Roger Pielke Jr. calls out Joe Romm explicity

Liar, Liar (song)

Liar, Liar (song) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pants on fire and all that – but well deserved. Kudos to Pielke Jr, for speaking out.

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/05/joe-romm-is-liar.html

He says it isn’t the first time. It will be interesting to see Joe Romm’s reaction spin to this charge.

It seems that Heartland has listed Roger Pielke Jr. as one of their experts here:

http://heartland.org/roger-pielke

But from Pielke’s tone and description, I think both Heartland and Romm have erred.

As I see it, Romm put a question mark on the end of his post, suggesting he’s unsure…but went ahead with the story anyway and used the question mark as his “out”.

I think what Pielke Jr. is saying is that he has no professional relationship with Heartland, and on that point I believe him. He’s never been to one of the conferences that I know of. Nether has Pielke Sr. I think Heartland has listed a number of people in that page that aren’t necessarily part of any official relationship.

Lately, much of the climate debate has devolved into personal attacks/smears and tit for tat infowars. It’s not doing anyone any good.

UPDATE: In May 2011, RP Jr. wrote this about Romm:

It is long overdue for the environmental community to start pushing back on Romm as he continues to stain their entire enterprise. His lies and smear tactics, which are broadly embraced and condoned, are making enemies out of friends and opponents out of fellow travelers.  Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy.  Lies and character assassination not so much.

I concur. Romm and the whole ThinkProgress team use poisonous tactics, but that’s part of the MO for the Soros funded center for American Progress. On the plus side, most reasonable people with critical thinking skills can see right through these guys, so they tend to turn off the very people they are trying to reach, leaving ThinkProgress left with the bereft.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Alvin

Unfortunately, Pielke Jr.takes their bait. Now they have a sound bite/quote saying not only is he not an expert for Heartland, but “I have absolutely no relationship with Heartland — never have, never will. Period”.
More food for the attack dogs to futher marginalize Heartland. Shame.

Ian W

From the first comment on http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/05/joe-romm-is-liar.html it would appear that Heartland are listingRoger Pielke Jr. as one of their experts.
There would appear to be a fair number of loose canons around at the moment.
REPLY: What Pielke is saying is that he has no professional relationship with Heartland, and on that point I believe him. He’s never been to one of the conferences that I know of. Nether has Pielke Sr. I think Heartland has listed a number of people in that page that aren’t necessarily part of any official relationship. – Anthony

wayne

“Lately, much of the climate debate has devolved into personal attacks/smears and tit for tat infowars. It’s not doing anyone any good.”
Was it not bound to happen as the CAGW / AGW false hypothesis collapsed?

kim2ooo

I’d have just kept them guessing…Just my thoughts

Phil C

I think Heartland has listed a number of people in that page that aren’t necessarily part of any official relationship.
Must just be more of that “battle fatigue” right?
REPLY: Go ahead, spin away, make my day! – Anthony

James Ard

Tit for tat is a heck of a lot better than it was than before, when there no tat was allowed.

kim2ooo

Ha ha ha ha…Maybe Heartland should list Romm, Jones, Briffa, Mann, Schmidt et al…..snicklers

James Ard

Moderator, please give up on making sense of that and I’ll try to do better.

It is also possible that the page is a listing of the people that Heartland recommends or trusts and considers competent authorities in their field. Sort of a “we trust these people” listing.
Lots of web sites list resources that they consider trustworthy.
If you use the filter options on the right hand side of the page Pielke comes back as a “global warming expert”, if you search under “experts” he does not get selected. The “Policy adviser” does not return any experts.
I don’t think the intent was to imply a professional relationship, but to list them as people who are respected in their fields.
Larry
REPLY: Heartland should make that clear, so as to not give ammo to Romm types, of course next, I’ll expect Romm will claim they are hypocritical because they have the color green in the Heartland web page header. – Anthony

kim2ooo

Larry Ledwick (hotrod ) says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Good Catch!
+1

u.k.(us)

I think Heartland has listed a number of people in that page that aren’t necessarily part of any official relationship. – Anthony
======
You are possibly way out of your depth, Anthony.
Start reinforcing the flanks, and bring up the reserves.

Phil C

REPLY: Go ahead, spin away, make my day! – Anthony
I’m not spinning anything; I’m just reminding you that you still haven’t properly criticized Heartland for their offensive billboard. And here it is, days later, by which time the “battle fatigue” should have worn off and you should be able to let your readers know that what Heartland did was wrong, was over the top and clearly offensive, and that Heartland should issue a formal apology to the thousands of honest scientists who do valuable, legitimate climate research, that they just so happen to disagree with. Instead, you choose to call Joe Romm a liar. I’ve read his post. Can you quote verbatim here anything he’s written that is a lie? No, you can’t. So you must just be suffering from “battle fatigue.” Time to rotate off the front lines, Anthony!
REPLY: Excellent spin, you’ve made my day. And, like Romm, you haven’t a clue, only your memes. – Anthony

Phil C says:
“…you that you still haven’t properly criticized Heartland for their offensive billboard.”
Phil C, you do not understand. Heartland told the truth. You just don’t like the truth.
The fact is that Ted Kazynski, Al Gore, Joe Romm, Fidel Castro, Charles Manson and you all believe the same nonsense.
Heartland did nothing wrong. It told the truth. If you don’t like hearing the truth, tough noogies.

kim2ooo

Phil C says:
May 9, 2012 at 6:24 pm
“Instead, you choose to call Joe Romm a liar.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reference please

Camburn

Phil C:
I am not Mr. Watts, but I certainly know that Mr. Romm is a liar. I have tried to correct him numerous times, but somehow my post never gets posted.
Now I don’t bother to go to his site since he posts so many falsehoods and is not man enough to allow someone to show where he is flat out wrong. Why bother with idiots?

Tom

The Heartland site says “Heartland Experts”
And then proceeds to talk about Pielke.
http://heartland.org/roger-pielke

kim2ooo

If you work really hard…they will give you training pants…and then big girl panties

Tom,
So what? Read what hotrod said above: “Lots of web sites list resources that they consider trustworthy.” Got it, now?

James Ard

I had twenty hours in a car with my alarmist sister this week. It turned out that her big concern was water in Manhattan. Freaking elitists. But, she’s been schooled, thanks to you, Anthony.

Tom

@ Smokey;
So to be clear, you are endorsing that in order to properly understand what Heartland is saying you need to interpret the page after going through convoluted and inconsistent navigation and then cross-correlate on the “experts” personal blog to properly understand the affiliation?
It would seem to make a lot more sense for Pielke to call out Heartland for being misleading…

Tom

Anthony says “Lately, much of the climate debate has devolved into personal attacks/smears and tit for tat infowars”
Interesting. Given than the majority of comments here tend to make personal attacks on people that accept the science I wonder what might be done here leading by example?
REPLY: Great, I’ll round up all the comments like that you’ve made here, including the ones under fake names, and you can critique them – Cheers, Anthony

Dave N

Romm habitually hides lies behind question marks.
Yawn.

Thanks Anthony, Romm knows he has erred, as he has updated his post twice now, and the title as well. He has also visited my blog trying to explain his efforts. I suggest that your commenters visit his site and (politely please) let him know that such dishonorable behavior is not acceptable — on any side of this debate. Thanks.

Tom,
Apparently Anthony knows you are a multi-screen-name sock puppet. Given that, don’t you see your glaring hypocrisy? You get to comment here all you want, under different names, while skeptics are moderated out of existence by Romm, RealClimate, and the rest of their ilk.
Personally, I do not attack “people that accept the science”. I attack pseudo-science, and the climate charlatans who hide out from debate. So go lead by example yourself, and tell your boy Romm to start posting skeptics’ comments. He won’t, of course, because he would quickly lose the debate. So he censors.
“The science” means science according to the scientific method, which requires full transparency. Wake me when the charlatans decide to be transparent. Until then, they’re preaching anti-science.

A quibble:
“Lately, much of the climate debate has devolved into personal attacks/smears
and tit for tat infowars. It’s not doing anyone any good.”
The Climategate emails would indicate that personal attacks/smears were a modus operandi of the CAGW alarmists for years. It did the CAGW side a lot of good in that it has delayed the reckoning for years.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

Tom

If you show me any personal attacks I have made I’ll gladly retract them Anthony, will you do the same? I will not, per your request, use the “D” term.

dp

I have to believe one of Joe Romm or Roger Pielke Jr. Sometimes life throws you curve balls. Do I go with the serial attack dog or the honest broker?
/sarc

Those are meant to be experts that the Heartland recommends. I have emailed them some recommendations on clarifying this.

DeNihilist

Still thought Heartland should have put the Dali Llama up on their billboard instead of the uni bomber. It doesn’t matter who believes what in science, only that we keep on digging.

Layne Blanchard

Heartland has nothing to apologize for.
“The Science” is short on science and long on Marxist activism. Of course, that isn’t everyone in the field. Some just follow along. Some don’t want to rock the boat. Some are not terribly competent. Some are good people focused on their own narrow study. But “The Science” is corrupt. Make that bankrupt.

Gunga Din

Smokey says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:23 pm
…. I attack pseudo-science, and the climate charlatans who hide out from debate….
===================================
Personally, I prefer the term “sciecobabble” to “pseudo-science”. These guys are nuts.

u.k.(us)

Roger Pielke, Jr. says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:19 pm
I suggest that your commenters visit his site and (politely please) let him know that such dishonorable behavior is not acceptable — on any side of this debate. Thanks.
====================
OK, dishonorable behavior is not acceptable, but must never be spoken of.
Does that work ?
FYI, never say, “your commenters”.
You’re just asking for a shit storm.

Layne Blanchard says:
May 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm
“Heartland has nothing to apologize for.”
That is exactly right. None of the alarmist arm-waving by “Tom” and his ilk has yet demonstrated that Heartland did anything wrong.
Their deceptive purpose is to take the spotlight off of the unethical Peter Gleick, and the serial liar Joe Romm. Tom isn’t fooling anybody.

Tom Deutsch

@ Smokey, that response sure looks like topic avoidance with a heavy dose of personal attack/smears.
So to be clear, you are endorsing that in order to properly understand what Heartland is saying you need to interpret the page after going through convoluted and inconsistent navigation and then cross-correlate on the “experts” personal blog to properly understand the affiliation?

So to be clear, you are endorsing that in order to properly understand what Heartland is saying you need to interpret the page after going through convoluted and inconsistent navigation and then cross-correlate on the “experts” personal blog to properly understand the affiliation?

No you are supposed to assume everything on the Heartland webpage means, “funded by the Koch Brothers when it states no such thing”.

Tom Deutsch,
Apparently your tactic is to blame others for your failure to understand what Heartland is saying.
And as usual, you are avoiding discussing the plain fact that Romm is a liar, and Gleick is a thief. Nothing you can say about Heartland comes close to those ugly facts.
Heartland has done nothing wrong, despite your desperate efforts to find fault. If you can’t figure out their web page, that is due to your inadequacy, not theirs.

jorgekafkazar

Is it possible that the Heartland website manager meant instead to include someone else whose name happens to be Roger Pielke?

u.k.(us)

Tom Deutsch says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:38 pm
================
To be clear, you don’t [snip – language ~mod]

Tom

@ Smokey, yet more personal attack/smears. I thought we agreed that lowers the conversation, no?
So just to be extra clear, you are doubling down (or is it tripling, I got lost in all the personal attacks, sorry) that in order to properly understand what Heartland is saying you need to interpret the page after going through convoluted and inconsistent navigation and then cross-correlate on the “experts” personal blog to properly understand the affiliation?

Tom,
Once again, I cannot help it if you lack the reading comprehension to understand Heartland’s website. I have no problem with it, sorry you do. And once again, you’re trying to steer the discussion away from the article: Romm’s lying and Gleick’s theft. Try to stay on topic.

Tom

@ Smokey. “Try to stay on topic”
Um, nothing above on Gleick so it seems you are off topic.
So just to be extra clear, you are quadrupling down that in order to properly understand what Heartland is saying you need to interpret the page after going through convoluted and inconsistent navigation and then cross-correlate on the “experts” personal blog to properly understand the affiliation?

Gilbert

Sometimes a question isn’t really a question at all.
You know, like asking someone publicly whether or not not they have stopped beating……well you get the idea.

u.k.(us)

Tom says:
May 9, 2012 at 10:01 pm
o just to be extra clear,
————————-
We can play this game all night, to what end.

dalyplanet

Joe Romm is now “so far out there” that ignoring him seems the proper thing to do..

gnomish

romm sure knows how to pull a string and make a person react to him as if he were important. how did he get so much influence? he seems to know how to make puppets and have them dance. sure keeps them off balance and neutralized as any kind of threat to the agenda – which has nothing to do with science, of course. gossip replaces addressing substantive issues.
what other practical significance is there to this whole episode?

John Whitman

We are missing HI’s explanation of why they seemed to imply Pielke Jr was their expert?
HI, please provide your side of this story.
John

John Whitman

Romm is my do not go to guy.
John

M Courtney

This is smoke and mirrors. There are (at least) three aspects of the AGW debate.
1) The science
2) The politics
3) The economics
The attacks on Heartland by their opponents (and themselves recently) are al part of 2 – the politics.
The aim of all the activists on both sides is to win on 3 – the economics.
To do that they must win (or at least not lose) on 1 – the science.
And the science is not backing up the belief in the end of the world. The predictions are not coming true. And people are beginning to notice. This is a very inconvenient truth.
Answer: IPCC 6. That must be rammed full of alarmist diatribe (it’s worse than we thought, we’re all going to die, panic!) dressed up as research. But to get there the activists need less scrutiny on the weakness of the recent papers.
So smoke and mirrors.
Wave red rags at the bulls to get them running after the politics and you can publish the bull-waste behind.

M Courtney

Typo: I meant IPCC 5 not 6. The 5th assessment report which is due shortly.

mycroft

Tom
you don’t by any chance post on the TWO site do you?
A UK weather forum.