke's background and character. I have worshiped / cursed (choose one) my PhD advisor many times, and so what. It is not relevant. Skeptic is a relative term in the eye of the beholder and should not be a point of debate in a WP:LPB. Doesn't matter if Pielke is a skeptic or not, and doesn't matter if a reference is given to outside sources. You include this, for what, to say that this has been a subject of debate... and so what. Mentioning a non existent controversy in a wiki biography wouild appear to be done only to further some idea that whether Pielke is a skeptic remains some sort of debate or controversy This has no place in a wiki biography.59.12.64.132 (talk) 13:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. The label "skeptic" is one that some people hate and others love to flaunt. Why is it irrelevant in a bio? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The article statement says “Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he renounces .” My point is, by whom and by what definition. This is part of a bigger problem with trying to label people.

Including this in Pielke’s WP:BLP says there some sort of ongoing debate on whether Pielke is or is not a skeptic.

Yeeees... and this is fair enough, because there is, though its hardly a raging one. But whenever 2 climatologists get together and end up discussing RP Sr, the question "is he a skeptic or not"? comes up. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 1. The “skeptic” label is a relative semantic that requires a point of reference or comparison (unless you are a Sophist and doubt everything). By some definitions you would be called a skeptic, by others just the opposite. We are both skeptics on climate change by some measures – if you deny this you are not a scientist. Since calling “A” a skeptic cannot be verified or falsified without context it is a nothing, nonsense statement.

I don't agree. Pielke is often "claimed" as a skeptic by the skeptic side. Its hard to know precisely how to define the sketpic side, but we all know what it is. Please don't take refuge in the dictdef of a skeptic. William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Point 2. Including this in the opening statement of the substantial paragraph of the Pielke WP:LPB “(Roger Pielke) On Climate Change” furthers the idea that there is some sort of ongoing debate / controversy on whether Roger Pielke is or is not a skeptic. So it appears your only reason for including it is to make the point that this is somehow debatable. From Point 1 this is a nonsense statement. The point is not whether the statement is true or false, there is no way to validate, so it is a nonsense statement and should be deleted. Leaving it furthers an unsupported declaration that - this debate is ongoing and there is still some possibility that Pielke could yet be deemed a skeptic. It is possibly pejorative and prejudicial. If you don’t have to include why would you want to?

Article says “Pielke has denied accusations about him being a skeptic on climate change” is not the point.

Point 3. Moreover, as you and KDP alerted earlier, there was a lot of discussion and debate on whether to include Pielke on the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. The authoring group extensively discussed placing Pielke on this list and could not justify doing that– as I understand it that group gave labels to a large group of scientists deemed to have made “X” or more statements opposed to the said “mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.”

The point is not about whether A, B, and C are skeptics or not, or on the “list opposing the mainstream science.” In assigning such relative semantic labels you really do need to have a statistically significant and objective measure of the total population deciding the outcome supporting the labeling. A group of people representing one side of an argument does not do it.

You seem to be a bit obsessed by the relative semantic labels fun. But in fact that doesn't apply to the wiki list, which is based on fairly objective criteria based on what people have said. The large discussion around RP's inclusion was because he is deliberately ambiguous. Personally I would now consider him a skeptic, but thats only my view William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You said “what is the big point, that some people love being called a skeptic and some hate being called a skeptic. “ I don’t believe you said this in response to my earlier points!

You are correct not to believe this, because I didn't say it William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Since KDP and WMC do not like this, I have come up with an alternative that does not make any deletions.

“… a condition worse than blindness… is seeing something that isn't there.” (Hardy)Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Pielke has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces [1][2] . Notably, Pielke’s view is supported by the decision after by authors of the Wikipedia article List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming, to not include Pielke on their list. Dbecher-hamburg (talk) 07:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't quite make sense. "This ambiguity is reflected in the debate over whether to include him..." would, but we're not allowed to ref wiki for things like that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)