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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Now why would Heartland go and remove clear, accurate and non-deceptive factual information. Most curious…most curious indeed.
They didn’t they implied they were recommended experts.
Please quote and cite where the experts page states they are affiliated in any way with the Heartland Institute. Surely someone like yourself who is so sure of their position can produce this information?
Poptech says “they implied”
implied;
Verb:
Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated)..
Tom you still cannot quote and cite where the experts page states they are affiliated in any way with the Heartland Institute?
Poptech says “they implied”
implied;
Verb:
Strongly suggest the truth or existence of (something not expressly stated)..
To to summarize, it was so clear, so utterly free from deception, such a paragon of full disclosure that Pielke was compelled to write “I have absolutely no relationship with Heartland — never have, never will. Period”
Seems to me that if it was clear none of this would have happened. But it did. Because of Heartland was deliberately far from clear.
Tom you already stated that definition and made that point, now please answer the question,
Can you quote and cite where the expert’s page states they are affiliated in any way with the Heartland Institute?
The Heartland Institute has updated their [url=http://heartland.org/experts]Expert[/url] page,
“The persons identified here are Heartland staff, managing editors, senior fellows, and policy advisors (who are unpaid volunteers), as well as other experts not affiliated with Heartland but who we recommend as reliable sources of research and commentary.“