The following relates directly to Koonin’s WSJ op-ed and to Piltz’s broader project:

“My project, and whatever contribution it makes, is primarily aimed at government accountability in national policymaking. I have an analysis and an approach for doing that, and Climate Science Watch is the vehicle via which I and various collaborators express that…
Of course there are many important scientific questions about the physical climate system to research… But this is not a science education and debate site, and the discourse about unresolved research issues on the physical climate system are well-argued in many other venues by people with serious qualifications.
But when Rupert Murdoch and the Wall Street Journal put out a piece with a “take no action” slant on the eve of a big UN climate summit and climate movement rally, I take what the WSJ is doing as essentially a political gesture. They print only ‘skeptic’ or ‘contrarian’ pieces, there’s no real balance in their coverage, they are trying to frame a political narrative for the corporate elite. When there’s an opportunity to post something with an alternative view, that raises questions about what they’ve published, I can do that. I don’t have to be able to resolve the science issues in order to do it.”
http://rabett.blogspot.dk/2014/10/rick-piltz-of-climate-science-watch-has.html

Climate Science Watch has had extensive coverage of the attacks on Michael Mann and the ensuing legal proceedings. It’s offered essential information about the Harper government’s attacks on science in Canada. And much more.

“Last weekend, the country lost a public servant and altruist named Rick Piltz.

Mr. Piltz was a government whistleblower who documented how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency systematically misled the public, downplaying the certainty of climate change in U.S. science reports.

He produced a rare, detailed case study in how the fossil fuel industry turns our government against the public in order to make more money for itself. Himself an employee of the U.S. EPA during the George W Bush administration, Mr. Piltz worked among industry lobbyists who were placed into regulatory position overseeing their former employers.

These lobbyists included people like Jeff Holmstead, who continues lobbying against climate regulations for the coal industry, and Phil Cooney, who was plucked from the American Petroleum Institute and placed into the Bush EPA.

Rick Piltz exposed Cooney’s hand-written manipulation of the U.S. government’s climate change science reports. This scandal forced Cooney out of the EPA and back into the oil industry as an employee of ExxonMobil. Piltz’s actions earned him the 2006 Ridenhour Prize for Truth-Telling.

After leaving EPA, Rick Piltz created Climate Science Watch, which allowed him to counter campaigns to deny climate science and promote scientifically valid viewpoints on global warming.

He died early last Saturday morning, October 18th, after a fight with cancer.

Rick Piltz did what too few in government are willing to do, withstanding immense social and professional pressure to show taxpayers that their government was working for private interests, against the public, on public funds.”
http://greenpeaceblogs.org/2014/10/20/remembering-rick-piltz-whistleblower-climate-science-advocate/

Sometimes we’re a little too close to the trees, when someone wants to get a little info about the forest… :^)

Jody, the graphic is of various estimates of climate sensitivity. Like it says on the graphic.

I will be happy to provide you with more information about that but you seem to have gone off in a snit.

This is not an ideal post for students.

I have been looking at right-of-center blogs’ reaction to this article, and left-of-center blogs’ reaction to this article. This line seems to be a common refrain of the lefty blogs. Where do you get this idea? The entire point of the article is this: Climate Science isn’t a “Hoax”. Also, it isn’t “Settled”, and questioning assumptions doesn’t make one a “Denier”.

As far as what to do, he actually lays out what he believes to be the criteria: “But climate strategies beyond such “no regrets” efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.”

>>> They [climate models] actually work pretty well. He deosn’t seem to know that.

Actually, they very famously *don’t* work very well. As evidenced by the fact that they didn’t predict the current slowing rate of warming over the past decade or so. This doesn’t mean they are useless. It doesn’t mean that it is a “hoax”. It just means that there are some issues that need to be resolved.