Just a quick update on my recent post noting Roger Pielke’s lack of integrity:
- Roger makes a note of my post and John Fleck’s and adds this underhanded toss-off line: Hansen’s forecast “did not survive the peer review process” and so did not “appear in PNAS”. Of course, the alledged “prediction” of a super El Nino (“there is a good chance”) from the draft was not submitted to PNAS for peer review. Roger is refering to Hansen’s passing the draft to a few friends and colleagues, inadvertently distributing it more broadly (oops, Roger’s not a friend!).
- There is a must read exchage at John Fleck’s in which Roger reveals even more of his dishonesty, complete with the old “here are the links, but please don’t click them” tactic. You must read it!
The discussion at Inkstain is nicely summed up with this comment by “just me”:
And? . Fact: there is no paper, no interview, no press release.Only a preprint. So, where is the interview with the press or the big paper with the prediction? You haven’t shown yet. I am waiting.
The example is rather good to show how science does work. Somebody has an idea and colleagues criticize and support the idea. The idea is improved or canceled or postponed. What is wrong with that? What is your idea about science? Lying and try to embarrass other researchers? Sorry, I do not understand your motivation.
Nothing new at Roger’s place….