MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Successful Progressive Conspiracy to Burn a 'Climate Heretic'

Wikileaks reveals how activists orchestrated a campaign to silence climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr.

PielkeYoutubeYouTubeThe politics surrounding the science and policy of climate change is really, really nasty. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are rampant. The recent wikileaks release of John Podesta's emails (Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign manager) uncovered a remarkable effort by minions at the Center for American Progress to silence University of Colorado political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. whose research suggested that climate change has not yet caused any discernible uptick in property damage. Pielke details his ordeal in an op-ed "My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic" over at the Wall Street Journal. As Pielke explains:

Much to my surprise, I showed up in the WikiLeaks releases before the election. In a 2014 email, a staffer at the Center for American Progress, founded by John Podesta in 2003, took credit for a campaign to have me eliminated as a writer for Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight website. In the email, the editor of the think tank's climate blog bragged to one of its billionaire donors, Tom Steyer: "I think it's fair [to] say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538."

The only acceptable narrative for the activists over at the Center for American Progress is that climate is making the weather worse resulting in ever more property damage and anyone questioning the politically correct story must be drummed out of polite society.

So what did wikileaks reveal? Among other things, an email from ThinkProgress chief editor Judd Legum to major Democratic donor (and climate warrior) Tom Steyer bragging about how he had successfully trolled FiveThirtyEight statistical analysis website proprietor Nate Silver into getting rid of Pielke. Why go after Pielke? Because he had published an article at 538 based on his research daring to point out that so far climate change had not boosted "normalized" property damage. Normalized basically means taking into account the fact that as a result of economic and population growth there is more property and lives at risk from bad weather.

Pielke's conclusion elicited fury from activists and some climatologists. Silver published a rebuttal to Pielke by MIT hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel. Interestingly, Emanuel's rebuttal did not actually question Pielke's data showing that normalized damages had not been increasing. Instead, Emanuel cited studies in which climate models projected, among other things, that future warming would generate more powerful hurricanes that would cause more damage. Emanuel made an interesting distinction between trend detection and event risk assessment. He offered an illustration in which researchers report that the number of bears in a forest had just doubled. In this case, mauling statistics (trend detection) based on earlier bear populations would not be a reasonable guide to the mauling risks (event assessment) forest strollers would now face.

"When it comes to certain types of natural hazards, there are more bears in the woods," wrote Emanuel. "For example, there is a clear upward trend in overall North Atlantic hurricane activity by virtually all metrics, over the past 30 years or so, though the cause of this is still uncertain." Emanuel's claim was written in 2014. But are there in fact as a result of climate change more hurricanes lurking in the North Atlantic woods?

A recent analysis looking at historical changes in Atlantic hurricanes and tropical storms by researchers at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory finds that "the historical tropical storm count record does not provide compelling evidence for a greenhouse warming induced long-term increase" in the North Atlantic.

Emanuel and other modelers believe that warming will strengthen hurricanes. In other words, bigger bears will roam the woods. However, a September, 2015 study by researchers at NOAA's National Hurricane Center reported that "the global frequency of category 4 and 5 [more intense] hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant downward trend while the percentage of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has shown a small, insignificant upward trend between 1990 and 2014. Accumulated cyclone energy globally has experienced a large and significant downward trend during the same period." The bears are not yet getting bigger, but the models say they will soon.

So two years later what do we know about the loss trends that might be related to climate change? A study published in Nature Geoscience in October 2015 used a regression-based approach instead of normalization to analyze hurricane loss trends in the United States. The researchers reported:

Based on records of geophysical data, we identify an upward trend in both the number and intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin as well as in the number of loss-generating tropical cyclone records in the United States that is consistent with the smoothed global average rise in surface air temperature. We estimate that, in 2005, US$2 to US$14 billion of the recorded annual losses could be attributable to climate change, 2 to 12% of that year's normalized losses.

On the other hand, a November 2015 review article in Climatic Change noted that the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report for Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (IPCC-SREX) report ...

...demonstrated for the first time comprehensively that anthropogenic climate change is modifying weather and climate extremes. The report also documents, what has been long known, that losses from natural disasters, including those linked to weather, have increased strongly over the last decades. Responding to the debate regarding a contribution of anthropogenic climate change to the increased burden from weather-related disasters, the IPCC-SREX finds that such a link cannot be made today, and identifies the key driver behind increases in losses as exposure changes in terms of rising population and capital at risk.

And in a more recent analysis by reinsurer Munich Re's Head of Geo Risks Research Peter Hoeppe notes in a March 2016 article in Weather and Climate Extremes that ...

...the number of loss relevant weather extremes has increased significantly. There is increasing evidence that at least part of these increases are driven by global warming. The increases in losses are driven predominantly by higher exposed values due to increasing wealth and population in many regions. The task to quantify the significantly smaller signal of climate change is very difficult as some more confounding parameters have to be considered for which data availability if confined.

Let's just say that the question of how much climate change contributes to current damages caused by weather extremes is still actively being debated. Just not by Pielke.

Disclosure: Pielke expressed some reservations about my book The End of Doom in his review. I rebut him. I do note that my book has a long section devoted to reporting the research on climate change and weather damages.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, that Progressives would act like a bunch of fascist shitheads. /sarc

  • Entelechy||

    Can't Ron can do better than iexpressing indignation at a second generation climate hack getting fisked by one of Podesta's proprietaries?

    When will he get around to deconstructing Al's latest 24 hour Climate Reality telethon, starring Naomi Oreskes as herself.

  • ||

    True believers will not tolerate any dissent.

  • TBlakely||

    I would say most of the rank and file of Global Warming zealots are true believers while the bulk of the Global Warming leadership are power grabbing wannabe tyrants.

  • John||

    Running anyone who dissents out of the profession makes getting a "scientific consensus" pretty easy doesn't it?

  • ||

    The 97% who are left, agree, or else.

  • C. Anacreon||

    And that ubiquitous 97% number came from one study of 68 'climate scientists' who were known to the poll taker so likely shared his opinion.

    It was a completely non-scientific and tiny survey, yet is amazingly and ironically the basis of assholes everywhere saying climate skeptics are 'anti-science'.

    If you ever hear someone bringing up the 97%, tell them the 97% figure is 'anti-science' and watch their head explode.

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    Wasn't it 97% of research studies the study examined, not scientists?

  • Pay up, Palin's Buttplug!||

    I was thinking of the John Cook study. See "The Myth of the Climate Change '97%'" for a list of the various studies that arrived at that 97% number.

  • ||

    There's been a poll or two, but they've been as C. Anacreon describes - i.e. either self-selected "climate scientists" or "people known to the poll taker" - i.e. friends of the author.

    Otherwise, like you say, it's 97% of studies, and that number is just "that agree that the world is warming and human activity is contributing in some, possibly even beneficial, way." The "consensus" on "the world is ending and it's all the fault of the Koch Brothers" is much, much smaller.

    Plus, it bears pointing out that if your climate science meta-study set is: Mann, Mann, Mann, Hansen, Jones, Hansen, Mann, Jones, Mann, Hansen, Jones, Mann, Michaels, Hansen, Mann, Jones, Hansen, Mann, Mann & Jones, it's not hard to see how you get a "95% consensus" among the studies, where if you only counted scientists your number would be much lower right out of the gate.

    If Cato weren't funding Michaels, the consensus would be 100%.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's irrelevant in any case. Science is done by hypothesis and experiment, not "consensus". Consensus is important in religion and politics, not science.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Did you think the climate freaker-outers were really talking science?

  • BakedPenguin||

    Certainly not. I just like to point the above out over and over, because it needs to be said.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Yea, I kinda knew that. I just like typing climate freaker-outers and your comment was a great place for it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Ah, but the Climate Change Crusaders don't have any experiments on their side, and their hypotheses keep turning out to be bunk. So Stalinist 'consensus' is all they've got.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Their predictions keep being wrong.

    Turns out Gaia is a bitch and just won't cooperate with her groveling worshippers.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    "Consensus is important in religion and politics, not science."
    Oooh! I like that one.

  • rudehost||

    When the lightbringer was still alive in Cuba they regularly reported him getting roughly 100% of the votes. I am pretty sure the same dynamics apply anytime progressives are involved in determining who believes what.

  • John Titor||

    If you think that's bad, Reason should run an article on Mann's infinite court case against Mark Steyn.

    (Ha, beat you Pan! Steyn is Myne!)

  • Pan Zagloba "The Stickler"||

    Joke's on you, I was gonna needle him for not reviewing Steyn's book, which is more relevant to topic at hand.
    Ron claims that, because there's no progress, there's nothing to report on (which, process IS the punishment), but reviewing the book he wrote to offset the costs of the suit would be nice. Particularly since it's not making any huge claims. Just that Mann is a bad scientist, with corroborating testimony from actual scientists (including seriously pro-ACGW ones).

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Steyn isn't Exxon you know.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    (just noticed Bailey is no longer posting the Exxon disclaimer. sorry if the comment makes absolutely no sense to recent readers of his columns.)

  • commodious got a stew going||

    Did he sell to avoid having to post the disclaimer, or sold because peak oil is lately looking like trough oil, or sell because the spread between trough oil and what he might expect to gain if he holds on to the shares is less than the value of the time he spends having to copy/paste the disclaimer?

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    You got me there.

  • ||

    It's actions like these that makes me think that the motives of the AGW crowd are not as pure as the wind driven snow.

    Sweet Jeebus! His study simply says that property damage hasn't increased.

    I assume his data is freely available to double check. Did anyone try this?

  • kbolino||

    CAGW is totally not an apocalyptic cult, no sirree...

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    Saying that hurricanes aren't going to grow monstrous and much more numerous due to climate change isn't even a climate skeptic position. Chris Landsea is more or less the #1 scientist at the National Hurricane Center says that the oceans are warming, and anthropogenic change is a part of that... but it's not really affecting hurricanes much (IIRC back in 2005 he said that Katrina and Rita might have been 1 or 2 MPH faster due to climate change).

    Fun fact about that 2005 season, so often pointed to as evidence for hurricanes being affected by climate change: The 2005 season had 28 named storms. This beat the previous record of 21 in 1933.

    Any hurricane data we have that comes from before the satellite era is worthless, but there's one key difference between 1933 and 2005: In 2005, 21 of 28 storms made it west of 60 degrees west longitude. In 1933, all 21 storms made it west of there. Wonder why.

  • ||

    I'm not quite a sceptic, I'm more of a 'global luke-warming' kind of guy.

    The increased hurricane numbers and damage prediction makes a lot of sense. More heat means warmer water. Warm water makes hurricanes, so warmer water should be more and more powerful hurricanes.

    This prediction is at least 15 years old, unfortunately, it hasn't been supported by the data.

  • Juvenile Bluster||

    I know you're not making that argument, but where it fails is that it isn't just water temp, it's water temp contrasted with air temp and atmospheric temp. The purpose of hurricanes is heat transfer from the tropics to the poles.

  • Greg F||

    The purpose of hurricanes is heat transfer from the tropics to the poles.

    The 'global warming' hypothesis says the poles should warm the fastest and thus hurricanes should diminish.

  • ThomasD||

    Not a purpose. But a natural consequence of sufficient temperature disparity (gradient) at increasing latitude.

  • tarran||

    I'm not quite a sceptic, I'm more of a 'global luke-warming' kind of guy.

    That IMHO is where skepticism should take one, if one allows the evidence and physics to guide one. :/

  • kbolino||

    I'm in the "make one--just one--goddamn prediction that proves true 10 years later" camp

  • tarran||

    It will snow in Utah in the winter of 2026-2027. :)

  • DenverJ||

    I'm in the "does this mean that the ladies will be wearing less clothes?" camp.

  • Threedoor||

    Sadly only Lena Dunham.

  • TO in TX||

    He clearly said ladies; Lena Dunham is merely a female.

  • Nunya||

    And that I might question at times.

  • Agammamon||

    Well, there is 'Global Warming' and there is 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. I can believe the climate is changing to a warmer baseline, I'm just having real trouble with the evidence that *human activity is a primary (or even a significant) driver* of that warming.

    If its not the latter, all this talk about carbon emissions and recycling is pointless. As are all the plans to extend government control over our lives to 'save the planet'.

  • ||

    The ice age is ending. It will continue to warm at about the rate it is and has been warming since the peak of the last ice age until all of the polar ice is melted, just like the last time.

  • westernsloper||

    There is no last time. Time started in 1900. Get with the program already.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    1900? The millennials have that pushed back all the way to 1776 and the steam engine!

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    Well, there is 'Global Warming' and there is 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'. I can believe the climate is changing to a warmer baseline, I'm just having real trouble with the evidence that *human activity is a primary (or even a significant) driver* of that warming.

    I have different levels of skepticism for each logical leap. I think there are serious flaws with the way temps are measured and statistically manipulated, but I'm not particularly wed to the idea that the globe isn't warming. It may or may not be. The one thing that does drive me nuts is when the cultists show a graph that was obviously smoothed over hundreds of years when using ice core samples, but contains 6-month data points when thermometer and satellite data was made available. I'm not wholly convinced that there weren't more extreme spikes in temperature in the past that were simply smoothed out due to the limitations of ice core sampling.

    I'm more skeptical of anthroprogenic global warming. The idea that the CO2 and methane emitted from human created and controlled sources is causing warming is pretty extreme, and I haven't seen nearly enough evidence to convince me.

  • Chocolate Starfish ( . )||

    "...plans to extend government control over our lives to 'save the planet'."

    This is the old "Trojan Horse" play. Very effective.

  • Diane Merriam||

    AGW is valid to this extent ... All else being held equal, a doubling of the concentration of CO₂ will result in an increase in ambient temperature of about 1.1°C due to the fact that the CO₂ molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy in the infrared spectrum and some of it is released in the form of molecular kinetic energy (which is what we measure as heat) instead of just being re-emitted as electromagnetic energy again.

    The problem is, that a global climate isn't a lab. It's a chaotic system and no one knows all the inputs and feedbacks. Empirical evidence seems to suggest a feedback multiplier of about 1.1 to 1.3. The catastrophists use a feedback multiplier of up to 6.

  • commodious got a stew going||

    That IMHO is where skepticism should take one, if one allows the evidence and physics to guide one.

    I prefer no evidence and psychics to guide my opinion.

    *peers into silicon crystal ball; on the other side, inverted, a tableau appears: Mark Steyn and Michael Man duke it out in cosmic battle, as infinite as the time it takes the DC Superior Court to bring their case to trial*

  • commodious got a stew going||

    +n

  • Bra Ket||

    Interestingly, psychics use the weather to make their predictions now. In the past it was Tarot cards or entrails, or other sources of essentially randomness.

  • commodious got a stew going||

    Also interesting is the gradual movement out of alignment of the original astrological symbols, which I hear is an issue for astrologers but that's the extent of my knowledge on the subject.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    The increased hurricane numbers and damage prediction makes a lot of sense. More heat means warmer water. Warm water makes hurricanes, so warmer water should be more and more powerful hurricanes.

    It is not so much warm water that makes hurricanes, or more powerful hurricanes, or any other weather really, but the difference (delta T) in temperature between places that drives such dynamic behavior. If water is getting warmer everywhere per se, than the dynamic behavior would not change - especially for the kinds of deltas were talking about here (tenths of a degree over decades).

  • Ted S.||

    And yet the alarmists keep saying the poles are getting hotter faster, which should decrease the delta and make for fewer large hurricanes.

    But of course, every weather event is proof of climate change to the alarmists.

  • Chip Your Pets||

    Warm water makes hurricanes, so warmer water should be more and more powerful hurricanes.

    There's your non sequitur. Nine pregnant women can't make a baby in a month.

  • GSL in E||

    The sad thing: all the criticisms you've just mentioned are totally valid, and you haven't even touched on the statistical modeling. Climate models really belong in the same category of work as macroeconomic forecasting, a field known for 2 things: 1) use of intense, rigorous math to characterize a complex, highly nonlinear system, and 2) a laughably poor record in making predictions. Climate forecasting really has only one question worth asking: is the climatic variability we observe within the bounds of the natural variability we'd see without any anthropogenic effects, or do anthropogenic influences exert a unique effect? The problem, which is probably insoluble, is that the system is too complex for us to ever really understand its natural variance.

  • esteve7||

    It's ironic they use the claim "denier", because it's them who are acting like the fucking establishment church, not the other way around

  • buybuydandavis||

    SJWs Always Project

  • Sevo||

    I notice Jack hasn't been here reminding us that the Paris agreement don't need no steenking senate!
    He seems to have gone missing right around the first of November.

  • ||

    Who is Jack?

    I can't keep track of all the nut jobs anymore.

  • ||

    JackassAce or whatever, an AmSoc level retard.

  • Sevo||

    And a liar who provides links worth reading; they often contradict his claims.

  • ||

    Hillary's gone, sorry Paris agreement.

  • Brochettaward = (((pants)))||

    Hopefully he's dead.

  • ||

    The increases in losses are driven predominantly by higher exposed values due to increasing wealth and population in many regions. The task to quantify the significantly smaller signal of climate change is very difficult as some more confounding parameters have to be considered for which data availability if confined.

    No doubt. Another of those confounding parameters is increased subsidization of living in disaster-prone locales. Try to pull that out of the mix.

  • kbolino||

    The idea that, if no private party can affordably insure against a particular liability, then it's probably not a liability worth having, seems to be lost on many people.

  • buybuydandavis||

    But it's a liability worth passing off to other people.

  • Juice||

    Based on records of geophysical data, we identify an upward trend in both the number and intensity of hurricanes in the North Atlantic basin as well as in the number of loss-generating tropical cyclone records in the United States that is consistent with the smoothed global average rise in surface air temperature.

    Who are you going to believe? The IPCC or your lying eyes?

  • kbolino||

    Wouldn't the hurricane record naturally be spottier the farther you go back? It's not much of stretch to note that damage from one storm can be wiped away by damage from another storm, not to mention other factors such as erosion and forestation.

  • Juice||

    But there is no upward trend in the number of storms or their intensity. They just say there is. Whatever their "analysis" was, it's job was to arrive at a pre-conceived conclusion.

  • kbolino||

    Fair enough. But I don't even know how you could measure these things before radar over the Atlantic was widespread, never mind before humans started writing this shit down in North America.

  • Juice||

    Oh right. Any hurricane statistics more than about 60 years old are highly suspect. Just like any temperature records from before 1900. How the fuck do you calculate the "global average temperature" in fucking 1880?

  • kbolino||

    How the fuck do you calculate the "global average temperature" in fucking 1880?

    1. Create some BS formula
    2. Feed some BS numbers into it
    3. Wave your hands around a lot
    4. Accuse everyone of being a "denier"

  • BigW||

    Oh and when that BS formula calculates lower temperatures for the current time period, you just replace them with the "better" data.

    What does this say about your formula, it says that is complete shit and a total lie....

  • ||

    Take some ice core samples. Enter data, throw in some random variables that you just pulled out of your ass. Turn on the data juggling algorithm. See results. Don't like the results? Get other ice core sample, repeat until the right results come out. Declare that it's almost too late and that heretics must be burned.

  • True Scottsman||

    "Our models show that burning heretics has a net decrease on global temperatures."

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    How the fuck do you calculate the "global average temperature" in fucking 1880?

    I was actually dumb enough to ask a similar question on Twitter, during one of my rare defenses of Gary Johnson no less.

    I simply asked how these folks commenting on global warming arrived at an average global temperature before 1905. All I got back was a bunch of brochures on the mini-ice age. Never one actual answer.

    BTW, nobody asked why I picked that year, which is probably obvious to most here. There were no direct temperature readings of either pole, of any kind, before 1909. And the South Pole was not reached until 1917.

  • Ted S.||

    December 1911, actually.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Then I could have used 1909. Damn.

  • ||

    Accumulated Cyclonic Energy seems to correlate better with El Nino than global temperature. My eyeballs say 800 +/- 200 is a good round number, and we've seen both below 600 and above 1000 since 1998 when the end of the world started.

  • tarran||

    In climate science, everything is spottier the farther you go back.

    That's why I am so impatient with the hyperbolic claims about the 'unprecedented' observations of the present. It's almost impossible to compare observations from the past with observations of the present because of the different instruments used, the poor documentation of times of observation, poor documentation of calibration, etc.

    I'm reminded of another phenomenon involving unprecedented observations. Until a couple of decades ago, it was a decadal occurance to have some anthropologist/journalist publicize the discovery of some new small group of people who had incredible longevity. Inevitably these people were pretty cut off from the rest of the world. And consistently and universally, each of these groups had no written record of births. You just had people who claimed to be 150 - 250 years old. And nobody alive to contradict them. :/

    And oddly, that longevity did not translate to the descendants of that population who were born in an era where accurate birth records existed.

    While it is possible to collect data about the past using modern day observations or old records, one has to be very, very mindful of the limitations of that data in telling us in the present what was happening in the past.

  • ||

    Oh hogwash. There was snowball earth and then it mysteriously got warmer again. You think that could have happened if there were not some advanced crustaceans or something driving around in SUVs?

  • DenverJ||

    People before Noah lived for hundreds and hundreds of years, because the earth had a heavy atmosphere from all the water vapor in it and that pressure increased life expectancy and lizards keep growing as long as they live and that's why there were dinosaurs before Noah's flood but not after.
    *This is an actual thing that has been argued by young earth creationists.

  • MikeT1986||

    Dinosaurs were actually vegetarians, T-Rex used the big teeth to eat pumpkins.

  • ||

    Jurack O'Lantern Park

  • CraigL||

    Japan was held as an example of longevity for a while (in spite of lots of smoking and known stomach cancer issues). They decided to have a celebration of all the oldsters, and found out that most of the 90+ yr old people had died long ago, but they don't keep good records of deaths and relatives like to keep collecting their pensions. Suddenly no one mentions Japan anymore.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Wouldn't the hurricane record naturally be spottier the farther you go back?

    Of course not! Tree rings! Perfect anthropology! Etc., etc., etc.

  • BigT||

    Hurricane landfalls in the US have been recorded since about 1850. Easy to observe.

    You know which decade had the most?

    The '90s...

    ...

    ...

    The 1890s.

  • ||

    Statistically there isnt any goddamned climate change. What we do have is one huge scam and a bunch of liars.

  • DenverJ||

    Meh. The planet might be warming. Hell, man night even be the cause. My opinion is "so what?". The greatest advances in science and the arts have come from civilizations that lived in warm periods. And, you can feed more people. And, is rather be warm than cold. And, isn't it better to liver in a warning period rather than an ice age? You know that painting of George Washington crossing the Delaware in a boat? I've heard that it was so cold that year, that Washington and his men walked across the frozen river.

  • The Hyperbole||

    I heard it was co cold that when the men spoke, their words froze in mid-air and when it thawed in the spring there was a terrible chatter for weeks.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I'm sure they have a smug rationale

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    This is exactly what progs (hi obama) are trying to do when they talk about banning fake news.

  • __Warren__||

    So there are going to be more bears, larger bears, and they're going to be blowing us?

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    How long til a sock makes a post attacking wikileaks while ignoring the content of the emails.?
    I'm gonna say by 6:05.

  • __Warren__||

    IF THE INTERMEDIARY IS SUSPECT, SO IS THE CONTENT OF THE E-MAIL!

  • kbolino||

    For example, see mtrueman's "arguments" over the weekend.

    DNC leaks = not credible because "anonymous sources" and "we don't know what Wikileaks is up to" even though DKIM signatures on the emails have been validated

    NSA leaks = 100% credible

  • ||

    Well, it's a religion. Has there been many religions that didn't burn some heretics at some point? Maybe they'll evolve in a few centuries and actually start believing in science.

  • DenverJ||

    The Aztec religion. They didn't burn people at the stake.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    It seems that anything that gets within ten miles of Hillary Clinton is just really awful.

  • ||

    That's heavy duty taint, you can't just wash that shit off.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    "Heavy Duty Taint" was my nickname in college.

  • The Hyperbole||

    better than "Doodie Heavy Taint"

  • __Warren__||

    Not "Restraining Order Guy"?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    There's no law against going through someones trash.

  • ||

    How many nicknames did you have in college?

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Can't wash that kinda taint for sure. But this kind of solution might work:

    Hillary-sized heavy-duty taint fix

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Or not.

  • ||

  • tarran||

    One skeptic who is not impressed by Roger Pielke Jr is Brandon Shollenberger who has a pretty angry diatribe against what he sees as Pielke's habit of making hyperbolic or factually incorrect claims and then claiming to be a victim when he is correctly called on that behavior.

    Taking his post at face value, I think he makes a pretty good case.

    Guess what Pielke? If you had maybe not been a dick and publicly declared you wouldn't talk to people because you didn't agree with what they wrote without giving them a chance to address your concerns, maybe reporters would want to talk to you. That you being a dick to people makes people not want to talk to you doesn't mean there is some nefarious plot against you. It doesn't mean:

    I didn't know reporters had such lists. But I get it. No one likes being told that he misreported scientific research, especially on climate change. Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy. Plus, bad news gets clicks.

    Yet more is going on here than thin-skinned reporters responding petulantly to a vocal professor.


    The reality is Pielke has a well-earned reputation for being a brat. That's been a big source of trouble for him which he seems to either be unaware of or just ignore.
  • ||

    I don't know anything about Pielke so that may be a legitimate complaint but...

    "Some believe that connecting extreme weather with greenhouse gases helps to advance the cause of climate policy."

    There is so much wrong with that sentence I hardly know where to start.

  • Greg F||

    I read enough of Brandon Shollenberger to know he doesn't have a clue nor does he seem interested in the details concerning Roger Pielke Jr. Perhaps Mr. Shollenberger should better inform himself of what was going on.

    http://www.dailycamera.com/top.....e-writings

  • __Warren__||

    All this climate change shit is is nasty folks trying to get into a position to determine who gets how much energy so they can extract the most rents by being gatekeepers.

    This kind of thing goes way back. In one of Jane Jacob's books she described how in areas that needed irrigation the person who controlled the water distribution always became a tyrant. Without water you would die and that made the value of the water very high therefore to survive you would have to pay a lot in cash, other resources, and a willingness to be subservient to the water holder.

    That's what the folks behind the eco-freak movement want.

  • ||

    Yeah, but the rent seekers have hordes of useful idiots who actually believe the 'save the planet' non-sense.

  • AlmightyJB||

    And they don't realize science is a process, not a religion. But they fucking love science.

  • ||

    Fucken Mr. Burns.

  • buybuydandavis||

    The newer racket are international slush funds for climate mitigation.

  • Rockabilly||

    Listen progs, the climate is always changing.
    Always has, and if the past is any indiction, always will...

    Spring - the flowers start blooming the temp is rising
    Summer - the flowers are in bloom - the temp is getting warmer
    Fall - leaves are falling and the temp is getting cooler
    Winter - most if not all the leaves are off the trees and the temp gets colder
    Repeat with Spring.

    It just goes round and round like that song 'The Circle Game.'

    And the seasons they go round and round
    And the painted ponies go up and down
    We're captive on the carousel of time
    We can't return we can only look
    Behind from where we came
    And go round and round and round
    In the circle game

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHQEBKOi7zk

  • AlmightyJB||

    Plus geological history

  • ||

    "Listen progs, the climate is always changing. Always has, and if the past is any indiction, always will"

    Prog elites: Ain't no money to be made there.

    Prog serfs: But muh feelz!

  • straffinrun||

    Gotta give the pantshitters credit for showing how a positive feedback loop can occur.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Straff, thanks for posting that tremendous Joe Rogan podcast link with Jordan Peterson. I listened to the entire thing today while driving and it exceeded any expectations I may have had for it (and you), and I also learned a lot.

  • straffinrun||

    Yeah!

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Attention all female Reason readers and Jesse - let your gardens grow: Adults who remove all their pubic hair 'are 440 per cent more likely to get an STD'

    It found adults who removed all their pubic hair were at a 440 per cent higher risk of picking up a sex bug. Experts said younger people are most likely to banish the bush.
  • ||

    I always felt pubes were there for a reason.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I wonder if there's causation or correlation there. It may just be that those most likely to get an STD are also more likely to shave.

  • westernsloper||

    Or is it, the only ones who "groom" bang the skanky folk?

  • westernsloper||

    Which is exactly what you said. Reading I'm ok at, comprehension, a little slower.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Sort of. I was thinking more about patterns of behavior than partner choice.

  • westernsloper||

    Wouldn't partner choice be a behavior? I always liked the girls who behaved in a way that may have led to contracting an STD, but most times, they wouldn't talk to me.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Wheels within wheels...

  • Ted S.||

    That was my first thought as well.

  • DOOMco||

    yea, seems like its people who shave are more likely to have sex with more (random) partners.
    or a bit of both. or whatever.

  • ||

    OK, so it's correlated with age. No surprise there.

  • ||

    Never got the shaving thing. I'm also 22 years into a very happy monogamous marriage so I don't really give a shit.

  • Ted S.||

    Not into the shaving thing either, but it would be nice if pubes had the consistency of the hair on top of one's head.

  • DenverJ||

    I dated a very nice black girl once. Her pubic hair was very similar to the hair on top of her head.

  • Quincy.||

    Why? So you'd have to comb them daily?

  • ||

    Damned squirrels. My previous post will probably show up after I post this one.

    A couple of years ago I was visiting with some friends in a restaurant when I realized I had a tickle in my throat. I plucked a pussy hair out of my mouth, held it up in the light and said "Well, would you look at that. "

    I got mixed reviews.

  • Raven Nation||

    Man, glad I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I had to shave when I got fixed. Not all that.

  • DenverJ||

    Itches like all hell when it grows back in.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    Married women don't like to pick pubes out of their teeth any more than any other girl.

  • Ted S.||

    Q: Why does every bride have a beaming smile as she walks down the aisle?
    A: She knows she's never going to have to give another blowjob as long as she lives.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    Shhhhhh, don't let my wife hear that!

  • mr simple||

    Well, to be fair, nobody likes a mouthful of hair.

  • Agammamon||

    Like drug use - are shaved pubes causally linked with STD's or are they simply a sign of someone more sexually adventurous and thus more likely to be careless enough to get one?

  • Cyto||

    Well, not the crabs though.....

  • JayU||

    Lucky Strikes are scientifically proven to protect your throat from irritation.

  • Mr Drew||

    Hell yes! I glad someone finally had the guts to say it.

    Full disclosure, i love me some luckies. 35 years now.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There is no room for dating in this place of grief (more progtears)

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....e-to-date/

  • Len Bias||

    She is blaming her inability to be intimate on politics. I find the more obsessed someone is with politics, the less they are able to connect with people on a meaningful level.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There is no room for dating in this place of grief (more progtears)

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....e-to-date/

  • Agammamon||

    "In August, I went on six dates in one week. I had decided that I was ready to look for a partner."

    No, that really doesn't mean that.

  • AlmightyJB||

    There is no room for dating in this place of grief (more progtears)

    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....e-to-date/

  • AlmightyJB||

    Takes 5 minutes to submit, then it posts 3 times. Asshole squirrels.

  • JayU||

    Lucky Strikes are scientifically proven to protect your throat from irritation.

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    Lucky Strikes are scientifically proven to protect your throat from irritation.

  • Eman||

    We have maybe fifty years of reliable climate data (probably more like thirty, but either way...). That's really not enough information to do anything more than inform your guesses about the weather in a century.

  • ||

    My grandfather said when he was a boy (turn of the century) the icicles would hang from the corner of the porch and touch the ground every winter. Then it got warmer, then colder again. When I was a kid we hunted rabbits in the snow every winter and in the summer when we swam in the local lakes it was like bathwater. Then in the late nineties the grass stayed green all winter. Now it is getting colder again.

    It is almost like the climate is cyclic.

  • Rich||

    I blame the Sun.

  • ||

    And the moon. And the stars.

    While the Devil wants to fuck me in the back of his car....

  • geo1113||

    We have maybe fifty no years of reliable climate data

  • ||

    ^This.

    They have been fudging the data and straight up lying over and over.

  • Derpetologist||

    file under: there's no sugar-coating it

    Mook: Clinton's 'deplorables' comment 'definitely could have alienated' voters

    Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook acknowledged the former secretary of state calling half of Donald Trump's supporters "deplorables" alienated voters, saying that's why the Democratic presidential nominee publicly expressed regret over the remarks so quickly thereafter.
  • ||

    The morons are still at it. I think I heard fauxcahontas disparaging voters a few days ago. I hope they keep it up, double down even.

  • Mr Drew||

    What? But if they go full-on guilt trip and sjw they are sure to convince Ohio red necks to vote team blue.

    Really all they need to do is feel harder.

  • commodious got a stew going||

    I'm afraid there's no sugarcoating it: we're all out of frosting.

  • Rich||

    "I think it definitely could have alienated some voters and that's why she got out there right away," Mook added.

    "It" meaning the private server bullshit, right? RIGHT?!

  • westernsloper||

    "Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook acknowledged the former secretary of state calling half of Donald Trump's supporters "deplorables" alienated voters, saying that's why the Democratic presidential nominee publicly expressed regret over the remarks so quickly thereafter."

    Fuck her. She essentially called anyone not voting for her a racist. And then in her "regret.....remarks" said, well, maybe not everyone. I hope the DNC keeps on the same path they are on. It will be better for personal liberty. I know many have reservations about Trump but holy shit that woman was not the path to take.

  • american socialist||

    "She essentially called anyone not voting for her a racist. "

    No she didn't. She said half of them were. That seems about right.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asswipe

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    Does the basket of deplorables include racists who think chinamen are incapable of constructing proper English grammar? Sources say yes, most definitely.

  • BigT||

    AmSoc thinks some people deserve special privilege due to their race (affirmative action) and he calls other people racists? Hahaha! No self awareness, like most progs.

  • american socialist||

    since I'm not a racist, I don't really care if people repeatedly call me a racist because they disagree with my politics. Maybe you all should do the same. It certainly seems like it would take a load of stress out of your life.

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    You're mostensible definitely a racist. Accept it.

  • Sevo||

    From the link:

    "Hillary apologized right away after that and said that she misspoke and that she regretted the comment. That's something that Donald Trump wouldn't do, you know,"

    First, notice she didn't say she was wrong, just that she 'mispoke'; used the wrong words, I guess.
    And then 'Trump wouldn't have done that'. Yeah, well, he hadn't called Clinton's supporters "pompous twits", either.

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    I know a lifelong donkey that to this day continues to insist that the comment was wise and descriptive.

  • ||

    And yet they can't figure out why calling voters idiots didn't work.

  • Agammamon||

    He's an idiot. Nobody who took offense at 'deplorables' was considering voting for Clinton in the first place and nothing she did (short of offering to auto-euthanize) would have changed their minds.

    The rest of us? The ones laughing at 'deplorables'? Yeah, we weren't voting for her either.

  • croaker||

    File under: No shit, Sherlock! What was your first clue?

  • Derpetologist||

    Today in Pants-shitting: I'm A Liberal Professor And My Conservative Students Terrify Me

    So why am I convinced that I will show up on this McCarthy-esque black list? I teach feminist criticism.

    Your parents must be so proud.

    I can understand other teachers' concerns regarding this combination of influences but I have found that the underlying impulse of most liberal social justice warriors (and how is that a negative term? I think it's badass, but I digress) is to guarantee open expression of ideas without causing distress to others.

    Yeah, the internet is full of SJWs courageously standing up for free speech.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zusbxCfxHqE

  • Derpetologist||

    Note also he does not name a single instance where a conservative student did anything to threaten him.

    I would not expect many conservatives to willingly attend a class on feminist criticism.

  • ||

    Feminist criticism is an alternate spelling for 'unadulterated bullshit', right?

    I am seeing a lot of this kind of nonsense. They were riding high and giving everyone the finger when their guy was in and now they have the sense that their days are numbered.

    My grandmother would spit every time the subject of progressives came up. She said the last time their run was up anyone who publicly admitted to being a progressive would be lynched.

  • Sevo||

    "Feminist criticism is an alternate spelling for 'unadulterated bullshit', right?"

    With heapin' helpin's of gratuitous guilt tossed in...

  • BigT||

    Isn't "Feminist criticism" just cunt shaming?

  • Bgoptmst||

    How is it this guy teaches my feminist criticism not triggering or appropriation or some other SJW bullshit?

  • Ted S.||

    You probably terrify those of your students who don't think like you.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    The entire article is dripping with condescension and smugness. These progs never learn. Guess what Mr. Gender Studies Prof, you're not that smart, you're not imparting wisdom on your students, and you're a fucking relic of a broken and outdated education system.

    I've sat in some of those indoctrination classes, and I've had to make the choice between a good grade and being true to my principles. I wasn't afraid of opening my mind to new facts, but I was afraid of poisoning the well and having my blowoff classes pull my GPA down.

    There is a massive dichotomy between the stated purpose of college (to expand your horizons) and the actual purpose of college (to get a piece of paper allowing you to start a career). Until those purposes are aligned, there is always going to be a tension between the professors of these indoctrination classes and the students who are forced to take them.

  • To: Trshmnstr From: Hrod [C]||

    I subscribe to the Socratic method — it's not my job to tell you what to think, but it is my job to show you how to question and learn in order to think better.

    My law school experience is that in modern times, the Socratic method means "hide the ball and castigate students for not knowing what they haven't been taught yet." It was more about ego stroking than actually conveying testable material to the students.

    The fact that this prof uses the Socratic method isn't at all surprising. He seems to be really fucking full of himself.

  • Sevo||

    Didn't the Athenians finally get over-smugged and offed the prick?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Indeed. I remember when I read the Apologia in the original Greek that Socrates, as depicted by Plato, had this smarmy assholeness that doesn't translate into English well. I could fully understand why they wanted to off that douchebag.

  • ||

    Hmm. It came out pretty well to me. Socrates was a douche in all Plato's writings.

  • Sevo||

    "I remember when I read the Apologia in the original Greek"

    As I'm sure you've mentioned many times...

  • Mr Drew||

    Dude, he's earned the brag. If I could read or speak any foreign language, I'd make you fuckers know about it.

  • Sevo||

    I have a friend and a client who holds doctorates in physics and in aerodynamics; I did not know this until I did a search to find contact info after I had lost it.
    I complimented him once on his perseverance in the amount of study that took. He thanked me for the compliment and complimented me on the effort it took to deliver [my/our] service to him.
    And made it clear he was 'Jim', not 'Doctor Jim'.
    If you gotta brag, it ain't earned.

  • MikeT1986||

    That's nice sweety, but not everyone is the same person.

  • ThomasD||

    " in modern times, the Socratic method means "hide the ball and castigate students for not knowing what they haven't been taught yet."

    The Socratic method is not amenable to all subject material. Anything remotely esoteric - like the rules of evidence - cannot be imparted in such a fashion.

  • westernsloper||

    After the linked tantrum/occupy style video, my Utubevision followed with Alex Epstein giving a speech. I had not heard of him until a few days ago. How those who go in front of kids who are only there to dispute and argue about what you have to say, and not just throw the podium at them is beyond me. Those of you who do that are better people than me.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Thugs gonna thug

  • Derpetologist||

    file under: eww

    There's a Movement to Send Semen-Soaked Socks to Texas Lawmakers Who Backed Anti-Abortion Rule
    Cumrags for Congress isn't a subtle title, but neither is the new mandate.

    ince Texas lawmakers have decided to randomly assign personhood to aborted fetal tissue, it's only fitting they should have a chance to grieve for the millions of lives lost whenever men spill their seed (which is a lot).

    Yes, because there are no relevant differences between a sperm cell and an embryo, which magically becomes mere tissue the moment one crosses the doorway of an abortion clinic.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Time to hire some new interns to open the mail.

  • ||

    Fuck that. I did that job. In 1999, I worked the Texas Legislative session. I was the "Y2K" intern. I got to take all the Y2K calls and mail.

  • ||

    I dont know about you Derp, but they certainly convinced me. I have never thought about that before.

  • Derpetologist||

    file under: learning the hard way

    I think it's important to note that people don't host parties underground just for kicks, but because there is so much red tape and expense involved when you try to host an above-board, fire-safe party. It's either illegal to play music late at night due to noise ordinances, or exceedingly expensive to get the necessary permits in order.

    I wonder if they will ever realize that excessive regulation is a problem in other areas.

  • Libertarian||

    Anybody post this yet?

    State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's witch hunt against supposed "climate-science deniers" became an even more embarrassing debacle late last month — and just might wind up ending his career.

    A state judge ruled in favor of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank whose Freedom of Information request the AG had denied. That gave Schneiderman 30 days to cough up documents concerning his agreements with other states' AGs, and with a group of green activists, about their joint persecution of ExxonMobile and other entities for supposed "climate fraud."

    CEI had been targeted by one of Schneiderman's co-conspirators, the Virgin Islands AG, with legal demands that plainly aimed at suppressing free speech and scientific inquiry that the nonprofit sponsors.

    The think tank's lawyers believe the documents could show improper conduct by the AGs. If they do, Schneiderman faces serious trouble.

    http://nypost.com/2016/12/04/t.....ns-career/

  • Sevo||

    From the link:

    "Seriously: The charge is that Exxon is overvaluing its oil reserves, because it doesn't note the risk that anti-warming laws might make the petroleum worthless."

    He's making the claim that a company must factor all possible foolishness of congress into their projections?

  • ||

    Am I dreaming? This year has been like winning the lottery.

  • Sevo||

    Not yet for those of us in CA, but there is hope that the infection is being reduced and the cure may spread.

  • american socialist||

    I don't understand why I should be concerned about this as a libertarian. If private citizen A calls private citizen B to complain about private citizen C's research why should I be concerned if A convinces B that C's research sucks and should not be printed?

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asswipe

  • straffinrun||

    You're not a libertarian no matter how many times you say it.

  • Pompeius the Quant Retard||

    Private citizen zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    I don't understand why I should be concerned about this as a libertarian.

    I'm not too worried about these clowns for next couple years at least either. Carbon Doom Inc. got effectively bitch-slapped in the last election.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Leaving aside the fact that you're obviously not a libertarian, nobody is "concerned" about it. Rather we're making note of it as another example of how mendacious you watermelons are.

  • american socialist||

    Roger Pielke: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax."

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asswipe.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Roger Pielke: "I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax."

    And yet despite such prostrations to The Way that piker Pielke got ex-commed. Peak Stupid of these cults is always when they start executing each other.

  • american socialist||

    The average guy at Home Depot knows more than some ph.d. scientist about climate change. And the fact that scientists have sometimes difficult differences of opinion about a complicated theory and sometimes go to the press to air these differences just go to show not that interpreting the natural world can be difficult, but instead is evidence of fraud and deceit on the part of said scientists. It's really better to go with the opinion of an uninformed blowhard on the AM dial.

  • Sevo||

    Fuck off, asswipe.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Fuck off, asswipe.

  • Bgoptmst||

    Is this kind of like socialist countries like Venezuela airing their differences of opinions with reality?

    What I meant to say was: "I'm sure the average American socialist knows more than the uninformed blowhard in Venezuela."

  • ThomasD||

    "...studies in which climate models projected..."

    Articles that contain no data collection of their own, but consist of people plugging numbers into made up formulas are not studies. To use that term is to lend them credence they do not deserve.

    Bailey you know better.

  • aajax||

    It's hard for me to see how you can discuss this topic without including a mention of sea-level rise, since much of the damage of hurricanes is related to flooding.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online