What About Pearce?
I’m surprised Tobis didn’t include Fred Pearce in his little Broderite grouping. BTW, I’m just a piker compared to Revkin (and Pearce), both who are far more distinguished than me.
Speaking of Pearce, a Bishop Hill reader provides a nice dispatch of a recent Pearce lecture at the Royal Institution. As for the Jay Rosen meta post (which he is famous for) that Tobis references, count me in the This is complicated! camp.
Um, so Rosen says he's got your number. I say it fits the evidence pretty well. It's an elaborated and plausible theory of difference-splitting. I say the whole ugly phenomenon of climategatemongering is due to the press refusing to check out a story and refusing to examine its own role. You respond by changing the subject to Fred Pearce!
So can I take it that Rosen is right, then?
Um, Michael, Rosen's theory is about political journalism. Science journalism is a different animal (yes, of course, there are similarities).
As for Pearce, how was that changing the subject related to your post? I was merely pointing out, that by the logic of your argument, he's someone that should be thrown in that Broderite group, esp since he more than all journos covering climate matters, took climategate seriously.
Errors are not what makes the Broderist, Keith. Also, don't forget that what seems to have lit Pearce's fire was his being fingered as the one responsible for the 2350 to 2035 transposition (not to imply that he had anything to do with the 2035 business ending up in the AR4).
Keith, Rosen seems to have described you perfectly. For example, “Regression to a Phony Mean” is precisely what I’ve been saying about you here. Which of Rosen’s six terms do you think don’t describe you?
Climategatemongering is political journalism about science, not science journalism, in my opinion. Much reporting on climate is only peripherally or symbolically about science. This is why Rosen's description is so surprisingly apt.
Michael Tobis beat me to it. What he said.