I think we need a calm quarterback.
kevin trenberth MAY know science but to ask him to review this interdisciplinary assessment is a joke played on readers by Science's editors. scientists are angry because they are losing control of the climate issues to other disciplines and NGOs. I think i will write a review of the climate models and i wonder if Science will print it!]You don't expect to pick up Science magazine and read an article that is chock full of fabrications and errors. Yet, that is exactly what you'll find in Kevin Trenberth's review of The Climate Fix, which appears in this week's issue.
REALITY: Actually, Pielke discusses Bush's rejection of Kyoto on pp. 39 and 442. TRENBERTH: "Pielke treats economic and environmental gains as mutually exclusive"
REALITY: Not so. From p. 50, "[A]ction to achieve environmental goals will have to be fully compatible with the desire of people around the world to meet economic goals. There will be no other way."3. TRENBERTH: "Pielke does not address the international lobbying for economic advantage inherent in the policy negotiations. "
REALITY: Wrong again. The international economics of the climate debate are discussed on pp. 59, 65, 109, 219, 231, and 233 and are a theme throughout.4. TRENBERTH: "He objects to Working Group III's favoring of mitigation (which is, after all, its mission) while ignoring Working Group II (whose mission is adaptation)."
REALITY: Again, not so. Chapter 5 is about the balance between mitigation and adaptation in international policy and discusses both IPCC WG II and WG III (see pp. 153-155). What Pielke objects to is defining adaptation as the consequences of failed mitigation.5. TRENBERTH: "His claims that “the science of climate change becomes irrevocably politicized” because “[s]cience that suggested large climatic impacts on Russia was used to support arguments for Russia's participation in the [Kyoto] protocol”—as if there would be no such impacts and Russia would be a “winner”—look downright silly given the record-breaking drought, heat waves, and wildfires in Russia this past summer."
REALITY: Egregious misrepresentation. Trenberth selectively uses half of a quote to imply that Pielke was making a claim that he did not. The part left out by Trenberth (p. 156) was the counterpoint -- specifically that science that suggested few impacts on Russia was used in similar fashion by advocates to argue against the Kyoto Protocol. Pielke concludes, "In this manner, the science of climate change becomes irreovocably politiciized , as partisans on either side of the debate selectively array bits of science that best support their position."6. TRENBERTH: "Pielke stresses economic data and dismisses the importance of loss of life."
REALITY: Wrong again. Pielke discusses loss of life related to climate change on pp. 176-1787. TRENBERTH: "Geoengineering is also dealt with by Pielke, but only briefly."
REALITY Not so. Pielke devotes an entire chapter to geoengineering (Chapter 5).8. TRENBERTH: "[Pielke] does not address the practicality of storing all of the carbon dioxide."
REALITY: Again, wrong. Pielke addresses the practicality of carbon dioxide storage on pp. 133-134And even with all these errors and false claims, Trenberth concludes that the book is on the right track:
"[P]rogressively decarbonizing the economy and adopting an approach of building more resiliency to climate events would be good steps in the right direction"Anyone who has read The Climate Fix should also read Trenberth's review, as they will learn something about Science magazine and a part of climate science community. As is said, politics ain't beanbag, and climate politics are no different.
Eric Neumayer and Fabian Barthel, Normalizing economic loss from natural disasters: A global analysis, Global Environmental Change, In Press, Corrected Proof, Available online 18 November 2010, ISSN 0959-3780, DOI: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.10.004.The paper finds no evidence of upward trends in the normalized data. From the paper (emphasis added):
"Independently of the method used,we find no significant upward trend in normalized disaster loss.This holds true whether we include all disasters or take out the ones unlikely to be affected by a changing climate. It also holds true if we step away from a global analysis and look at specific regions or step away from pooling all disaster types and look at specific types of disasters instead or combine these two sets of dis-aggregated analysis. Much caution is required in correctly interpreting these findings. What the results tell us is that, based on historical data, there is no evidence so far that climate change has increased the normalized economic loss from natural disasters."This result would seem to be fairly robust by now.
Pielke, Jr., R. A. (2010), An evaluation of the targets and timetables of proposed Australian emissions reduction policies. Environmental Science & Policy , doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2010.10.008
This paper evaluates Australia’s proposed emissions reduction policies in terms of the implied rates of decarbonization of the Australian economy for a range of proposed emissions reduction targets.The paper uses the Kaya Identity to structure the evaluation, employing both a bottom-up approach (based on projections of future Australian population, economic growth,and technology) as well as a top-down approach (deriving implied rates of decarbonization consistent with the targets and various rates of economic growth). Both approaches indicate that the Australian economy would have to achieve annual rates of decarbonization of 3.8–5.9% to meet a 2020 target of reducing emissions by 5%,15% or 25% below 2000 levels, and about 5% to meet a 2050 target of a 60% reduction below 2000 levels. The paper argues that proposed Australian carbon policy proposals present emission reduction targets that will be all but impossible to meet without creative approaches to accounting as they would require a level of effort equivalent to the deployment of dozens of new nuclear power plants or thousands of new solar thermal plants within the next decade.
‘Crusading environmentalists won’t like this book. Nor will George W. Bush. Its potential market lies between these extremes. It explores the hijacking of science by people grinding axes on behalf of noble causes. “Noble cause corruption” is a term invented by the police to justify fitting up people they “know” to be guilty, but for whom they can’t muster forensic evidence that would satisfy a jury. Kellow demonstrates convincingly, and entertainingly, that this form of corruption can be found at the centre of most environmental debates. Highly recommended reading for everyone who doesn’t already know who is guilty.’
– John Adams, University College London, UK
Science and Public Policy
by Aynsley Kellow
Web link: http://www.e-elgar.com/Bookentry_Main.lasso?id=12839
Normally £59.95/$110.00 Special price $40/£25 + postage and packing
To order this book please email (with full credit card details and address):
sales@e-elgar.co.uk, or on our website enter 'Kellowoffer' in the special
discount code box after entering your credit card details and the discount
will be taken off when the order is processed.
Contents:
Preface
1. The Political Ecology of Pseudonovibos Spiralis and the Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Science
2. The Political Ecology of Conservation Biology
3. Climate Science as ‘Post-normal’ Science
4. Defending the Litany: The Attack on The Skeptical Environmentalist
5. Sound Science and Political Science
6. Science and its Social and Political Context
Bibliography
Index
ENVS 5120The course text will be Analyzing Public Policy: Concepts, Tools, and Techniques, 2nd Edition (2010), by Dipak K. Gupta. The figure at the top of this post will be discussed on the first day of class. There are seats available in the course, so if you are a CU student and interested in enrolling, please contact me.
Quantitative Methods of Policy Analysis
This course will survey a range of quantitative methodologies commonly used in applied policy analysis. The course will cover the role of the analyst and analyses in policy making, formal models of the policy process, the role of quantification in problem definition, basic statistics and probability, data and its meaning (including uncertainties), projection and prediction, decision analysis and game theory, government budgeting, cost-benefit analysis, and graphical methods. The course will be organized around a textbook, individual semester-long projects and various problem sets. No prerequisites are necessary.
I think this is a total disgrace to law professors and am disappointed in Marquette Law School. No doubt Mr. Selig is an accomplished professional and no doubt that he can be an asset to any school by an occasional lecture about some of his experiences. But it is quite another thing to teach a class to students learning to be lawyers and to evaluate students, i.e., grade them. Law school is not business school and I am sorry to say that this appears to be a publicity stunt by Marquette Law School.The position of an adjunct professor is certainly the most precarious at most law schools (other than that of the dean), so some angst at this hire is understandable. Adjunct professors -- practicing lawyers, typically, who join the faculty to teach one class (or two) -- serve at the pleasure of the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, without the security of tenure or a long-term contract. They are relatively poorly compensated (rarely, I would guess, earning their hourly billing rate for time spent), yet engage in heavy-lifting activities like writing exams and grading student papers. Yet because they also have full time jobs in practice, they miss out on many of the speakers, workshops, and other activities that add to the joy of law teaching. To the extent that Prof. Rubenstein's blog speaks for adjuncts, his chagrin at any reduction in the qualifications for such teachers is possible to understand.
Thank you, Nimrod, you mighty hunter, for never failing me.
When everything else fell apart -- losing my job, losing my wife, all in the same month -- someone moved to Romania and had to let you go. And we found each other. You are three years older than me but did you know we share a birthday? We will have cake in January!
You and I had a long, strange winter, exploring the silent city during seven months of unemployment and the depths of heartbreak. You never asked what was wrong, never pressured me to speak. You were just there. You listened. We watched the sunrise from the hilltop cemetery and I whispered my woes. We explored the abandoned prison farm and I talked through my grief. Your freewheel's whizzzz was the only comment offered. Thank you for listening.
We had those long hours to get to know each other. That is when I learned you liked fluted fenders. That you wanted a rear basket. Remember when I found your voice, when I brought home that brass bell? And when we removed the original, 34-year-old wrap on your handlebars? Now they are a brilliant hunter green. A mighty hunter, just like you, Nimrod. You fit my style perfectly, but I fit yours, too.
Those small things -- too, too little -- were my poor way of thanking you for being my constant companion. We are a badass duo, friend. We toured our first century, just us, into the Georgian countryside, and several after.
We planned and led an urban bike tour and a Labor Day seersucker social; though already noted in the bike community, you became my best accessory and with you, we became something of bike celebrities. Folks flung compliments like laurels as we whizzed by, bold with bow tie and brass bell. Remember when those racers tick-tacked over in their cleats to scope you out, envious? We even ended up on a bike blog. http://atlantastreetfashion.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-old-fourth-ward-new-friend.html
You were there when I met Laura. She said she was smitten with me but you sealed the deal. Thanks, wingman! Her lime green Schwinn looks awfully nice, huh? Huh? (I know you liked how I cozied you two up on the car rack: you're welcome.)
Without your steadfast support, Nimrod, I might still have come through this all. But not like this. Not whole. Back at scratch and my first fully car-free year, I needed you and you gave all you had. I owe you what I am now.
You were always there for me, Nimrod. Thank you.
"By the way, a deadlift is not a pull; it's the same movement as a leg press except you're using your hands to hold the weight. So the deadlift is a press."The quotation comes from a T-Nation article by Thibaudeau (LINK). The article was not written for me so I did not read it all. Nonetheless, I found the above citation good food-for-thought. I have always thought of dead lift as a pull. But, the authour is right in that there is a leg press element in the dead lift. Yet, he is wrong when he claims that it is "not a pull." There is a pull-element as well; think straight legged dead lift. A lesson to be teased out is that thinking in absolute dichotomies usually leads you astray: black or white, good or bad, correct or incorrect. Often "both-and"-explanations proves to be closer to the truth than "either-or"-explanations.