Tag Archives: Pielke Jr.

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.

Moving the Overton Window

Is global warming a real but over-hyped inconvenience that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing, or merely a vast left wing conspiracy in imminent danger of collapse that should under no circumstances be tackled by aggressive emissions pricing?

Two Serious Minds will answer this burning question once and for all.

“Honest Broker” bemoans lack of “common decency” and in the same breath accuses others of plagiarism

In his seemingly endless assault on the reputations of the scientists who blog at RealClimate, Roger Pielke, Jr. is accusing some of them of plagiarism. This is a grave accusation, one that Roger does nothing more to substantiate than repost an email whose own author acknowledges that it does not itself offer solid evidence for such a claim. In a bit of delicious irony, Roger does all this while bemoaning RealClimate authors’ lack of “common decency”. We will recall that this is the same Roger Pielke, Jr. who:

  • accused RealClimate authors and others of censoring debate by “seek[ing] to shut down… discussion with intimidation, bluster, and name-calling” because they were so unkind as to point out Roger’s numerous errors regarding temperature trends (of course Roger’s grandiose and unsubstantiated persecution claims also extend to answering bloggers’ questions)
  • accused RealClimate of being on par with paid denialist shills like Pat Michaels in pushing a political agenda, merely for debunking denialists’ claims
  • accused RealClimate of not making falsifiable predictions, and upon being presented with one, falsely accused RealClimate of reversing themselves on the relative importance of multi-year “trends”, and accused RealClimate of “looking for suckers”, playing with a “stacked deck”, etc. for simply offering odds to a team on their published forecast
  • accused Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate of being a thief by falsely claiming Schmidt had “admit{ted} to stealing”

Etc. I’m all for a little more “common decency” in these discussions.

After you, Roger.

SEED on geo-engineering, plus credit where credit is due Pielke Jr. edition

SEED, home t0 many disreputable scoundrels, has a piece up with different perspectives on geo-engineering. I haven’t read through all of them (I was mainly interested in what Caldeira had to say), but plan to over the weekend.

Additionally, I admit that I am more than a little critical of Roger Pielke Jr. on this blog, so I thought it worth pointing out that I thought his take was sensible and clearly articulated. It would be easy to spin parts of his comments to champion my own take on the issue or ignore them altogether, but that’s not the way intellectually honest people comport themselves. So, kudos to Roger.

Industry group 1995 internal memo said climate effects from GHGs “cannot be denied” while group continued to do just that

Although this probably isn’t a surprise to most people who have followed the political gamesmanship surrounding climate change, Andy Revkin has a piece in the New York Times and an accompanying post at Dot Earth providing irrefutable evidence that like the tobacco companies before them, industry groups- who spent millions of dollars trying to convince the public that anthropogenic climate change wasn’t happening and that nothing should be done to mitigate against it- were doing so against even the conclusions of their own in-house scientists.

I hope that this is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of documents pertaining to the organized disinformation campaign waged against the public. Unlike the political and media pundit establishment, I don’t believe that some things need to “remain mysterious”. These revelations may not add to our understanding of the climate system or at the end of the day even provide political momentum in the US for mitigation. They will, however, allow the public to see exactly who was working in their best interests and who was working against them. This extends beyond the front groups themselves and the industries behind them. It applies as well to their fellow travelers in op-ed pages and speaking venues. Continue reading

“Honest Broker” at Prometheus attacks Hansen over claim he never makes

[UPDATE: Zimmerman is issuing a retraction of sorts. I remain unimpressed, and do not agree that Roger bears no responsibility for what he prints in his columns on Prometheus. Especially given that Roger himself had already posted about Hansen’s article (accusing him of “megalomania” in the process) and therefore was well aware when he ran Zimmerman’s post that his claims were patently false.

LATER UPDATE: Roger has promptly and courteously responded, noting that the post is being pulled and Michael Zimmerman “will be rewriting it in light of comments from [me] and others”. I sincerely thank Roger and Michael for the way they are handling this.]

[Via Coby] Why look, it’s Prometheusonce again misrepresenting other people’s positions and statements [all following emphases mine]:

For Hansen, as for Heidegger, coal plants that produce power desperately needed by hundreds of millions of people are the same as-at least this is one way to parse Hansen’s phrases-the death trains that carried Jews and other undesirable “degenerate” races to their death at Auschwitz and other death factories. Burning coal can be equated with burning human beings. Why? Because coal plants shorten lives today, and may kill many more people in decades to come because of the climate change induced by burning coal.

Here is the Guardian article cited at Prometheus. Hansen explicitly states that coal as the “largest fossil fuel reservoir of carbon dioxide” threatens other species with extinction. Note the sentences immediately following the ones Pielke and Zimmerman have [in a manner George Will would appreciate] deliberately taken out of context:

The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death. When I testified against the proposed Kingsnorth power plant, I estimated that in its lifetime it would be responsible for the extermination of about 400 species – its proportionate contribution to the number that would be committed to extinction if carbon dioxide rose another 100 ppm.

[Note: Hansen’s use of this metaphor as a description of the likely fate of some non-human species has been consistent. There is nothing new about this.]

Roger and his guest can’t attack Hansen’s actual position so they tilt at strawmen. The false claim is repeated later Continue reading