Roger Pielke Jr.

Roger Pielke Jr.

Credentials

  • Ph. D., Political Science, University of Colorado (1994). [1]
  • M.A., Public Policy, University of Colorado (1992). [1]
  • B.A., Mathematics, University of Colorado (1990). [1]

Background

Roger Pielke Jr., is a climate science policy writer working at the University Colorado in Boulder. Pielke Jr.'s academic degrees are in mathematics, public policy, and political science.

According to his bibliographic notes, he started studying extreme weather and climate in 1991 at the at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO. He discusses his views on climate policy in the book The Climate Fix (Basic Books, 2011). [6]

While Pielke Jr. argues that he is not a climate change skeptic, and accepts that man-made climate change is a real problem, he has consistently opposed the idea that extreme weather events and climate change are connected. Pielke's father, Roger A. Pielke Sr., is also an outspoken critic of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Pielke Jr. has described research showing the link between extreme weather and climate change as “zombie science.” [4][5]

Huffington Post writer David Roberts wrote that Pielke Jr. has “been playing footsie with denialists and right-wing ideologues for years; they're his biggest fans,” and critics have noted that Pielke Jr.'s work has often been cited by climate change deniers. [2], [3]

Criticism

Joe Romm at ThinkProgress writes that “the websites that most prominently feature or reprint Pielke’s attacks are climate denial sites like WattsUpWithThat and ClimateDepot.”

Romm describes him as “probably the single most disputed and debunked person in the science blogosphere, especially on the subject of extreme weather and climate change.” Romm also notes that Roger Pielke Jr. was included on Foreign Policy's 2010 “Guide to Climate Skeptics” — something that Pielke informed FP that he strongly objected to. [7], [4]

The website SkepticalScience features a page devoted to “Climate Misinformer: Roger Pielke Jr” where they have published an array of refutations to Pielke's blog posts and arguments. [8]

Stance on Climate Change

December 2, 2016

Writing at The Wall Street Journal in an article titled “My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic,” Roger Pielke Jr. declared: [9], [10]

“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”

November, 2015

Included in the PDF of a lecture Pielke Jr. gave at the Dutch Association of Science Journalists, under the category of “questions NOT addressed in this talk” he wrote: [11]

“Is human-caused climate change real and/or significant? -

- Me: Yes it is

What policies make sense in response?

- Me: Read my book! [The Climate Fix]”

In his summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:

“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:

No.

There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”

July, 2013

In testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works, Pielke Jr. declared: [6]

“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” [6]

However, in clarification, he adds that he does believe climate change is caused by man's activity: [6]

 “Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels […] It does mean however that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research.”

January 6, 2005

Roger Pielke and co-author Daniel Sarewitz write in The New Republic Online: [12]

“Global climate change is real, and developing alternative energy sources and reducing global carbon-dioxide emission is essential. But the claim that action to slow climate change is justified by the rising toll of natural disasters–and, by extension, that reducing emissions can help stanch these rising losses–is both scientifically and morally insupportable.”

Key Quotes

March, 2014

Writing at the blog FiveThirtyEight, Roger Pielke Jr. declared: [13]

“When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not.

2010

Pielke Jr. said in an interview with Foreign Policy[4]

“We cannot make a causal link between increase in greenhouse gases and the costs of damage associated with hurricanes, floods, and extreme weather phenomena.”

November, 2008

Co-writing with Christopher Green in the Rocky Mountain News, Pielke Jr. writes why he disagrees with cap-and-trade: [14]

“The Obama plan for climate policy involves one very good idea - investment in new technologies and infrastructure - and one very bad one: cap-and-trade.

To understand why cap-and-trade is a bad idea, we need only to look to lessons from Europe's experiences.”

September 23, 2005

Roger Pielke and co-author Daniel Sarewitz write in the opinion section of the Las Angeles Times:

“Efforts to slow global warming will have no discernible effect on hurricanes for the foreseeable future. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adequately preparing for future disasters are essentially separate problems.” [15]

August 18, 2003

Writing in Rocky Mountain News, Roger Pielke discusses “pre-emptive” policies to combat climate change: [16]

“We risk bad policy when all choices before us are bad ones. For instance, the Kyoto protocol on climate change has its supporters and opponents, but very few are willing to admit that debate over its implementation has considerably more symbolic value than practical effect. The debate over the war on Iraq may have been similarly misguided as better policy options may have been ignored. In both cases, a commitment to pre-emption enables the politicization of intelligence, which then serves as a constraint on options that may be more effective but, for certain ideologues, politically less desirable.

Pre-emption hurts the policy process when it results in a dearth of choice.”

February 23, 2003

Writing in the opinion section of Newsday.com, Roger Pielke Jr. outlines his view on the Kyoto protocol: [17]

“Today we see a subset of scientists trying to use their science to affect political outcomes. The most obvious example is with the Kyoto protocol on global warming, where scientists are arrayed on both sides of the debate. What policy makers need from scientists is not support for or against the protocol, but practical alternatives to deal with climate change. The protocol is more a symbol than an proposal for a real solution.”

August 5, 2001

Writing in the Albuquerque Journal, in an article titled “Climate Changes; Society has to learn to adapt,” Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. declare: [18]

“Of course, it is quite reasonable to believe, as many climate scientists do, that the record of past temperature increased, combined with knowledge of atmospheric chemistry and physics, foretells a warmer future. But what such scientists do not, and cannot, know is this: what will be the impact of such warming on humans and the environment,and how will those impacts change if we limit emissions?”

According to the authors, “climate policy makers continue to focus on energy policy as the primary means to address future climate impacts. The approach is simply doomed to fail. Why has the idea of adaptation been so neglected in the political and scientific arenas?”

February 2, 2000

Writring in The Washington Times, Roger A. Pielke Jr. and co-author Daniel Sarewitz write: [19]

“Predictions of the future can be more dangerous than ignorance, if they induce us to behave in ways that reduce our resilience in the face of inevitable uncertainties and contingencies. When predictions are made about events decades or centuries hence, such as the level of the stock market or the conditions of a changing climate, it is simply impossible to verify their accuracy , no matter how impressive the supporting science may be.”

Key Deeds

March 29, 2017

Roger Pielke, Jr. was a witness in a house committee hearing titled “Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method” chaired by Lamar Smith. The hearing also featuring testimony from John Christy, Michael Mann, and Judith CurryDeSmog reported that the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology hearings “have officially turned into theater to stage climate science denial,” noting that Michael Mann was the only witness on the committee to represent the 97% consensus view that humans cause climate change. [45], [46]

Officially, the hearing was organized to “examine the scientific method and process as it relates to climate change” and “focus on the underlying science that helps inform policy decisions.” [46]

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici, a Democrat from Oregon, noted from the outset that “The witness panel does not really represent the vast majority of climate scientists.” For an accurate representation of the science, she said to “Visualize 96 more climate scientists that agree with the mainstream consensus. […] For a balanced panel we’d need 96 more Dr. Manns.” [45]

The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) published the written testimonies by Curry, Christy, Mann, and Pielke online[47]

According to Pielke, who describes himself as “an inconvenient academic”:  [45]

There is little scientific basis in support of claims that extreme weather events, and specifically hurricanes, floods, drought, and tornadoes, and their economic damage, has increased in recent decades due to the emission of greenhouse gases.” 

He later clarifies, in response to a question from Lamar Smith, that “ there’s no evidence to suggest that hurricanes, either in the U.S. or globally are increasing. And the same goes for floods, drought, and tornados.” He adds, “Why people would hang their hat on long-term trends in extreme weather is a puzzle.”  [45]

Later in his testimony, Pielke said “You can fund billions and billions of dollars more climate research and the findings will be very much the same. There’s fundamental risks, the future is uncertain, and we have choices about whether and how we might want to mitigate those risks.” [45]

Shortly after Congressman Clay Higgins of Lousiana grills Michael Mann on his affiliations, giving Mann little opportunity to respond, he puts forward a “series of short questions” to Pielke: [45]

Higgins: “Are tornadoes increasing?”

Pielke: “There is a lot of uncertainty about tornadoes, but there’s no evidence to suggest they’ve been increasing.”

Higgins: “Are floods increasing?”

Pielke: “As the IPCC concluded, there’s not really good data worldwide to know if they’re going up or down.”

Higgins: “Are droughts increasing?”

Pielke: “Globally, and in the United States, according to the EPA and according to the IPCC, the answer is no.”

Higgins: “Can you explain why someone would say, with such certainty, that extreme weather events will increase given the fact they have not?”

Pielke: “Well, they may increase yet in the future. And there’s a number of projections made by the IPCC that suggest that they might.”

Michael Mann responded to Pielke's assertions in his own testimony. He also noted that Pielke has himself declared he was leaving the field several years ago: [45]

“Roger is pointing to outdated reports. Outdated data,” Mann said.   “Three years ago, he actually posted the following on his blog: He said, ‘I am no longer conducting research or academic writing related to climate, I am not available for talks, and on the climate issue I have no interest in speaking with reporters,'” Mann pauses for effect,  ”'or giving testimony before congress.' Well, that’s what he said back in 2015. That’s, you know, three years ago. There has been a lot of progress over the past three years. […].” [45]

Mann notes that we can now positively attribute, with a large degree of certainty, how much more large or severe an extreme weather event was likely made by climate change.  [45]

Pielke goes on to claim that he is representing mainstream science, and that is being attacked by being called on the “fringe”: [45]

”[…] I’ve come here representing the science that’s in the IPCC report.  It’s almost a bizarro sort of reaction to be called fringe when you’re representing mainstream science,” he said. [45]

December 2, 2016

Roger Pielke Jr. Wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal  titled “My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic,” Roger Pielke Jr. declared: [9], [10]

According to Pielke, journalists and academics have “joined the campaign against me” due to political interests.  [10]

“I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally. In fact we are in an era of good fortune when it comes to extreme weather. This is a topic I’ve studied and published on as much as anyone over two decades. My conclusion might be wrong, but I think I’ve earned the right to share this research without risk to my career.”

Pielke says that he earned the term “denier” after questioning an IPCC report graph. He adds, “I was right to question the IPCC’s 2007 report, which included a graph purporting to show that disaster costs were rising due to global temperature increases.” [10]

He emphasizes his point that “There is not a strong basis for connecting weather disasters with human-caused climate change,” noting that “The IPCC never acknowledged the snafu, but subsequent reports got the science right.” [10]

When Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee investigated Pielke for what he described as “serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change,” Piekle said that this significantly damaged his reputation and was why he decided to pursue other subjects than climate change. He concludes:

“Academics and the media in particular should support viewpoint diversity instead of serving as the handmaidens of political expediency by trying to exclude voices or damage reputations and careers. If academics and the media won’t support open debate, who will?” [10]

June, 2016

Roger Pielke Jr. published a paper titled “Tracking Climate Progress: A Guide for Policy Makers and the Informed Public” (PDF) for the Institute of Energy Economics, Japan. [20], [21]

Pielke writes in the paper that its objective is to present a “straightforward approach to tracking international (and national) progress with respect to implementation of the Paris Agreement” and is designed for “observers who may not be insiders to better understand climate policy.” [21]

According to Pielke, in order to successfully reach emissions reductions targets, the world would have to “deploy about 190 x 1.5 gigawatt power plants worth of carbon-free energy every year from now until 2100.” [21]

“The proportion of global energy consumption from carbon-free sources provides a readily understandable and easily tracked metric with respect to progress in the implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change. Today, that percentage is less than 14%. By the end of the century, it needs to be greater than 90% if the ultimate objective of the FCCC is to be achieved,” Pielke Jr. writes. [21]

November 29, 2015

Roger Pielke Jr.  gave a keynote lecture to the VWN – de Vereniging voor Wetenschapsjournalistiek en -communicatie, the Dutch Association of Science Journalists. According to the PDF version of his talk, Pielke covered extreme weather events, mentioning a study he co-wrote in 1998 with Chirs Landsea. He criticizes the IPCC for reliance on “one study” on extreme weather in 2007 while establishing a link between extreme weather and global warming. The later portions of his talk are devoted to his label as “climate change denialist” and equates this with having lost his job.  [22]

In summary, Pielke says that extreme weather cannot be equated with climate change:

“Have disasters become more costly because of human-caused climate change? Only one answer to this question is strongly supported by the available data, the broad scientific literature and the assessments of the IPCC:

No.

There is exceedingly little evidence to support claims that disasters have become more costly because of human caused climate change.”

February 25, 2015

Roger Pielke Jr. was the subject of investigation by U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a Democratic congressman from Arizona, on whether Pielke, Jr. had received research funding from fossil fuel companies. This was one of seven requests that Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) sent to universities in February, 2015. [23], [24]

In his letter to University of Colorado President Bruce Benson, Grijalva requested that the university disclose all of Pielke's sources for external funding. The letter points out controversy of climate research by Dr. Willie Soon, and notes that his lack of disclosure “may not be isolated incidents.” [25]

“Prof . Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S . Congress' on climate change and its economic impacts,”  Grijalva writes in the letter. “His July 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim , often repeated, that it is 'incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.' John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke of the scientific consensus on climate change and his (Holdren's) position on the issue.”

[…] “I am hopeful that disclosure of a few key pieces of information will establish the impartiality of climate research and policy recommendations published in your institution 's name and assist me and my colleagues in making better law.”

March 19, 2014

Writing at the blog FiveThirtyEight, Roger Pielke Jr. contends that while natural disasters are costing more money, it is not due to climate change. [13]

“When you read that the cost of disasters is increasing, it’s tempting to think that it must be because more storms are happening. They’re not. All the apocalyptic 'climate porn' in your Facebook feed is solely a function of perception. In reality, the numbers reflect more damage from catastrophes because the world is getting wealthier. We’re seeing ever-larger losses simply because we have more to lose — when an earthquake or flood occurs, more stuff gets damaged. And no matter what President Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron say, recent costly disasters are not part of a trend driven by climate change. The data available so far strongly shows they’re just evidence of human vulnerability in the face of periodic extremes,” Pielke Jr. writes.

Top climatologists responded to Pielke's article, concluding that Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight had “used flawed data to make its conclusions,” reported ThinkProgress[26]

Pielke’s piece is deeply misleading, confirming some of my worst fears that Nate Silver’s new venture may become yet another outlet for misinformation when it comes to the issue of human-caused climate change,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University. “Pielke uses a very misleading normalization procedure that likely serves to remove the very climate change-related damage signal that he claims to not be able to find.”

Two climate scientists, Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth, later said the Pielke Jr. had sent them emails threatening possible legal action in response to their criticism of his findings, reported Huffington Post. Pielke responded that it was “ridiculous” to characterize his emails as threats against Michael Mann, however apologized to both scientists. [27]

In an email to Huffington Post, Mann said Pielke sent him “a threatening email in response to my fair criticism of his piece.” Mann added that a representative from FiveThirtyEight later contacted him and offered “an apology for what they characterized as unacceptable behavior by Pielke.” [27]

Trenberth said that he considered the email he received from Pielke as “a threat to me,” telling Huffington Post “He was very accusatory and threatened me if I did not respond.” Trenberth forwarded some of the email's text to Huffington Post[27]

Once again, I am formally asking you for a public correction and apology,” Pielke wrote to Trenberth. “If that is not forthcoming I will be pursuing this further. More generally, in the future how about we agree to disagree over scientific topics like gentlemen?” [27]

FiveThirtyEight itself published a debunking of Pielke's piece in March, 2014, written by an MIT Climate Scientist Kerry Emanuel. [28]

SkepticalScience also critiqued Pielke Jr.'s original blog piece, noting that Pielke only chose to examine economic losses from global disasters from 1990 to 2013 while Munich Re offers data going back all the way to 1980, data which was used on an article in New Scientist. [29], [30]

The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters also has natural disaster cost estimates ranging back to the year 1900. Skeptical Science notes that “Pielke has dismissed climate change as a causal factor using data from just 1990,” pointing out the irony in that Pielke himself had criticized Munich Re for using data only going back to 1980: [31]

“Thirty years is not an appropriate length of time for a climate analysis, much less finding causal factors like climate change,” Pielke Jr. said.

SkepticalScience found that the positive trend in global disaster losses in the Munich Re data was almost 30 percent larger for 1980–2013 than was for 1990–2013.  “What's more, the trend in disaster losses for 1980–2013 is statistically significant at the 99 percent confidence level, whereas the trend for the 1990–2013 window cherry picked by Pielke is not statistically significant,” they wrote. [29]

Pielke Jr. wrote a follow post at FiveThirtyEight, noting that “Human-caused climate change is both real and important, so being careful about what claims science can support and which it can’t is imperative.” According to SkepticalScience , Pielke “dug himself even deeper into a hole by claiming that efforts and technologies to mitigate disaster damages don't make a difference in damage trends 'for floods, U.S. hurricanes or tornadoes.'  The problem is that those referenced papers he links don't support his claims. ” [32], [29]

Pielke's post received criticism in a number of blogs and news sources including Climate Progress, The Way Things BreakThe Huffington PostDaily Kos, and Columbia Journalism Review. [26], [33], [34], [35], [36]

Pielke told journalist Keith Kloor that as of June 2014, he was no longer writing for the outlet “after 538 showed some reluctance in continuing to publish my work.”

July 18, 2013

Roger Pielke Jr. testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works at a hearing on climate change. In his full testimony (PDF), reprinted by the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), Pielke declares, as some “take-home points” that: [6]

“It is misleading, and just plain incorrect, to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally. It is further incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.” [6]

According to Pielke Jr., other “take-home points” include that weather-related losses have not increased since 1990, hurricanes have not increased in intensity since 1900, floods have not increased since 1950, tornadoes have not increased since 1950, and drought has become shorter and less frequent over the last century. [6]

In clarification, he adds that he does believe climate change is caused by man's activity: [6]

 “Humans influence the climate system in profound ways, including through the emission of carbon dioxide via the combustion of fossil fuels […] It does mean however that some activists, politicians, journalists, corporate and government agency representatives and even scientists who should know better have made claims that are unsupportable based on evidence and research.” [6]

Writing about the testimony on his blog, Pielke Jr. says that he is “declaring victory in this debate” while any future claims associating floods, drought, hurricanes and tornadoes with human-caused climate change would be “Zombie science.” [5]

On February 28, 2014, in what ThinkProgress described as “an unprecedented move” the President's Science Advisor, Dr. John P. Holdren, published a 6-page critique (PDF) of Roger Pielke Jr.'s 2013 senate testimony. [7], [37]

Holdren noted that Senator Jeff Sessions had quoted both Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer in February 2014 testimony, to which Holdren had replied that “the indicated comments by Dr. Pielke, and similar ones attributed by Senator Sessions to Dr. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, were not representative of mainstream views on this topic in the climate-science community.” Holdren said his comments were following through on his promise to “record a more complete response with relevant scientific references.” [37]

ThinkProgress also outlined an interchange between Pielke and Holdren on Twitter that happened in December of 2014. Pielke had criticized Holdren for staying “safe” on climate:

Since becoming sci advisor Holdren has always stayed on safe (boring) ground in his public remarks,” Pielke Tweeted. [38]

In February, after Holdren made statements suggesting climate change was worsening Western droughts, Pielke responded in another Tweet, saying “it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!” [39]

After receiving Holdren's six-page response, Pielke Jr. criticized him on his blog in a post titled “John Holdren's Epic Fail”: [40]

“In a nutshell, Holdren's response is sloppy and reflects extremely poorly on him. Far from showing that I am outside the scientific mainstream, Holdren's follow-up casts doubt on whether he has even read my Senate testimony,” Pielke claims. He concludes that Holdren “has gone too far” by supposedly attempting to “delegitimize a colleague.” 

October, 2010

Roger Pielke Jr. is the author of The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. The book, according to one review, “wants everyone to take a giant step backward and restart the entire conversation” on climate change science. While “Pielke agrees with the rest of his field on the need to stop emitting carbon dioxide and to stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere at somewhere between 350 and 500 parts per million; he just doesn’t want scientists to tell the rest of us how to get there.” He instead focuses on the uncertainties of climate science and the politicization of the debate. [41]

He presented his book as part of a “Sustainability Series” (PDF) with Arizona State University's Global Institute of Sustainability and the Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes. The event description read as follows: [42]

“Conventional wisdom on how to deal with climate change has failed us, according to Roger Pielke, and it’s time to change course. Using an arithmetic and logical explanation, Pielke explores the problem and practical ways of meeting growing energy demands. In this thought-provoking discussion of the interaction between science and politics, Pielke proposes a means for digging ourselves out of this climate change mess we’ve created.”

July, 2000

Writing in The Atlantic Monthly with co-author Daniel Sarewitz, Roger Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz claim that the recent Hurricane Mitch may have been a “public relations gift to environmentalists” and claim that “disasters like Mitch are a present and historical reality, and they will become more common and more deadly regardless of global warming.” [43]

Discussing modern environmentalists, the authors claim they are “in the habit of calling on science to help advance their agenda.” They say that, in light of global warming, the call to reduce carbon dioxide emissions was “used to rationalize the moral imperative, unify the environmentalist agenda, and determine the political solution.” [43]

The authors go on to criticize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) reliance on climate models. “Although various models can reproduce past temperature records, and yield similar predictions of future temperatures, they are unable to replicate other observed aspects of climate.” The authors write that “it is simply not possible to know far in advance if the models agree on future temperature because they are similarly right or similarly wrong.” [43]

Talking about sea level rise, authors say that while “Sea-level rise is a problem […] anthropogenic global warming is not the only culprit, and reducing emissions cannot be the only solution.” They add that “Predicting the impact on climate of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is so uncertain as to be meaningless.” [43]

Authors also put an emphasis on adaptation to climate change, which they say has been “taboo in many circles.” [43]

“Reframing the climate problem could mobilize this constituency [those subject to the effects of the weather] and revitalize the Framework Convention. The revitalization could concentrate on coordinating disaster relief, debt relief, and development assistance, and on generating and providing information on climate that participating countries could use in order to reduce the vulnerability.”

Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz claim that, while “[E]fforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions need not be abandoned […] An opportunity to advance the cause of adaptation is on the horizon.” They contend that the United nation's Frameworkk Convention on Climate Chnage should instead focus on “promoting the diffusion of energy-efficient technologies that would reduce emissions” and that this should be “promoted independently” from emissions regulations. [43]

February 2, 2000

Roger Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz co-wrote an article in The Washington Times titled “Anyone for global warming?” In the article, the authors warn that “predictions of the future can be more dangerous than ignorance […]” [19]

“Understanding the strengths and limits of predictions is important because our sense of certainty about events in the future influences the actions we take today,”  Pielke Jr. and Sarewitz write. “For example, predictions of global warming have focused international environmental efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But future economic trends, geopolitical events, and technological advances — three variables that defy predictive accuracy — will have a much greater impact on emissions than any conceivable international agreements.”

Affiliations

A complete list of Roger A. Pielke Jr. affiliations can be found on his CV on file at CIRES. Below are some notable examples: [1]

Professional Affiliations

  • Cooperative Institute for Research in the Environmental Sciences (CIRES) — Professor (2004 to present), Fellow (2001 to present). [1]
  • The Breakthrough Institute — Senior Fellow (2008 to present), former Advisory Board Member (2008 to 2016). [1]
  • Risk Frontiers, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia — Research Fellow (2011 to present). [1]
  • Mackinder Institute, London School of Economics, London, UK — Visiting Fellow (2010 to 2012). [1]
  • Oxford University, Said Business School, Oxford Institute for Science, Innovation and Society — Associate Fellow (2007), Associate Fellow (2008 to 2009). [1]
  • Arizona State University, Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes — Affiliated Scholar (2004 to 2009). [1]
  • Institute for the Study of Society and Environment, National Center for Atmospheric Research — Affiliate Scientist (2004 to 2007). [1]
  • University of Colorado, Environmental Studies Program — Director of Graduate Studies (2002 to 2004). [1]
  • Columbia University, Center for Science, Policy and Outcomes — Academic Advisory Board (1998 to 2004), Adjunct Scientist (1998 to 2001). [1]
  • University of Illinois, Illinois State Water Survey — Adjunct Scientist (1998  to 2001). [1]
  • University of Colorado, Department of Political Science — Affiliate Professor (1997 to 2000). [1]

Notable Board Positions

Publications

Roger Pielke Jr. lists all of his publications, as of December 2016, on his website. Some that he lists under the category “Energy and Climate” include:

Pielke Jr. is also a polific author on blogs including:

Books

  • The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. (April, 2007.)
  • The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change. (November, 2014.)
  • The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming. (September 2010.)
  • Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature. (April, 2000).
  • Roger A. Pielke Jr. and Roger A. Pielke Sr. Hurricanes: Their Nature and Impacts on Society by Roger A. Pielke Jr. (1997).

Resources

  1. “Roger A. Pielke Jr.” (PDF), CIRES, February 2016. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  2. ROGER PIELKEJR.” Center for Science & Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado Boulder. Archived December 22, 2016. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/lzU0O

  3. David Roberts. “Bashing Dirty Hippies and Getting Played: A Case Study in Six Chapters,” The Huffington Post, January 17, 2007. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BFtjZ

  4. The FP Guide to Climate Skeptics,” Foreign Policy, February 26, 2010. Archived January 27, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/TKXQl

  5. Coverage of Extreme Events in the IPCC AR5,” Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog, October 3, 2013. Archived January 27, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/WvgWD

  6. STATEMENT OF DR. ROGER PIELKE, JR. to the COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS of the UNITED STATES SENATE HEARING on CLIMATE CHANGE: IT’S HAPPENING NOW 18 July 2013” (PDF), July 19, 2013. Reprinted by Science &  Public Policy Institute. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  7. Joe Romm. “Obama Science Advisor John Holdren Schools Political Scientist Roger Pielke On Climate And Drought,” ThinkProgress, March 3, 2014. Archived January 27, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/nsdXW

  8. Climate Misinformer: Roger Pielke_Jr,” SkepticalScience. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/BmoHM

  9. Roger Pielke Jr. “My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic,” The Wall Street Journal, December 2, 2016.

  10. Marc Morano. “Extreme Weather expert Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic’,” Climate Depot, December 3, 2016. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/CRGvH 

  11. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. “You Can’t Say That! Journalism, Science and Politics” (PDF), CIRES. PDF retrieved from Google Drive. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  12. Daniel Sarewitz & Roger A. Pielke, Jr. “Rising Tide” (PDF), The NewRepublic Online, January 6, 2005. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  13. Roger Pielke Jr. “Disasters Cost More Than Ever — But Not Because of Climate Change,” FiveThirtyEight, March 19, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/qU5u8

  14. Roger Pielke Jr. and Christopher Green. “Obama plan a good start to climate policy” (PDFRocky Mountain News, November 22, 2008. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  15. Roger Pielke Jr. and D. Sarewitz, “Managing the next disaster” (PDF), Los Angeles Times, September 23, 2005. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  16. Roger A. Pielke Jr. “Speakout: Pre-emptive politics ignore science” (PDF), Rocky Mountain News, August 18, 2003. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  17. Roger A. Pielke JR. “When Science Gets Political,Newsday.com, February 23, 2003. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  18. Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke JR. “Climate Changes; Society Has To Learn To Adapt,” The Albuquerque Journal, August 5, 2001. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  19. “Roger A. Pielke Jr. and Daniel Sarewitz. “Anyone for global warming?The Washington Times, February 2, 2000. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  20. New Paper on Global Carbon-Free Energy,” Roger Pielke Jr. July 14, 2016. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/FUS7h

  21. “A Tracking Climate Progress: A Guide for Policy Makers and the Informed Public” (PDF)”, IEEJ Energy Journal  special issue (June 2016). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  22. Roger A. Pielke, Jr. “You Can’t Say That! Journalism, Science and Politics” (PDF), CIRES. PDF retrieved from Google Drive. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  23. Gloria Dickie. “CU-Boulder's Roger Pielke Jr. targeted by congressman over research funding,” Daily Camera, February 25, 2015. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/RtOb3

  24. Emily Atkin. “Why A Congressman’s Probe Of Climate Denier Scientists’ Funding Might Not Be A Great Idea,” ThinkProgress, February 27, 2015. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/mkrES

  25. “Dear President Benson:” (PDF), Congress of the United States, February 24, 2015. Archived January 26, 2017. Retrieved from Scribd. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  26. Emily Atkin. “First Climate Article On Nate Silver’s Data Website Uses ‘Deeply Misleading’ Data, Top Climatologists Say,” ThinkProgress, March 19, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/xctux

  27. Michael Calderone. “FiveThirtyEight Apologizes On Behalf Of Controversial Climate Science Writer,” The Huffington Post, March 28, 2014. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/YrfDK

  28. Kerry Emanuel. “MIT Climate Scientist Responds on Disaster Costs And Climate Change,” FiveThirtyEight, March 31, 2014. Archived January 27, 2014. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/anFxo

  29. Cherry picked and misrepresented climate science undermines FiveThirtyEight brand,” Skeptical Science, March 24, 2014. Archived January 25, 2016. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/MpxkO

  30. Last year costliest on record for natural disasters,” New Scientist, January 11, 2012. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/5jVkV 

  31. Dale S. Rice. “Report: Climate change behind rise in weather disasters,USA Today, October 10, 2012. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/UMflB

  32. Roger Pielke Jr. “Following Up on Disasters And Climate Change,” FiveThirtyEight, March 21, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/VlV1d

  33. Nate Silver falls off,” The Way Things Break, March 19, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/sI6np

  34. Dan Kessler. “A Few Numbers for Nate Silver and Roger Pielke Jr. on Climate Change,” The Huffington Post, March 20, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL https://archive.is/MQoEW

  35. Laurence Lewis. “By hiring a climate disinformer, Nate Silver undermines his entire premise of data-driven journalism,” Daily KOS, March 23, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/iJG8s

  36. Alex Sobel Fitts. “FiveThirtyEight’s disappointing science section,Columbia Journalism Review, March 20, 2014. Archived January 25, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/BOkpi

  37. “Drought and Global Climate Change: An Analysis of Statements by Roger Pielke Jr” (PDF), John P. Holdren, February 28, 2014. Retrieved from Whitehouse.gov. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  38. Roger Pielke Jr. “@jameswilsdon @alicebell Since becoming sci advisor Holdren has always stayed on safe (boring) ground in his public remarks,” Twitter post by user @RogerPielkeJr, December 1, 2012, 10:39 AM. Archived .png on file at DeSmog.

  39. Roger Pielke Jr. “@andersbolling That's right, thanks. The zombies will always be with us. But it is brazen for zombie science to show up in the White House!” Twitter post by user @RogerPielkeJr, February 14, 2014, 5:50 AM. Archived .png on file at DeSmog.

  40. John Holdren's Epic Fail,Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog, March 1, 2014. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/sJ8kZ

  41. Dave Levitan. “Book Review: The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell You About Global Warming,” IEEE Spectrum, January 3, 2011. Archived January 26, 2017. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/vZmmn

  42. “The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming” (PDF), Arizona State University, Global Institute of Sustainability. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  43. Daniel Sarewitz and Roger Pielke Jr. “Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock” (PDF), The Atlantic Monthly, July 2000. Retrieved from Centre for Science & Policy Research at the University of Colorado. Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

  44. Occasionally Asked Questions About Roger Pielke, Jr.” University of Colorado at Boulder. Archived December 14, 2008. Archive.is URLhttps://archive.is/2XC2i

  45. Climate Science: Assumptions, Policy Implications, and the Scientific Method,” House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, March 29, 2017. Archived March 31, 2017. Archived .mp4 on file at DeSmog.

  46. Ben Jervey. “House Science Committee Hearing Pits Three Fringe Climate Deniers Against Mainstream Climate Scientist Michael Mann,” DeSmog, March 29, 2017.

  47. CLIMATE SCIENCE: Assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method” (PDF)Global Warming Policy Foundation (Report 24). Archived .pdf on file at DeSmog.

Other Resources