Friday, November 13, 2009

Climate Progress: DeLong and Deltoid: “The thing about a Roger Pielke Jr. train wreck is that you just can’t look away.” Plus Roger’s must-read post that Rabett called “The great Pielke meltdown.”

Visitor T. Greer had a comment rejected on this Climate Progress story posted the day before AIC was created.  I've reposted his rejected attempt in the comments.

October 24, 2009

Roger Pielke Jr. has written the most Titanic whine in the history of the climate blogosphere, “Giant Fish, Big Fish and Minnows of the Liberal Blogosphere.”  And I do mean Titanic with a capital T.

 Tim Lambert (aka Deltoid) calls it the “Pielke Pity Party.”  Eli Rabett calls it “The great Pielke meltdown.”
 Read the rest of the post at the source…

Climate Progress's Comment Policy

If you've attempted to post a comment at Climate Progress under this story, and had it, in your opinion, unreasonably rejected or snipped, please repost it and any additional commentary below in the comments. Please take a look at Guidelines for Comments if you haven’t yet.


  1. (@T. Greer: I'm sorry, following the link you supplied to your blog appeared to require being signed into your Blogger account)

    T. Greer attempted posting this in October:

    "I will come out and tell you who I am – T. Greer, a man who studies and writes a blog on security and development issues. I read climate blogs because ecology (and climate change in particular) have long term ramifications for this field of study.

    In general I try to cast a wide net; I read and link to blogs concerning epidemiology, energy, counterinsurgency theory, geopolitics, logistics, diplomacy, technology, culture, human rights, economics, and futuristics. I rarely discriminate between those on the left and on the right. My search is for good content from many opposing sides of a given debate. (A quick look at my blog roll will prove the validity of these statements.)

    Of all these specialist communities in the blogosphere, I have seen none filled with such vitriol as the science bloggers. I am at a loss as to why this is so — certainly most of the science debates are of much less consequence than those being held by other sections of the blogosphere. Men like Andrew Exum and Gian Gentile go at each other every week and still remain both friendly and respectful, while Chris Mooney and PZ Meyers are engaged in blood feud, despite the fact that the first pair’s debate has actual policy ramifications that could kill or save several thousand people a month, while the latter pair’s debate is largely academic.

    Of course, those involved in the climate wars can make a fair case that they actually are arguing about something of consequence – the greatest issue of consequence, according to many. For the sake of discussion, I shall accept this assumption. I am still at a loss as to why this translates into such immature rhetoric. This post over at Nukes of Hazard provides a compelling counterpoint. Here too is an argument concerning a real existential threat to civilization… but missing is the entire attitude commonly found here at Climate Progress and elsewhere in the sciencesphere. Just compare the adjectives Romm uses when describing his opponent’s case and the words used by Reif and Sharp over at NoH. Peilke’s post is “piteous”, his words are a “train wreck”, his case is a “flimsy meltdown”. On the flip side, Kyl simply “fails to appreciate” specific aspects of the CTBT, and “should be willing” to pursue the CTBT given his previous statements..."

  2. (Continued...)

    "...Notice the differences between the two posts. Romm’s post is sprawling, angry mess that cares more for disparaging a person than his case. Reif and Sharp’s post is concise, civil, and successfully tears down one man’s faulty logic without aggrandizement. One post is a model, the other a morass.

    So what can the folks from the science blogosphere do to patch up their work? My first suggestion is simple: lose your adjectives. Terms like “piteous” (or even Mr. Hernstein’s favorite word, “infantile”) add more heat than light to these discussions; they communicate nothing other than the author’s personal distaste for the person or idea being discussed. In a few extraordinary cases, when there is a true and utter objection to the morality of what is being suggested, should such terms be deemed appropriate. But the way they have been used in this post (as in others recently published) reduces their power; like curses lose their obscenity when uttered too often.

    My second recommendation for the science blogosphere is one my Mother told me long, long ago: “If you cannot play with them nice, don’t play with them at all.” How true this is! It has been suggested that it is willfully stupid to believe that playing nice will ever lead to result. Ok, fair enough – but what are the results of playing rough and dirty? If there are any, I have yet to see them. Hidden within this thought is a conceit that needs to be gutted – the science sphere si not nearly as important as people like to think it is. What would happen if Real Climate and Climate Progress never said a word about Peilke again? The answer: nothing. With a few exceptions, the climate section of the blogosphere is preaching to the choir. You can ignore the self-righteous rantings of the deniers, or you can write your own ranting in reply — the result will be the same either way. Do not fool yourself into giving this blog (or Peilke’s) more influence than it deserves.

    The final recommendation to the science blogosphere Is this: stop using nonsensical metaphors and graphic imagery. Like the useless adjective mentioned above, they add much heat, but not an angstrom of light. Be they big fish or exploding heads, these displays of fancy add nothing but antagonism to the discussion. Please, just drop ‘em.

    From one on the outside looking in,

    ~T. Greer"

  3. Thanks for posting this. My site, for those interested, can be found here:

  4. The new Breitling movement is the luxury watchmaker's first Bentley Motors T completely in-house manufactured complication. The new features in this movement distinguish Bentley Motors from any other Swiss movement on the market and set a new bench mark for Navitimer Watches excellence.

    Hardy clothing does not deem to keep up your seek save your exchange exactly from hardy shirt . If he actually did not institute out as a hardy shirts designer, this incredible designer is actually a hardy shirts comedian and he definitely has changed the world of make as divergent to killing off the shirt.

    scarpe Hogan are very lightweight, the leather upper is very soft and comfort. hogan donna wedge with side arch wedge adds comfort and foot support. Rubber outsole with Hogan scarpe uomo flex grooves offers easy flexing. Hogan uomo have the maximum performance and are very strong.


Blog Archive