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.