Talk:Roger A. Pielke Jr.

Latest comment: 7 years ago by 65.49.176.54 in topic 'Politicization of science'?

Anon vandalism

edit

This page appears to be suffering from anon vandalism (all my hard work of last night reverted as "whitewash"), so I've semi-protected it for a bit William M. Connolley 09:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


Why does this page say it's an article about a climatologist or meteorologist? His credentials clearly state "Pielke has a B.A. in mathematics (1990); a M.A. in public policy (1992) and a PhD in political science, all from the University of Colorado." He's a meterologist or climatologist like Noam Chomsky is a political scientist.

I removed the "climatologist" bit. John Fleck 23:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

These guys are really grasping at straws. When I testified before Senate EPW Jeffords was Chairman and Smith (NH) was ranking Republican. Smith was quite moderate on climate issues. Roger Pielke, Jr. 6 May 2007

NPOV?

edit

Pielke edits his own page, clearly a conflict of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.231 (talkcontribs)

He has; he is allowed to. As long as he doesn't edit-war over it there is no problem William M. Connolley 19:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note that Pielke's WP contribs to date are solely to his wikibio [1]. That said, none have been improper or contentious. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Reflist

edit

I've added a reflist and will try to get round to reformatting the references soon. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Done (finally!). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Alleged comment from Stephen Schneider

edit

There have been repeated attempts to introduce an alleged comment from Stephen Schneider, sourced only to a supposed email on a blog. This seems to be in clear breach of WP:BLPSOURCES and WP:BLOGS, and as such can be reverted at any time.

If you believe this source to be reliable, please request a second opinion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thank you. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

FiveThirtyEight

edit

Shouldn't this article at least mention his time at FiveThirtyEight and the controversy it caused? KarlFrei (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. I keep meaning to add something but keep forgetting. If you want to start a paragraph I can chip in. Gamaliel (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Denver Post is not conservative

edit

I removed the word "conservative" from the descriptions of the publications that defended Pielke (end of section 2). Two publications are cited, one of which is conservative (National Review) and one of which isn't (Denver Post). The word is prejudicial, and there is no basis to include it when one of the two cited publications is conservative.

User:Evolauxia reverted my edit, but even the comment left in the revert was prejudicial in editorializing the context in which the Denver Post article was written by claiming the Denver Post was "citing the controversy in a conservative bent". I don't normally revert without first discussing, but in this case I believe the onus is on Evolauxia to make a case for including the adjective.

Doug Bell 08:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If more detail is required it would be better just to name the publications in the article with wikilinks to their own pages. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

RP Jr. leaves Climate Science studies

edit
  • I am Under “Investigation”, February 25, 2015, re Congressman Raul Grijalva's hitlist: "The incessant attacks and smears are effective: ... 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..."

"[U]ndisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing. ... If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like." [emphasis added]

Maybe should wait for a 3rd-party cite before adding this to the article? --Pete Tillman (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

'Politicization of science'?

edit

Mr Pielke Jr is 'known for Politicization of Science' according to his Wiki page. I submit this is an unsupported subjective opinion based on double standards (climate change advocates never use their claims to support a political agenda?). Not to mention a gratuitous cheap shot. I suggest you apply the same standard to Al Gore and Michael Mann or remove this smear of a recognized and eminently qualified climate authority.65.49.176.54 (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

It was added by Evolauxia ten years ago. It appears to be an error, so I removed it. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your action.65.49.176.54 (talk) 23:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply