Lying Liars Who Lie! Liar!

Accusations of dishonesty and charged language are thrown around quite lightly on the internet, in general. The web is the home of heated rhetoric. But here is something pretty bizarre: Roger Pielke Senior is attempting to engage RealClimate on a paper of his and colleagues. Eric Steig made this astounding statement:

[Response: Being listed on our blogroll does not constitute endorsement. In general, the sites we do list — whether they are run by scientists or not — tend to get the science right much of the time, and hence are consistent with our mission. Being not-listed could mean that a) we haven’t heard of the site, b) that it is uninteresting or unimportant, or c) that we consider it dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science. Pielke Jr, Blackboard, and ClimateAudit all fall squarely into the latter category.–eric

Steve McIntyre, Roger Pielke Jr, and Lucia are all “dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science? Really? I can see why they must maintain that of Steve McIntyre. I can even see them not caring for Lucia’s work, although I know of nothing that she has said or done that RC could reasonably claim was wrong. But Pielke Jr?  Dishonest/disingenuous with respect to the science? He accepts the “consensus” of the IPCC, but deigns to criticize some elements of climate policy and thinks that these folks could perhaps stand to behave a little better. So, that’s disingenuous? Um…I think such insanity speaks for itself.


5 Responses to “Lying Liars Who Lie! Liar!”

  1. GregO Says:

    “c) that we consider it dishonest or disingenuous with respect to the science. Pielke Jr, Blackboard, and ClimateAudit all fall squarely into the latter category.–eric”

    How and in what specific way are they dishonest and disingenuous with respect to specifically what in the “science”? Talk about vague. And I love the use of the royal “we” as in “we consider it…”. Well. I guess that settles it.

    • timetochooseagain Says:

      This is pretty much exactly what I find ridiculous about it, but Eric was using “we” not to refer to himself, but RC as a whole (which is not the Royal We). That they have collectively shared opinions is not shocking and really not even a problem (aside from how it biases their thinking, but I meant as bloggers not scientists). The problem is that they are implicitly (Eric explicitly) accusing the bloggers at those sites of being dishonest or misleading. Such accusations have to be backed up with evidence, otherwise they are basically libel.

      Also, having looked up “Royal We”, arguably this is a case of “editorial we” and Mark Twain, at least, thought that was a legitimate case in which to use it.

  2. Jeff Id Says:

    Which comment was this on?

  3. Jeff Id Says:


  4. timetochooseagain Says:

    Sorry for not seeing your posts earlier Jeff, my internet connection has been spotty today.

    In response to your question, I saw on your blog that you found it. Had I seen this question earlier, I would have provided the link. In general, I try not to link to RC in case they decide to delete an incriminating comment, but, for everyone else, this is where you can find it:

    And, to be completely candid, I link to blogs that I think deserve attention, and RC doesn’t need my link to give them a higher google page rank.

    I am petty about it, but I don’t pretend that my pettiness is about “dishonesty” or “disingenuous-ness”. Thinking about it, though, for referencing purposes, I’ll try to be more mature about that.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: