From Climate Depot

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: 

I took a look at the DK25 (Trump Admin’s DOE dissenting climate) report in my areas of expertise, as I did with the DOE CWG (85 scientists pushing back on DOE report), and I found numerous statements that were simply false — among them that World Weather Attribution was not created with litigation in mind, that NOAA”s “billion dollar disasters” (RIP) tabulation was scientifically valid, that SRES had 6 not 40 scenarios, and that RCP8.5 has not been the most commonly used scenario in research and assessment. DK25 ignored all of our research that was accurately cited by DOE CWG.

DK25 also includes a bizarre claim regarding the detection of changes in extreme weather events:2

“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”3

Actually, that is exactly what the absence of detection means — don’t take it from me, take it from the IPCC, which defines a change in climate as follows:

A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

The assumption here is that if you find some degree of merit in the DOE CWG then climate policy is doomed and if you instead side with DK25, then carbon dioxide regulation is on its way. Viewed from this perspective, scientific assessments are ”tactics” to be mobilized to support political action or delay.

Such a perspective turns scientific assessment into partisan politics. Scientific integrity inevitably suffers.

By Admin

https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/science-is-not-team-sport

BY ROGER PIELKE JR.

Excerpt:

The Blue team has responded to the report of the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group (DOE CWG) — the Red team. Together, the two reports show how not to do scientific assessment.

Led by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M and Robert Kopp of Rutgers, the report (DK25) includes contributions from 85 contributors (mostly academics from various disciplines) and spans 459 pages. The authors should be commended for working fast to prepare their substantive response. Science is better when discussion and debate take place.1

Dessler, who calls the DOE report “bullshit,” pulls no punches in asserting that there is absolutely nothing that is scientifically accurate in the DOE CWG report…

…

This framing has been adopted by the media, as you can see in the headlines below characterizing the critique upon its release this morning.

I took a look at the DK25 report in my areas of expertise, as I did with the DOE CWG, and I found numerous statements that were simply false — among them that World Weather Attribution was not created with litigation in mind, that NOAA”s “billion dollar disasters” (RIP) tabulation was scientifically valid, that SRES had 6 not 40 scenarios, and that RCP8.5 has not been the most commonly used scenario in research and assessment. DK25 ignored all of our research that was accurately cited by DOE CWG.

DK25 also includes a bizarre claim regarding the detection of changes in extreme weather events:2

“the absence of statistically significant trends in the historical records does not mean that changes are not occurring”3

Actually, that is exactly what the absence of detection means — don’t take it from me, take it from the IPCC, which defines a change in climate as follows:

A change in the state of the climate that can be identified (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer.

This line of argument seems not to be against the DOE CWG report — which relies heavily on the IPCC — but against the IPCC’s framework for detection and attribution, which is already under siege for not producing strong indications of change in most measures of weather extremes.

…

Extreme event attribution, RCP8.5, and “billion dollar disasters” are not the hills I’d choose to die on, but apparently the authors of DK25 were so intent in asserting that every claim of DOE CWG is false, that they could not admit the many places where DOE CWG got things right.

My view is that there are stronger and weaker claims in both DOE CWG and DK25. In my areas of expertise — notably scenarios and extreme weather — the DOE CWG is pretty strong (but could be better) and DK25 is pretty weak. In other areas, the balance will surely be different. But the Manichean nature of climate debates is that no territory can be given to the enemy.

The exercise — Red team vs Blue team — does reveal something important: science is not team sport.

There is a big obstacle to inclusive, adversarial assessment in climate science — Politics.

…

The assumption here is that if you find some degree of merit in the DOE CWG then climate policy is doomed and if you instead side with DK25, then carbon dioxide regulation is on its way. Viewed from this perspective, scientific assessments are ”tactics” to be mobilized to support political action or delay.

Such a perspective turns scientific assessment into partisan politics. Scientific integrity inevitably suffers.

…

Full Pielke Jr. article here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/science-is-not-team-sport