Pielke Jr is on a path of re-entry into the climate debate. His offering is a Powerpoint presentation of how ‘climate politics’ is ‘Manichean paranoia.’
Manichean paranoia, huh. What Pielke Jr means is the people involved are stupid yobos who don’t know how to fight. This is something he learned, while floating high above it all. What he also means is that underneath the thick rancor and vitriol flying around there is a problem, waiting to be solved.
Pielke’s position in his Powerpoint is nothing new. There has always been a handful of people who (a) believe in the climate cause (b) think they are smarter (c) know everyone else is a dupe.
So what’s his plan to solve the climate crisis?
Here it is, as it emerges deep into the presentation in slide #57 of a total of 62:
That’s right: the solution lies in starting off with a ‘carbon tax’ and moving on to ‘energy innovation policies.’
No prizes for guessing that these ‘energy innovation policies’ are never revealed in the remaining 4 slides.
Pay attention however, and it’s the same alarmist magic dust in disguise: something called ‘innovation’ will happen with a ‘carbon tax’ (which is yet to take place, despite all the tax governments presently collect), fossil fuels are ‘dirty’ (what was that thing about Manichean paranoia again?), and how increasing fuel costs will make alternatives ‘cheap’ (like how a steak becomes cheap if McDonald’s is coerced to charge $50 for a burger).
While this gruel-thin piffle makes its appearance towards the end, much of Pielke Jr’s slides are taken up in describing his persecution at the hands of the Obama administration. He even has recommendations for the climate debate. One of them is this:
It is hard not to laugh at this eye-watering hypocrisy.
Many years ago, I wrote an post critical of Pielke’s Jr’s claim that the ‘climate debate is over.’ The science is settled and public opinion overwhelmingly supports climate policies, Pielke Jr claimed. I disagreed. The article was published at WUWT.
Pielke Jr didn’t like it. He doesn’t take well to criticism.
Soon, Anthony Watts, who runs WUWT, was contacted by either Pielke Jr or Pielke Sr. Watts collaborated with Pielke Sr on some studies, including one that was headed toward publication. Pielke Sr was supportive of his efforts, in general. Pielke Jr had to have expressed displeasure at criticsm directed at him, appearing on a blog friends with his dad. The message was clear – take the article down or prepare to face blowback. This put Watts in a fix – he did not want to jeopardize a working relationship so he did the next thing he could.
The article was taken down.
Cockamamie excuses of threats were given as an excuse for the take-down. The real reasons were never revealed or discussed, until now.
Despite what he says above, Pielke Jr did not ‘seek out those with whom he disagreed,’ did not ‘engage,’ and nor did he ‘agree to disagree.’ Instead, he sought to penalize ‘engagement.’ Instead, pressure was applied via backchannels to effect censorship.
Regardless of what you might hear, climate alarmists—of all stripes—do not want to engage, debate, or attempt pragmatic politics. The best example is Roger Pielke Jr himself.