Tag Archives: crying wolf

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. 

Roger Pielke Jr. crying wolf. Again.

It seems Roger Pielke Jr. is in a little tizzy about a paper that was just published in PNAS by Anderegg et al., which demonstrates that those unconvinced by the mainstream climate science narrative are not only a minority in the community, but a disproportionately under-published, under-cited, and elderly one at that.

Roger claims that this paper is a “black list” and explicitly equates it with the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1940s and 50s which ruined the lives of thousands of people.

Is the paper, in fact, “a new black list”? For a “list” it’s quite a curious one, as it does not name a single person. Rather Roger conflates the paper itself with information taken from a blog post, appearing nowhere in Anderegg et al.

Roger then whines that his dear ol’ dad shouldn’t be categorized as someone “Unconvinced” by the IPCC view of climate change. He asks:

What sort of views does my father hold that would qualify him to lead the “climate skeptics” list?

Roger suggests that the criteria are perversely Kafkaesque- “it is complicated, trust me”; “there is no better evidence of your denier credentials than denying that you are a denier. Trust me”; etc.*

He claims that someone could be placed on the paper’s imaginary list for doing nothing him or herself, merely appealing to über-denialist Senator Inhofe: “it turns out that you don’t even have to sign an open letter or argue against immediate cuts for emissions. You can simply appear unwillingly on Senator James Inhofe’s list.”

What does the paper actually say?

We define UE [Unconvinced] researchers as those who have signed reputable statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.

Does Roger Pielke Sr. fall into that category? Judge for yourself.

Still, that was back in 1992. Perhaps more recently Pielke Sr. has changed his mind about the IPCC view of climate change? Let’s let Pielke Sr. speak to that in his own words (emphasizing underline in the original):

[I]n the Pielke et al 2009 EOS paper we present evidence to show that this IPCC conclusion [about the relative influences of CO2 and other climate forcings] can be rejected.

The facts that: there is no “list” in the paper; his father unquestionably meets the criteria of the paper to be labeled Unconvinced; and far from suffering any sort of McCarthyite ruining of their lives, people like his father are actually invited on major media outlets for television interviews don’t play as well in Roger’s fevered persecution narrative, with it’s hysterical invocation of McCarthyism. But facts aren’t really something that appear to trouble Roger much.

And of course Roger has turned whining about imagined persecution into something of a second career.

*In my experience, the amount of trust someone deserves is inversely proportional to the frequency with which they demand it while offering no corroborating evidence.

UPDATE: Just to be clear about what this paper does and does not do (prompted by a comment)-

It does not list names of individuals. It used a database of letters that individuals voluntarily, publicly signed to examine relative citations, publications, etc. No names appear in the paper itself. The only names used (none were actually listed) to generate data were taken from preexisting lists.

If Roger is so aghast at the thought of creating a catalog of names that could be used as a “black list”, his complaint would properly lie with the individuals- like his father- who actually decided to create them, not the authors of this paper. Assuming that the outrage was genuine in the first place, of course.

Can we expect Roger to contact the signatories and publishers of these lists and accuse them of fomenting McCarthyism?

LATER UPDATE: Roy Spencer has outdone Roger, equating the use of publicly signed open letters with the abduction, torture, and murder that took place under the Spanish Inquisition.

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. Continue reading