update: Looks like William Connolley, whose qualifications to deal with this issue are above reproach, has done a nice update on the Roger Pielke Jr. WikiThing.
In a recent comment thread, I facetiously threatened to start a new Inkstian feature:
I think I’m gonna start a new “Pielke watch” feature on Inkstain, where I highlight people going all apoplectic about Roger. That guy’s like waving a red rag in front of you guys.
My idea was to take Roger Pielke Jr.’s picture and PhotoShop a big target over his face. But after the whole Eli incident, I decided that’d be a bad idea.
I was kidding, but the whole BlogoFuror over Roger’s Wikipedia entry is such a classic example that I couldn’t resist. Someone – we’ll call him or her “18.104.22.168″ – thought that the most important thing worth ‘splainin’ about Roger’s work was that he was once invited to write a paper for the Cato Institute’s Regulation. There follows in the Wikipedia history an attempt to point out that he’s also written for liberal publications, and further edits to question the liberalness of the alleged liberal publications, with the result that Wikipedia readers are left with an absolutely vapid entry solely devoted to dueling tribal labels but no discussion of what the guy actually thinks!
And then Roger blogged about it. Which was really waving a red flag in front of David Roberts, whose Pielke Pathology is up there with the best of ’em, and whose “journalistic” analysis of Roger’s views (not unlike “22.214.171.124”) seems to consist largely of an ad hominem critique. And then Steve Bloom, who is worse than any of them when it comes to Pielke Pathology (see the above-referenced comment thread), joins the party!
All that’s left is for Eli Rabbett to chime in, and we’ll have the full Pielke Pathology trifecta. Eli?