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.
Jim Hansen distributes note & link to his paper laying out scientific case for youth lawsuits seeking government action on CO2: ”The Case for Young People and Nature: A Path to a Healthy, Natural, Prosperous Future describes what governments need to do to stabilize climate, fulfilling their obligation to young people and future generations. This is the science basis attached to suits being filed this week and in the future in different states and countries.
“Thanks to magnificent co-authors for their help in putting this together quickly. Criticisms, suggestions welcome — don’t bother with typos and stuff that we will catch when we have a chance to read it carefully.
“However, if you are in the Washington area on Mother’s Day, consider joining us at 10 AM for a march from Union Station to the White House. My grandchildren Sophie and Connor are busy preparing signs for President Obama’s edification…”