09 May 2012

Joe Romm is a Liar

FINAL UPDATE 5/10: After what must be a dozen updates and corrections, Joe Romm's post is an incoherent mess (not that that distinguishes it from his normal fare;-). I wrote to CAP pointing out obvious untruths and the results were unannounced, quiet changes to Romm's post, plus a misleading response from CAP that they "stand by" their reporting. If anyone wants to know why American political discourse is so vitriolic, just look at both Heartland and CAP, two sides of the same coin.

UPDATE: Joe Romm obviously understands that he went way over the line on this one, as he has retitled his post and added some confusing words of update. He maintains his assertion that I have some sort of "official" relationship with Heartland, writing, "How anyone could guess this isn’t official is, well, Pielke-esque." Sorry, Joe, but that is still a lie. 

Sorry to say it so bluntly, but it is true. Joe Romm has falsely claimed that I am an "official expert for Heartland." This is a lie. I have absolutely no relationship with Heartland -- never have, never will. Period.

Romm's efforts to smear by association are ironic given the lashing that Heartland just got for doing exactly the same thing. But irony has never registered high on Joe's awareness-meter. There is no lower form of "debate" than trying to sully someone's character by outright lying. And it is not the first time Joe has lied about me.

Joe Romm and the Center for American Progress should be ashamed of themselves for engaging in such tactics. Can't they engage a policy debate on its merits?  Apparently not.


  1. Well Heartland does list you as one of its experts, even if you had nothing to do with that.

    Still you might want to send Heartland an email asking them to take this down:

  2. -1-Dan Moutal

    I looked at the webpage and there is nothing there that says that I am in anyway associated with them. If they chose to highlight me as an expert, that is their business.

    I am actually happy that folks on the other side of the debate find my arguments convincing. How many other people calling for aggressive action on climate policy have they highlighted? ;-)

  3. Highlighting your work is one thing.

    But that page does make it seem like some soft of official association exists between you and them. That would trouble me if I was in your shoes.

  4. -3-Dan Moutal

    Thanks, I am presently in my shoes, and can say that the outright lie by Joe Romm is troubling me at the moment ;-) Thanks!

  5. Seriously, Roger, any sort of association with Thoughtcrime must be repudiated. It is not enough to disavow any active association with Heartland. You must denounce them!

  6. Thou doth protest too much Roger. Your name along with other distinguished luminaries is listed under the heading 'Heartland Experts'. You're pissed because Romm is cackling gleefully as you sit uncomfortably close to a steaming pile...

    Ever consider the possibility that it might be wise to temper your desire for exposure at-all-costs with a little...I don't know....discrimination? Or would you be 'happy' if the Khmer Rouge listed you as one of their 'khmer rouge experts' on climate change adaptation?

  7. I'm not in your shoes and I generally find Joe Romm's vile rhetoric pretty repugnant. However, I still baulk at the 'lie' accusation. Perhaps it's my English upbringing, but unless I know the contents of someone's mind or can prove something libellously false in a court of law, I'd shy away from the word.

    I do, however 'think' the accusation, so maybe you're just more comfortable speaking your mind..

    Your point @2 above seems to me very pertinent. Why gratuitously smear someone who is sympathetic to your point of view?

  8. No doubt Joe's post is troubling you. It would trouble me as well.

    The main reason, I would think, to ask Heartland to take down that page (or modify it to make it clear that there is no association) is to make it abundantly clear to Joe and others that you are not a Heartland 'official' expert.

    Of course it would also make sense to send an email to Joe Romm asking him to correct his post. Though You might have had better luck had you not called him a liar.

    Simple misunderstandings have a way of getting blown out of all reasonable proportion on the internet. Isn't it better to make such misunderstandings as difficult as possible?

  9. -6-Marlowe Johnson

    You may want to take you own irony-meter into the shop for a check over, as it seems to be failing you.

    Heartland:Khmer Rouge? That is billboard worthy;-)

    I will repeat: I have had nothing to do with Heartland nor their webpage. Nada.

  10. -7-Anteros

    Thanks, I am comfortable with my language used here. Other words have not made it to the blog ;-)

  11. Heartland lists you as a "Heartland Expert," complete with your bio and photo. It appears that this has been on their website a long time.

    So it is quite absurd even for you to claim "there is nothing there that says that I am in anyway associated with them."

    Their website says you are a "Heartland Expert." How could anyone even imagine you have no official connection to them?

    So it would seem quite reasonable question to ask whether you are an official expert, since that is what it looks like to any independent observer.

    Apparently even asking obvious questions makes one a liar on Roger's blog.

  12. -8-Dan Moutal

    Thanks for the advice ... the time for asking questions would have been when Joe Romm got the idea in his head to engage in a bit of character assassination.

    After broadcasting his lie to the world, the next step needs to be him issuing a correction and an apology. I won;t be holding my breath ;-)

  13. -11-Joe (Romm?)

    I have no connection with Heartland, official or otherwise. Never have. Anyone making an inference from their 14 webpages listing ~280 experts would simply be making an incorrect inference.

    In such a situation the honorable thing to do would be to email me (easy enough as it is listed to the left) and ask (an obnoxious commenter in fact did just this 2 days ago, and he was corrected and went on his merry way).

    Blasting a malicious post to the world as a form of "asking" is, needless to say, pretty dishonorable, even for Romm. He should issue a correction, broadcast it and apologize. But again, I won't hold my breath.


  14. I have updated the post. Your response here makes clear you are fine with Heartland referring to you as a "Heartland expert." That is amazing enough by itself.

    You should issue a correction and apology for your headline and other false accusations, but I won't hold my breath either.

  15. Well, Roger

    Romm is not only a liar but a contemptible thug. As he is obviously hovering over this site, having already posted on one of your comments, I hope he gets a little buzz out of the interplay that is the only reason he's still blogging, even if it's part time.

    If you put up a Hall of Fame with good and honest people that the sonofabitch has defamed, you could make not only a fair sized football team but be in some pretty good company.

    Oh, well. All my words probably don't equal the effect of that picture atop your post. Where did you find it and how was Romm so clueless as to let it escape to the wild?

  16. -14-Joe (Romm, I now presume)

    Your update is unacceptable (as noted at my own update).

    I am in the business of making arguments using tools of data, science, logic, pragmatism. When people whom I generally disagree with find my arguments to have merit, I call that success. What do you call that, Joe?

    Instead of trying to smear me by association, which is all that you seem to have. Why don't you simply take an argument and critique it without reference to Heartland or anyone else. Can you stand on your own two feet Joe?

    Is ad hom all you've got?

    Nice touch, asking for an apology ;-)

  17. Today I'm most enjoying ....... Heartland ~= Khmer Rouge. Fabulous.

  18. You keep calling obvious questions lies. Your characterization of my update is absurd, but I added a word to clarify what was obvious to everyone.

    No smear by association. You say you are cool with the association Heartland has made, listing you as a "Heartland expert." What else needs to be said?

  19. -18-Joe Romm

    If you keep lying, I will keep call you a liar. It is simple.

    Please do not pretend that your blog post was a form of "asking a question" -- I don't think even your commenters believe that. Have you a question, email me - that would have been the honorable thing to do. Care to explain why you did not do so?

    This is really below the belt stuff Joe, even for you. Still time to do the right thing here. Think about it.


  20. 99% of climate experts would demand Heartland take down a page listing them as a "Heartland expert." I expect you eventually will. Still time for you to do the "right thing."

    But if not, my post as it stands is accurate, unlike, say, your current post. And being called a liar by you puts me in very good company!

  21. But what about the screen grab from Heartland that Romm shows? It lists Pielke as a 'Heartland Expert'.

    Pielke says he isn't a HL expert, so why does he allow HL to make that claim?

    HL is so much on the nose right now that I'm surprised that any credible scientist would lend their name to bolster Heartland's trashed reputation.

    Joe Romm doesn't have to make any claims. He only has to show that screen grab. It says it all.


  22. You're being disingenuous when you say in comments, "I looked at the webpage and there is nothing there that says that I am in anyway associated with them. If they chose to highlight me as an expert, that is their business."

    Can you see the BIG HEADING.... "Heartland Experts". I read this page as a collection of people affiliated with Heartland. I have tested a lot of advertising/communication messages, and most people would read this page the same way.

    If you leave your name there, you are endorsing Heartland. It's not a wise choice to associate yourself with a right wing lobby organisation that is now widely known as Unabomber Heartland.

    Your choice.

  23. Roger,

    Don't argue with fools; they only drag you down to their level; then beat you with experience.

    Romm has repeatedly called HI liars. But now he insists that you must be associated because they (the liars) say so.

    Any kindergarten logic student can see through that.

  24. There’s a simple enough solution: Heatland should list Herr Romm as an Expert Ass. He certainly has the qualifications and track record. Doing so might force his supporters / colleagues to research Romm’s activities to find one instance where he has been correct. That should keep them until the next ice age starts.

    Hmmm. That may not be long enough.

  25. Romm’s debate tactics are old [yawn] and worn out:

    (1) put forth a notional proposition,

    (1a) the notional proposition being merely “the way things ought to be”,

    (2) put forth the notional proposition as fact,

    (3) argue the non-fact fact through verbal virtuosity,

    (4) ending the exercise by merely painting the world in one’s own self image.

    Every man, wherever he goes, is encompassed by a cloud of comforting convictions, which move with him like flies on a summer day. - Bertrand Russell, 1928

    Regarding the Center for American Progress [CAP], one must consider that prior to classical economics most economics was fallacious. Fallacy abounded.

    Economic fallacy never died, it merely took a back seat. One might say that economic literacy has increased and economic fallacy has decreased. However, the decreased fallacy level is now a more concentrated and raging phenomena.

    The decreased fallacy level forming a more concentrated and raging fallacy phenomena breeds a raging political tone to transmit the remaining concentrated fallacy level. Economic fallacy, among other fallacy, finds a warm fire glowing and a hardy welcome at CAP.

  26. Tom: EVERY picture of Romm looks like that. It always takes me aback too.

    So anyone who can read knows that there can be no collaborative relationship between Pielke and Heartland. The IQ spread for comprehending each is enormous. So why would Romm think this was an effective way to bring disgrace upon his nemesis? Not a tremendous mystery there. Romm's audience probably WILL believe it.

    It's important to set the record straight here. Once that's done, back to more fruitful work. Those who would believe this lie have little to contribute to the discussion, and will, no doubt, continue their righteous march into irrelevancy.

  27. Mr Pielke I admire you, you really seem to be a litmus test to provoke the most inane outrage from both the "sides" in the climate debate. However you have to admit with Romm and his fans one side of the scales we can never match them in the balance for craven dissembling! ;)

    I note he says this

    "Then he falsely claims that I said he is “official expert for Heartland” when I merely asked the obvious question."

    As of now the page url still include this pretty straightforward statement:


  28. RP:

    1) Did you know at any point before Joe Romm's post that you were listed as a Heartland Expert?

    2) Now that you do know, what are you going to do about it?

    If the answer to #1 is NO then where is the same outrage you are expressing to Joe and where is the letter to Bast demanding a removal?

    If the answer to #1 is YES.....

  29. What do you expect from a George Soros stooge? Rationality? His master feasts on the destruction of societies. Romm is Grima Wormtongue to Soros' Saruman. Hate and hyperbole are essential to his existence. He's a freaking cartoon character, don't acknowledge him other than to mock him. Besides, he's been a valuable contributor to the slow, steady decline in belief in CAGW.

  30. Can someone clarify exactly what the original title of Romm's post was? He seems to have changed it without making it clear what the change was, which, in the words of one of the climategate emails, is "not particularly honest".

    I notice that the URL is


    which seems to contradict his claim that he was just asking a question.

  31. -30-Paul Matthews

    The original title was

    "Roger Pielke Jr. is an Official Expert for the Heartland Institute?"

    The original post answered that in the affirmative, as does the "update".

    Romm lies.

  32. -28-profmandia

    Are you now the self-appointed chief of the climate inquisition?

    I responded to your multiple Tweets trying to bully me on this as follows:

    @AGW_Prof @thinkprogress Learned of it on my blog ~48 hrs before Romm's post, yes I have contacted HI and no I do not answer to you #bullies

    [Note apparently I learned of it Friday, not Monday as stated in the tweet, sorry]

  33. Nobody expects the Climate Inquisition!!! Our chief weapon is bullying and lies...!

    Confess, Roger, CONFESS!!!

  34. Prof. Mandia,

    "1) Did you know at any point before Joe Romm's post that you were listed as a Heartland Expert"

    I made this discovery last week after going to The Heartland website. So Roger Jr. has known about this since May 4th (last Friday):


    At the time he (falsely) accused me of:

    "And even there, should you continue to make up lies about groups that you wish to accuse me of being associated with, those comments will be deleted as well."

    I did not make up any lies as Roger Pielke Jr. suggests. In contrast, I find it hard to believe that Roger had no idea (from anyone) that his picture has been on the Heartland Inst.'s website until last Friday.

    The "groups" Roger is referring to here is the Heartland Institute.

    Roger has thus far refused to apologise for making that false allegation against me, despite me requesting that he do so on more than one occasion.

    As of this morning Roger Pielke Jr's picture is still on the Heartland site.


    So has Roger contacted the Heartland Institute to ask them to remove his picture and to correct the record?

    I find it very puzzling that Roger is so very quick to accuse me and Romm of being liars and fabricating stuff, when in reality the only people telling lies and fabricating stuff in this instance is The Heartland Institute. How come Roger Pielke Jr. does not have a post up saying "Joseph Bast is a liar"? it is a fair question.

  35. Does Joe Romm not see the irony in even having a debate/discourse in Roger's comments section?

    The owner of this blog (Roger) allows it to occur and doesn't edit or moderate out what he doesn't want to hear. Isn't that a beautiful thing to allow such an exchange? Meanwhile, the owner of the other blog (Romm), who does not allow dissenting viewpoints, has no problem coming here to be heard by the other side.

    I find it sad to see how easy it is for those with no virtues to leverage the virtues of their adversaries in order to try to gain an advantage.

  36. The original post was a question. It did not answer it in the affirmative. So that statement of yours was false.

    Unlike you, however, I updated the post. Your headline and post remain completely false.

    More to the point, we now know that unlike what you claimed in your tweet, you learned of this on May 4 (!) and apparently had no problem with it whatsoever. So you are someone that Heartland listed as a "Heartland expert" who was fine with that listing. That speaks volumes

    I'd note that Peiser (!) got himself delisted within 12 hours of my post.

    And now we learn you "contacted HI." Does that mean you are now finally asking to have your name removed from their list of experts?

  37. Roger Pielke Jr. says he has contacted the Heartland Institute. But contacted them about what exactly?

    It would be most helpful and clarify matters if Roger shared his correspondence on this matter with his readers.

  38. -36-Joe Romm

    You are a serial liar. I will continue to broadcast this widely. Sue me if you think you've been libeled ;-) Your efforts at character assassination are transparent to everyone.

    I do not mind if Heartland (or Mark Morano or CAP or any other interest group) points to me or my work as having expertise. I am in the business of sharing ideas with people who I may have many disagreements with, and interaction/exchange/discussion is a virtue in my world -- that is how (normal) politics works (as compared to the echo-chamber silence-all-debate variety that you preach).

    I do mind the implication that I am in some way associated with HI, whether that implication is made by HI or you. I trust that HI will modify their web page accordingly to remove any ambiguities. Meantime, your post continues to spread lies about me, and the original unmodified version is all over the internet.

    You cannot unring a bell, but you can and should put up a new post explaining your false inference and broadcast that just as widely. The multiple, confusing updates are cowardly.

    Question: Why did you not ask me about your inference that I had an "official" relationship with heartland before broadcasting that to the world?

    Please do answer. Thanks.

  39. Albatross and Joe have excellent points. In addition, I would add that Roger should tell us when he stopped beating his wife. ;-)

  40. -37-Albatross

    The irony of an abusive, anonymous commenter demanding my correspondence is rich.

    But I don't mind sharing, as I have asked Joseph Bast (using the email on the HI site) to clearly and unambiguously note on their site that I have no official (or other) association with the HI. A simple request.

    What did you expect, black helicopters? The Illuminati? ;-)

    I have also made a request of Joe in #38 above.

    Let's see who acts first, Heartland or Romm.

  41. Now that I know you knew on May 4 (!) of the fact that Heartland listed you as a "Heartland expert" -- and was perfectly fine with it -- your question is irrelevant.

    Since you are a great parser of words, I would note that the relevant definition of "official" here is "authorized." Now it is clear, based on your assertions, that Heartland did not get your authorization before the fact. But since you have said since May 4 (until just now) that you were fine with how they listed you, well, you didn't take the opportunity to deauthorize it as, say, Peiser did. What more can one say?

    It is rich that you accuse someone else of character assassination when you have falsely attacked multiple climate scientists and ready much every science blogger of being liars. Ken Caldeira, among others, has criticized you for your character assassination aimed at Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

    You have rung so many bells you can't and won't unring, it's deafening.

  42. -41-Joe Romm

    Lies on top of lies ...

    On May 4th, within minutes of learning of that HI webpage I tweeted this:


    So your accusation that I "authorized" it is false. So you are now fully empowered to further correct the record, will you?

    Rather than changing the subject to Rajendra Pachauri (how dumb do you think readers are?;-), please answer this question:

    Question: Why did you not ask me about your inference that I had an "official" relationship with Heartland before broadcasting that to the world?

  43. Romm is paid big bucks by the Greens to marginalize, and assassinate the character of, scientists who refuse to drink the CAGW Koolaid. Just note his lie and move on.

    "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
    George Bernard Shaw.

  44. Your actions in getting Heartland to take your name down makes clear that you now concede I was right and you were wrong. Your actions make clear it was a mistake for you to not instantly deauthorize Heartland's listing of you as a "Heartland expert when you learned about it on May 4.

    For the record, as anyone can see, I never said you "authorized" it. I said you didn't try to deauthorize it for many days.

    Only AFTER my post did you try -- and (now I just see) succeed -- to deauthorize it (after asserting in the comments yesterday that you were perfectly fine with it).

    So, as you would say, the fact that my post made you change your position on being listed as a "Heartland expert" would seem to be prima facie proof that I was right about it and you were wrong.

    Also, Roger -- you clearly "lied" in your tweet to Mandia that you only knew about this 48 hours before my post. Or are your overt mistakes merely oversights, whereas everything anyone else does is a lie?

    My work here is done. Tata!

  45. -44-Joe

    You have no idea who or what I have communicated to whom. Please stop making stuff up.

    I will repeat what I have said all along -- I do not mind if Heartland (or Mark Morano or CAP or any other interest group) points to me or my work as having expertise. I am in the business of sharing ideas with people who I may have many disagreements with, and interaction/exchange/discussion is a virtue in my world.

    Your post has not changed my mind on anything (well, maybe one thing, that there is any decency in you at all:-|. Again, please stop making things up.

    Joe is this your way of admitting a mistake? "Or are your overt mistakes merely oversights, whereas everything anyone else does is a lie?"

    Now go do the right thing and fix the lies that you've spread. That would be the honorable thing. Why do I doubt that you will do anything at all?

  46. I think Mr Pitt's comment @35 is absolutely on the mark. It never occurred to me (though obviously it should) that this conversation could never have occurred near Romm's pulpit.

    Why? Because conversations aren't allowed.

  47. -46-Anteros

    This is true, I stopped trying to post responses at Romm's a long time ago after he simply deleted them. More honorable behavior from him.

    I think Will Richardson is on to something in his quote of Shaw.

    However, even so I will now spend the next 6 months and longer having to correct people who say that I am affiliated with HI, because of Romm's lies. Sometimes the dirt from the pig gets on you no matter what.

    Romm is a serial liar and that is a message I will spread in response, and if he wants to debate that accusation, I'm all for it ;-)


  48. Albatross, since we're all being open, are you Joshua, AKA Josh Rosenau?

  49. Romm has re-revised his post again (fourth, fifth time?) and has produced new lies in place of the ones he has erased.

    He now writes: "Roger Pielke Jr. has, as I predicted below, finally gotten Heartland to de-list him as a ”Heartland Expert.”"

    This is a lie. I have never asked Heartland to de-list me, only to clarify that I am not affiliated with them. Romm knows this because he has visited here and I explained this to him, yet he persists in lying.

    Romm is a serial liar engaged in outright character assassination. CAP should be ashamed.

  50. Are you now the self-appointed chief of the climate inquisition?

    Actually, he sort of is. He's half of their 'rapid response team'.

    Climate change activists have an admirable division of labor. The people who can actually do publishable work do it. The community college professors and BS physicists act as their Grand Inquisitors, a sort of deniable goon squad.

  51. Just sent this to Joe and a few higher-ups at CAP. I'm not sure they care (or perhaps they condone his behavior, who knows):

    Dear Joe-

    Your web page continues to contain untruths about me. The latest iteration of your frequently-changing post now says:

    "Roger Pielke Jr. has, as I predicted below, finally gotten Heartland to de-list him as a ”Heartland Expert.”"

    This is untrue. I have never asked Heartland to de-list me. As I explained to you on my blog, I do not mind if Heartland (CAP or any other interest group) points to me or my work as having expertise. I am in the business of sharing ideas with people who I may have many disagreements with (including Heartland), and interaction/exchange/discussion is a virtue in my world.

    I have asked Heartland to be sure than any mention of me or my work explicitly notes that I have no affiliation with them in any way -- to avoid simple confusion, but also the outright maliciousness that you have displayed. In response, Heartland informs me that they decided to take down that page while they reconsider how to present experts.

    Once again, I request that you correct the factual record with the same megaphone that you have used to repeatedly spread lies.

    While you and I have sparred before, this current behavior is remarkably unprofessional, and morally just wrong.



  52. The issue seems to be mischaracterized. The nature of your affiliation only has minor relevance. The concern should be that any individual or cooperative clearly identifies the correlation between their position, your contributory works, and your own position.

    If anything, it is admirable that Heartland would provide a forum where individuals with differing minds are permitted to share their thoughts in relative safety. However, ultimately, they must take a position, and that position will either be in agreement, disagreement, or a hybrid of their contributors.

    This seems to be about nothing more than competing interests butting heads and entirely unrelated to the explicit positions they represent. In short, yet another distraction. One of many that contribute to interesting lives beyond that found in a fertile playground provided by nature. Our lifestyle is decadent indeed.

  53. It is also ironic how Romm, who is clearly funded by the far left-wing George Soros, wants so badly to "taint" Pielke Jr. with some affiliating him with some right-wing organization. Why is it that left-wing money is never considered "bad", but money from the right somehow is? Why must the skeptics be pure and free from any and all funding, yet the "scientists" and their flock seemingly have no problem in justifying their willingness to take money from any idealogue or organization willing to write them a check.

    Mercenaries are what they are.

  54. Of course Climate Progress is well known for their high levels of traffic...

    ...er, umm, ok.

  55. Just got this back from Winnie Stachelberg at CAP in response to #51:

    "We've reviewed your emails and all relevant blog posts and stand by our reporting."

    CAP sanctions lies, good to know.

  56. Actually, CAP does not stand by their reporting, as Romm has (for the nth time) changed his post, it now reads:

    "Heartland Institute de-listed Roger Pielke Jr. as a ”Heartland Expert” today after Pielke asked them to make clear he has no affiliation with them in any way."

    instead of the previous

    "Roger Pielke Jr. has, as I predicted below, finally gotten Heartland to de-list him as a ”Heartland Expert.”"

  57. Could I clarify a simple point, maybe two ? It has been asked in previous questions but those people seem to have an axe or three to grind - I don't.

    - Did you know about the inclusion of your name, photo, profile on the HI website - presented in the form it is now, or was when this story broke ?

    and 2, if you did know

    - Did you approve of it ?

    and 3, if you didn't approve

    - did you ask them to remove it before now ?

    Once those are answered this story will fly or die.

  58. -57-Sparrow

    These have all been asked and answered on this thread.

    1. Learned about it from a commenter last Friday
    2. No
    3. I have not asked HI to remove it, only to clearly state that if they want to list me as an expert, make sure that they also note that I have no affiliation. HI removed it on their own accord.

    This story is long past dead.;-)


  59. I had an analogous situation with Joe Romm when he tared me at Climate Progress as:

    "The President of IER is one Robert Bradley 'who previously served as Director of Public Policy Analysis at Enron, where he was a speechwriter for CEO Kenneth Lay,' who was 'convicted on fraud and conspiracy charges on May 25, 2006'.”

    Yes, I did write speeches for Lay (but not near the end), but I was just the opposite of what Joe implies.

    I was, internally and externally, opposed to Enron's (fake) climate alarmism and (real) rent-seeking. See the internal memos here: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/

    AND guess who was the leading cheerleader for Enron Energy Services, which turned out to be fraudulently inflating the value of its 'energy saving' contracts. It was Joe Romm himself!

    The story of all this is here: http://www.masterresource.org/category/romm-versus-bradley-enron/

    Finally, Joe repeatedly called me a 'sociopath' in a private email that was copied to James Hansen. Joe has never apologized although I have asked him to.

    What else can I say or do?

  60. Roger,

    You continue directing your vitriol and outrage at the wrong Joe, it should be directed at Joseph Bast from Heartland for listing you as an "expert" for Heartland without asking. I find the asymmetry of your ire very troubling.

    "I have not asked HI to remove it, only to clearly state that if they want to list me as an expert, make sure that they also note that I have no affiliation."

    I do not think you understand the purpose of their list. The "experts" that they have listed are clearly not a comprehensive list of experts in the field of climate science, for example. Their list does not include eminent scientists such as Hansen, Trenberth, Schmidt, Held, Emanuel, Santer, Dessler, Thorne, Mears, Stott, Betts, Bradley, Manabe, Weaver, Solomon et cetera.

    The Heartland list of experts is thus meant to give the impression (at least to the uninformed reader) that they have the support and/or can solicit advice from the "experts" listed. The purpose of that "expert" directory is thus clearly not to list the most respected, leading and eminent scientists in the field, at least for climate science, otherwise the aforementioned names would not have been excluded.

    So you now asking them to say that you have no affiliation with them defeats the point of listing you entirely and that is why they probably removed your profile from the list.

    They probably listed you because you come across as being a contrarian and give the distinct impression of having sympathy for "skeptics" and provide sound bites that "skeptics" like to propagate around the "skeptic" echo chamber. You just gave them another one with the title of this post.....oh well, it is your reputation that is going down the tubes.

    Now before moving this to the "rejected" file without due consideration, please consider the merit of each individual post. Thanks.

  61. I fully understand and support your ire on this one Roger. Whilst Romm is correct in noting that Heartland list(or did list) you as an expert it's a bit of a stretch to say that makes you an 'Official' Heartland Expert. The word Official is what this all hinges on. Climate denier James Delingpole makes an even worse mistake in his latest blogpost. Having gone snorkelling in the Great Barrier Reef his headline reads 'Official: Great Barrier Reef doing just fine'

  62. So it appears that Roger Pielke Jr. is unhappy about the inference that he is a Heartland Expert on Climate change, but not at all unhappy about being listed that way at Heartland.

    He also doesn't seem to get the fact that there are no lies in Romm's post, unless they were lies that he himself has tacitly approved by allowing them to appear on the HI site.

  63. OK - by the way 5/10 looks to me like you are giving Mr Romm a score ;-) - we do dates the correct way round here in the UK.

  64. So it appears that Roger Pielke Jr. is unhappy about the inference that he is a Heartland Expert on Climate change, but not at all unhappy about being listed that way at Heartland.

    If you go to WattsUpWithThat you will see a link to Real Climate on every page. Does that mean that Joe Romm has endorsed WUWT?

    Roger IS an expert on aspects of Climate Change. Why should anyone object to others recognising this?

  65. Back in the 1960's, Reed College, a bastion of left-wing thinking in Portland, Oregon, invited Herman Kahn to speak at commencement. Kahn was widely known and in leftish circles reviled, for his book, "On Thermonuclear War." Had there been Web sites at the time, Reed's would have shown his photo and bio and mentioned that he was speaking.

    Reed was criticized internally for the decision. Others at the time could have criticized Kahn for letting himself be listed as a speaker at Reed. In the end, neither let the furor bother them. It's called open debate.

    Romm continues to imply that Roger should be unhappy if Heartland identifies him as someone with something to say. That's a reflection on Romm, not Pielke.

  66. A reader writes in to note that Heartland adds a new disclaimer:

    "The persons identified here are Heartland staff, managing editors, senior fellows, and policy advisors (who are unpaid volunteers), as well as other experts not affiliated with Heartland but who we recommend as reliable sources of research and commentary."

    Let me state clearly that under such a disclaimer I have no objections to being listed as an expert by Heartland (or CAP) or any other advocacy group interested in exposure to solid policy research and analysis.

    It is my view that people across the political spectrum could benefit from a bit of engagement with solid research -- especially insular groups like Heartland and CAP.