I am happy to note that Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog is back.
4 Comments
And no comments allowed, in the fine tradition of World Climate Report.
But I’m curious, John: What makes you happy about this?
I like Roger, and find his observations interesting.
Hmm, well, what makes me unhappy is that previously the comments section seemed to be the means by which he was compelled to retract, or at least not continue beating the drum for, his all-too-numerous errors. Then there was his active encouragement of surfacestations.org and the choice of some less-than-appropriate guest bloggers such as Joe D’Aleo, of which we can expect more of the same. Roger’s brand of obtuse contrarianism no longer makes sense, if it ever did, and it makes even less sense to continue spreading his mistakes around the internet by means of the sort of scientifically-illiterate fanboys that he seems to like to encourage. We don’t need another outlet of that sort, even of it is one where some legitimate science gets mixed in.
Well, I tell you, when Dano or his author called him on his BS all we got was silence. A dedicated commenter following up on this would make him look bad, surely. I don’t blame him for no comments as the comments were populated by folks wishing that Roger’s crankiness supported their beliefs. “Information source” sounds like WCR or see-oh-too.
IMO he’s leaning toward climate crank but he still does good work; I’ve quoted him more than once about drought in something that I’m finishing up now.
And no comments allowed, in the fine tradition of World Climate Report.
But I’m curious, John: What makes you happy about this?
I like Roger, and find his observations interesting.
Hmm, well, what makes me unhappy is that previously the comments section seemed to be the means by which he was compelled to retract, or at least not continue beating the drum for, his all-too-numerous errors. Then there was his active encouragement of surfacestations.org and the choice of some less-than-appropriate guest bloggers such as Joe D’Aleo, of which we can expect more of the same. Roger’s brand of obtuse contrarianism no longer makes sense, if it ever did, and it makes even less sense to continue spreading his mistakes around the internet by means of the sort of scientifically-illiterate fanboys that he seems to like to encourage. We don’t need another outlet of that sort, even of it is one where some legitimate science gets mixed in.
Well, I tell you, when Dano or his author called him on his BS all we got was silence. A dedicated commenter following up on this would make him look bad, surely. I don’t blame him for no comments as the comments were populated by folks wishing that Roger’s crankiness supported their beliefs. “Information source” sounds like WCR or see-oh-too.
IMO he’s leaning toward climate crank but he still does good work; I’ve quoted him more than once about drought in something that I’m finishing up now.
Best,
D