Why do I keep criticizing Roger Pielke when he keeps saying we agree? Because we don’t agree. This is not a semantic difference or a small difference among people who share core beliefs. It is a fundamental disagreement that goes to the heart of our exceedingly different views of how serious the threat is and about how best to address it.
First, in March 13, 2002 testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee (see here), Pielke talked about his work on adaptation:
An implication of this work is that policy related to societal impacts of climate has important and under-appreciated dimensions that are independent of energy policy. It would be a misinterpretation of this work to imply that it supports either business-as-usual energy policies, or is contrary to climate mitigation. It does suggest that if a policy goal is to reduce the future impacts of climate on society, then energy policies are insufficient, and perhaps largely irrelevant, to achieving that goal. Of course, this does not preclude other sensible reasons for energy policy action related to climate (such as ecological impacts) and energy policy action independent of climate change (such as national security, air pollution reduction and energy efficiency). It does suggest that reduction of human impacts related to weather and climate are not among those reasons, and arguments and advocacy to the contrary are not in concert with research in this area.
His research says that reducing future human impacts related to weather and climate are not among the reasons for energy policy action, and that such policies are perhaps largely irrelevant to reducing those impacts — though, in fairness, he isn’t opposed to a different energy policy, just not one whose primary justification is reducing climate impacts on human.
I simply could not disagree more, as I have explained at length here where I discuss “LIVING/SUFFERING IN A 1000 PPM WORLD.” I believe the reverse is true — if we don’t have an aggressive energy policy then adaptation policies will be grossly insufficient to prevent billions of people from suffering untold — but preventable — misery. Yes, Pielke is now on record saying he would like to see 450 ppm. I believe such a sentiment is utterly odds with his testimony above. Achieving 450 ppm would take an enormous amount of effort — indeed, avoiding 800 ppm would takes a lot of effort, too — and it is certainly only possible if the public and policymakers realize that failing to do so will have catastrophic impacts that render the word adaptation meaningless.
Anyone who argues we shouldn’t embrace energy policy primarily to reduce or avoid climate impacts — anyone who argues that energy policy is perhaps largely irrelevant to reducing those impacts — is, in my mind, undercutting the primary reason for going to all the trouble of adopting the necessary policies.
Congressional testimony is a statement of your beliefs that will be entered into a permanent record and designed to influence national policy at the highest level. One’s words are typically chosen with great care to avoid misunderstanding.
I should add that lots of people share Pielke’s view and lots of people share my view. You need to decide which view you hold — but I don’t think you can hold both views. I would add that most of the people who publically assert Pielke’s view — people like Bj¸rn Lomborg and Michael Crichton and many if not most conservative policy analysts and policy makers — use it to undercut arguments for taking strong action today. That does not, of course, inherently discredit that view, but … well … maybe it does.
Okay, but that was six years ago. Maybe he has changed his views given the myriad studies and scientific evidence showing that climate impacts will be more dangerous and come much faster than most scientists feared back then. Well, just last month, the L.A. Times explained Pielke’s views this way (see here — the first line is the article’s subhead and the term “non-skeptic heretic” is one Pielke uses to describe himself):
The ‘non-skeptic heretic club’ says it would be easier and cheaper to adapt than fight climate change….
Pielke’s analysis, published last month in the journal Natural Hazards Review, is part of a controversial movement that argues global warming over the rest of this century will play a much smaller role in unleashing planetary havoc than most scientists think.
His research has led him to believe that it is cheaper and more effective to adapt to global warming than to fight it.
Instead of spending trillions of dollars to stabilize carbon dioxide levels across the planet — an enormously complex and expensive proposition — the world could work on reducing hunger, storm damage and disease now, thereby neutralizing some of the most feared future problems of global warming.
Is this in fact accurate reporting on what Pielke believes? Well, last night, after I had written a post (here) quoting the italicized line, Pielke angrily wrote in the comments section (here):
This statement in this post is a completely misleading fabrication on your part: “MSM journalists who talk to me for a few minutes don’t get my position completely backwards over and over again.” Please cite just one example of a MSM journalist who has gotten my position on anything “completely backwards over and over again”.
I take that to mean that Pielke is asserting that the L.A. Times report got his views completely right over and over again — and that all four paragraphs above are accurate, particularly the repeated point. If that is what Pielke belives, I withdraw the offensive line and apologize for it. I had thought he said he was misquoted (see here).
That said, if in fact Pielke is asserting this is an accurate representation of his beliefs and his work:
The ‘non-skeptic heretic club’ says it would be easier and cheaper to adapt than fight climate change….
… global warming over the rest of this century will play a much smaller role in unleashing planetary havoc than most scientists think.
His research has led him to believe that it is cheaper and more effective to adapt to global warming than to fight it.
Then he and I very strongly disagree.
[If those lines are not accurate representations, then my original post was correct and his attack was wrong.]
So I think Pielke is spreading views that are very wrong and that, if listened to by policymakers, will undercut efforts to avoid catastrophic climate change.
I am trying hard here to avoid wasting time focusing on small issues — we all say things poorly or that we wish we could retract — Just ask Obama or Clinton. I’m trying to focus on core disagreements that have substantial policy implications. As readers know, I happen to think this issue of mitigation versus adaptation is one of the core climate issues of our time.
I am also trying hard to not get into the name-calling business in this exchange, not call him a delayer or anything like that (as I had promised back on April 8 here) no matter what comes my way.