Syllabus: Intro to Sports Governance, Spring 2017


Here is a link (PDF) to a near-final version of my spring 2017 syllabus for Introduction for Sports Governance (ETHN 3104) here at the University of Colorado Boulder. This semester, with the help of Spencer Harris at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs, we will be running a “mirrored” section on that campus.

The course has plenty of space, because we meet in the biggest room in the Champions Center. So if you are an interested student, please sign up. Also, I welcome senior auditors — those 55+ who get to take classes at CU for free. Just let me know if you are in the community and want to enroll. Every semester I have had several senior auditors and they always add to the class.

Course guests this term (so far) include Mark Johnson, Travis Tygart, Kara Goucher, Casey Malone, Mike Macintyre, Tad Boyle, Ceal Barry, Phil Distefano and Rick George. More are invited, stay tuned. Meantime, comments and suggestions on the syllabus are always welcomed.

All My 2016 Publications

As a professor, I have to account for my annual output every February for the previous calendar year. At the University of Colorado this accounting is called the Faculty Report of Professional Activities (FRPA). To get a head start on my 2017 report, I am tabulating my publications for 2016.

Here they are:

Sports Governance

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). The Edge: The War against Cheating and Corruption in the Cutthroat World of Elite Sports. Roaring Forties Press.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). The NFL Needs Distance From Its Brain-Injury Funding, Wall Street Journal.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). US Soccer and Conflicts of Interest, Soccernomics.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Can doping ever be eradicated from cycling?, Cycling Weekly.

Tucker, R. & R. Pielke, Jr., (2016). IAAF, Adidas, Doping and the Internal Contradictions of the WADA Report, Sporting Intelligence.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Can anti-doping bodies maintain their scientific integrity? The answer is troubling, The Guardian.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Get ready for the coming wave of technologically enhanced athletes, The Guardian.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Science will never settle the question of sex and gender in sport, The Guardian.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Yes, Caster Semenya Should be Allowed to Run at Rio, The Mail on Sunday.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Why Not a College Degree in Sports?, The New York Times.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Why an Irish Sprinter Serving a Doping Ban Deserves a New Hearing, Newsweek.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Sporting autonomy stands in the way of fair play, Public Finance International.

Pielke, Jr. R. (2016). The key sports law issues in the USA in 2016, Law in Sport.

Pielke, Jr., R. & S. Harris. (2016). Who needs independent experts? Global Sports Impact Report.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). CU hoping to bring sports governance into spotlight, The Daily Camera.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Why college athletics are not facing financial bubble, The Daily Camera.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). College athletes actually can get paid, The Daily Camera.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Top-level college athletes need to be schooled on going pro, The Daily Camera.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). College athletes’ experience doesn’t mirror non-athletes, The Daily Camera.

Tucker, R. and R. Pielke, Jr. (2016). Report of Investigation into Cross-US Run Attempt by Rob Young, SKINS.

Science  & Technology Policy

Stilgoe, J. & R. Pielke, Jr. (2016). They may not like it, but scientists must work with Donald Trump, The Guardian.

Energy, Disasters and Climate

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Catastrophes of the 21st Century, Aon Benfield Australia.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Tracking Climate Progress: A Guide for Policymakers and the Informed Public, IEEJ Energy Journal.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). Mehr Saft, Bitte!, Welt-Sichten.

Pielke, Jr., R. (2016). My Unhappy Life as a Climate Heretic, Wall Street Journal.

Weinkle, J. & R. Pielke, Jr. (2016). The Truthiness about Hurricane Catastrophe Models. Science, Technology & Human Values.


The Least Thing (107 posts)

Roger Pielke Jr (28 posts)

The Honest Broker (13 posts)

Wikileaks and Me

I haven’t had a chance to update this blog with anything related to the surprise (to me at least) at finding myself the subject of an email in the John Podesta email leaks from Wikileaks. That email revealed that an organization that was fouinded and led by Podesta, the Center for American Progress, engaged in a successful effort to have me removed as a writer at 538, the “data journalism” site created by Nate Silver.

The Boulder Daily Camera has a very good series of articles about the revelation that there was an organized political effort against me.

The multi-year campaign against me by CAP was partially funded by billionaire Tom Steyer, and involved 7 writers at CAP who collectively wrote more than 160 articles about me, trashing my work and my reputation. Over the years, several of those writers moved on to new venues, including The Guardian, Vox and where they continued their campaign focused on creating an evil, cartoon version of me and my research.

Collectively, they were quite successful. The campaign ultimately led to me being investigated by a member of Congress and pushed out of the field.

Motivated by the leaked email, I counted the articles that CAP wrote about me over the years, shown below. To illustrate how significant a figure CAP thought I was — and how absolutely unhinged their campaign was against me — CAP wrote less than 200 articles over the same time period about George W. Bush, president of the United States. I was apparently viewed to be a pretty important guy to warrant all that negative attention!


One example of CAP’s campaign involved a series of over-the-top protestations against a paper that I wrote in 2008 with climate scientist Tom Wigley and economist Chris Green. In it, we argued that the IPCC had baked in too much assumed decarbonization in its scenarios of future emissions and policies.

CAP responded with multiple posts, such as the unhinged, “Why did Nature run Pielke’s pointless, misleading, embarrassing nonsense?” There were many more.

I am happy to report that sometimes good science wins out in the end. Our paper has now been cited almost 250 times (Google Scholar). More importantly, our analysis now shows up in the scenarios being used for the 6th assessment of the IPCC. Here is a key figure from our paper (on the left) and a virtually identical one from the recent IPCC scenario paper (on the right):


It is not important to understand the details here (but if you’d like to, our paper is here in PDF), but it is abundantly clear that our analysis was the basis for that used by those who have created the next generation of IPCC scenarios. Our paper is not cited by the IPCC authors – that apparently would be a step too far, given how deeply the campaign of destruction against me has influenced how I am perceived.

But no matter. The ideas that we first presented in 2008, trashed by those who for whatever reason were intent of a campaign of personal destruction, now show up in 2016 as being core to those of the IPCC.

That is pretty sweet.