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.