Roger Pielke Jr. calls out harasser @juddlegum

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. writes on The Climate fix (and asks me to share)

Public Debate Challenge to Judd Legum

ROGERPIELKEJR

league167972_1831_logo

People are funny. Judd Legum is a die-hard partisan who works for the Center for American Progress. For some reason, four years ago he decided to use his position to (successfully) get me removed as a writer for 538. You all know the story.

Well Judd is back to harass. Apparently more than 160 articles about me at CAP were not enough.
cap-rp

Well, I’ve long had enough abuse and bullying from these guys. So Judd, rather than you sniping at me on Twitter with lies and innuendo, let’s do this in person and for real. Let’s debate the issues that you profess to care so deeply about, and that I am so wrong about, in a public forum. Should be an easy win for you.

I have no doubt we can use the event to raise money for important charities. Mine will be Doctors Without Borders.

Judd, whenever convenient, I’ll come to you. You can come here. Whatever.

What do you say? You got some substance behind the Wikileaks and Twitter bravado?

It’s guaranteed he will decline the offer. And that will tell you all you need to know.

Advertisements

139 thoughts on “Roger Pielke Jr. calls out harasser @juddlegum

    • In the unlikely event that he agrees hopefully it will be a televised debate. But Judd Legum will probably say he is too busy to debate with you. Excuse for being too busy will be either;

      A: He will be washing his hair.

      or

      B: He will be too busy making shit up to smear and harass you with.

      (Please choose most likely reason)

      • Judd Legum will probably say he is too busy to debate with you

        Saving the planet is very difficult and time consuming.

    • i would quite happily enter a charity boxing match with judd on behalf of roger with the money going to the same charity. in fact i would be more than happy to do it with any alarmist. being 47 years old i am sure many younger alarmists would be more than up for it. i haven’t been in a boxing ring for about 12 years so might be a bit rusty :).

      • In a charity boxing match he might have a chance. In a battle of wits though, he’s defenseless.

      • Me, too. But I wouldn’t do as well as you might since I am going on 88 years old. Chuckle. Reminds me of the time The Georgia Peach (Ty Cobb, for the younger set) was asked what he thought about modern pitching, and how well he thought he could have batted against them. He said, about 270. Asked why not over 300, he answered “because I am 70 years old”.

  1. Isn’t calling out someone to debate Climate Change harrassment? Maybe even a Hate Crime?

    It’s certainly ‘denying the science’, since AGW is as setled as Gravity. I suspect that any answer (not that one is likely) will follow these lines….

  2. I just sent a Twitter message to Mr. Legum, viz:

    I see that Roger Pielke Jr. has called on you to debate climate science … I really hope you take him up on the challenge.

    I put a link to this post in as well.

    w.

    • Willis

      I suspect he has an electric car and installed one of those solar driveways you talked about in your last article. The car is probably stuck there and he is wondering why it won’t charge. So unfortunately he won’t be able to drive to any physical meeting place for the debate

      tonyb

      • No, he did NOT do the WHOLE driveway in solar panels, … ONLY a space large enough to park his electric car. He wonders why his solar panels, on which his electric car is always parked, fail to provide the juice to charge his car.

  3. As is almost always the case when trying to debate Leftists on CAGW, they will not rise to the occasion and will give lame excuses as to why they can’t debate the issue or will fail to reply at all to the challenge.

    The most common lame excuses by CAGW advocates include:

    1) The CAGW Science is already settled and there is nothing to debate.
    2) Debating with sceptics legitimizes the notion there is anything open to discussion.
    3) They’re far too busy saving the world to waste time debating sceptics.
    4) Since 97% of all scientists already know CAGW is real, so it’s senseless to debate the issue.
    5) They refuse to even reply to the challenge..
    6) Attack the sceptic challenger with ad hominems a say there is no reason to debate a crazy person.

    I can’t wait to see which lame excuse (or lack there of) Judd will use…

    Loony Leftists are so predictable.

    • As is almost always the case when trying to debate Leftists on CAGW, they will not rise to the occasion and will give lame excuses as to why they can’t debate the issue or will fail to reply at all to the challenge.

      The real reason they can’t debate the issue is usually because they can’t debate the issue.

      • Don-san:

        You are correct that the true reason why Leftists refuse to debate knowlegable CAGW skeptics is that it is already a disconfirmed hypothesis and can’t be rationally supported.

        Obviously Leftists can’t admit this, so they simply use lame excuses to avoid open debates rather than risk exposing themselves as frauds and/or ignorant.

        I think this Leftist CAGW debate policy started about 10 years ago after Bill Nye got absolutely crushed and humiliated by Dr. Richard Lindzen during a CNN debate.

    • 7: Even if CAGW is nonsense, what we are doing will lead to a better world anyway.

      Which, I think, is the position taken by many of the Greens, who simply see it as a tool for getting their policies put into Law. They probably do have doubts about the science but would never voice them.

      What they don’t seem to recognise though, is that their version of a better world is basically a Marxist world, and the track record of Marxism is not encouraging. It has been a failure almost everywhere it’s been tried. .

      • 7: Even if CAGW is nonsense, what we are doing will lead to a better world anyway.

        This is the one where people are dying now through lack of affordable power but we’re expected to think of the grandchildren Those that the dead can’t have? (Still haven’t worked out the logic of this yet)
        Don’t think Roger will get his debate but it will give him ammunition whenever Judd says anything in the future.

        James Bull

      • “This is the one where people are dying now through lack of affordable power but we’re expected to think of the grandchildren”

        It’s interesting to compare the agonizing over tiny amounts of pollution from cars in cities with the situation where Afticans are burning scrap wood in homes with no chimneys. Wood that probably has paint and other contaminants on it which will emit carcinogens. A decent fossil fuel power station would eliminate this major cause of lung disease. They also seem to overlook the fact that forcing people to spend four-figure sums on unnecessary car replacement will reduce the money available for charity donations, and that is bound to be bad for third world countries.

      • From what I see, the Leftists don’t look at the science very hard at all. Most of them are not logical, math and science oriented people to start with. Many are committed to their herd mentality and not really capable of independent thought. Most of them accept the default notion that business and industry are evil and the world would be better off without them and the 1% ers they enable.
        They are emotional creatures, not given to analytical thought. It is most important that they have an emotional outlet, with outrage the most convenient as it reflects their frustration at not really having the intellectual tools to be able to function economically in the world.

      • 8. Reduction in fossil fuel use will make air cleaner anyway, so it does not really matter that our greenhouse theory with strong positive feedback is a load of crap.

        They don’t even try to argue their main point. They go from “carbon” to “black carbon”.

    • Samurai. Look. Please stop with the ‘loony leftist’ stuff. I’m a leftist and hold broadly socialist opinions – I think trades unions can be good, I strongly support a national health service, national education service, national infrastructure, public science institutions, welfare state, and minimal international military intervention. I’m politically left wing. I also hold a load of opinions that would be classified as Green – I support much stronger regulation of pollution, farming, killing animals for fun, etc. etc.

      But also I have never seen any convincing evidence that climate change, as it is occurring now, is a bad thing, or that it could possibly be caused and controlled by human produced CO2. So I’m a climate denier (whatever that means) – really I guess a lukewarmist.

      So please stop trying to catagorise a whole package of opinions in a derogatory type of way. Loony Left, Green Blob, etc. are all unhelpful such catagorisations. They turn off the very people you should be trying to win over, and leave you preaching to the converted.

      Thanks

      • Jay: There are indeed a few left wing, socialist, large government types who, like yourself, who can rationalize climate data, chemistry, solar cycles and astronomy and paleogeography…..all of which are needed to understand long and short term climate changes. Unfortunately 99% of alarmists, in my experience, have no desire to understand these issues. Their approach is simiple and infanatile….. co2 is bad and is a polutant; industry and vehicles are therefore bad. I’ve always wondered why the Sierra Club and the various tree huggers of the world have not embraced co2. The world is greening over the past 40 years because of the 100ppm increase in co2 (miniscule by paleo standards).

        I admire your honesty and scientific effort. Perhaps you can get through to the WWF, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club and the many journalists, columnists, and politicians who parrot what they
        preach.

      • I’d add that not all “climate deniers” are ultra righties or “uneducated” Trump (“Trumptards or Trumpanzees”) supporters either. I’m not now or will I ever be a Trump supporter, (but I do whole-heartedly applaud leaving the Paris Accord) and some of us supposedly “science illiterate” are well educated, even professionals in our fields…and many of those fields are science related.

        So much of this issue is political science, rather then real science.

      • I’m not sure why you think that a position of “minimal international military intervention” is staked out by Leftists. In my experience, (and speaking only in terms of the USA,) military veterans are far more likely to be the last ones to endorse any scheme for military action, unless it involves protection and defense of the US Constitution, or the safety of our borders and citizens. You won’t find many Leftists in that group.

        On the other hand, you will find most veterans opposed to the idea of governments, or other power structures, forcing individuals into actions of any kind, which they would otherwise philosophically decline. Utopias achieved at the point of a gun, don’t meet the call to Reveille.

        I’ll just let your other points, like sleeping dogs, lie.

      • Jay – While I don’t share your views, I’m very sympathetic with your position. We need every sane person in the tent fighting together against the insanity. There is nothing wrong with being pro-economic growth, pro-science, pro-clean environment and pro social justice. I’m sure there are many on the right, like me, who could tick all of those boxes, even though if we met we might have to debate what ‘social justice’ actually consists of.

        What we are fighting is a monster which thinks nothing of destroying people’s careers for having a rational opinion; which casually equates its opponents to Nazis; which deliberately perverts and controls peer-review for political ends; which presumes corrupt motivation in its opponents; and happily tolerates threats of incarceration or assassination of its enemies.

        Unfortunately we need a shorthand label for that opposition. ‘Green Blob’ is actually pretty mild and reasonable under the circumstances. I think it’s obvious that conflating CAGW with ‘loony left’ is at least one piece of imprecision too far. Maybe insisting that you are ‘green’ but also a ‘denier’ is just too hard, given how far the term ‘green’ has been co-opted. Perhaps you need to insist on being an economically rational environmentalist, instead of using ‘green’. I’m sure that coming from the left, the economic welfare of the bottom quartile is of prime concern. For sure ‘green’ doesn’t help them, but maybe an economically rational environmentalist might.

      • The terms “left” and “right” have really lost all meaning nowadays. I’m socially liberal and fiscally conservative, I don’t care about what other people do as long as it doesn’t infringe upon my rights or the rights of others. Is that left or right?

        And someone needs to explain to me the difference between Dems and Repubs too. The only difference I see are the lies they tell to justify bigger government, higher taxes and loss of liberty and rights.

        To be frank I think getting offended over a term like loony left is a waste of time when it seems to be impossible to actually know what is left or right anymore. The world would be a much better place if everyone quit using the words “I’m offended by…”, all it does is put people in a defensive position and that’s never going to lead to meaningful dialogue.

      • Jay Willis is correct. Social tyrants are not necessarily loony, although the best-known specimens from past and present have had their quirks.

      • Jay

        I am all with you if you believe those things and want to live your life to those ideals. However I do not and that’s the rub you can chose to live as a socialist in my world of limited government, just find like minded people and do it, unfortunately i can not do the same in a world dominated by socialist governments.
        We can debate the sanity of your view one way or the other it doesn’t matter nor do I care if your views are looney or not as long as you don’t use the power of government to force me to live by your views. To me your view become LOONEY when the are forced on me or anyone else.

        I also agree with Alan non-intervention is not an ideal of the left. The only major war the “right” ever got us into was the civil war and that was to end the evil of slavery, i guess you could make an argument for the revolution as well. WWI, left, WWII, left, Korea, left, Vietnam, left.

      • Lincoln was no rightist.
        The war had more to do with economic issues than it did slavery. (The Emancipation Proclamation came late in the war, and only covered states that weren’t under the control of the US government.)
        Britain managed to get rid of slavery without fighting a war.

      • Thank you , Jay. This fine site regularly does a grave disservice to itself by adding left bashing politics to the scientific discourse. It relegates the site to a “preaching to the choir” mode, and alienates those who could benefit most from the information here.

      • MarkW

        “Lincoln was no rightist”

        That’s why I use ” ” around right, like you i don’t have much time for either side, neither of them represent what this country was founded on, individual liberty and freedom and the belief that we all have the right to the fruits of our own labor and that each person is special and should not be sacrificed on the altar of any group or movement.
        However that being said the republican party was found on abolition, i agree that the war was fought over economic and political issues however slavery was at the center of both, i am not naive enough to say that it was an altruistic war to end slavery, but slavery and the effects of it on both political and economic power were at the heart of the war as was a strong northern religious faction who could not reconcile the ideals of a personal god and his direct relation to each of us and slavery. The very same reason the west went around the world wiping out the slave trade that had existed since the beginning of time. This is fact and I am not a Christian or religious in anyway.
        It was also the “right” that passed the civil rights act under a republican president, that same president nationalised the national guard to protect little african american children on their way to school in Arkansas and who also desegregated the military.
        I was raised by a libertarian father who taught me from the very first day that each person was special and the ultimate minority of one and i should treat everyone exactly the same, i have lived my life this way long before it was politically acceptable and have taught my kids the same thing. He also taught me to accept facts as they are and not to taint them with my feelings or preconceptions.

      • ” I don’t care about what other people do as long as it doesn’t infringe upon my rights or the rights of others. Is that left or right?”

        That’s “right”. The Left wants to control every aspect of the life of everyone.

      • “It was also the “right” that passed the civil rights act under a republican president, that same president nationalised the national guard to protect little african american children on their way to school in Arkansas and who also desegregated the military.”

        Apparently i have lost my mind or am trying to rewrite history myself in my rush to finish a post, Republicans passed the civil rights act for a democratic president

        Truman desegregated the military, Eisenhauer upheld it.

      • Jay, thanks for bringing this up. I think it is a mistake for all at WUWT at equate political ideology with climate skepticism. It does seem a little tone deaf to bash leftists for being leftists “because climate change.” My skepticism about CO2 has nothing at all to do with how I think the country should be run, it is merely scientific observation. I can’t wholeheartedly support any of the existing parties, and their agenda does not define me in any way.
        While it is clear that many extreme liberals have chosen to use global warming as a political tool to further their agenda, it is just as bad for extreme conservatives to use falsification of global warming to further their agenda.
        This speaks directly to the strawman argument that scientific skepticism defines political orientation. It does not. If you find yourself thinking it does, you really should stop and do a reality check. It is self defeating and a distraction from the truth.

      • Bob Johnston,
        I understand your confusion. In reality “left”, “right”, “progressive”, “conservative”, etc. don’t mean anything. All people can be divided into two groups: those who believe people must be controlled, and those with no such desires.

      • As a leftist I do wonder why anyone would decry their opposition for being such.

        If they oppose you and are of the left they don’t care that you call them loony leftist. They have no problem with being your opposition.

        If they support you and are of the left they still don’t care that you call them loony leftist. But they do have a problem with being your ally.

        It’s hard to tell if people like SAMURAI are false-flag sock-puppets or just idiots.

      • I appreciate that there are some who hold what can be considered left wing views are not our enemies, and may agree with the climate skeptics. However, I think you are purposefully averting your eyes from the fact that this is not much of a scientific fight any more. This is a POLITICAL fight, and “The Left” such as it is, is the greatest and most powerful opponent we have. It would be not only foolish, but self destructive for us to ignore this, and to refuse to mention it.

        Here is the problem that those of us who consider oppose the Global Warming / Climate Change ideology have with “The Left”. Left wing officeholders, university presidents, and even corporate officers are now dedicated to destroying the lives of anyone who holds, or even worse promotes, skeptical views. Just look what’s been happening to the author of this post! The Left (meaning ALL those who currently hold any position of power and support leftist goals) now are all dedicated to Destroying the livelihoods of anyone who thinks like us or talks like us – they want to take away our jobs, take away our houses, take away our very right to speak. And every action they take is a step towards that goal of theirs – there is no denying this, the evidence is overwhelming.

        I know that there are leftists who sympathize with our goals – but their leaders do not, and their leaders are doing everything they can not just to win power, but to destroy us personally.

      • Jay (and all those that wanted to pat him on the back),

        Put the Samuri comment into perspective.

        Jud Legum IS one of the looney left. AND he acts as if he is a card carrying member of the Green Blob (though he may not actually be … it could be that he just a another hypocritical piece of shit, like Gore, that is making money in the simplest way he knows). The comment is in regard to people like Legum.

        Jay (& Peter & Mr. Courtney), are you a leftist or are you, like Jud Legum, one of the looney leftists?

        It is up to you to decide; but if you are insulted of irritated by the qualifier, then you have probably already made your decision.

      • Concentration of power inevitably and invariably leads to murderous tyranny.

        Socialists are a menace to the rest of us, no matter their good intentions.

      • i would never hold it against yo that you hold so many socialist ideas, but have you ever tried to live in a socialist or communist country–it’s really horrible. What looks sooo good on paper does not work well in the real world. That utopia goes against human nature and it doesn’t work yet–maybe when we evolve more–but even then… People like you are good at heart–I know you are, I can tell by your post.Bbut your thinking suffers and if given your way, we all would suffer. Sigh

      • WRT politics interjected into climate science debate – ignoring the fact that the most-public debates about climate science are political in nature, it would behoove those who proudly claim to fly the red-fist flag (or a reasonable equivalent thereof) that it is the CAGW proponents who vociferously and persistently paint skeptics with a broad brush, likening them to snaggle-toothed backwoods rednecks, with that same group putting all grassroots Republicans in the very same category. Why is it the leftists can dish it but can’t take it? I for one am tired of conservatives turning the other cheek.

      • There are people on the left and far left with all kinds of opinions on climate, fission energy or “GMO” and glyphosate. They have a few vocal advocates. The pro-real, proven technologies left exists.

        But what are the big political parties that push these ideas?

    • Florida International University’s School for Communications, Architecture, and the Arts (FIU CARTA) sponsors an annual workshop for journalists and editors. This year’s theme was Climate Change in the Americas. March 27th was the opening reception. It was to feature a keynote address on sea-level rise followed by a ‘conversation’ between James Taylor of the Heartland Institute and Greg Hamra of the Citizen’s Climate Lobby on opposing views about climate policy. Originally they scheduled John Morales of WTVJ-TV to moderate, but he refused stating that offering Mr. Taylor a platform was a ‘false equivalency’. Then the keynote speaker withdrew for similar reasons. Unintentionally, they made this debate the featured event of the first night.
      The event was well attended by more than just the journalism students, with advocates from both sides of the climate debate filling up some 30 seats (the majority alarmists). Both the Dean of the college and the moderator Dr. Frank Mora took pains to mention that the conversation was being offered so that journalism students could be exposed to both sides of the controversy and the University’s role in open inquiry.
      Each guest was given 5 minutes to speak, followed by an extensive Q & A period where audience members submitting written questions. Mr. Taylor kept his points centered on the facts and had a handout available showing the data from various sources making his points about climate and energy policy. Mr. Hamra said he refused to debate the ‘science’ and only wanted to focus on energy policy and often resorted to emotional appeals. While he accused Mr. Taylor of logical fallacies, he repeatedly engaged in the fallacy of “Appeal to Authority” in citing the “97% of experts agree” canard.
      The overall tenor of the conversation was kept civil. The sponsors wanted to avoid a ‘debate’ so they did not allow cross-talk or rebuttals. Participants could only address the questions submitted. There were occasional breeches of this protocol and some remarks shouted from the audience, almost all on the alarmist side. But for the most part people behaved and it was an interesting evening. I am gratified that the students at least got exposed to the other side of the climate debate, as the rest of the workshop’s schedule is filled with alarmist speakers and offerings.
      Here is a link to the video:

    • With this visage of strength and maturity, we have nothing to worry about for the future….. /s

  4. Judd Legum, the place where he writes, its founders, and failure to disclose funding (perhaps Clintons or Soros) make me think I would not walk into the same room with him.
    So, a meeting, if held, ought to be with many others around and in a well lighted situation. Oh, and bring a couple of body guards.
    ,

    • “Center for American Progress” along with Open Borders is a George Soros funded NGO. I don’t think the Clinton foundation is funding much of anything.

      • I don’t think the Clinton foundation is funding much of anything.

        Except the Clintons.

      • I’d think while the Clintons aren’t the “dear leaders” anymore, their Foundation is still a useful money-laundering setup. The marxists want to have a diversity of such sites. I’m sure Obummer has also set up a similar laundering operation.

      • “Clinton said 9 million people have lower-cost HIV/AIDS medicine thanks to the efforts of the Clinton Foundation and her husband. Bill Clinton started the foundation and its first big project was the Clinton Health Access Initiative. The program focused on using market mechanisms to reduce treatment costs. Costs have fallen dramatically and the initiative remains a key global player in maintaining a steady supply of affordable drugs.

        If anything, Clinton understated the number of people who have benefited from the program. We rate this claim True.”

        https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/037cffe5-607a-4a13-9fe8-a78567e75857

  5. four years ago he decided to use his position to (successfully) get me removed as a writer for 538.

    When they move to silence you it is a certain sign that they fear to debate you.

    • Quite. In any other subject, he that is 100per cent certain that he is right would not hesitate to debate his position with someone who he felt was 100 per cent wrong, That is why all sceptics have no fear of debating their position with a member of the warmist clan.

    • They may fear to debate you , but they have silenced you , so they have won . That is all that matters.
      I cannot see that ever changing.

  6. it’s battle of the selfies gone wild – so many likes! such followers!
    so these soy boys gonna have a cage match… watch them be tragically offended at each other – great theater.
    reaction vids to global warming is not meme-worthy, but hey- in the quest for relevance, pull out all the stops! it’s still boring.

  7. Meh, debate pointless. Have a mud wrestle. Much more satisfying and just as intellectually relevant.

  8. Pielke should understand that harassment is what this thing called agw is all about. It’s far easier to win by shouting louder than the other guy than it is by honestly debating. (Mann has this down to the t) That’s why they do it, harassment works. Once you get that through your head, it’s just a matter of dealing with those ugly elements that are central to the agw debate

  9. These social justice warriors (SJWs) love to be able to cost people their jobs. They are the moral equivalent of lynch mobs and witch hunts. They are the enemies of civilization. Robespierre was a social justice warrior. link

  10. Judd Legum, a man-child Hillary sycophant. Lawyer. Turned writer of politics of the Hard Left.

    Wiki bio:
    Judd Legum is the founder and editor-in-chief of ThinkProgress, a news site based at the Center for American Progress.

    Legum founded ThinkProgress in 2005,[1] running it for two years before leaving in 2007 to join Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign as research director.[2] Following the 2008 campaign, he practiced law in Maryland before returning to ThinkProgress in 2011, and became the site’s editor-in-chief in May 2012.[3] Legum has drawn notice for reporting and commentary on a range of political topics, including the 2016 presidential campaign,[4] campaign finance,[5] the legacy of Martin Luther King in contemporary politics,[6] and the media’s role in politics.[7]

    Legum graduated from Georgetown Law School in 2003.[8]

    • ‘Progress’ – in their terms but for everyone else, regression.

      He is a law student, nothing about climate, how can he be allowed to talk about climate change? Oh, yes, like everything left-wing, that only works one way.

      As to debate the subject, he will be bound by the global warming golden rule – never debate.

  11. their fear is others will listen.

    Example, a friends parents went along to protest a candidate for a political party in Australia that they disapproved of base4d on their preconceptions.

    They came away that night from the protest as signed up members of the One nation party and were stunned at how much misinformation had been spread by the media and how much sense they’d heard that night.

    There’s no way the authoritarian left will permit *anyone* to speak, it’s essentially a crime to oppose them because they Are The Authority.

  12. “Mine will be Doctors Without Borders.”
    better change that. these people have a deal with human trafficers in lybia to ferry africans to italy – and do so weekly.
    are there no better charities?

  13. I think “Juddlegum” is a wonderful word. Now let’s think about meanings for it. I think it is a gum made out of hardened Jello, like Knox blocks. “Judd Legum” is just dull, but “Juddlegum” has some real possibilities.

  14. juddlegum censorship:
    “I think it’s fair say that, without Climate Progress, Pielke would still be writing on climate change for 538. He would be providing important cover for climate deniers backed by Silver’s very respected brand. But because of our work, he is not.

    I don’t think there is another site on the internet having this kind of impact on the climate debate. Thanks for your support of this work. Looking forward to doing even more in the coming months.

    — Judd”

    [?? Who is quoting whom? .mod]

    • It is about the gratitude of Judd Legum to Ted White and Tom Steyer to help him destroy the reputation of Roger Pielke. I dont know who these people are. And I think that I would have no interest in discussing with them, as they clearly show their agenda.

    • And if N Silver is an honest guy, they have brought up some heavy weapons to scare him. But I know nothing of Nate Silver either.

  15. 538 How “unpopular” is Donald Trump by Nate Silver?
    This site on Trump polling uses a headline which flashes between popular and unpopular in the heading. No need to do it. RealClearPolitics just plays it straight. Nate has his support from the left obviously and being a cluey pollster goes with the polls . If Trump shows signs of getting popular he will drop it like a hot brick. Or Roger Pielke.
    In other words he is in it for the money, not the morals. It is easy to see in his discussions with his staff that he posts. All yes women, and men.

  16. Roger has been an occasional commentator elsewhere. He gives his views politely and has been attacked and savaged. It is his fault because he did not toe the line on hurricane frequency and damage. Instead of facing up to the facts, years of decreasing hurricanes and damage costs the messenger is attacked. This has been a repeated line whenever anyone with warmist views has access to the mainstream media.
    The hypocrisy at times in not allowing people to put alternative views safely is a worry.
    Basically it is another way to remove the skeptic viewpoint and save face rather than debate the issues.

    Judd Legum.
    A tweeter with invective?
    Do not see the need to do this, Roger.
    Has he got in street cred for you to do this, does he have a scientific or a climate interest background or is he just an activist.
    If so I would ignore him.
    And Nate.

    It would be good to see Roger becoming an active force once again but friends and family with liberal green views are best not offended too often, as we all unfortunately know.

  17. It won’t end well for the Climate Alarmists. All they have are insults and sophistry.

    Dr. Willie Soon Exposes Scientific Deceit; Is Anyone Listening?
    OSU marine ecologist receives prestigious National Science Board award CORVALLIS, Ore. – The National Science Board is honoring Oregon State University marine ecologist Jane Lubchenco with its 2018 Vannevar Bush Award. The award recognizes “exceptional lifelong leaders in science and technology who have made substantial contributions to the welfare of the nation through public service … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/04/05/dr-willie-soon-exposes-scientific-deceit-is-anyone-listening/

    If Society Can’t Trust Scientists, Who Can They Trust? Climate Sophist is Playing San Francisco Judge as a Complete Fool
    Dr. Myles Allen must think that the San Francisco Judge is a complete fool. I just finished a post refuting many of his claims, but one example needed to be singled out. In his presentation, Dr. Myles Allen replaced the poster child Mt. Kilimanjaro, which was exposed as a fraud in the Climategate emails, … Continue reading
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/03/25/climate-alarmist-is-playing-san-francisco-judge-as-a-complete-fool/

      • Yep, I hope that isn’t the outcome. A whole lot is riding on that case. We are either a nation of laws and justices, or a nation of looters.

  18. Scratch any Chicken Licken and you will find someone who’s just plain….
    buk-buk-bwaaaack!

  19. Facebook has one less harasser this week, but there are plenty more “vegan PETA” members out there.

  20. Center for American Progress.
    That tells you all you need to know about the low life right there.

  21. It must be annoying, frustrating and enraging but why should a highly qualified and respected scientist bother with the emanations from a second rate political hack, with no known scientific background, published in a left wing, possibly corrupt lobby group?

    The nearest I could get to finding out who or what funds CAP was the following:

    https://www.thenation.com/article/secret-donors-behind-center-american-progress-and-other-think-tanks-updated-524/ .

  22. One suggestion Roger: There are many suitable and fair venues for this (suggested) debate — it’s a mistake to challenge your adversary entirely on his terms (you’ve given him the option of choosing to meet you in a bat cave at 3 a.m.).

  23. Even if a debate occurred, the portion of the audience that was activist alarmist would hear only what THEIR representative said, while what Roger said would sound like “la la la la la” [with fingers in ears].

    Alarmist ears convert all entering sounds into “la la la la la” [with fingers in ears], if certain key words do or do not exist. For example, “Humans are destroying the planet” gets through loud and clear, while “Climate sensitivity has been grossly overestimated” gets transformed into “la la la la la” [with fingers in ears], and then nothing else supporting the “la la la la la” gets in, because it all sounds like “la la la la la” too, after that.

    This is the main advantage of being “right”.

  24. Too little too late.
    A lawsuit for totuous interference with his job, precede by challenging Legum and pointing iut his utter illiteracy regarding climate from the start would have helped.

    • As a 5-time national qualifier, I’ll pick sabers, thanks.

      [The mods also choose sabers. Light-sabers. Explosive light sabers. With the add-on hand-grenade launcher. .mod]

  25. “I have no doubt we can use the event to raise money for important charities. Mine will be Doctors Without Borders.”

    They openly support the invasion of western Europe. I forbid you to donate
    to them !!!

  26. Roger I will gladly make a financial contribution to the event if and when it happens

  27. It would be interesting to see a similar graph of posts attacking or mocking Anthony Watts from the various sites obsessed with him. Entire blogs would vanish (including this one I suppose) without Mr. Watts.

  28. those trying to get Scott Pruitt fired need to be called out.

    4 Apr: TheLid: Media Campaign Against EPA’s Scott Pruitt Orchestrated By Obama & Clinton Cronies
    by J.E. Dyer
    My contribution in this post is adding a bit about the source going in. As (Daily Caller’s Michael) Bastasch notes, the source of much of the negative narrative-building on Pruitt is the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). The EIP is a nonprofit founded in 2002 by Eric Schaeffer, a disgruntled EPA official. Here is how EIP describes it…
    EIP has a strong animus against coal, as you can learn from the website…

    Regarding funding, prominent sources for EIP, as documented by a congressional report in 2014, are the Wallace Global Foundation and the Energy Foundation, which in turn gets much of its funding from the Sea Change Foundation set up by renewables billionaire Nat Simons, a major beneficiary of Obama’s green-energy cronyism. (And yes, both foundation sources send money to and from the Tides Foundation and others in the standard list of progressive and radical-left money sumps.)…
    https://lidblog.com/media-campaign-against-scott-pruitt/

    5 Apr: Fox News: Trump and the US need Scott Pruitt to stay at EPA
    by Steve Milloy
    “I do,” President Trump said Thursday afternoon when asked by reporters whether he still has confidence in embattled Environmental Protection Agency head Scott Pruitt. And well the president should.
    Pruitt has been the most effective appointee in implementing the Trump agenda. If Pruitt is forced out of his job because of charges he behaved unethically, America will suffer…

    First, President Trump would have a hard time finding an EPA chief as competent and committed as Pruitt. Next, even if the president did, Senate Democrats would go all out to block confirmation.
    President Trump should ignore the partisan attacks over trivialities. Let’s keep our eyes on the ball of EPA reform and restraint. Our national interest demands it.
    Just let Pruitt do it.
    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/04/05/trump-and-us-need-scott-pruitt-to-stay-at-epa.html

    flood the White House with support Pruitt.

  29. In my experience, many of the people who go into journalism are people who have failed at everything else they have tried.
    As a result they feel the need to prove their superiority. They do this by bullying those who don’t have the resources to fight back.

    • MarkW, I tend to disagree, in my own experience. I think students go into journalism because they start out with the (right) passion for being investigators and storytellers for the sake of an open democracy. The problem is, these students arrive at college– fresh out of high school, highly impressionable and desiring to impress– and they get sucked into the giant political-academic monster that almost immediately exploits their impressionability. It’s truly a sad thing to witness– I was able to intermingle with journalism students while pursuing my own undergrad and it was frankly sad to see how quick the “machine” of progressive ideology could convert incoming students into what I can only classify as “troops for the cause”. Truly, very sad. Occasionally a bright star would emerge that defied the predictability of the progressive ideology machine but they were and still are very rare.

  30. Funny, in french Judd Legum sounds like “jus de légume”, that means “vegetable juice”

Comments are closed.