The Roger Pielke Jr. Story, how dissenting scientist are silenced

Sep 2019
2,189
573
Idaho
Scientists who speak out against the climate change narrative are quickly attacked and destroyed by the smear machine and the message goes out to other scientists. Get on board or STFU.

"In an internal 2014 e-mail (made public by WikiLeaks in 2016), CAP employee Judd Legum boasts that his part of that organization got Pielke fired as a contributor to FiveThirtyEight.com, a website affiliated with ABC News.

Pielke’s first and only article there was titled Disasters Cost More Than Ever – But Not Because of Climate Change. Studded with numerous links to source material, it points out that even the UN’s highly politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits there’s scant evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

In other words, there’s nothing remotely radical or non-mainstream about Pielke’s position. But the blowback orchestrated by CAP and others was so vociferous, he was never published at FiveThirtyEight.com again. In this interview Pielke says he suggested leaving three months later, after the website had demonstrated “some reluctance in continuing to publish my work.”

Slide #38 in the presentation Pielke gave last year includes a third party advertisement that characterizes his departure as a “Victory for climate truth!” Rather than being an honest scholar, you see, he’s actually a “climate confusionist” who deserves to be destroyed.

Today, someone searching on Pielke’s name at FireThirtyEight.com is presented with a very short list. It includes an editorial by its founder and editor-in-chief about Pielke’s article. It also includes a response to Pielke’s article by Kerry Emanuel. But there’s no actual link to Pielke’s calm, sane piece itself. "

 
Apr 2012
82,094
6,685
Scientists who speak out against the climate change narrative are quickly attacked and destroyed by the smear machine and the message goes out to other scientists. Get on board or STFU.

"In an internal 2014 e-mail (made public by WikiLeaks in 2016), CAP employee Judd Legum boasts that his part of that organization got Pielke fired as a contributor to FiveThirtyEight.com, a website affiliated with ABC News.

Pielke’s first and only article there was titled Disasters Cost More Than Ever – But Not Because of Climate Change. Studded with numerous links to source material, it points out that even the UN’s highly politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admits there’s scant evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

In other words, there’s nothing remotely radical or non-mainstream about Pielke’s position. But the blowback orchestrated by CAP and others was so vociferous, he was never published at FiveThirtyEight.com again. In this interview Pielke says he suggested leaving three months later, after the website had demonstrated “some reluctance in continuing to publish my work.”

Slide #38 in the presentation Pielke gave last year includes a third party advertisement that characterizes his departure as a “Victory for climate truth!” Rather than being an honest scholar, you see, he’s actually a “climate confusionist” who deserves to be destroyed.

Today, someone searching on Pielke’s name at FireThirtyEight.com is presented with a very short list. It includes an editorial by its founder and editor-in-chief about Pielke’s article. It also includes a response to Pielke’s article by Kerry Emanuel. But there’s no actual link to Pielke’s calm, sane piece itself. "

The liberal are intolerant of any that disagree. The democrats just keep showing their double standards and hypocrisy
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gooseberrymesa
May 2016
3,158
4,095
Florida
Hmmm.....

Nate Silver has launched a new FiveThirtyEight blog with the intent of applying his data-driven approach to a wide variety of subjects. The problem is that Nate Silver is himself only one man, so FiveThirtyEight has hired a variety of contributors to write about the subjects that are outside his expertise and comfort zone. For the topic of climate change, Silver decided to hire the renowned obfuscator Roger Pielke, Jr.

This was immediately disappointing for those familiar with Pielke's work, because FiveThirtyEight is a statistics site, and frankly Pielke is not good at statistics. Instead, Pielke is known for taking a selective view of the peer-reviewed scientific literature in order to downplay the connection between human-caused global warming and extreme weather. Predictably, Pielke's first two posts at FiveThirtyEight did exactly that, and included a litany of errors:

  • The headline and main point of his post are wrong.
  • He misrepresents his own research.
  • The references he provides don't say what he claims and don't support his argument.
  • Research he neglects contradicts his conclusions.
  • He doesn't include all available data.
  • He incorrectly claims that weather-related disasters aren't becoming more frequent.
  • He fails to account for the costs of improved technology and the damages they prevent.
  • He considers only land-falling hurricanes whose damages are highly variable.
  • His conclusions are contradicted by the increased intensity of North Atlantic hurricanes, and global warming's contribution to their storm surges and flooding.
Yea...this isn’t a guy that was terminated because he espoused critical views of climate change, this was a guy that had an agenda and was fired because he lied, misrepresented data, and overall is pretty much a douche. But I totally understand why someone like a Trump supporter would believe and support a guy like this...

 
Apr 2012
82,094
6,685
Hmmm.....



Yea...this isn’t a guy that was terminated because he espoused critical views of climate change, this was a guy that had an agenda and was fired because he lied, misrepresented data, and overall is pretty much a douche. But I totally understand why someone like a Trump supporter would believe and support a guy like this...

No those that promote Global warming are the liars. They have to manipulate data to fit their lies
 
Sep 2019
2,189
573
Idaho
Hmmm.....



Yea...this isn’t a guy that was terminated because he espoused critical views of climate change, this was a guy that had an agenda and was fired because he lied, misrepresented data, and overall is pretty much a douche. But I totally understand why someone like a Trump supporter would believe and support a guy like this...

Nice recital of the talking points the smear machine put out on him
 
Oct 2014
3,797
5,116
British expat in USA
Well, if FiveThirtyEight wanted to be taken seriously in this area, hiring a climate change denier wasn't the brightest thing to do. No surprise that criticisms of his first article poured in from scientists around the world. Apparently Pielke threatened a couple of them (Mann and Trenberth, two high-profile climate scientists) with legal action. Of course that wasn't going to end well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Friday13
Sep 2019
2,189
573
Idaho
Well, if FiveThirtyEight wanted to be taken seriously in this area, hiring a climate change denier wasn't the brightest thing to do. No surprise that criticisms of his first article poured in from scientists around the world. Apparently Pielke threatened a couple of them (Mann and Trenberth, two high-profile climate scientists) with legal action. Of course that wasn't going to end well.
Did you even read the link in the OP. That's whst this thread is about. The organized smear of a scientist that dared dissgree with the dogma. Your repeating the smear and its lies and distortions doesn't make it true.

"Having kowtowed to bullies, FireThirtyEight.com now sticks to conventional fare – articles that discuss “climate change denialists” and “climate change deniers.”

The simple truth is so threatening to certain political operatives that Pielke’s persecution didn’t end there. In 2015, he was falsely accused of secretly taking money from an oil company and investigated by Congress. In that context, the president of the university that employs him was advised in writing that Obama’s White House science advisor believed Pielke to be guilty of “serious misstatements.”

Also in 2015, Paige St. John, a Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist, discovered that mentioning Pielke in an article was sufficient to ignite a campaign against her. Slide #22 contains a comment St. John sent to Pielke by e-mail:

You should come with a warning label: Quoting Roger Pielke will bring a hail storm down on your work from the London Guardian, Mother Jones and Media Matters.
In other words Pielke was made an example of. Go against us we will destroy you.