Pielke is just wrong. This is NOT semantics. Let’s keep this simple.
In his post attacking Grist, Pielke used this chart of energy intensity to argue, “the world experienced a long period of carbonization of the global economy, followed by an extended period of decarbonization beginning in the second half of the 20th century, and as our commentary argued, today the world is recarbonizing.”
That is analytically wrong. Even using Pielke’s own definition of ‘decarbonization’ (which isn’t the IPCC’s or anyone else’s I know of) to make his case, Pielke would have to show a chart of carbon per GDP, not energy per GDP.
Obviously carbon per GDP can go in a completely different direction than energy per GDP. If Pielke’s analytical mistake isn’t crystal clear to anyone reading this blog, please let me know.
So my problem with him isn’t semantics. Pielke’s argument is simply wrong. His analysis is flawed.
Rather than answer this point of mine, he wrote a post accusing me of “Dissembling” and “misdirection,” of being “dishonest” and the like.
I can’t ignore Pielke, because the media and others listen to him. But, henceforth, I will endeavor to eliminate all adjectives, verbs, and nouns (and even adverbs) anyone might take offence to in future posts. I will not question his motives. I will not call him “misinformed” or accuse him of making stuff up, even when he uses such attacks against me. I won’t even call him a Delayer. All of that stuff confuses the simple issue of his being wrong. Please point out to me any lapses.
But I will continue to point out where he is wrong, because this debate is simply too important to let incorrect analysis drive policy. I will return to that point tomorrow.