Joe Romm @climateprogress sees “confusionist” influence in IPCC extremes report. I respond. His head explodes. Here’s my reply:

Joe, it sure looks like it’s you who’s conflating scientific judgment with personal judgment. Roger Pielke Jr.’s involvement as a reviewer of an IPCC report is all about his scientific judgment and long track record of peer-reviewed work. IPCC isn’t a popularity contest.

And I have to note that after months of attacking Richard Muller’s personal passions (which I, too, criticized), you were quick to embrace his peer-reviewed science when it fit your template.

Your complaints are with Pielke’s policy comments and blog posts. If you want to imply he’s been a poisonous force in IPCC, then find the holes in his peer-reviewed work.

Here’s my Dot Earth post on the actual report.