Ragin' Romm
[UPDATE: The Breakthrough Institute weighs in and issues a challenge to the media and climate advocates.]
Okay, I was really hoping to leave all this unpleasant Joe Romm stuff behind. I’m gratified by the emails of support I’ve received from colleagues and the public show of support. (See here and here for two that I particularly appreciate.)
But this thing seems to be taking on a life of its own, as other climate bloggers have picked up on the battle between me and Romm. Notably, William Connolley started a thread last night and I’ve felt obligated to engage it. Romm evidently didn’t like the direction of the thread, so he recently jumped in, essentially cutting and pasting from his original blog attack. But it’s worth reading again in this context to see the comments to Romm in parens from Connolley.
I should also mention that Romm took additional shots at me last night in the comments section of his blog. I responded shortly thereafter, but he thus far has decided not to let it pass his censor. So I’ll just post my response below. As you can see, it also lists the date and time I emailed it to Climate Progress:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Joe,
Other than yourself (though I recall you claiming numerous times that you do not want to be called an environmentalist), can you tell me what enviros I have supposedly “smeared”? This is the first time anyone has brought this to my attention. I know you referred to David Roberts in your original post as being one of them. I’ll have to check with David on that one, as I think he might disagree. At least I hope he would.
And for the record, I believe Roberts is a huge talent: first rate mind, truly excellent writer. For example, just look at the post he recently wrote diagnosing why the climate bill is being strangled of credibility and probably doomed to not passing. That said, he’s a big boy and not everything he writes is green gospel, right? Is it okay to make occasional criticism of posts of his or would that always constitute a “smearing”? I’d especially like to know with respect to his latest post.
And while we’re on the subject of smears, I’d be curious to know if you ever thought that calling Roger Pielke Jr.”the most debunked person in the science blogosphere” might be a smear? I only ask because I don’t think I’ve ever made such a bold and blanket assertion in any post I’ve written. Can I issue that kind of statement about someone, safe in the knowledge that it is not a smear?
So aside from Roberts, please tell me what other enviros I’ve “smeared” and do provide the links, please.
Oh, and thanks for clearing up that confusion about the missing “denier” and “delayer” text. (What a relief to hear I’m just a delayer!) I can’t imagine that me mentioning your deletions in my blog had something to do with you releasing my comment nearly a day after I sent it to you. I do hope you see your way to releasing this comment in a more timely manner than the last one, because I’d rather not have to post it on my obscure blog, where it stands much less of a chance of being read.
Kloor, when you pick a fight don’t whine when you get one.
Connolly took the sharp scalpel to Romm’s comment at stoat. Too many people excuse Romm’s excesses because they appreciate his passion.
Keith-
I’ve set up a thread to allow a focused approach to my debunking;-)
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/11/open-invitation.html
Let’s see if Romm et al. can put up when challenged to discuss ideas and arguments.
I had similar responses to both this blog and Romm’s–I read a few articles and decided neither was worth reading. I back only because of the Stoat post. All of this just convinces me that my original response was the correct choice.
Romm is full of counter productive vitriol. His attacks and miss-reading of plain English is inexcusable.
This blog has different problems–some of the arguments you made in the few posts I read struck me as so wrong headed that I had no reason to ever look again. (your ridiculous defense of someone so unethical and harmful as Morano comes to mind first but there were others. Does Limbaugh add to the political debate?).
Now half of what are focusing on insignificant garbage. You defense would have much stronger if it was a quarter as long. Check your ego before you write.
I’m really bad at proof reading my own comments: In case anyone didn’t know what I meant here it is again:
I had similar responses to both this blog and Romm’s”“I read a few articles and decided neither was worth reading. I’m back only because of the Stoat post. All of this just convinces me that my original response was the correct choice.
Romm is full of counter productive vitriol. His attacks and miss-reading of plain English is inexcusable.
This blog has different problems”“some of the arguments you made in the few posts I read struck me as so wrong headed that I had no reason to ever look again. Your ridiculous defense of someone so unethical and harmful as Morano comes to mind first (does Limbaugh add to the political debate?) but there were others.
Now half of what you are focusing on insignificant garbage. Your defense would have much stronger if it was a quarter as long. Check your ego before you write.
Also I do agree with WC, that in this case you do come out looking much better then Romm–but I’m still only going to read your blog very rarely.