Yesterday I was asked by a reporter at the Arizona Daily Star to read and offer my thoughts on a just-out paper in Science by Westerling et al. on trends in forest fires and the possible role of climate change. The resulting news story was interesting, not least because it grossly mischaracterizes my views on climate change, despite having been asked directly by the reporter what my views are on the subject. So I just sent in the following letter to the editor of that paper.

Dear Editor-

AZ Star reporter Tony Davis grossly mischaracterizes my views on climate change in a story published July 7, 2006. He writes that I have “been critical of the view that human-caused global warming represents a major environmental threat.” To the contrary, much of my research for the past 15 years has been focused on options for dealing with global warming, and in particular, the role of science in policy. In an email to Mr. Davis reponding to his question about my views on the subject I wrote that I seek to “openly confront some of the real but uncomfortable practical challenges involved with reducing emissions and adapting to climate.” Instead of sharing what I actually wrote, Mr. Davis came up with something completely different, and incorrect.

Sincerely,

Roger A. Pielke, Jr.
Professor, Environmental Studies
Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
University of Colorado

And here is what I had to say to the reporter about the Westerling et al. paper. Readers can compare what points the reporter chose to include and which ones were left out:

Tony-

I just read the paper. I have a few reactions:

1. They are asking the right questions — we do need to know the role of climate in the context of the many other factors that lead to climate-related impacts.

2. That being said, I did not see any attention to the role of fire fighting policies. Since 1970 the notion of “let it burn” in some locations has been followed to some degree. I am left wondering what role such policies might have had on fire magnitude and trends over time. Given this apparent oversight, I am not sure that this paper captures all of the important factors shaping fire history.

3. It would be easy to over-interpret this paper. The IPCC notes that 35 years is a pretty short time frame for attribution of any trend to human-caused climate change, and I would think that is especially the case for a complex issue like forest fires.

Bottom line – a useful paper that adds to our knowledge and hopefully will stimulate further research on the integrated effects of climate-society-policy. At the same time I can envisage the paper being used simply as a charicature in the global warming debate — Global Warming Causes Forest Fires! — but that would be a shame because fire policy is more complex than that.

Thanks for the chance to respond …

Best regards, Roger