I am Under “Investigation”

As some of you will already know, I am one of 7 US academics being investigated by US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) who is the ranking member of the House of Representatives Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. Rep. Grijalva has sent a letter to the president of my university requesting a range of information, including my correspondence, the letter is here in PDF.

Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.

For instance, the Congressman and his staff, along with compliant journalists, are busy characterizing me in public as a “climate skeptic” opposed to action on climate change. This of course is a lie. I have written a book calling for a carbon tax, I have publicly supported President Obama’s proposed EPA carbon regulations, and I have just published another book strongly defending the scientific assessment of the IPCC with respect to disasters and climate change. All of this is public record, so the smears against me must be an intentional effort to delegitimize my academic research.

What am I accused of that prompts being investigated? Here is my crime:

Prof. Roger Pielke, Jr., at CU’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research has testified numerous times before the U.S. Congress on climate change and its economic impacts. His 2013 Senate testimony featured the claim, often repeated, that it is “incorrect to associate the increasing costs of disasters with the emission of greenhouse gases.”

The letter goes on to note that John Holdren, President Obama’s science advisor, “has highlighted what he believes were serious misstatements by Prof. Pielke.” (For background on this see here and here.) My 2013 testimony to the Senate is here and House is here in pdf (Q&A following hearing here and here). The testimony was the basis for my recent book on Disasters & Climate Change.

Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views).

Adam Sarvana, communications director for Natural Resources Committee’s Democratic delegation, reinforced the politically-motivated nature of the investigation in an interview:

“The way we chose the list of recipients is who has published widely, who has testified in Congress before, who seems to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community”

Let’s see – widely published, engaged with Congress, policy impact — these are supposed to be virtues of the modern academic researcher, right? (Here in PDF is my view on the importance of testifying before Congress when asked. I still think it is important.)

I am pleased that some colleagues with whom I have had professional disagreements with in the past have condemned the investigation via Twitter, among them Eric Steig (of Real Climate), Bob Ward (LSE) and Simon Donner (UBC). This shows some real class. In contrast, Michael E. Mann, who I defended when a Virginia politician came after him, used the “investigation” as a chance to lob childish insults my way via Twitter. Some things you can always count on in the climate arena!

So far, I have been contacted by only 2 reporters at relatively small media outlets. I’d say that the lack of interest in a politician coming after academics is surprising, but to be honest, pretty much nothing surprises me in the climate debate anymore. Even so, there is simply no excuse for any reporter to repeat incorrect claims made about me, given how easy I am to find and just ask.

The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt, I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject. I am a full professor with tenure, so no one need worry about me — I’ll be just fine as there are plenty of interesting, research-able policy issues to occupy my time. But I can’t imagine the message being sent to younger scientists. Actually, I can: “when people are producing work in line with the scientific consensus there’s no reason to go on a witch hunt.”

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

231 thoughts on “I am Under “Investigation”

  1. given the incredibly low quality of the comments here–either the usual obamaphobia or utter misuse and misunderstanding of mccarthyism (promulgated by you in your tendentious choice of headline and image) or non-related but borderline racist or otherwise extreme right wing views tells a lot about who you are and what you say. I suppose the fact that your arrant nonsense that you published on 538 (which essentially had to be repeatedly retracted due to your “errors” of fact, said quotation marks earned because each “error” oddly helped your [false] thesis) has gone past any of the commenters here.

    we have nothing but your word on how all of this has gone down. you claim knowledge of the state of mind and knowledge base of Rep. Grivalja without offering any proof, and given your track record of false statements, misreadings of basic science and allowing yourself to be used by those who are a priori “skeptics” (again, quotations earned because you are many things, but a real skeptic ain’t one of them) about something that they are indeed handsomely paid not to understand (h/t mr. sinclair) makes a true skeptic question the nature of this blog post.

    we all have track records. yours looks like this:




    i could go and on, and you’ve managed to gull andrew kacinsky at buzzfeed into believing your nonsense (congrats! you’ve got buzzfeed! 15 non-peer reviewed papers that cats who look like hitler read!) but your lies have caught up with you old man. too bad about the tenure–there’s no way to really give you what you deserve, which, i suppose, is a sinecure at some far right nonsense machine.


    1. You use age-old links to disprove Roger, when you should know that the IPCC SREX both is newer and says what Roger says. The AR5 says what Roger says. Are you claiming that even the IPCC is getting the extreme weather message wrong? Or did you stop paying attention 10 years ago?

      You claim low quality of comments here, yet you strive for and succeed in the absence of quality altogether.

      Unless you are man enough to sign your comments full name, don’t bother to reply. Actually, don’t bother to reply.


    2. You indeed “go on and on” above in a near illiterate comment, more vomited than composed, with mangled run-on sentences, disfigured phrases having ambiguous subjects, insults that come out of nowhere and happily exit to same, and worst of all, devoid of wit. It’s a hard lesson to learn, I realize, but a fool is not supposed to take himself so seriously. You offer one ill-expressed and flatulent opinion after the other with a rancid, cloying arrogance hard to believe and still have the nerve to be offended! What a sorry, finger-wagging kindergarten terrorist you are. I am convinced, however, that a ripe bit of gutter foam such as yourself aspires to more, much more. And why not? A full colonelcy in the thought police suits you.

      It’s no surprise, really, learning that sham tribunals and people’s courts excite your imagination, One day, perhaps, you might get to join one and wear a close-fitting black uniform, Pickelhaube helmet, and high boots. I mean, Think Progress? Masterful! Propaganda simply does not come more blatant and unembarrassed than that. Skeptical Science? The choice of a misleading title is certainly appropriate wherever deception and artifice count, don’t you think so? I’d ask, are you joking when, apparently with a straight face, you recommend browsing through fish wrap, except that it’s possible you are just stupid enough to find tripe persuasive.

      Finally, do permit me to encourage your low aspirations. They suit your talents. Get cracking and ring the bell! Intone from the book! Brandish the candle! Phony anathemas and pope-play are fun and will help pass the time. A formidable agenda of scurrility scribbling awaits your attention. Just do not let anything detain you here. Please “go on and on” nursing power fantasies and comic, “I am invincible!” vendettas, just so long as you are quickly gone.


      1. Great spanking! Enjoyed it.

        If robogreen’s blowharding gets much windier, he should consider posting in front of one of those pretty 13-storey bird-shredding windmills so beloved by the watermelon Left. That way, it may be conceivable that something useful might emerge from his self-absorbed, preening labors.

        Liked by 1 person

      1. you don’t know what the word extirpation means. i’m sadly not in a position to be extirpating anyone. roger, who has tenure, cannot be extirpated, even from your misunderstood use. dissenters will continue to publish on blogs like this, on sites like heartland institutes, will continue to get massive amounts of oil and other fossil fuel money.

        that extirpation sounds fun!


    3. Gobsmacked! Regardless of where one sits on the issues discussed by Roger, Robo’s outburst is astounding. If I were a religious type I would gain comfort in thoughts of judgement day. I will simply rest easy knowing that the Universe will take care of business in due course.

      Robo: Suggest you might try to do something nice for someone tomorrow.


    4. I’m shocked by this comment from Robogreen. An ad hominem attack which fails to address the issues and seems to confirm the rightness of the McCarthy headline.


    5. I am surprised anyone has the temerity to use ThinkProgress as an authority on anything. Using those as your references say more about you than the subject. Do you not see the irony of complaining about anyone while using ThinkProgress as your source of facts.

      BTW, under Godwin’s law you lost when you said “… cats who look like hitler read”.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. sorry that an attempt at comedy went over your head, but…yeah. also, you’ll have to give me some cites about where climate progress has been not only wrong but wrong in such as a way as to advance their agenda, or you are just saying words. lots of empty words.


  2. From president Eisenhower’s farewell address….

    Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in the newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research – these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

    But each proposal must be weighed in light of a broader consideration; the need to maintain balance in and among national programs – balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages – balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between the actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.

    The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

    But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

    Of these, I mention two only.

    (The first is the well known Military Industrial Complex) The second….

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    This day has come to pass, where scientific integrity has been sacrificed on the alter of political expediency. Science has become corrupted and is now being held hostage by federal money. This destructive spiral will continue as the leading proponents have become corrupted in the same manner that police officers are corrupted by what is termed as the “Noble Cause Corruption”.

    Science and respect for science will be destroyed by this trend until scientists speak out and stand firm against such policies.


  3. Dear Dr. Pielke, you have been an inspiration to me for the way you have stood for truth in this propaganda infested debate. I have watched your congressional testimony. Your presentation is clear and concise, your charts, data, and confidence with which you speak inspires trust. This is in sharp contrast to Dr. Holdren. I ask you not to shrink from this battle. There are principles at stake here more important than careers, perhaps even more important than life. I wish you would go to the media with this. Challenge Dr, Holdren in the court of public opinion for his claims. Provided your testimony is legitimate, I believe you would easily prevail, and there-bye land a damning blow on this farce that has been wrecking the good name of science.


  4. If you’re stopping climate research because you have nothing left to discover, fine. If you’re stopping because of this investigation, then you’re becoming part of the problem.


    1. he never did any climate research that moved the needle forward (or backwards) that was peer reviewed and/or has stood the test of time, but don’t worry, there are thousands of other scientists testing EVERY assumption that the IPCC makes, and when one is found wanting, looking for the reasons why. it’s called…science!


      1. And how, pray, would you characterize the Mann-esian revisionism, otherwise known as “hide the decline”? Might I suggest, “climate scientology”?


  5. Sadly, climate “science” has devolved into a religion for some, and massive vehicle for political/monetary graft for most of the rest. It’s become an industry that far too many in politics, the scientific community and some private companies, have become so overly invested in, that it cannot be allowed to be questioned, hence the inquisition. The days of Galileo are upon us once more, but with a new church as the oppressor. I quit believing in the “Inconvenient Truth” of catastrophic Anthropogenic warming when Al Gore showed up on the scene and turned it into a snake oil business. Note to Al, and the rest of those who are cashing in on the fear mongering, and I’m looking at you democrats for one, if it’s really an emergency, then why are you all still living with “carbon footprints” the size of small cities?


    1. yes, i’m going to need to tell my friend who turned down a 300k/year job with sibneft (assessing satellite data to explore new oil fields) in order to work as an associate professor studying satellite data around methane blow holes in siberia (60k, and maybe some benefits! but they kind of suck!) about this whole gravy train he’s jumped on. i’m glad that al gore managed to make you change your mind about science, but to be honest, i’m not sure exactly how that works? does al gore’s existence refute the science that he’s “selling snake oil” from in some way? how does that work exactly? do the scientists whose work existed before al gore, when you believed in it as you say, suddenly have different conclusions? did gore post hoc ergo prompter hoc you into your new beliefs?

      or are you just an insincere person who writes things on the internet that are risibly silly?


      1. I’ve obviously struck a nerve, heh. You are far to quick to label and belittle, which is simply another way to obfuscate. Now I believe that Man does indeed contributes a certain degree of warming, I just don’t buy in to the catastrophic AGW/Climate Change scaremongering that has become the bread and butter of so many, especially since the vaunted computer models supporting it have turned out to be so spectacularly wrong, which used to be an indication that the original hypothesis is in error, back when climate science was practiced as a science rather than a vehicle for graft.
        I find it far more likely, given the temperature record for the last 400,000 years as derived from ice core samples, that we are currently at the bitter end of the latest warm period of a natural cyclic nature, and that a little more warming could actually be beneficial to civilization. We are certainly headed for another period of glaciation, the best case scenario is that there’s enough anthropogenic warming to mitigate it when the time comes, but I doubt it at our current levels of contribution, which are probably close to negligible.


  6. The obvious answer to this is to follow the money, and examine Rep. Grijalva and the people around him to see who is paying them and find their vested interests. This is a political attack and should be treated as such. This Congressman is now ‘fair game’


    1. the best paid position at an IPCC affiliate pays worse than the worst paid equivalent position at any given oil company or right wing koch-backed foundation, but you keep f#$king that chicken if it makes you feel better.

      i’d like to join you in bizarro world, but having been raised by a scientist, i’m sadly priced out of it.


      1. c’mon there “rural counsel” just actually engage with my point. who pays better? the fossil fuel business, the most lucrative business ON EARTH, or academe or the government. there’s an actual right and wrong answer here, but here’s a tip: FOSSIL FUEL APOLOGIAS PAY MASSIVELY WELL and the academy…not so much. this is just a fact. i’m sorry this fact doesn’t fit into your world view, but FACTS don’t care about your or my or anyone else’s worldview. person x who does y is paid z.

        deal with it. think about it. ask questions of yourself and your beliefs now and again.


      2. Such foolishness! The fault, if there is any, is with ‘scientists’ who skew their findings for money. It makes absolutely no difference where the money comes from. Anyone who actually knows anything about academe knows the extraordinary influence, including offers of tenure, that the left has in departments, including science. This childish argument, your-influencers-are-worse-than-my- influencers, misses the point: Any ‘scientist’ who alters his or her research because of any external influence is a fraud. Those who argue about influence very often do so because they are unwilling or unable to challenge the science itself. Those opposed to challenges to ‘science’ for political or policy reasons are just hacks who don’t actually give a damn about science, the ultimate loser in this propaganda play.


      1. Skeptics have never been welcomed by honor groups whose fundamental principles are loyalty, rigidity, enforced conformance and distrust of the ‘other’. What is new here, if anything, is the open hostility and acceptability of honor group behavior in institutions once thought to be the opponents of the practice: American democratic government and academia. One can recall a time when at least cursory praise was given to skepticism and diversity of thought. The Left desires a world of many colors and one mind. What could be more dangerous?


      2. @lazy_I You are correct, and I should have been clearer. The disease of money in politics is irrespective of one’s political persuasion, as Laurence Lessig has been so clear to point out. But in regards to AGW research, it remains absurd to think that the most profitable and powerful groups on earth (fossil fuel companies) are not using those profits to influence, but that somehow governments are.


      3. To believe it ‘absurd’ that government power might be used to influence science seems to go against the accepted Leftist idea that it would be the end of the world if conservative were to rule. If government has little power to influence or make change, what is the problem? I have been a trial lawyer and I can tell you for a fact that the power of the state with it’s nearly unlimited resources and punitive powers greatly exceeds that of any of your hated corporations.


      4. @carlbaer thanks for packing so many caricatures of “leftist” into one post–i have some strawmen i’d like to sell you? of course governments influence science, often perniciously, as we’ve most recently seen in the FINALLY rewritten language that stops saying “sugar is awesome!”

        but the irony here is that this is government regulatory capture, where industry dictates rules that government promulgates, usually is over the objection of some scientists, while it is celebrated by others, those others usually being in the employ of…the industry being regulated. which.is.the.point.here. fossil fuel industries pay lots of scientists lots of money to obfuscate, confuse, deny, or do plain bad science. they dump massive amounts of money into retrograde “institutes” like Heartland and others, they dump EXTRAORDINARY amounts of money into this is simply not controvertible nor should it be controversial, and this is a fact whether your personal politics are left right or center (or are like mine and are all over the map). i’m sorry for so many people on this board that the reality doesn’t comport with their epistemically closed world view, but we are all stuck on this same overheating orb together such stances notwithstanding.


      5. ANY discussion of funding sources is per se political. It’s only purpose is to discredit the argument without actually challenging the argument. Therefore, one might even say that doing so is unscientific. Any scientist persuaded by funding to alter his or her findings is the enemy of science. A correct scientific process and conclusion is correct irrespective of who funded it. All else is the politics of influencing preferred policy.


  7. All the best Roger. Thank you for fighting the good fight: of science, reason, and inquiry. These are shameful times that hark back to something akin to Galileo’s trials and tribulations. We are with you.


    1. who’s the pope in your analogy? the thousands of scientists who work with the IPCC? the peer reviewed journals that reject roger’s theses because they are mis-readings of basic science? is the university where he has tenure where he’s been banished to?

      If we harnessed all of the whinging in this comment section and lubricated the resulting effluvia with the kool aid being drunk, we could power the world carbon-free.


    1. yes, very similar to the inquisition. i mean, minus the religion, with more peer review, less murder, less banishment, and no kings.

      your average commenter here is worse at analogies than (thinks of bad analogy, fails, but you get the point)…


    1. right, except for the part where when new science challenges previous assumptions and doesn’t come out of an explicitly politically motivated scientist, it changes the baseline consensus. as has been happening with AGW for 30 years. because that’s how science works. it’s why you have a computer to type whatever ridiculous response you are going to type for example.

      come on–someone needs to compare this to mao’s china!


      1. Earth to robogreen. Message from Houston. The orb is not overheating. I repeat, the orb is not overheating. This concludes you’re mission. You may now return to earth.


  8. Dr. Pielke,
    Since when is the moniker “skeptic” a derisive one, to be driven from?
    I have sampled your work over the years, as that of a careful, truly scientifically based professional with a clear talent for presenting your work – even before politicians!
    That leaves me bemused concerning your decision to abandon the effort of those other honored skeptics who will continue to give voice to both the necessary questions and their attempts to postulate some resolution to them.
    I can empathize about the toll years of personal and political attacks can take on a person. I also know of the need to confront assaults on truth and honesty.
    Holdren and Grijalva are political hitmen above all else with no regard for the damage they do.
    Our health comes first, next the challenges always bid us welcome.
    We all must survive enough challenges to fulfill our lives needs.
    You, and others, have been a very significant contributor to the benefits of climate fraud skepticism. The assaults will continue and others must take up the effort.
    All the best to you, sir.


      1. Your linked article is full of simplistic half truths (mostly group think myths) and is merely an appeal to the authority of the conspirators or deluded fools who promote the anthropogenic greenhouse gas nonsense. There has never been a physical demonstration that shows a quantifiable measurable atmospheric greenhouse effect.


  9. Roger, I don’t know if you will see this and I figure you are probably too busy to answer, but:

    If I understand your position correctly, it goes like this-

    You agree with the vast majority of what is claimed by the IPCC, and you agree with the need to do at least Some mitigation on the ‘problem.’

    However, you disagree as to how bad the potential problems are going to be, believe that the human race will be able to cope a lot better than the alarmist side thinks, and you don’t believe we have to make drastic changes to our culture as the alarmist side wants us to do.

    In other words, you do not think the current shift in climate is ‘catastrophic’ and that we don’t have to spend trillions / hand trillions over to third-world nations nearly instantly to solve it.

    And that is pretty much the main, if not Sole, reason they want to throw you under the bus, is it not?


    1. yeah, it doesn’t SEEM likely that this would be the reason to throw him under the bus. i wonder if there are any other reasons? you might want to dig a bit deeper into mr. pielke’s oeuvre instead of taking him at his word–his word has been shown to be wanting as a source for truth on numerous occasions in the past.


  10. Ironically the picture at the top is the perennial mischaracterization of McCarthy, who for all his missteps in pursuing communism’s very real danger to America was vindicated by declassified Soviet archives, e.g. the Venona papers https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/venona http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona_project (though typical for leftists wikidpedia is unwilling to admit their ironic hypocritical error of blacklisting McCarthy as they groundlessly claim he did to others)


  11. From David Brin. this is excellent.


    AGW “Skeptics” like you are saddened to see that many of the scientists are prickly, irritable and sullen about answering an endless stream of rehashed questions, only a few of which aren’t blatant nonsense. A few of them (very few) may have even said or done some briefly stupid things to avoid the maelstrom. But you Climate Skeptics — the smart and honest ones — understand what’s happened. And so, you’ll cooperate about helping the experts feel safe to come out and share what they know. And maybe then they will answer some of the Skeptics’ inconvenient questions.

    What’s a Sincere and Enlightened Skeptic to Do?

    I suggest that the sincere and enlightened climate skeptic say something along these lines:

    “Okay, I’ll admit we need more efficiency and sustainability in order to regain energy independence, improve productivity, erase the huge leverage of hostile foreign petro-powers, reduce pollution, secure our defense, prevent ocean acidification, and ease a vampiric drain on our economy. If I don’t like one proposed way to achieve this, then I will negotiate in good faith other methods that can help us to achieve all these things, decisively, without further delay and with urgent speed.

    “Moreover, I accept that ‘waste-not, want not’ and ‘a-penny-saved is a-penny earned’ and ‘cleanliness-is-next-to-godliness’ and ‘genuine market competition’ used to be good conservative attitudes. But the “side” that has been pushing the Denial Movement hasn’t any credibility on the issue of weaning America off wasteful habits. In fact, it’s not conservatism at all!

    “And so, for those reasons alone, let’s join together to make a big and genuine push for efficiency.

    “Oh, and by the way, I don’t believe in Human-caused Global Climate Change! But if I am wrong, these measures would help deal with that too.

    “So there, are you happy, you blue-smartypants-eco-science types? Are you satisfied now that I am a sincere Climate Skeptic and not one of the drivel-parroting Denialists? Now can some of your atmospheric scientists put on an extended teach-in and answer some inconvenient questions? (Oh, and thanks for the vastly improved weather reports; they show you’re smart enough to be able to explain these things to a humble-but-curious fellow citizen, like me.)”

    As I said earlier, when I meet a conservative AGW skeptic who says all that (and I have), I am all kisses and flowers. And so will be all the atmospheric scientists I know. That kind of statement is logical, patriotic and worthy of respect. It deserves eye-to-eye answers, from one citizen to another.


    1. Whether it is “excellent” or not, it is completely irrelevant, since Roger Pielke is not a skeptic, a fact that is clearly stated in the post and is obvious to anyone who reads his posts where he frequently quotes the IPCC.


  12. The Congressman has the right idea, but is going about it the wrong way. People who are climate change skeptics really do need to be held accountable and suffer the consequences for their destructive views. Whether they should be fined, or lose their jobs, or be imprisoned is open to debate, but they can’t be allowed to disseminate their harmful anti-scientific views without consequence. The UK has outlawed the voicing of climate change skepticism in the public arena. The US would do well to follow suit.


    1. You pathetic little mussolini. What a ridiculous, strutting, empty-headed little snipe you are, you and your revenge-fantasy threatenings.

      If you are a day over 12, you need to be sent to bed without supper.


    2. What a profoundly anti-intellectual view! I am ever more grateful that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. wrote the 1st Amendment so broadly, to protect against those who would use state force to suppress opposing viewpoints rather than attempt to carry the day with superior arguments.


      1. Whatever toots your horn there robogreeny… You’re post from David Brin is logically wrong at so many levels it is clear you have lost all rational thought processes. By the way, you’re parents had amazing foresight to name you robogreen. Kinda like the energizer bunny of greenville.


    3. Do warmists like yourself really think that you will not be held accountable one day for such things as deaths of pensioners in the northern hemisphere because they could not pay their fuel bills, deaths of people in the Third World because of increased food prices caused by farmers switching to biofuels, and for myriad disturbances to peoples’ lives because of decisions they made in the belief that the growing season would lengthen, or the that seas were rising, or that there would be less snow in the winter?

      Remember, this isn’t the 17th century, and you have left a record of your folly that is as broad as a six-lane highway.

      Liked by 1 person

  13. Sorry Roger,

    If you talk bad publicly about Obamacare you’ll get investigated by Congressman Grijalva as well.
    it’s the progressive way…intimidate into silence those that disagree and declare a 97% consensus.


  14. Best of luck, Dr. Pielke, and I applaud you for letting someone like robogreen comment – at exhausting length – on your website. I think that it’s very important to let trolls document themselves for future investigation. One signal feature of the behavior of these people is their tendency to post comment after comment on a thread. My present interpretation of this is that this is an expression of the “sophist mind”, for whom it is essential to believe that they have won every argument – hence the endless rejoinders.


    1. Yes, robogreen has managed to make himself look like a complete and utter FOOL and IGNORAMUS. It is tedious to see how anyone can be so uninformed and RELIGIOUSLY closed minded in SO many comments. But, he does make warmists look like hysterical, religious fanatics.

      Liked by 1 person

  15. The delightful thing about robogreen (whose education obviously ceased before the class got to capital letters) is that he actually thinks he is advancing a cause. He is exactly the sort of person one hopes will embrace positions that one disagrees with, because they are far more devastating to that cause than any criticism one might produce, and are beyond any parody one might produce. He’s the equivalent of a suicide bomber who detonates with no damage to his intended target. Well done sir!

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Today Bob Livingston explained why “Justice Cannot Sleep Forever.”


    The story begins with a beautiful illustration of:

    1. Genesis: The supernova birth of the solar system five billion years (5 Ga) ago, when the Sun exploded as a ball of light, and

    2. Nucleosynthesis: The guidance of a conscious and intelligent Mind that “brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.”

    The illustration is consistent with Nobel Laureate Max Planck’s 1944 statement on the essence of matter:

    “There is no matter as such! All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together … We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.”

    See reference [52] in the paper, “Solar energy.”



  17. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Eat your own much?

    Roger Pielke, Jr. is an accomplished scientist and researcher. He most definitely accepts as reasonable the hypothesis that humans and our burning are responsible for increases in atmospheric warmth trapping, that is, so called, global warming. He is provably “on their side.” Yet, the religious fundamentalists of the global climate change catastrophism cult (generally indistinguishable from the former movement lead by the late Harold Camping) noticed that Mr. Pielke does not always adhere to Gaia-doctrine and the party line. He does not always advance the official narrative. Thus, he must be crucified for the good of the cause.


    Nope. Environmentalism and the global warming cult is simply superstitious religion bundled in secular causes and save-the-world rhetoric.

    Mr. Pielke has clearly and only shown data. Just the facts. Nothing more. Yet, he is pilloried. All for the cause.

    To reiterate, I quote Mr. Pielke, “Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.”
    “When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.”


  18. Dr. Pielke, best of luck. While I don’t agree with you about many aspects of climate science I do believe your analysis of “disaster costs” with respect to historical alleged warming/change in climate to be quite rational.

    Would be a shame if they succeed in silencing you for very long, of course that is their aim, do not let them win. A sad dad for science.

    Cheers, KevinK.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s