[UPDATE: I've been asked about the 2005 paper mentioned in the article. Here is some backstory on that.] In today's Denver Post Vincent Carroll discusses how my work has been received among the activist scientists associated with the clique of the CRU emails. Carroll does a very nice job in accurately presenting my views. Here is how it starts:
If you don't think some climate scientists have lost their bearings, consider their treatment of the University of Colorado's Roger Pielke Jr.
Pielke is a professor of environmental studies who shares the mainstream academic conviction that rising levels of greenhouse gases threaten us with global warming. Just this week on his blog (rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com), Pielke praised New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman's statement "that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash 'catastrophic' warming" as being part of the "settled science."
Yet Pielke is despised by a number of influential climatologists. And no wonder. He refuses to ignore those who overstate or misrepresent data to further a policy agenda. He bridles when scientists pretend to speak "for science" when advocating political positions that will actually be determined by the interplay of social and economic values and judgments. And he calls out scientists who indulge in these tricks.