Roger Pielke Jr. – Noble victim of threats and McCarthyite oppression

Wherein Pielke the Younger reprises his role as The Victim Bully…

Here he is voluntarily responding to some questions from the Frighteningly Powerful [no offense, Brad!] Brad Johnson:

As far as your line of questions so far, they are evocative of how, in the 1950s, Senator Joseph McCarthy went after people he thought associated with Communists. [Lengthy transcript excerpt follows]

Charlie Chaplin was but one of McCarthy's victims

The difference of course being that answering a few questions from a lefty blogger from CAP (when it’s become clear that one has put himself on Inhofe-Morano’s FUD mailing list) is in no way detrimental to one’s career. No one has dragged him in front of a governmental committee. Brad’s questions were all tame and reasonably anticipated coming from a left-of-center organization like CAP. If there is a “black list” Pielke has been added to, it is Inhofe’s, and Pielke’s own pen did the writing.

Of course this posturing is nothing new. Here’s Roger back in May of last year:

Here I’d like to explain why one group of people, which we might call politically active climate scientists and their allies, seek to shut down a useful discussion with intimidation, bluster, and name-calling.

But why is it that some practicing climate scientists and their allies in the blogosphere appear to be trying to shut down this discussion?

[Roger, you’ll recall, is himself no stranger to “intimidation, bluster, and name-calling”]

I’m sure some of you may be scratching your heads. A few questions from Brad Johnson and it’s time to pull the McCarthy/communist witch hunt card?  Surely, you’re saying, there must be more. Something far worse must have transpired behind the scenes!

Rest assured, it went far, far beyond the ruthless interrogation Brad subjected Roger to:

tactics that can only be described as bullying, strong arming, character assassination, threatening, and McCarthy-esque.

Things are getting truly ugly. And you don’t have to take Roger’s word for it- Oh, wait:

On what I’ve seen and experienced this week, you’ll just have to take my word for it I’m afraid.

I’ll be taking his word for it- with an appropriate amount of salt.


5 responses to “Roger Pielke Jr. – Noble victim of threats and McCarthyite oppression

  1. Pielke’s honestly expressed views have resulted in numerous negative consequences for him; amongst them attempts to get him dismissed from his job and personal vilification as an enemy of life on earth.

    [Where did his “honesty” result in those consequences?]

    What exactly has to happen to him before he can be considered the target of a McCarthyesque campaign?

    [The actual existence of such would be a good start…]

    Lets also be clear about what Brad did. He called Pielke a “Climate Denial Joker”

    [Heavens! There’s a phrase I can’t quite recall. Something about dogs and fleas? He is a fan of attacking scientists’ political ideologies via their policy recommendations. Perhaps the phrase had something to do with geese…]

    and implied that he is “funded by right-wing think tanks” based solely on the fact that his email address appears on an email list maintained by Senator Inhofe’s staffer.

    [That’s odd. If I were to do it, I’d reference his writing for Cato’s anti-regulation rag…]

    Isn’t that roughly the same as calling Obama a terrorist because he held a get-together in Bill Ayers’ living room?

    [Yes, it’s exactly the same as “calling [someone] a terrorist”.]

    Shame on you for supporting this type of irresponsible behavior.

    [I am duly chastened. – TB]

  2. Are you sure Jason’s comment wasn’t satire?

    [Poe’s law.]

    Apparently Johnson never published anything from the interview. But I thought Johnson could have been a lot better interviewing Pielke. I understand why he might be angry.

    [I don’t think anyone would begrudge him a comment on the partisan vs. traditional journalistic nature of Brad’s questions- indeed, I think I was pretty explicit in acknowledging such in my comment. Rather it was the hyperbolic hysteria in comparing a blogger’s questions to McCarthyism which spawned the post. – TB]

    For example, asking “How regular is your correspondence with Marc Morano”, implies there is real evidence that they are corresponding: in fact all that is known is the fact that Pielke is on Morano’s mail list. So Johnson could have just asked Pielke, “why did you sign up for Morano’s mail list?”, and followed up from there. Instead, after Pielke answered that all he does is get mail from Morano, we get Johnson asking: “Are there other “Obamites” who participate in discussions with Inhofe’s staffers like you do?” But there is no evidence that Pielke is in “discussions” with Morano: it is something Johnson is just assuming: instead he ought to verify it by asking Pielke. Even if Pielke were having discussions with Morano, it is not a given that Pielke would know if other Obamites were in “discussion” with Inhofe or Morano.

    Johnson’s third question is also takes gross liberties with English idioms: “Tierney asks: “Can these scientists be honest brokers?” Do you believe Drs. Chu and Holdren are dishonest?” I’ve not read Pielke’s book, but “honest broker” is a common enough idiom. Those seen as not capable of being “honest brokers” are not necessarily dishonest. The implication in the question Johnson asks is that there is some reason to think, that because one questions a person’s ability to be an honest broker according to the Pielke definition, there is some cause to believe that person to be dishonest. But that would be incorrect. (Personally, I think Tierney’s and Pielke’s application of the ideas of an “honest broker” to call into question the appointments and statements of Chu and Holdren at the very least show its obvious limitations.)

    I have no complaint about Johnson’s questions seven and eight.

  3. Eli is on Morano’s mail list. When asked why by Ms. Rabett, he responded: for giggles.

    Frankly, I thought Johnson was incompetent and Roger, well you got Roger right. It is an indication either of his fundamental narcissism or his concern troll act that he didn’t use Eli’s answer.

    To go at Lomborg and Pielke you have to ju-jitsu them into their pile of incoherence. For example, Roger believes that Rabett’s live in hats. Ask him why he wants to bet the house on a wish (air capture). Ask Lomborg why the Copenhagen thing used different discount rates for climate change and everything else.

  4. Pingback: Roger Pielke Jr. crying wolf. Again. « The Way Things Break

  5. Pingback: Roger Pielke Jr.’s fevered delusions of persecution continue unabated | The Way Things Break

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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