Roger Pielke Jr.’s fevered delusions of persecution continue unabated

Image courtesy of Flickr user prd, used under Creative Commons

As longtime readers are quite aware, Roger Pielke Jr. sees vile McCarthyist attacks lurking around every corner. Some might find such incessant fears of persecution to be a worrying symptom of some underlying condition.

Most recently, Roger deduced that he was being given the boot from the editorial board of the journal GEC mid-term, as some kind of insidious payback for Roger failing to adhere to the All-Powerful Climate Orthodoxy.

In Roger’s world, apparently, the editorial boards of journals everywhere have nothing better to do than scan personal blogs day after day, searching for any hint of dissent from the party line, and retaliate with swift and merciless retribution.

The reality, as it always is, was not nearly so exciting. It seems that Roger dearest simply wasn’t living up to his end of the bargain:

In the original appointment letter we wrote that we expected Board Members to review up to five papers per year. We have invited you to review 18 papers in the six years, of which you agreed to review just six and submitted five reviews (on one occasion we uninvited you before submission of your review as the review process had been completed). Your last review was submitted in August 2010. Last year, in 2012, we invited you to review, and you declined to review, in January, May and August.

No doubt to Roger’s immense surprise (and his obvious disbelief), the editors make it clear that they weren’t even aware of Roger’s sniping at Brysse, et al. before Roger threw his tantrum. The decision had been made months before, and thus the timing was coincidental, they assure Roger:

The Editors reviewed the Board at our meeting in November 2012 and subsequently informed Elsevier of who to rotate off.

….

None of the Editors read your blog post of 15th February on Brysse paper till yesterday (20th February). We were not aware of it and no-one had commented on it or mentioned it to us.

The timing of you receiving a letter from Elsevier is a coincidence.

To a conspiracist, of course, there’s no such thing as coincidence.

Contrary to Roger’s dark insinuations of “special treatment”, he was simply one of several to not be carried on to a new term:

In addition to yourself, five other Board members have been not been reappointed for the new term and this has been conveyed to them in the past few days by Elsevier.

Nor was Roger sacked mid-term, contrary to his sputtering:

Your second three-year term on the Board was 2010-2012 and hence you are rotating off at the end of the term, not in the middle of the term.

To a martyr, of course, the world is always singling him out for special punishment.

“Erring on the side of least drama” appears to be an utterly foreign concept to dear Roger. 

About these ads

12 responses to “Roger Pielke Jr.’s fevered delusions of persecution continue unabated

  1. I used to have a bumper sticker, which usually made some mad, those who had their irony detector disabled..

    “HEELP!! The paranoids are after me!!!”

  2. Paranoid does not even begin to describe Roger Pielke Junior’s actions. His behaviour is pathetic.

  3. kind of funny, in a pathetic sort of way..

    I especially like his complaint about the “lie” that they appreciated his contributions! How often does the now-former employee get told “we appreciate everything you’ve done for the company but…” by the now-former boss? It’s called “trying to be diplomatic”, something Roger is very skilled at, unfortunately only when he is delivering character slurs and insults!

  4. Pingback: Pielke Jr. appears to get booted from a journal for giving an unfavorable peer review to some shoddy science | Wott's Up With That?

  5. Dear gracious Pielke Jr had something quite interesting to say on WUWT:

    “Neil Adger sent me a response for posting. You can see it as an update on the original post:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2013/02/interesting-timing-to-be-removed-from.html

    He says cock-up, not conspiracy. I say, don’t tell untruths to start with. Have a look and make up your own mind. Thanks.”

    To me that looks like he’s still playing the victim.

  6. Pielke Junior posts at WFUWT? Now that explains a lot ;) Wonder when Roger’s first blog post will appear there.

    He’ll try and milk this controversy that he manufactured for all it’s worth. Pathetic. Narcissistic doesn’t even begin to describe Roger Pielke Junior.

  7. Dear Blogger,

    I am a student in FIU’s School of Journalism & Mass Communication, specializing in the newly Digital Media Studies. I am currently taking a course titled “Audience Analysis, Public Opinion and New Media,” in which I work with my peers on a research project focused on environmental/green communication in the blogosphere.

    I would greatly appreciate your sharing with me and my classmates your opinions on various topics related to your blogging experience by filling out an online survey. As we want to learn about blog readers too, I would ask you to kindly distribute the survey link to your automated mailing list and/or post it on your blog.

    The survey will take you no longer than 15 minutes to complete and you can access it through the link below:

    https://fiu.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9NeAIj8uEjTNJAx&Stu=dau298

    This survey is anonymous and does not require any identifying information.
    I really appreciate your cooperation and efforts and look forward to get your insights and ideas.

    School of Journalism & Mass Communication
    Florida International University

    Sorry I posted this on your comments, I had no other way to contact you.

  8. Pingback: Another Week of GW News, February 24, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered

  9. This thread seems suitably dead that I’ll repurpose it as a less obviously inappropriate space to continue our discussion from over here: http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2013/03/anthropological-data-point.html

    All your protestations aside, you aren’t acting like a person who is interested in understanding how his behavior is perceived. Specifically: you responded to a brief three-sentence post about your behavior by quoting and responding at length to every one of the sentences *except the one that explains what was problematic about your behavior.* Indeed, you even went so far as to ask “And?” as if this question wasn’t already answered in my post, in the sentence you ignored. So, to make this totally, un-ignorably clear, here is the problem:

    Your posts have a very strong air of inappropriate condescension about them (of precisely the sort that women are constantly subjected to on the internet).

    FWIW, your posts are neither the *only* or the *worst* examples of this on the thread in question. But you expressed interest in your own behavior, not that of others. Also, on the off chance that you are going to exhibit some introspection and change your behavior because of something a random stranger on the internet told you, here’s what I would suggest: (1) think carefully about whether your post exhibits condescension when writing to someone with an identifiably female handle on the internet; (2) that’s all.

    • Thank you for your comment. From your wording, it sounds (“All your protestations aside, you aren’t acting like… on the off chance that you are going to exhibit some introspection”) as though you may be somewhat skeptical that I am genuinely interested in the way my comments were interpreted and avoiding the appearance of ‘splaining. I can only repeat my earlier declaration that my interest and concern could not be more genuine.

      I can assure you that my initial comment was not made out of some sort of condescending, imagined superior-knowledge position. On the contrary, it is precisely my utmost regard for Dr. Hargreaves’s knowledge and experience that I found the comment I objected to worth criticizing. Far from thinking I undestand something about publication bias that she does not, I assume that she knows just as well and probably better than I do that the bias exists, but in a different (i.e. towards sensationalism generally rather than a unidirectional “scariness” bias) incarnation than the interview comment reflected. (Dr. Hargreaves’s subsequent comment essentially confirms this.) The “shame on you” arose from an exasperated “you assuredly know better, how careless” rather than the patriarchal condescension of “you should know better, how ignorant”.

      This was the motivation behind my comment. I fully accept that this may not have been the way the comment appeared to you, or to anyone else reading the comment. I have apologized sincerely and directly, which is about the extent to which I am able to ameliorate what was already said- although I am eager and open to suggestions of further action.

      you responded to a brief three-sentence post about your behavior by quoting and responding at length to every one of the sentences *except the one that explains what was problematic about your behavior.*

      I can only offer my perspective here, in hopes that it will clarify rather than exacerbate the conflict. You described two things I did, both of which I responded to. You also claimed that these actions were condescending, and I didn’t quote that, as I was asking for further clarification about the actions. I did not understand/agree with the characterization, at least in terms of my intent and how those things read in the context of the entire conversation. From my perspective, hearing that you considered those actions as being condescending was not helpful to me in demonstrating that the first actually occurred and that the second was an act of condescension. I apologize for this failure of communication on my part.

      Your posts have a very strong air of inappropriate condescension about them (of precisely the sort that women are constantly subjected to on the internet).

      here’s what I would suggest: (1) think carefully about whether your post exhibits condescension when writing to someone with an identifiably female handle on the internet; (2) that’s all.

      Thank you for sharing this perspective with me. I am incredibly embarrassed by this and will do my best to remedy it.

  10. I don’t know that I have anything substantive to add; you certainly seem (given that we’re just strangers on the internet) like a well-intentioned person. I don’t think any apology to me was necessary. Best wishes!

  11. Pingback: Nate Silver falls off | The Way Things Break

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s