An economist from Australia who had never heard of Roger Pielke Jr. until he saw this warped criticism from Joe Romm actually takes the time to read Pielke and concludes:
In no way is the guy a "climate denier". Rather, he seems concerned that: 1. Proposed policy is too ineffective and instead more measures should be taken to directly encourage innovation. 2. Scientific results are used incorrectly by many climate policy advocates. This reduces the credibility of science in the eyes of the public when they realise "they've been had". So I don't see what all the fuss is about.
