Just a quick update on my recent post noting Roger Pielke's lack of integrity:
- Roger makes a note of my post and John Fleck's and adds this underhanded toss-off line: Hansen's forecast "did not survive the peer review process" and so did not "appear in PNAS". Of course, the alledged "prediction" of a super El Nino ("there is a good chance") from the draft was not submitted to PNAS for peer review. Roger is refering to Hansen's passing the draft to a few friends and colleagues, inadvertently distributing it more broadly (oops, Roger's not a friend!).
- There is a must read exchage at John Fleck's in which Roger reveals even more of his dishonesty, complete with the old "here are the links, but please don't click them" tactic. You must read it!
The discussion at Inkstain is nicely summed up with this comment by "just me":
RogerAnd? . Fact: there is no paper, no interview, no press release.Only a preprint. So, where is the interview with the press or the big paper with the prediction? You haven't shown yet. I am waiting.
The example is rather good to show how science does work. Somebody has an idea and colleagues criticize and support the idea. The idea is improved or canceled or postponed. What is wrong with that? What is your idea about science? Lying and try to embarrass other researchers? Sorry, I do not understand your motivation.
Nothing new at Roger's place....
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I have made it pretty clear before that I am no fan of Roger Pielke Jr. Everytime I stick my nose in there the smell seems to get a little worse.
His latest effort at sabotaging productive discourse on climate science and policy is a really low blow, putting to rest any lingering hopes one might…
...and he puts you on his mailing list! [Please note: Marc Morano is nowhere near as relevant as Beelzebub!! It is just a gimmick for a blog title.]
So I poked fun at Marc Morano the other day, and though he thankfully did not pop up in my comments he must have read the post because the next day…
In Paul Krugman's May 29 column he wrote about Pat Michael's "fraud, pure and simple" that James Hansen's 1988 prediction of global warming was too high by 300%. (Michael's fraud was described earlier by Hansen, Gavin Schmidt, Hansen again and me.)
Michaels has posted a denial, so I'm going to go…
Esteemed Pielkeologist, Eli Rabett points me to a post from Roger Pielke Jr complaining that he is being persecuted by the "liberal blogosphere".
Apparently what prompted this was a comment from Brad DeLong on why he considers Pielke Jr to be dishonest:
I do remember that what knocked my view of…
It gets worse. Much worse.