« Attorneys | Main | Credibility »

Climate Scientist

13 Mar 2007 01:25 pm

I'm not qualified to fully assess the scientific accuracy of An Inconvenient Truth, but unlike some New York Times reporters I know the difference between science and social science. To wit, the Gray Lady:

“He’s a very polarizing figure in the science community,” said Roger A. Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist who is a colleague of Dr. Vranes at the University of Colorado center. “Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

Roger Pielke, Jr. isn't an environmental scientist. Read his about me page (emphasis added):

I am currently a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. At CU, I am also a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences and the director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Before coming to CU in 2001, I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (now called ISSE). I have a B.A. in mathematics, an M.A. in public policy and a Ph.D. in political science, all from the University of Colorado.

Time for another blogger ethics panel?

:: Comments (48) ::

Share This

Comments (48)

I don't know if this is the strongest argument you could make. Many programs import people from different disciplines; I would think that is particularly true of relatively new programs. I'm not sure certification is required to call oneself an environmental scientist.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 13, 2007 1:47 PM

I think his record justifies him being called an environmental scientist.

Posted by Mogwai_rock | March 13, 2007 1:51 PM

I don't know exactly what he did when he had this job:

8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their Environmental and Societal Impacts Group (now called ISSE)

...but at first glance, I'd say that most likely qualifies him to be called an "environmental scientist." Looking at the current staff at that outfit, the people who are on the staff as "scientists" look to me like they're pretty much doing science. I would of course defer to people who actually know what environmental science is (I don't, not really), but this particular criticism does seem to be going out on a pretty thin limb.

Posted by Haggai | March 13, 2007 1:58 PM

I'm no social scientist, but it looks to me like everything in his resume that you didn't bold indicates knowledge about environmental science.

Re: Gore's movie

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/

Has problems, still good.

Posted by Alegery | March 13, 2007 1:59 PM

Misfire.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | March 13, 2007 2:05 PM

Trust, me, as someone with a Ph.D. in political science who is a core member of George Washington University's Center for International Science and Technology Policy, Roger Pielke is not an environmental scientist. He's a specialist in environmental _policy_, with a specific interest in the intersection between scientific debates and policy outcomes- but he ain't engaged in at-the-coalface scientific research himself. A lot of university centers have people like Roger (or me) working at them - but that doesn't make either Roger or me into a scientist in the sense being used in this article.

Posted by Henry Farrell | March 13, 2007 2:13 PM

OK, since someone armed with some actual relevant knowledge has chimed in, I'll defer to him. Thanks, Henry.

Posted by Haggai | March 13, 2007 2:25 PM

Is Don J. Easterbrook related to Gregg?

Posted by Ben Brackley | March 13, 2007 2:42 PM

Henry,

Can you speak to Dr. Pielke's work at NCAR? Does one's current professional position supercede/negate previous work experience?

I am an engineer. If I obtain my MBA, does that mean I am no longer considered an engineer?

Unless it is known what Dr. Pielke did or didn't do at NCAR, it is hard to say he is unqualified to carry the title of "environmental scientist".

Posted by DoubleE | March 13, 2007 2:45 PM

Matt's instincts are correct. From terrablog:

"Perennial critic Roger A. Pielke Jr. definitely gets some points for irony, though, when he criticizes Gore for being a target of criticism: 'Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person.' Yeah, no kidding."

From Grist:

"This has made him a rather gullible target for Roger Pielke Jr., for whom this "middle stance" has become a calling card and a ticket to media exposure."

Posted by TF | March 13, 2007 2:46 PM

Unlike the first five comments, Henry Farrell has it right. Dr. Pielke is indeed a Dr. working in the field of environmental science - but he's working with the POLICY aspects of environmental science, which while extremely important, doesn't give some unique ability to evaluate the science of Mr. Gore's presentation. I'm wondering if some of the Drs. quoted in Mr. Broad's piece, like Dr. Pielke, are regretting their involvement. Dr. Pielke's comments, in broad brush, are probably right. Mr. Gore, in the 'scientific community' as a whole, may very well be polarizing. In the part of the 'scientific community' that deals with climate change (as opposed to the part of the scientific community that doesn't know squat about climate change), Mr. Gore's presentation is a fantastic distillation of many extremely complex facts/observations. The second part of Dr. Pielke's quote, if he's talking about society writ-large, is probably right on the money- Mr. Gore is a famous politician- many people can't separate his former job as a politician from the meaning of the words/ideas that leave his lips. But again, members of the scientific community who work in the field of climate change probably have a relatively easy time separating Mr. Gore's former profession from the subject he currently speaks extensively about, because Mr. Gore makes very few mistakes in presenting the scientific facts/observations.

Posted by DougMN | March 13, 2007 3:13 PM

“Very quickly, these discussions turn from the issue to the person, and become a referendum on Mr. Gore.”

Well, one would expect that in the scientific community that a discussion on global warming wouldn't go on very long. Because, um, in the scientific community there's no actual debate on global warming's existence & anthropogenesis anymore.

I'd get bored and start shooting the breeze about politics, too.

Posted by anonymous | March 13, 2007 3:16 PM

From looking at some of the other comments, I guess I'm being too kind to Dr. Pielke. Looks like he likes the attention being contrary gets him.

Posted by DougMN | March 13, 2007 3:21 PM

I'd just note that Pielke, Jr. has co-authored a bunch of peer-reviewed articles on environmental science in places like the Bulletin of the American Meterological Society. I don't know if that makes him an "environmental scientist" per se (I guess it depends on what the papers were about and what his role in writing them was), and it's true that many climate scientists disagree with some of his work, but the label isn't totally out of left field. All told, though, it would probably be more accurate to call him a "political scientist" or maybe even a "climate policy expert" or some such.

(And no, I'm not defending Pielke's substantive views; yes, I know Republicans in Congress bring him out anytime they need a "reasonable" skeptical voice on climate change, etc.)

Also, in fairness to the Times reporter, William Broad--who knows a lot about this stuff--he only had Pielke discussing Gore and the climate-change meta-debate, which is something the guy's fairly well-qualified to talk about, rather than quoting him about the climate science itself. It's possible the label in question was a copyediting error, rather than the reporter's doing.

Though it's possible I'm being too generous here.

Posted by Brad Plumer | March 13, 2007 3:28 PM

Ah, reading those links, I realized I confused Broad with Andrew Revkin (who really is one of the better climate reporters around). Guess he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt here...

Posted by Brad Plumer | March 13, 2007 3:33 PM

Environmental science is BOTH a "hard" science and a "social" science, since it studies humanity's impact on the environment. Where in the world Matthew and Henry Farrell get the idea that environmental science is PURELY a hard science escapes me.

Posted by Al | March 13, 2007 3:33 PM

If you look at his peer-reviewed work, most of his stuff is social science-y, ie: "Self-Segregation of Scientists by Political Predispositions."

Some older work (late 90s) is more hard science-y, but has a clear social outlook, ie: "Temporal Fluctuations in Weather and Climate Extremes That Cause Economic and Human Health Impacts: A Review."

So it seems that this character is a social scientist who still knows enough of environmental science to publish in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. He doesn't conduct scientific observation, but understands the scientific foundations behind his social observation. In a news article that was edited for space andd clarity, shortening his title to "environmental scientist" seems forgivable.

Posted by Ben | March 13, 2007 3:36 PM

Where in the world Matthew and Henry Farrell get the idea that environmental science is PURELY a hard science escapes me.

The study of the environment is a physical science. For instance, CO2 is emitted by humans, but environmental science studies it in terms of its impact on earth's physical atmosphere.

The study of the policy having to do with that science is where humans get into the picture. Dr. Pielke studies how policymakers should treat data, the viability of different policy solutions, etc. I don't believe Pielke works in a lab, or does original research having to do with his own findings, etc. When he publishes work, I believe it mostly has to do with other peoples' work in the physical sciences.

Posted by JJ | March 13, 2007 3:45 PM

I don't believe Pielke works in a lab, or does original research having to do with his own findings, etc. When he publishes work, I believe it mostly has to do with other peoples' work in the physical sciences.

JJ -- I was wondering about this. Thanks, that makes sense. And yeah, having now read the actual Times piece and the responses to it at RealClimate and Grist, it seems like the Pielke label was the least of the atrocities here. Labeling Don Vranes a "climatologist" when he's done no peer-reviewed work on the subject; citing head-in-the-sand denialists like Robert Carter, etc. Appalling all around.

Posted by Brad Plumer | March 13, 2007 3:57 PM

The study of the environment is a physical science. For instance, CO2 is emitted by humans, but environmental science studies it in terms of its impact on earth's physical atmosphere.

No, that's climatology, not environmental studies. Seriously, I think it is pretty obvious that most people here, such as Matthew, don't even know what environmental studies is.

Posted by Al | March 13, 2007 4:01 PM

The whole point of the article was to attack Global Warming science by attacking Gore. Classic ad hominem.

Shame on the NY Times.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | March 13, 2007 4:01 PM

Brad - a quick look at those of Pielke's more scientific sounding publications I could find suggests that they are lit-reviews or the like, rather than actual science. More "here":http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/search.html?action=Search&searchString=&selectedMetadata[]=2432&showAllRecords=¤tPage=1&limitPerPage=500 for those who want to see for themselves (Pielke is incredibly prolific). This isn't to disparage Pielke or his work, but it is to say that Matt is right in his criticism of the NYT piece. _Contra_ Ben, publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal does not make one a scientist, unless one is publishing actual work that expands the body of knowledge of that discipline (codifying and organizing it doesn't count). I recently had a review-essay published in the _American Review of Psychology_, but I can assure you that this doesn't make me a psychologist. Al doesn't know what he is talking about - but I repeat myself.

Posted by Henry Farrell | March 13, 2007 4:03 PM

There's use of knowledge from other fields, but that's secondary. It's primarily a physical science.

Posted by JJ | March 13, 2007 4:06 PM

Seriously, I think it is pretty obvious that most people here, such as Matthew, don't even know what environmental studies is.

One of the amusing things about Al is that he constantly acts as though he's an expert on everything.

Posted by Steve | March 13, 2007 4:17 PM

Re: "Is Don J. Easterbrook related to Gregg?"

No. Gregg's last name is Easterstupid.

Posted by Jim W | March 13, 2007 4:18 PM

I've seen Roger Pielke comment a lot at Chris Mooney's blog.

Being able to survey the literature in environmental science does not make him an environmental scientist. I am a mathematician working in a Biology Department. I would never dream of trying to pass myself off as a biologist.

None of that really matters. The comment cited above by Matt could have been written by anybody. I think scientists who make comments outside their field of expertise should make it clear that their opinion on the matter would not be considered "expert knowledge". Pielke's comment above is simply ad hominem. I don't know if it's representative of his work. I do know Chris Mooney respects him, though they argue quite a bit.

Al: sure environmental science has social impact. But it either is a "hard science", i.e. a physical science or it isn't. The classification is based on what it _studies_, not who studies it, or where the work is used. Biological sciences have plenty of societal impact, but that doesn't make them something other than physical sciences.

I have a bigger problem with the Times article: "He (Dr. Hansen) pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States."

As a scientist, this is inane. It reminds me of the people who say "well, it was colder in Argentina last winter - ha! no global warming". Citing one point of data in discussing a long-term trend is idiotic. Yes, idiotic - misleading is not a strong enough word.

On the whole, though, this Times article is decent. I've seen a lot worse.

Posted by RickD | March 13, 2007 4:19 PM

His father is a scientist and he is not. Be careful to distinguish Jr from Sr, which is where the confusion is in this thread...

Posted by Marc | March 13, 2007 4:27 PM

Here is a human interest story on Pielke and his dad (who is actually an environmental scientist) from Nature.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/announcement_files/1020-uploaded/announcement-1020-1906.pdf

Pielke, jr. says he is a policy wonk who isn't that interested in the climate as a scientific subject.

Posted by joeo | March 13, 2007 4:27 PM

One of the amusing things about Al is that he constantly acts as though he's an expert on everything.

Yes, and he's becoming even funnier than he used to be, in that his hackery just gets more and more transparently silly. I really do think that recent events have taken a toll on him. While I still do laugh at him, his increasing feebleness also makes that feel kind of cruel.

Posted by grh | March 13, 2007 4:34 PM

What I think is funny about Al is that he often undermines his point in the same sentence that he makes it. For instance:
"No, that's climatology, not environmental studies. Seriously, I think it is pretty obvious that most people here, such as Matthew, don't even know what environmental studies is."

Um - I think we were all talking about the term "environmental scientist"? "Environmental studies" means something different than "environmental science".

I don't think this is a big deal, but if I were this guy, I would not feel comfortable calling myself an "environmental scientist". I would call myself an "expert on environmental policy". But those are liberal values of truth, precision, diligence, and goodness rearing their ugly head again.

Posted by MDtoMN | March 13, 2007 4:39 PM

Al --

It is obvious you have no clue what you are talking about.

Climatology is a subcategory of the environmental sciences.

And environmental studies is not the same as environmental sciences. Environmental studies, Pielke's specialty, is a social science. It studies human interaction with the environment. Environmental science is a physical science.

Posted by Brian | March 13, 2007 4:39 PM

Pielke, Jr., is close enough to an environmental scientist that the article is accurate in its description. If you look at what he's done and published, and where he's worked, over the last few years, he's clearly a hybrid between an environmental and political scientist, and not easily labeled. Give the reporter a break ...

Posted by Timothy | March 13, 2007 4:57 PM

Give the reporter a break...

If you read the links I posted above, even if we cut the reporter some slack on the Pielke issue, there are so many other problems that you really have to wonder how it made it to print in the NYT.

Posted by JJ | March 13, 2007 5:05 PM

Oh Al, come here and let me give you a hug poor fella. It's been a rough couple, huh?

Posted by Eric Martin | March 13, 2007 5:11 PM

Thank you, Henry Farrell, who is of course being honest and understated.

Posted by Jennifer | March 13, 2007 5:37 PM

why does Dr. Pielke - Jr. or Sr. - have to be an acclaimed physical scientist in order to notice that some of the global warming "debate" centers on the personality of Al Gore? actually, i think a political scientist is probably *more* qualified to speak on that topic than a climatologist, not less.

and before everyone gets all snooty here... in the half of the country which is not Democratic, the personality of Gore really is a big issue in this discussion. it's not right, but it is true. and so i see nothing wrong with Dr. Pielke's statement on its face.

now, somebody here accused Pielke (and the NY Times) of committing a logical fallacy: attacking Gore ad hominem. but Pielke didn't do that. neither did the NY Times. (red herring would've been a better charge.) however, plenty of people here have committed their own fallacy: straw man mixed with denial of the antecedent.

the point is... the bit Matthew quoted is true, at least in some contexts, and disputing the Times' definition of Pielke's qualifications on a topic not being discussed does nothing to change that.

Posted by wkw | March 13, 2007 7:54 PM

Well, I am an environmental scientist, but the issue of polarization is actually one of observation and environmental policy, so it's not clear that the statement attributed to Roger Pielke, Jr. is incorrect.

That said, a friend of mine who lives in Boulder, near NCAR tells this story. My friend is a moderately high level Federal employee, but not in environmental management. He recently saw "An Inconvenient Truth" and as he was coming out, he saw a high level NCAR official also leaving the theater. The guy put his fingers to his lips and said, "Shh. I won't tell if you won't."

I do not think that it is _Al Gore_ who has been doing the polarizing of this matter.

Posted by James Killus | March 13, 2007 7:58 PM

What part of "8 years as a staff scientist" was unclear?

Posted by TW Andrews | March 13, 2007 8:47 PM

Gore is the spokesman, warts and all. He's the guy who's been involved in this issue for decades. It's positively concern-trollish to wax on about how nice it would be to have a spokesman who isn't so politicized. You want to make a case on the merits, fine, but if you lack the evidence then don't insult our intelligence by complaining about Al Gore.

I don't know who the mythical credible spokesman might be. It would have to be someone who cares deeply about the issue yet somehow refrains from taking any political action whatsoever, because the moment they donate to a Democratic candidate they'd just get dismissed as a partisan hack. Good luck with that.

Posted by Steve | March 13, 2007 9:58 PM

When I read this, I thought--Hey, William Broad is now John Tierney's sock puppet.

Posted by jlw | March 13, 2007 11:05 PM

I'm an economist in an environmental science department. I identify myself as an environmental economist to press, but I am an environmental scientist as well. Science includes social sciences, though this is often a point of cotention. So Environmental science includes natural and social science disciplines. However, I would not consider myself qualified to discuss climatology any more than I would discuss ecotoxicology or environmental microbiology.

Posted by CalDem | March 13, 2007 11:07 PM

With a surname like that, James, I'm not sure I want you deciding the fate of the planet :-p

Posted by Zagnut | March 14, 2007 12:24 PM

From the Times article: "Dr. Hansen...pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States."

Not only is it absurd to try discrediting Gore based on one season's evidence, but I saw the movie two nights ago and I am absolutely positive Gore said that global warming has not affected the frequency of hurricanes, just their severity, a position Hansen concedes is correct in the next paragraph. A minor point, maybe, but doesn't it suggest an agenda here, regardless of the facts ?

Posted by Markg | March 14, 2007 2:51 PM

In the unlikely event anyone is interested, the fascist news channel in the persons of Schmuckity and Colmes devoted a considerable portion of their hour to a smear attack on Gore, putting on every climate denialist they could find.

Posted by SLC | March 14, 2007 5:49 PM

"anthropogenesis"

You know, when this blogger ethics panel gets up I'd like to submit that bloggers saying fuck is easier on the eyes than stuff like this.
Seriously, was this the one Ripley killed in Alien3 ?

Posted by Kilo | March 16, 2007 12:45 PM


Comments closed March 27, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.