is a disgrace to the real thing.
[Scientists] want to be sure to have sufficient factual evidence to
infer a conclusion about climate. But waiting for assurance to pile up
in a chain of facts can mean waiting too long if we cross a threshold
where earth systems tip into less hospitable behaviors. In short, fact
mongering can stunt our thinking in dangerous ways.
'Fact mongering'. Think about that.
As far as I can tell, his thesis is logically, or empirically, flawless.
It is the rhetoric of it that has me wondering. He highlights a set of
facts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) about
specific weather phenomena. What he doesn’t mention are the words in
bold at the top of the same report stating that “warming of the climate
system is unequivocal” and changes are “unprecedented.” When Pielke says
the IPCC substantiates his claims, that may be literally true, but also
rhetorically questionable. [Again, emphasis mine.]
"If we concentrate on actual facts, it won't be enough to scare people into thinking the way we want them to!" is what this seems to boil down to. And that is one hell of a disgusting way for a scientist to think.