Talk:Roger A. Pielke Jr.

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anon vandalism 

message: Pielke edits his own page, clearly a conflict of interest —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.213.231 (talk • contribs) 
: 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)
replies: text: Note that Pielke's WP contribs to date are solely to his wikibio . That said, none have been improper or contentious. --Pete Tillman (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done (finally!). Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reflist 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Alleged comment from Stephen Schneider 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Denver Post is not conservative 

message: *A Quick Guide to Pielke Jr. on Climate, 03/01/15: "I am no longer conducting research or academic writing related to climate."
*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)
thread_title:  RP Jr. leaves Climate Science studies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Politicization of science'?