Talk:Roger Pielke Jr.

Edit Notes
I'll post edit notes as I work my way through. --Bob Burton 19:06, 1 May 2007 (EDT)


 * "Pielke was paid an undisclosed sum to write for Regulation, a magazine published by the Cato Institute, a conservative think-tank funded by Exxon Mobil.


 * I've relocated this here from the article page for the moment. In the cited source Pielke write "I have an invited article just out in the magazine Regulation, published by the Cato Institute." He uses the word "invited" not "commissioned" so at the moment it is not certain that he was paid for the article as distinct from contributing a freebie to Regulation.

Edit note
I removed the following par from the article page after a contributor corrected the authorship from Pielke Jr. to his father. Given this appears right, its is not really relevant material to retain on a page about Pielke Jr.--Bob Burton 05:37, 18 April 2009 (EDT)


 * Along with William Cotton, Pielke's father authored a book titled, "Human Impacts on Weather and Climate." According to one review, "This book makes no predictions about the future global climate and rejects claims that anyone can." The authors "say that the scientific community's lack of understanding of the fundamentals of climate change makes it impossible to detangle the signs of human influence at the global scale from ordinary variability."

Edit note
I removed the following par for a couple of reasons: a) the article cannot be accessed to check what his letter was about and b) the par as it stands is not self-explanatory. And being the only letter on a topic is hardly all that unique -- reading it i was left with the question "so what?" and I assume other readers will have the same impression.--Bob Burton 16:56, 19 May 2009 (EDT)


 * In 2005, Pielke wrote the only letter published by the editors at Science Magazine on the broader meaning of a widely touted paper by Naomi Oreskes reporting on a consensus on climate change.

Edit note
I had an email from Roger Pielke Jr. complaining that the removal of the statement "Since 2000, Pielke has published 55 peer-reviewed papers and written or edited four academic books. " was unwarranted.

The par was deleted by User:Mini mouse who stated that "There is no citation and this appears to be Roger Pielke Jr. editing his own page)"

I am seeking clarification from Pielke Jr. on whether the "55 peer-reviewed papers" referred to were on climate change or a broader range of topics.

Pielke Jr. also argued that the statement on the page that "Roger regularly writes opinion pieces and commentaries on climate change, but only rarely publishes peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals" was inaccurate. If the "55 peer-reviewed papers" were on climate change it would be but at this stage I have left it there pending clarification. I should also note, I haven't trawled through Peilke's publication list to check which journal articles are in peer reviewed journals and which aren't.

As to whether User:43XYZ was Pielke Jr. himself editing his own page (see here, I am awaiting a response on that point from him.

I have re-organised and overhauled the page a little since getting Pielke Jr.'s email but there is more to do once the points above have been clarified.--Bob Burton 21:46, 20 May 2009 (EDT)

Pielke Replies
Bob- Here are a few inaccuracies that you may wish to correct:

1. The page says, "It was later revealed that his testimony had been sought by Republicans on the committee."

Nothing was "revealed." Witness lists are public knowledge, and they are not secret. The impression is that something was "hidden" then "revealed". This is untrue. I have in the past testified before Congress at the request of both Republicans and Democrats, and my general policy is to provide testimony whenever asked, by whatever party. All witnesses at Congressional hearings are invited by one party or the other.

2. Your long paragraph on two people who have criticized me would be more complete if it added Brad Johnson and Joe Romm. Much of that paragraph are the words of Tim Lambert, a blogger, at no point do you actually share with your readers what I've said or why it matters in this context.

3. You selectively cite two groups that do not value my blog, but somehow neglect the praise it has received in Science magazine, Nature, and elsewhere. Perhaps you wish only to present a selected point of view?

4. You include a series of quotes from Dylan Otto Krider who had many complementary things to say about me in an article that you somehow neglected to cite. In fact, the selective quotes make Krider's piece appear to say the opposite of what it actually says.

5. Your page says "Roger regularly writes opinion pieces and commentaries on climate change, but only rarely publishes peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals."

This is simply a lie. I corrected this for you by email and yet you let the lie stand, instead making a note on this talk page.

6. Your characterization of my views on climate policy, is again, selective and represents mys views in a way opposite than I have expressed them, e.g., I have not focused only on a low carbon tax as implied here.

7. You report several exchanges that I have had with distinguished and respected climate scientists, but at no point do you explain the context or why this should matter to your readers.

8. Your page makes a big deal about the fact that I have cited publications that are not peer reviewed as if this is a big deal. It is not. You twist my discussion of "laundering grey literature" to make it appear that I have said something quite different than I actually said.

In short, this page is nothing more than an overt attempt at character assassination. In some places it is simply inaccurate, but in others it commits the journalistic sin of being "accurate but not true" and conveying the opposite meaning. The page is selective relies exclusively on a few critical voices and twists other statements and facts to convey an impression that is decidedly contrary to reality.

I ask that you correct the page or take it down.

Tally from Pielke Jr
In response to my query, Roger Pielke Jr. wrote "from 2000-2008 I come up with 54 peer-reviewed publications, of which 45 were related to climate change. From 1999 to present the totals are 68 and 47 respectively."--Bob Burton 01:34, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Rather than add this into the climate change section I have relocated the following par from the article page pending a new section on Pielke's academic publications etc. --Bob Burton 00:28, 22 May 2009 (EDT)


 * On top of several hundred posts on his blog, for 2008 his CV lists eighteen publications, but only one is a peer-reviewed article. The article is Pielke, Jr., R. A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D., Saunders, M., and Musulin, R., 2008. "Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1900-2005", Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42.

But when you look at this publications, you see that there are hundreds listed. The total count is 261. So even by Roger Pielke's count of 54, the vast majority are NOT peer-reviewed. The exact number 54/261=21 percent.

So it is very fair to say that the vast majority of his publicatios are NOT peer-reviewed.

Response to Pielke
Notes on response to the above as I get to them over the weekend.--Bob Burton 17:00, 22 May 2009 (EDT)

1. Fair point - the sentence has been amended.

2. a) Brad Johnson and Joe Romm - I'm afraid I've not familiar with what you are referring to here.

b) re Lambert - sure I can expand your criticisms of Hansen's projections but I'm note really sure that this adds much.

3. Re: Science magazine, Nature, and elsewhere - again, I'm not specifically aware of what you are referring to here.

4. You wrote: "Dylan Otto Krider who had many complementary things to say about me" -- I can't actually see that he wrote "many complementary things". What he did was raise specific queries and posted your responses. Certainly, some of the latter can be included where specific points are retained on the page, but I'm not persuaded that the par that is there is "selective quotes make Krider's piece appear to say the opposite of what it actually says."

5. re peer reviewed tally. What occurred to me was that it seemed best to create a section on your academic qualifications separate from being buried in the section on global warming. "I corrected this for you by email and yet you let the lie stand, instead making a note on this talk page." After you emailed me, I emailed you a response that i got it just as I was about to finish up for the day and that the following day was my day off. I posted the key point you made to the talk page so that if I got to it that night, I could review the material from my home computer and not wait until I got back to my work computer. You seem to have mistakenly interpreted my posting the material to the talk page for later work as being ignoring your point, which it wasn't.

6. You wrote: "Your characterization of my views on climate policy, is again, selective and represents mys views in a way opposite than I have expressed them, e.g., I have not focused only on a low carbon tax as implied here." As I hope you understand, sections in a wiki usually evolve from a small 'starter' section (or pages from 'stubs'). I added the par on your views on cap and trade and carbon tax simply because it was from a relatively recent post of yours on one of the key issues under discussion and where you were summarizing your views on mitigation. I also thought that it was worth having a summary on what it was that you actually argue before getting into the detail of some instance where others disagree with you. You claim that what was added was inaccurate but don't explain why. I have looked at our post again but fail to see why you think what I posted is inaccurate.

"I have not focused only on a low carbon tax as implied here" -- the page doesn't state that is your only view. As I indicated above, I added that as starter material for an expanded section on what your views on some of the key issues are. Subsequently I have added links in the resources section to a set of op-eds and congressional testimony you have contributed to various publications over the last decade. Hopefully, either someone else or, if necessary, myself can expand the section out on your views.

7. You wrote: "You report several exchanges that I have had with distinguished and respected climate scientists, but at no point do you explain the context or why this should matter to your readers." Can you be more specific about what you are referring to? Is it the reference to the Santer comment?

8. You wrote: "Your page makes a big deal about the fact that I have cited publications that are not peer reviewed as if this is a big deal. It is not. You twist my discussion of "laundering grey literature" to make it appear that I have said something quite different than I actually said." Could you please be more specific? I am not sure what specifically you are objecting to in the second paragraph in this section.

Other edit notes

 * "Prometheus is listed as a resource for conservative outlets such as the Heartland Institute" -- this was unreferenced and on checking I can't see any current link from Heartland's website to Prometheus. (see for example, http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/links.html ). It may have been linked to at the time that statement was originally added. --Bob Burton 17:11, 24 May 2009 (EDT)


 * I have removed the "Wikipedia self-editing" par which originally stated (prior to editing by User:43XYZ) stated: "Pielke has been noted for sensitivity to seeing any mention of links between himself and conservatives not be noted on his wikipedia entry. A look at the history of his wiki site shows that he has at times removed citations that improperly link him or his writings with conservative politicians or bloggers.  "


 * the David Roberts post didn't really demonstrate that Pielke Jr. had been editing the substance of his Wikipedia entry but only speculated (then crossed out) that he could have been. (The correct link to edits made in Pielke's name are, after the page was moved, here). The edits he made to the Wikipedia article page seem to me to be rather minor in nature other than one criticizing additions to his Wikipedia page. The latter was deleted by Wikipedia editors. It may be that the point about him being cited by conservatives and him wanting the addition of other groups added could be covered in the "honest broker" discussion but I don't see that the Wikipedia material warrants its own section.

Complaint
I wish to register my strong dissatisfaction with this Sourcewatch page, which is nothing more than a lightly-edited smear page. It factually misrepresents my views and presents information that is misleading, incorrect and unfair. I request that it be cleaned up or simply deleted.

Roger Pielke, Jr. 5 Nov 2009

Hello, this is Mini mouse. Not sure how to do this correctly, so I’m putting my responses in ALLCAPS AND INTEGRATING THEM INTO PIELKE JR’S RESPONSES, SO THAT YOU CAN SEE WHICH IS MY RESPONSE.

''Dear Mini mouse: I wanted to write you a note thanking you for providing this rebuttal. I asked Bob to park this portion of the page so that we can thoroughly review the arguments made and, as we are shorthanded at the moment I plan for us to revisit this article in December, post-COP15. Please know that I welcome and appreciate your assistance and that of the SourceWatch community in responding to such matters so that we can maintain this wiki as a valued tool in shining a light on the players on these critical issues. Lisa Graves, Executive Director of the Center for Media and Democracy''

1. The page says, "It was later revealed that his testimony had been sought by Republicans on the committee." Nothing was "revealed." Witness lists are public knowledge, and they are not secret. The impression is that something was "hidden" then "revealed". This is untrue. I have in the past testified before Congress at the request of both Republicans and Democrats, and my general policy is to provide testimony whenever asked, by whatever party. All witnesses at Congressional hearings are invited by one party or the other.

THIS IS UTTER NONSENSE AND PIELKE JR. KNOWS THAT. THE COMMITTEES DO PUBLISH THE WITNESS LIST BEFORE THE HEARING, BUT THEY DO NOT PUBLISH WHICH PARTY ASKED EACH WITNESS TO APPEAR. I’M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT PIELKE JR KNOWS THAT, SO APPEARS TO BE TRYING TO DISSEMBLE ON THE ISSUE, AS THE SOURCEWATCH EDITOR IS NOT IN AMERICA AND WOULD NOT KNOW THAT. THE FACT THAT REPUBLICANS REQUESTED ROGER TO APPEAR WAS “REVEALED” BY DAVE ROBERTS ON THE DAY OF THE HEARING. THIS FACT DOES NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE ELSE. ROGER IS BEING MISLEADING.

HERE IS THE LINK: http://www.grist.org/article/house-committee-hearings-on-politicization-of-climate-science-guess-who-the

2. Your long paragraph on two people who have criticized me would be more complete if it added Brad Johnson and Joe Romm. Much of that paragraph are the words of Tim Lambert, a blogger, at no point do you actually share with your readers what I've said or why it matters in this context.

THE PART ABOUT ROGER PIELKE JR. BEING CRITICIZED WAS WRITTEN WELL BEFORE ROMM AND BRAD JOHNSON JOINED THE CLUB. I HAVE LITTLE DOUBT THAT IT WILL BECOME MORE EXPANSIVE AS ROGER CONTINUES TO BE MISLEADING IN HIS BLOG AND IN THE PUBLIC. THERE WOULD BE VERY LITTLE HELP TO READERS BY ADDING IN EVERY LITTLE BACK AND FORTH, AS ROGER HAS BECOME QUITE ADEPT AT FEINTING AFTER HE HAS BEEN CAUGHT. SEE THE RESPONSE TO NUMBER 1 ABOVE, FOR VERIFICATION.

3. You selectively cite two groups that do not value my blog, but somehow neglect the praise it has received in Science magazine, Nature, and elsewhere. Perhaps you wish only to present a selected point of view?

THE “PRAISE” THAT PROMETHEUS RECEIVED PREDATED THE CRITICISM THAT HAS FOLLOWED. AGAIN ROGER PIELKE JR IS WELL AWARE OF THIS ISSUE, BUT ENJOYS DISSEMBLING. HE CITES THE EARLY MOMENTS OF PRAISE, IN AN ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE THE VERY LEGITIMATE CRITICISM THAT FOLLOWED

4. You include a series of quotes from Dylan Otto Krider who had many complementary things to say about me in an article that you somehow neglected to cite. In fact, the selective quotes make Krider's piece appear to say the opposite of what it actually says.

OTTO KRIDER’S PIECE WAS MEANT TO BE FACTUAL, YET ALSO CRITICAL. CLAIMING THAT IT WAS “COMPLEMENTARY” IS SIMPLY BIZARRE. AGAIN, APPEARS TO BE MORE DISSEMBLING BY PIELKE JR.

5. Your page says "Roger regularly writes opinion pieces and commentaries on climate change, but only rarely publishes peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals." This is simply a lie. I corrected this for you by email and yet you let the lie stand, instead making a note on this talk page.

ODDLY ENOUGH, THE LIE “LIES” WITH ROGER PIELKE JR. ROGER CITES 54 PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES ON HIS CV. HOWEVER, HIS CV LISTS 261 ARTICLES. THIS IS VERY SIMPLY MATH—  54 / 261 = 0.206. FOR NON MATH MAJORS, THAT IS 21 PERCENT. SO IT APPEARS THAT LITTLE OF ROGER’S PUBLISHED WORK IS PEER-REVIEWED.

6. Your characterization of my views on climate policy, is again, selective and represents mys views in a way opposite than I have expressed them, e.g., I have not focused only on a low carbon tax as implied here.

HAVE NOT REVIEWED THIS AREA. ROGER MAY HAVE A POINT. BUT IT IS ALWAYS HARD TO TELL WITH HIM DUE TO THE CONSTANT DISSEMBLING.

7. You report several exchanges that I have had with distinguished and respected climate scientists, but at no point do you explain the context or why this should matter to your readers.

AGAIN, MORE DISSEMBLING BY ROGER PIELKE JR. IF EVERY POST ON SOURCEWATCH REQUIRED A REPLY FROM A COMPANY, FOR INSTANCE, THE WIKI WOULD BE USELESS.

8. Your page makes a big deal about the fact that I have cited publications that are not peer reviewed as if this is a big deal. It is not. You twist my discussion of "laundering grey literature" to make it appear that I have said something quite different than I actually said.

ROGER PIELKE JR. SAID WHAT HE SAID. THE “LAUNDERING OF GREY LITERATURE” IS HIS OWN PHRASE, AND HIS DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE IS LINKED TO BY SOURCEWATCH. AGAIN, MORE DISSEMBLING.

In short, this page is nothing more than an overt attempt at character assassination. In some places it is simply inaccurate, but in others it commits the journalistic sin of being "accurate but not true" and conveying the opposite meaning. The page is selective relies exclusively on a few critical voices and twists other statements and facts to convey an impression that is decidedly contrary to reality. I ask that you correct the page or take it down.

PLEASE DO NOT FALL PREY TO THE DISSEMBLING OF ROGER PIELKE JR. HE WORKS AT A FURIOUS PACE TO COVER HIS TRACKS. BUT KEEPING TRACK OF SUCH PEOPLE IS WHY SOURCEWATCH IS SO VALUABLE.

Response to complaint
Roger emailed along the lines set out above. I Have responded requesting that he provide specifics about his concerns. I have responded to various emails from him before and made change where they seemed appropriate. However, I can only assume that, given the previous version of the page has been online since May, that his most recent complaint relates to something in the most recent changes to the page. I have requested specifics and indicated I will look at them at that point.--Bob Burton 04:41, 6 November 2009 (EST)

Points raised by Pielke JR.
In a further email, Roger Pielke, Jr. raised a number of specific concerns. Some of these concerns related to material not on the existing article page and therefore presented a skewed presentation by omission. I will confine my initial review to what is on the page and return to the omissions issue later.

1. Re "honest broker" description.

Roger objected to the statement that "Pielke's use of the term "honest broker" as the title of his book has been criticised as a self-serving attempt to position himself more firmly in the middle of climate debates." " on the grounds that nowhere has he referred to himself as an "honest broker" and that the title referred to the need to create committees to play this role.

I don't have a copy of his book. Nor can I see any instance online of where he has described himself as an honest broker. So I have removed that sentence.

2. Minor changes

There were a couple of minor points which I have accommodated with minor wording changes. See here.

'''3.Re "Should Hurricanes be Part of the Mitigation Debate?" article.'''

A par in the article stated that:


 * "However, a peer-reviewed study he published in the journal Proceedings of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society contains numerous references that were not peer-reviewed. The paper updates and extends a study that Pielke originally published in the skeptic journal Energy and Environment which is not carried in the ISI listing of peer-reviewed journals and has often published work by known conservatives and conservative sympathizers. A review of the paper finds that Pielke cites the Energy and Environment study four different times. "

Roger objected to the "numerous references that were not peer-reviewed" claim in the first sentence of this par on the grounds that only one of the citations was not a peer-reviewed paper and that was the UNDRA paper.

I have relocated this par off the page (the rest of the par, which is not contested, is better off the page until the details in the first sentence have been clarified).

This material was originally added by User:Mini mouse. I have posted a note to their user page drawing their attention to the point at issue.

4. Re correction on Mann debate

A sentence at the end of the "Michael Mann Search Fiasco" par in the article stated that:


 * "However, his 'correction' adjusted the ratio to 27 to 3 which was still incorrect. Tim Lambert at Deltoid covered the story and provided further details."


 * The reference which was included with the par was to the Lambert post so the last sentence is not required.
 * I have clarified the origin of the challenge to the accuracy of the "27 to 3" figure - it was a comment originally posted on Pielke's own blog. I have also added a passing reference to another comment which gave different figures again. I have also added a little more from Pielke's original correction.--Bob Burton 00:17, 9 November 2009 (EST)

Park Pending review
The following sections have been parked here pending completing a review. However, due to other commitments I won't be able to get to it until early-mid December. --Bob Burton 15:33, 9 November 2009 (EST)

During Congressional hearings on political interference with government scientists by members of the Bush Administration, Pielke testified that Bush's actions were similar in important respects to those observed in prior administrations. His testimony had been sought by Republicans on the committee.

Political leanings
Pielke describes himself as a "Blue Dog Democrat," fighting against the left and right. "If you want to know what I think about things that I have some expertise in, just have a look at our blog and my publications and you’ll get a pretty good sense of my views on particular subjects," Pielke writes. Pielke writes that he was a supporter of Barack Obama's 2008 campaign to be President.

However, Huffington Post writer David Roberts has argued that Pielke is embraced by right-wing bloggers. Roberts argued that Roger Pielke Jr has "been playing footsie with denialists and right-wing ideologues for years; they're his biggest fans."

Views on global warming
Pielke blogs at 'Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog'. He was the dominant contributor to Prometheus, a group blog of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Prometheus was discontinued for in June 2009. .

Pielke argues that action is necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions but rejects 'cap and trade' emissions trading schemes as "doomed to failure" because "people just won’t accept higher energy prices" and that such a scheme would be "subject to all sorts of games". Instead, he proposes that "we should instead focus on a low price on carbon, a tax, to raise revenue to invest in technology."

In 2006, Pielke drew parallels between the integrity of a non-scientist government contractor responsible for editing government climate science reports to emphasize needed political action and Bush White House political operative Philip Cooney who edited government reports to downplay the science of climate change. In response, distinguished climate scientist Ben Santer commented on Pielke's blog, "Shame on you for taking such a cheap shot. Shame on you for indulging in unjustified innuendo."

At the 2007 Fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Pielke Jr. gave a joint presentation on hurricanes and climate change with global warming skeptic Stephen McIntyre.

In February 2009, Roger Pielke Jr. accused noted climate modeler Gavin Schmidt of "stealing an idea" from a discredited climate skeptic, Steve McIntyre.

Response to Pielke Jr.'s views on global warming
Pielke has been cited by conservative activists disputing the science on global warming and policies that might mitigate climate change.

Dylan Otto Krider noted that "there is no doubt Pielke is a darling among skeptics, making the lists of people to contact to "balance out" the consensus view in media stories, despite adamantly accepting the substantial science demonstrating human-caused global warming." After the Republicans organised for Pielke Jr. to testify at hearing on Bush administration political interference with climate scientists, Kirder noted that "It is not a surprise that they would call Pielke -- they think he will testify in a way that helps them. But why do they, if Pielke is so adament about his acceptance of the science of climate change? What is it global warming deniers love about him?," he asked. "Pielke plays clueless: 'I don't consider myself a darling of the deniers, some of my views are accepted, others are not (see the comments on my blog!) ... but if there are specific people you are thinking of, then I'd say, just ask them, I'd be curious what you find out ...' he told me in an email response.

Pielke's "middle ground leanings" have also been questioned by Tim Lambert, the author of the Deltoid blog, who argues that Pielke has made "specious" claims about the work of NASA climatologist James Hansen. Pielke had argued that Hansen's 1988 prediction of global warming was inaccurate. Of the two lower projections Pielke wrote that "neither is particularly accurate or realistic. Any conclusion that Hansen's 1988 prediction got things right, necessarily must conclude that it got things right for the wrong reason." (italics in original) Lambert wrote that "Pielke's criticism of Hansen's scenarios is badly misconceived. The important input to Hansen's model was the total forcing from greenhouse gasses, but Pielke ignores this to focus on the growth rate of emissions of each gas. For instance, he claims that scenario B was off by a factor of 2 on CO2. This sounds like a lot until you discover that means that emissions grew by 0.5% per year instead of 1% a year. And that works out to scenario B having the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere within 1% of what has actually happened. Pielke is being much more than a little unfair by calling a prediction that got within 1% of the correct answer as not being "particularly accurate or realistic"."

Laundering of "grey literature"
In January 2006 Pielke floated a number of "hypotheses about how the IPCC has indirectly contributed to the politicization of climate science." One of these hypotheses was that the IPCC had engaged in "laundering grey literature." In a post on the Prometheus blog, Pielke Jr. wrote that "the IPCC has a requirement that its assessments be based on peer reviewed literature. It has not always held itself to this standard, particularly in its Working Groups II and III. I have noticed recently a number of peer-reviewed papers that reference so-called “grey literature” (e.g., agency, company, NGO reports) which hasn’t itself been peer reviewed. Then the peer-reviewed study that cites the grey literature is subsequently cited in another publication to refer to the information in the original non-peer reviewed source. This is a way to give the veneer of peer review to a non-peer-reviewed study." In particular, Pielke Jr. singled out a graph used by the IPCC on increasing costs of natural disasters. Invoking the controversy raised -- especially by global warming skeptics -- over what was dubbed the "hockey stick" graph -- Pielke Jr. tagged the disaster costs graph as "The Other Hockey Stick".

Michael Mann Search Fiasco
In August 2009 Pielke blogged that there were 1264 as many news stories about a Michael Mann study on hurricanes being at a 1000 year high compared to a Chris Landsea study that found no increase in the past century. He then suggested this was due to media bias. He determined these numbers by simply searching for 'Michael Mann' and 'Chris Landsea'. It was pointed out to Pielke in his comments that there is a film director called Michael Mann, possibly others, and therefore his conclusion was erroneous. He then updated the article, admitting he had been "a bit sloppy". He stated that "the real ratio is 27 to 3!" and that added a note "Bias? You be the judge." One person who posted a comment to Pielke's blog stated that even the correction overstated the actual figures and argued that the search "hurricane 'michael mann' nature" produced 13 results and 14 on Chris Landsea at the time. Another commenter, using a different date range, came up with different results again.

Honest Broker
Hi

Ive added a little to the Scientific Integrity bit. I haven't read the Honest Broker, but I have to submit Dr Pielke is being a little rash in engaging in this correspondence with the eminent Doctor Tobis. I do this because it seems to me that Pielke is disclosing a little more about his position than would be prudent for him. Tobis also asks Pielke which hat do you wear? Pielke responds with the rather cryptic "For my part on climate change I am very much an outspoken advocate for a particular course of action." I hope that this proves useful for students better versed in the work of Dr Pielke than I.