Correction To Misstatement On My Views On Climate In A USA Today Article Entitled “Fossil fuels are to blame, world scientists conclude”

In the January 31, 2007 issue of USA Today, it is written,

“Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder has suggested that development and deforestation, rather than the burning of fossil fuels, are the main drivers behind global warming. He says on his climate-science website that the IPCC should recognize the importance of these other factors.”

This is an inaccurate statement of my views. The statement should read

“Climate scientist Roger Pielke Sr. of the University of Colorado at Boulder has CONCLUDED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL CLIMATE FORCINGS IN ADDITION TO the burning of fossil fuels, THAT are the main drivers behind global warming. THESE INCLUDE HUMAN BURNING OF FORESTS AND GRASSLANDS. He says on his climate-science website that the IPCC should recognize the importance of these other factors.”

These other climate forcings are summarized in the 2005 National Research Council Report “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties”.

The media, unfortunately, persists in miscommunicating to policymakers and the public, and ignores the correct understanding of climate change as articulated in the 2005 NRC Report. They even misquote my views when I refer them to in my weblog conclusions where I explicitly state,

“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate. ”

“Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling.”

and

“Attempts to significantly influence regional and local-scale climate based on controlling CO2 emissions alone is an inadequate policy for this purpose.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Climate Science Reporting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.