Fisking Romm
Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger do a deep dive into the Romm/Pielke Jr. affair. Some trenchant observations made by the Breakthrough boys, such as this one:
Romm knows that a debate with a non-skeptical liberal like Pielke would disrupt the Manichean fairy tale that global warming is an epic struggle by scientists and climate realists against global warming deniers and ignorant reporters. That’s because publicly debating Pielke will inevitably require Romm to acknowledge that Pielke is not a global warming skeptic nor an opponent of action to address global warming.
By contrast, Romm relishes debating skeptics like Morano and relishes offering them a platform precisely because doing so reduces the climate debate to an argument between skeptics, who oppose carbon pollution limits of any kind, and advocates like Romm, who demand emissions reductions in the name of climate science.
Here’s something else they write, which I wonder if establishment greens will take note of:
In the end, Romm’s bullying does not serve efforts to effectively address global warming; it serves the political interests of the self-proclaimed progressive wing of the Democratic Party. As the chief spokesman for climate legislation in Washington and the pointman on climate for the Center for American Progress, Romm is no rogue actor. On the contrary. In framing global warming as apocalypse, polarizing the debate, attacking alternatives to cap and trade, and using character assassination against working journalists and academics, the green and liberal establishment in Washington has, in Romm, precisely the spokesperson it deserves.
It’ll be interesting to see if Romm retains that position of authority going forward. He’s been fierce about the Waxman/Markey bill and utterly scornful of alternative proposals on the table. If a new climate bill is introduced in Congress, especially one that eliminates cap and trade as the major policy mechanism, where does Romm go from there?
You’ve asked that last question before and it’s been answered. Your tiresome ranting about Romm is a broken record, Keith.
Steve Bloom’s tiresome ranting about Kloor is a broken record
I’m starting to think you’re more than a little obsessed with Joe….and the echo chamber between you, RPJr and the Breakthrough folks is starting to appear rather clique-ish. Two new rules: no linking to RPJr or BI and no discussion of he-who-shall-not-be named for the first 10 days of every month.
🙂
Marlowe,
What are you, Bill Maher, with the new rules? Look, obviously, I’m not just a casual observer here.
Sorry, he gets plenty of wet kisses from those that matter in the media. It matters not a whit what I write, in comparison. Sometimes, though, it’s the principle that matters.
Also, bullies need to be called on their behavior, if only to hold them accountable.
Romm badly overreached when he wrote a post on me chockful of obvious falshoods–so obvious he had no choice but to delete them. Then shortly after that he got hit with the McCarthy posts by TBI. I kinda felt like he was behaving himself for a while after that. Looks like he’s regressing lately.
Sorry if my posts on him alienate you and others. Perhaps you can just skip over them in the future. Can’t promise you when or how often I’ll scratch that persistent Romm itch.
So when are you going to call Pielke to account for his bullying behaviour? Oh right, never.
Tim, you told the Times that you spend 6 hours blogging a day, huh? How many peer-reviewed publications do you have? Google Scholar says about a half dozen in the past 10 years. That is almost one every 2 years!! Wow,that is good work if you can get it.
So Keith when are you going to call Lambert to account for defrauding the UNSW by spending all his time blogging and bullying?
Joe Romm’s site is a good example of the kinds of websites that intelligent readers avoid. He points the reader to his own articles to support his statements. He refuses to post ideas that don’t support his beliefs while allowing his few trolls to post childish rants continuously.
If he had supportable science, he would not need to protect himself with censorship.
James,
Your last statement is in error. He does have supportable science. He just misuses it. His intelligent readers–the ones who understand this–agree with his ends, not his means. The question I keep asking myself: when will they begin to question if his means are working.
Good take on Romm. He has been a great gift to skeptics for a long time.
Reasonable people see his anger and boorishness for what it is- the tactic of someone with a losing hand.
His treatment of Revkin and Curry, and now his Sir Robin impersonation, only underscores his role:
Hostile evidence of the validty of skeptics.
Ah, self citation is bad saith the Pielkesphere.