This is a great post by Roger Pielke Jr. because it reminds us all of Pielke’s 2005 taxonomy of the climate debate.
In the NYT today Stewart Brand explains that the climate debate really has four — not two — different poles. He confuses me and my father as an example of a “skeptic” (he refers to my father, a climate scientist, but then cites my research on IPCC scenarios). While it is nice to see a little nuance creep into the debate, the fatal flaw in Brand’s taxonomy is that it defines its ordering with respect to views on science. The climate debate has much more nuance among people who share the same views on the science, so I find Brand’s taxonomy a bit simplistic.
In 2005, I blogged my own taxonomy of the debate.
Here you’ll want to read the original taxonomy…