May 15, 2012, 9:05 AMBy ANDREW C. REVKIN
Martin P. Hoerling, a federal research meteorologist specializing in climate dynamics, faced a lot of pushback after he criticized some assertions made in an Op-Ed article on climate change by James E. Hansen of NASA. One critic is Dan Miller, an engineer and venture capitalist focused on non-polluting energy technologies who blogs on climate atClimatePlace.org and helped Hansen craft his Times piece.
At roughly the same time, Hoerling sent an amplification on his arguments and Miller sent a critique of Hoerling’s initial post. You can read both below. Keep in mind that neither writer has seen the other’s piece. (I asked Hansen for his thoughts on the complaints of Hoerling and Kerry Emanuel, another climate scientist who weighed in on Dot Earth. His response is at the end of this post.)
Here’s Hoerling’s expanded critique of Hansen [if you’re having trouble reading it, click here for a downloadable version]:
Here’s Miller’s critique of Hoerling [click here for a downloadable version]:
Here’s Hansen’s comment:
I have several papers well along in the publication process that make clear your characterizations are far off the mark. The editors prefer, indeed are insistent, that I not discuss these in blogs. Some scientists may be able to spend their time blogging and e-mailing without a significant impact on their scientific productivity — I’m not one of them — but I do make an effort to make my papers understandable to a wide audience.
You can track Hansen’s output on his Columbia University Web site.