h1

Bar Fight!

December 1, 2009

Earlier this week I played bartender to a brawl that’s been brewing for longer than I’ve been around. You can check backlogs on that brawl here. (Scroll down through the comments.) Of his own motivation, Roger has decided to take matters out onto the street. Like most good barkeeps, I’m staying out of it, righting upended stools and wiping down the bar, listening with one ear to the commotion outside. Should the two resolve their differences and choose to come in from the cold, I’m happy to offer both participants drinks on the house.

Advertisements

11 comments

  1. Roger! You crazy, dishonest hunk of man! It’s been days since Gavin challenged you to cite a single incident in which he had attempted to “short circut” peer review.

    In classic Roger Pielke Jr form, you ignored the challenge. Gavin then came back, days later and pointed out that couldn’t cite a single incident.

    Now, you start posting a bunch of questions to Gavin.

    Love you, baby! You are a total class act when it comes to changing the subject.


  2. Paul-

    I’ve responded to Gavin about a half dozen times. Most recently here:

    https://cruelmistress.wordpress.com/2009/11/26/redubbing-peer-review/#comment-1653

    My original complaint about Gavin’s condoning of the behavior seen in the emails is here:

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/redefining-peer-review.html


  3. Roger, the link doesn’t lead to any kind of response.

    I think I see the Roger Pielke Jr. pattern. Make an innuendo, get challenged on innuendo, ignore challenge. When then asked why you ignored the challenge, change discussion and put in some link saying that you had responded to the prior challenge.


  4. I just want to point out the complete Alice in Wonderland quality to having Roger Pielke Jr position himself as some judge of peer review. “Redefining” peer review and all.

    Just a couple of years ago, Roger was taking people to task for laundering grey literature, which Roger defined as citing non peer reviewed articles in a peer reviewed study.

    Well, Roger just posted his latest peer reviewed study on his website.

    Let’s take a peek under the hood.

    Okay, 45 citations.

    16 Citations that are not peer reviewed. Two that are of questionable peer-review.

    I would like to point out that there is one citation that is nothing more than a power point hosted on the skeptic blog, Climate Audit.

    Pielke, R. A. Jr and McIntyre, S., 2007. Changes in Spatial
    Distribution of North Atlantic Tropical Cyclones,
    NG31A-07. Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical
    Union, December. http://www.climateaudit.org/
    pdf/agu07.hurricane.ppt.


  5. Ben, I just want to point out that I tried to post all 16 of the non peer reviewed studies in Pielke Jr. study. The software wouldn’t let me.


  6. Odd. I take no responsibility. I’m not filtering or monitoring my comments, so there’s some sort of bot keeping you from posting that many links.


  7. I figured as much. It was just a really, really long post. Sixteen references, and all. I think the software must be rejecting it.


  8. Ben, sorry to disappoint but I have better things to do than play games with Roger. I think we clearly established that he had no foundation for his claims that I suggested short circuiting or refining peer review, and that was the only point required. Thanks for hosting, and let me know what I owe you for the broken stool.


    • No sweat at all. Stools are easy enough to come by.


  9. I want to also point out that Roger has failed to address the obvious false virtue and sanctimony in his former statements on “laundering of grey literature.

    Whenever Roger gets called out for poor behavior and hypocrisy, he always ignores the people pointing it out.

    It’s a pattern of behavior with him.


  10. On another post, Roger is trying to create more nonsense about what he said on laundering grey literature.

    Oh boy….Here we go. In a post on Prometheus, Roger Pielke Jr wrote, “have noticed recently a number of peer-reviewed papers that reference so-called “grey literature” (e.g., agency, company, NGO reports) which hasn’t itself been peer reviewed. Then the peer-reviewed study that cites the grey literature is subsequently cited in another publication to refer to the information in the original non-peer reviewed source. This is a way to give the veneer of peer review to a non-peer-reviewed study. Here is an example of this dynamic.”

    When you click on the link for the “dynamic” Roger then hops all over a paper published in Science by Evan Mills.

    Nice try, Roger.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: