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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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?
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.
Is it possible that the Heartland website manager meant instead to include someone else whose name happens to be Roger Pielke?
Tom Deutsch says:
May 9, 2012 at 8:38 pm
================
To be clear, you don’t [snip – language ~mod]
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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?
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.
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.
Joe Romm is now “so far out there” that ignoring him seems the proper thing to do..
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?
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
Romm is my do not go to guy.
John
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.
Typo: I meant IPCC 5 not 6. The 5th assessment report which is due shortly.
Tom
you don’t by any chance post on the TWO site do you?
A UK weather forum.