Some of you are annoyed by the fact that I’m fueled creatively by my massive hatred of self-styled centrists. And some of you get sick of hearing about “hippie-punching”. If you’re one of these people, stop reading this post now.
The Grist has a run-down of comments by Nate Silver’s new hire, Roger Pielke, the one who intimated he would sue some of his critics unless they started acting like “gentlemen”. Spoiler: Pielke comes across as anything but “gentlemanly” himself.
Pielke describes himself as a “blue-dog Democrat”, and looking over his non-climate tweets and blog posts, that seems about right (he loves Bill Clinton and seems happy that NCAA players may be able to unionize). And yet:
What is most troubling about Pielke Jr.’s account is its lack of balance. As we will see, the politicization of science by a handful of climate change deniers and their patrons is extremely well documented, and continues to be a major obstacle to the United States adopting effective climate policy. Yet in a 26-page chapter on the politicization of science, Pielke Jr. devotes only one paragraph to the behavior of those “opposed to action on climate change.”
What to make of people like Roger Pielke, Ann Althouse, Walter Russell Mead, Charles Lane, and Gregg Easterbrook, who often claim to vote Democrat (or at least to be independent) and even more often hold themselves up as the last bastions of decency and fairness, yet spend all of their time attacking Democrats and often in terms that would make David Broder blush?
Is it all about punching hippies?