Why I Blog
Not me, silly. I still have no clue why I blog.
But I have in my possession the first draft of Joe Romm’s recent post, “Why I blog.” It’s a rough, bullet-point version that was smuggled out of Romm’s kitchen window by a source who shall remain anonymous. Here it is:
I joined the new media because the motherf#!$*! mainstream, status quo, false-balance media are so utterly, miserably, failing to report on the looming end of civilization.
What I have learned most from my blog is that hyperbole works! The louder I shout, the more insults I hurl, the more credible I become.
I am channeling the spirit of George Orwell. He was a truth teller. So am I. Don’t believe me? I’ll blowtorch your name in public.
I dicate all my posts not just because I love the sound of my voice, but because I love the poetry of my meandering 2,000 word posts, and the artistic beauty of those 50-word headlines.
I blog because it gives me more pleasure than the treadmill. Also, I simply would burst from acid reflux if I didn’t have a vehicle to truth-tell.
I blog because my brother lost his house to Hurricane Katrina. That singular event, which I admit, had nothing to do with global warming, motivated me to become an unflinching truth-teller.
George Orwell. Note to self: insert more references to Orwell.
A key goal of my blog is to save you time by being as verbose as possible. I know that sounds like a contradiction. It’s not. I never contradict myself. Remember, I am a truth-teller. The point is, you don’t need to bother going anywhere else for truth-telling. Everything you need to (and should) know about climate science, climate politics, and the motherf#$%&! status quo media is what I tell you.
On that note, F-you Andy Revkin! I’m the man! Not you! And I’m gonna drum that home from hell to high water.
I blog because I love my commenters. They reinforce my basest instincts, they appreciate my truth-telling and they never fail to say that in the most adoring terms.
The ultimate reason that I blog is because it’s too late for humanity. But I want the cockroaches who will inherit hell and high water to know that somebody was out there yelling from the rooftops.
The ultimate, ultimate reason that I blog is because there’s a great hunger for such ravings. That is what keeps me going. Your hunger for my rants. Thank you all for lapping it up!
Excellent. I am sure there’s a few reasons you missed, such as
I blog because it’s a great way to plug my books.
He seems to have missed or been unaware of the pure foaming at the mouth nastiness that he spews forth, like the projectile vomiting of some infant that has too much gas in their intestine. Nasty, nastier and nastiest.
Romm would be quite funny except such psychopaths tend to end up in positions of authority wherefrom they can wreak the havoc they merely talked about previously. Romm is the Jean Paul Marat of the green revolution. Pure vitriol with a penchant to assasinate the character of all who show the least deviation from the true faith. Andy Revkin is the latest victim of the Climate Progress guillotine abetted by his sans culotte and sans cerveau brigade of fellow travelers.
You forgot the small print…
I am, because I blog.
I blog, because I am paid to do so.
I fear, for my future. If global warming proves to be less than catastrophic, my budding career as consultant to C list wonks and celebs will crash to the ground.
I blog, for love of humanity. It’s people I can’t stand.
Romm’s latest tirade about Andy Revkin, who while questioning some aspects of climate science seems to believe that climate change is a real problem that needs adressing, shows that your assessment is 100% dead on.
Tom:
If I might steal your line:
“I blog for the love of the masses. It’s individuals I can’t stand.”
Now that is in the spirit of Robespierre, Marat, Danton, Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Romm.
Well, that’s a real contribution to civil discourse about issues.
Do you see yourself as part of the problem or part of the solution, Keith?
w00t! way to create “a reader-friendly forum where all sides of the climate debate can meet and have a constructive and civil discussion,” Keith!
Has he annoyed you Keith? 😉
A comment of mine there, awaiting moderation
Barry Woods says: (actually comment 62, cut and paste went strange)
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 31, 2010 at 1:55 pm
Thoughts on this, looks like the media may be reaching a “˜tipping point’ against AGW alarmism (the wwf, Gore, greenpeace version)?
The Times (UK) ““
Opinion ““ This discredited science (IPCC)body must be purged
“Three years ago, not having paid much attention, I thought that IPCC reports were reliable, fair and transparent. No longer. Despite coming from a long line of coal-mining entrepreneurs,
I’m not a “denier”: I think carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I’m not even a sceptic (yet): I think the climate has warmed and will warm further. But I am now a “lukewarmer” who has yet to see any evidence saying that the current warming is, or is likely to be, unprecedented, fast or tending to accelerate.”
followed by this”¦.
“So I have concluded that global warming will most probably be a fairly minor problem “” at least compared with others such as poverty and habitat loss “” for nature as well as people.”
“After watching the ecologically and economically destructive policies enacted in its name (biofuels, wind power), I think we run the risk of putting a tourniquet round our collective necks to stop a nosebleed.”
And: ( The Times ““ Opinion)
“The unilateral redrafting of IPCC reports by “lead authors” after reviewers had agreed them, and the writing of a sexed-up “summary for policy makers” before the report was complete, have discomfited many scientists since the first report. It is no great surprise that the “experts” who compiled one part of the 2007 report included three from Greenpeace, two Friends of the Earth representatives, two Climate Action Network representatives, and a person each from the activist organisations WWF, Environmental Defense Fund, and the David Suzuki Foundation.”
The Times has this as a full page opinion in the print edition
(the website is now behind a paywall ““ reproduced on the authors blog)
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/reform-ipcc-sake-science
I wonder how many other journalists will be following this report, and maybe rather less fortcoming in just copying and pasting green press releases, and may start to ask some probing questions.”
Keith,
I have to somewhat echo Jonathon Gilligan and PDA. You’re coming very close to kicking a man when he’s down.
Romm is before all else a political hyper – partisan and he’s having a very bad year. Climate legislation is dead in the water not only in the US, but also all around the world. Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and Dr. Hansen were highly critical of the Waxman/Markey bill that Romm championed. The international structures are in shambles. President Obama has turned out not to be the droid he was looking for. If you look at opinion polls since he started climateprogress, you’ll see that the longer Joe blogs the further away the public moves from his position. He deserves not ridicule but pity and compassion, for he is a man who does great harm to his own cause.
Jonathan & PDA:
Have you actually tried to have a dialogue at Climate Progress? Joe Romm’s treatment of others suggests that he is not interested in a dialogue at all. Do you really think his treatment of Andy Revkin was called for?
Paul, Jonathon Gilligan and PDA, have you looked at the bile Romm regularly spews out? What he’s written about Keith?
Romm isn’t interested in dialogue–that’s why he messes around with commenters and insults people. (Fair disclosure–he’s gone after me as well.) He’s interested in submission to his stated policy preferences. Period.
8. it has gone…
Tom,
I used to be a regular reader and commenter (banned in Dec. 2008 over politics) at CP so I’m well aware of Romm’s juvenile viciousness. He’s a paid hack and a coward, which is all the more reason to ignore him.
But a slightly modified version is allowed…. Much better than realclimate. I checked before putting a face saving comment about posting it twice)
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/31/lomborg-new-book-smart-solutions-to-climate-change-debunk-errors-flaw/#comments
I’m not defending Romm. I’m yanking KK’s chain for habitually portraying himself as a champion of “<a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/07/26/suffer-the-grandchildren/#comment-12145″>civil dialogue</a>,” when he’s devoted whole posts to <a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/08/13/the-ethical-hypocrites/”>attacking other bloggers</a> and even <a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/07/26/suffer-the-grandchildren/”>commenters</a> on his own blog.
I’ve <a href=”http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/2010/07/26/suffer-the-grandchildren/#comment-12147″>tried to make the point before</a> that the emphasis on tone and “civility” above all else is, to a greater or lesser degree, a way to argue while seeming to be above it all. This post is either an indication that KK agrees with me, or that he wants to have it both ways.
Oh, mercy. No inline links allowed? Well, I hope it’s somewhat readable as it is…
Jonathan (6):
I could turn that around and ask you: Is Joe Romm’s slash and burn style “part of the problem, or part of the solution”? Paul Kelly (9), his tongue firmly in cheek, clearly believes the former.
Here’s the thing about my satiric post. I read Joe’s latest attack on Andy Revkin and thought to myself, ‘Andy wrote a not-so-great post, but measured against his body of work, and the usually very high-caliber of posts he routinely produces at Dot Earth, is Romm’s response warranted, particulary the vituperative tone’?
And I said to myself, of course not. This is just Romm being Romm, unable to keep from going way over the top. Do you see anybody calling him on it? So far, based on the comments he’s let through, it appears only Stephen Leahy (an environmental journalist) offered a mild rebuke.
Now, personally, I find it increasingly hard to do straight criticism of Romm. His style lends itself more to parody. But a lot of people take him very seriously, including some influentials like Thomas Friedman and Paul Krugman. I think they find succor in his no-holds barred manner of climate blogging. Fine. There’s certainly a place for that. But all the time and indiscriminately? And out of proportion to the “crime” committed? Sorry, I’m not going along with that. Yeah, if I was a climate advocate, I’d see the value of having an attack dog. But do you want a rabid dog?
So on occasion, you’ll see parodies of Romm from me, such as this. Readers will just have to indulge me every once in a while.
Bernie (#10) and Tom Fuller (#11). I haven’t tried to participate at Romm’s. The tone puts me off completely. I rarely even read his stuff because I don’t have any patience with his mode of vicious personal attack.
That’s precisely why I can’t understand Keith’s emulating Romm here at his place.
PDA, I cop to want to having it both ways. But I’d like to think there’s room for an occasional satiric jab at influential bloggers.
Also, to embed links, highlight your text and click on third icon from right.
Jonathan (18), I think our comments crossed in cyberspace. Please understand: I’m not emulating him. I’m trying to do a send-up of him. The last thing I would ever want to do is emulate Romm. I positively feel that he debases the climate debate with his kneecap-bashing.
I cop to want to having it both ways.
Well, good luck with that.
I’m personally a fan of call-it-like-you-see-it while trying to avoid making it personal or being blindly hostile, and letting the chips fall where they may. So as far as that goes, this post is just fine.
Are you sure there’s a bright line between “satiric jabs” and “personal attacks” on the internet? Because I’m not. And I don’t know where this leaves your “tone matters” argument.
Keith (#17): Thanks for responding. I see Romm as a big part of the problem. That’s why I largely ignore his blog and follow yours.
Just so there’s no misunderstanding, the “problem” I’m identifying is not environmental, but the loss of habitat on the blogosphere for civil discourse. Romm’s style is incredibly destructive. But we’re talking about your blog here, and I see this kind of attack on Romm—even though it’s orders of magnitude less nasty than what Romm posts—as destructive to the role you’re trying to carve out as the host of serious thoughtful discussions.
This isn’t isolated. I found your post a few weeks back calling Michael Tobis a hypocrite over the line too, and much less justified. You could have disagreed with Tobis without attacking his character. If you head down the road of ad hominem blogging, you may find it hard to find solid ground from which to criticize it when others do the same.
What’s bugging me is that we’ve got lots of smart people on many potentially worthwhile blogs spending inordinate amounts of time dissecting what’s wrong with Joe Romm, Andrew Revkin, Keith Kloor, Michael Tobis, Gavin Schmidt, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke, etc. instead of wrestling with the real problems of energy, emissions, and adaptation.
So where you write, “Readers will just have to indulge me,” you’re missing something important. Readers don’t have to do anything. You are free to post what you want on your blog. But no one will read it if you don’t make it interesting. At the end of the day, are you more interested in indulging your pique with Romm or attracting people who want to learn something or subject their ideas to thoughtful criticism?
Keith (20): I see devoting an entry to mocking Romm as emulating his approach of going after people personally. Perhaps you don’t see it, but mocking Romm strikes me as destructive.
Jonathan:
Your point is well worth responding to. However, I do not see satire as the equivalent to Romm’s vicious attacks. It is very different from Michael Tobis, who can be cranky and obdurate, and the crew at RC who can be condescending an manipulative. Romm’s is pure political dialogue but within that dialogue there is a very troubling fanatical undercurrent that is for me scary.
Jonathan (22, 23),
I hear you.
But on the contrary, I hardly see anybody taking Romm to task for his behavior. Instead, as I pointed out, I see his tactics being tacitly endorsed via plaudits from Time magazine, Friedman, et al.
It’s because he’s taken quite seriously (if not by you) that I parody his tactics. Additionally, the parody is targeted just as much towards those folks as it is Romm.
Society needs rick throwers or boat rockers,how ever one wants to call characterize them. They cause us to stop and question the status quo, nothing wrong with that.
Intelligient boat rockers realize that once they’ve achieved a good airing of whatever grievance that they have it’s time to toss out the sandal’s and shorts,put way the rock’s, put on a suit and tie and calmly and confidently discuss solutions to the grievance.
As an example, if Martin Luther King had told Lyndon Johnson to ‘Shove his Civil Rights Act up his backside because it doesn’t go far enough’ I doubt we would have had a ‘Civil Rights Act’.
We don’t have Climate Legislation, everything that’s been rolled out ‘doesn’t go far enough’ and Joe Romm is the #1 voice on that matter.
Umm, Keith, as someone who has been far more guilty than you wrt Romm and others of his kidney, these guys are making what seem to be pretty valid points…
I have just read Romm’s bio on wiki. The only thing missing is his halo and nomination for the next Nobel. Then I looked at the discussion page. Fascinating.
(Keith. O/T. Have you mused about Wikipedia and climate science yet?)
Meh. I get Keith’s frustration with Romm, and with those who faithfully follow him. I get Keith’s post and what inspired it. I’m not going to criticise Keith or his post.
I’ll just ask Keith, if Romm had been a participant on this blog, and if one of us had posted as a comment what Keith posted as the head post.. would it have escaped moderation? 🙂
Tom (27), could you be more specific. Which guys or comments are you alluding to?
SimonH (29)-Fair question. Not sure. 1) Depends if it was relevant to the thread. 2) Would you be playing off what was written in the post and the person’s pattern of behavior?
I ask everyone to read the post I was mocking. It directly plays off that. But yeah, you might have a point. With respect to comment policy, Am I guilty of “Do as I say, not as I do”? Possibly.
Another thing I want to make clear because Tom Fuller (11) implies this might be personal with me. Let me say this: I don’t have any particular animus towards Romm. Yeah, he wrote one of his patented screeds against me last year, but I figure that comes with the territory. I was critical of him and he responded–with a blowtorch. Others in the climate blogosphere have been similarly scathing, usually in comment threads but also in some posts, as I’ve noted recently.
Again, in my profession, that comes with the territory. I don’t have anything against these people, either. They’re entitled to their opinion. Where I think something warrants a rebuttal, I do so, but I try to pick and choose my battles. I say my piece and move on. I don’t hold grudges. Even against Romm. Been there and done that long, long ago. Not healthy.
So the last thing I would want is for anyone to mistake my tweaking of Romm as some sort of personal vendetta. But I might reasonably be accused of tribalism. 🙂
Keith, FWIW, I’ll reiterate that I do get your point and I thoroughly enjoyed your parody. I’m not criticising it, or you, at all. I’m a fan of satire, honest.
The comment moderation question was just to suggest a vehicle for introspection – always healthy.
Hi Keith, I was referring to PDA, Paul and Jonathon. And I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I thought you were pursuing Romm out of personal animus. That would be me… not you.
I read Romm’s drivel before your piece, which made me enjoy your parody more. I just think the criticism that it doesn’t move the ball forward might have a point.
SimonH, I get you and I responded with an honest answer.
The thing is, if we’re having a serious discussion in a thread, playing off a serious post, then a satiric, mildly vulgar comment directed at another commenter would seem inappropriate.
But this is a stand-alone post, where the whole point was to satirize. Not sure if that makes a difference, of course.
Tom, okay, on the charge of this particular post not moving the ball forward, sure I agree with that. But jeez, I don’t imagine for a second that my posts or these threads can move the ball that much forward in the scheme of things–much less that this could or should happen with every single post.
Satire is useful as a tool for exposing and communicating specific characteristics (and perhaps character flaws) in your target, in an extremely effective and efficient way. Rather like a caricature sketch of a person emphasises physical features. Something always bugged me about Prince Charles. I couldn’t put my finger on it until I saw a caricature of him. He really DOES have big ears, doesn’t he?
I’m trying to distance my personal reaction to your parody (positive, thought it funny) with the larger scheme of things (where you’re already getting trashed for crossing over to the dark side by the usual gang of idiots).
We do need a forum where Bart and Tobis will still come by and talk through things with GaryM and Mosher. Sometimes I think that they look for excuses to write off people and places. There are times when I’m not sure they’re interested in really having a dialogue, despite their protestations.
Regarding Romm,
“Never interrupt your opponent when he’s making a mistake”
Some french guy
What’s the point in having your own blog if you can’t make fun of other people with it?
(And that’s my tongue you see in my cheek, not an impacted molar. I had those all removed by an Army dentist long ago. Want to talk about catastrophes…I actually bit the bastard. “Let me know if this hurts.” OK)
Romm’s style is more that of herding the faithful than making new converts. A little charm would go a long way.
OT: is it possible that the left or greens or CAGW proponents are ready to support a crash project to investigate whether liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR, pronounced “lifter”) are suitable (after investigation, engineering, testing, and commercialization) as a large source of electricity in the USA?
LFTR technology seems much safer and cheaper and less useful to terrorists than current nuclear power technology used in the USA for power generation. It uses thorium, which is very plentiful around the world. Evidently the LFTR technology actually consumes nuclear waste as fuel so that LFT reactors produce very little waste (orders of magnitude less).
Anyway, maybe LFTR might be a topic for a future thread. Maybe it is something that we can all agree on. Naah.
Keith
We know why you blog. It is to explore “the fault lines of environmental debates, where foundational causes ripple beneath, largely unseen.”
What I’m curious about is why you have such a hate on for Romm. Romm is what he is – strident, in your face, rude at times. For all that he is significantly more fact based than many climate blogs that don’t seem to get your knickers in such a knot.
The “civil debate” that you strive for is really enhanced by devoting a whole blog post to mocking Joe Romm?? Please don’t tell me that the “foundational causes rippling beneath” are nothing more than a hatred for JR….
(39) Steve Koch.
Greenpeace and WWF are totally against ANYTHING nuclear. Not even an option even if the world’s nations were to agree this is the only option (see). “Fusion” has too much nuclear waste. LFTR will only have a chance in 30-40 years… or when the CAGW advocates are taken back to their mothership.
The only thing they will want to see are Wind Farms and Photovoltaics.
Mobk (40):
There are three types of people that get my “knickers” up: ideologues, demagogues, and religious zealots.
So when I see rants that fit the first category, I sometimes point them out (scroll down to the Jeff Id part); when I see rants that fit in the second category, I sometimes point them out; when I see public policy or public education hijacked by people in the third category, I sometimes point it out.
Additionally, it’s interesting that you perceive this satiric post as evidence that I hate Romm. Granted, I’ve often been critical of Romm in this blog. But is that evidence that I “hate” him? Would you ask the same of Romm, since he’s written many scathing attacks on Revkin and others, such as Roger Pielke Jr. Do you think he hates them? I don’t think so, and I’m sure he would say the same thing.
At any rate, I think your larger question emanates from: why do I pick on Romm? It’s pretty simple: he influences the public debate, he has the ear of influentials, they cite him approvingly, either oblivious to his hyperbole or they must approve of it tacitly.
Lastly, I think he’s causing collateral damage with his nasty broadsides against otherwise well-intentioned journalists. He throws the baby out with the bath water. (I can continue to mix metaphors.) My point being, his harsh criticism is not proportional to the problems with the stories and journalists he seizes on. And similar to the way conservatives used to spit out “liberal media” in repetitive fashion (playing the refs), Romm et al do the same with their repetitive denouncing of mainstream media for its climate coverage (playing the refs.)
As a journalist, I take professional offense to that sort of demogoguery, be it from the right or the left.
Maybe I’m missing something. “…he influences the public debate, he has the ear of influentials, they cite him approvingly…”
Did Copenhagen get resurrected while I was away from the computer? Cap and trade just passed? Congress mandated the holy grail of zero carbon emissions?
The Keith Ubermann/Rachel Madcow style of “journalism” practiced at Climate Progress certainly is influencing the debate. But not in the direction the CAGW activists hoped for. Every major initiative favored by the ranters is on life support at best. And those “influentials,” they appear to be about to get the biggest electoral drubbing of my all too long lifetime.
I am as fond of kicking a loud mouthed, obnoxious progressive when he’s down as the next guy. But outside the echo chamber of the left side of the climate debate, it’s become a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing, but political impotence. You think he’s obnoxious now, wait til November.
Keith (30), But I might reasonably be accused of tribalism.
Ok Keith, so what tribe are you in? My impression is you feel you are on the same side as Romm and his tactics are hurting your common cause. But where does that leave in the tribe? I have to wonder if you were on marooned on that island instead of Judith Curry if you wouldn’t find yourself an outcast as well. If we were all on that island we might find the AGW tribe on one end, the skeptic tribe on the other and in the middle the rest of us, the vast majority actually working together. No enforcer needed. 😉
Welcome back.
I don’t know where Keith stands, but I’m a liberal Dem and I hate what Romm is doing to my side. Come to think of it, there’s a lot of people on my side that are not doing us any favors.
What about the other side? Do you have a few people you want to lose? Maybe we can do a trade with a draft pick to be named later…
The closest I can come is Ann Coulter. She talks about liberals the way they have been talking about conservatives since I can remember. You can have Christopher Hitchens back if you like, but he sure is fun to read, no matter who he is looking down on. But we’re keeping Dennis Miller.
Tom,
You gave me a chuckle. I’m not looking for excuses. I’m a free man and don’t need an excuse for commenting or not commenting. Your argument is not served by implying such motives on my part.
GaryM (43):
I said he influenced the debate, not the outcome.
JimR (44): I was referring to the journalism tribe.
Tom and Gary:
You mean something like “Fantasy Punditry”. We will need to construct some kind of scoring system – a nastiness index, a foot-in-the-mouth score, a Godwin score, … I can see an entire 2 minutes spent on this every Sunday Morning!
I think a little light hearted satire is good for the climate debate. Speaking as an ‘environmentalist’, ‘green’, whatever, I think the often humorless nature of the debate is what turns most people off to climate change and environmental issues in general; and there is no one I can think of with less of a sense of humor than Joe Romm.
If Romm were to do a satirical piece such as this making fun of Keith, I would respect him more (sorry keith), but in reality he is going to claim grave offense and go on a 3,000 word rant with lots of paragraphs in bold and compare you to hitler. However serious you think climate change is, NOTHING in the world is worth being a humorless dick all the time; if you can’t have some fun, you’ve lost at the game of life.
Keith, pretty funny. Of course the other person who uses humor in discussing the climate issue is Marc Morano. Actually I think humor is more effective than the rants.
How can CAGW alarmism stand against Josh!!!
http://climateaudit.org/2010/07/18/cartoons-by-josh-the-three-stooges/
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/28/josh-25-jude-of-arc.html
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/2/28/josh-6.html
Joe who?
No! No! Don’t tell me! I don’t think I want to know!
Glad you’re back KK!
Of course the other person who uses humor in discussing the climate issue is Marc Morano. Actually I think humor is more effective than the rants.
“Ecotards!” Hilarious”¦ and effective, unquestionably.
Judith,
Marc does have a sense of humor. However, the endless drumbeat of bold-faced headlines attesting to hoaxes, scams, cons, etc lends itself to parody, as well. He’s definitely good with graphics. But I’d say that Marc, along with the Moncktons on that side, go way overboard, which won’t win them any converts to their cause. But I’m sure it reinforces existing beliefs, which I think is what Romm does best, too.
Romm gets flack for his his selective moderation, so he gets props for letting this one through on the Revkin thread:
You are oblivious to the fact that rabid rants like this do nothing for your credibility, but great harm to the cause.
Revkin has his faults, but I’d trust him. I wouldn’t trust you with a bag of peanuts.
Marc doesn’t actually write much. He mostly writes a headline plus a little blurb and links to the article (even fewer words than InstaPundit). The articles that he links to are interesting and win converts (or at least create doubt). It turns out that there are many interesting articles that are, at least partially, poking holes in CAGW. Many, many meteorologists are anti CAGW and are now speaking up. At this point meteorologists probably have more credibility than climatologists.
Keith, maybe it’s just my lack of appreciation of American humour, but you appear to have turned into a 5 year old. Joe Romm may well often be over-zealous in his personal criticism and he hardly hides his politics, but his tirades are consistently backed up by facts and references and I certainly can’t think of him ever posting anything as crass as this.
Maybe you and others commenting here are judging Joe’s actions by your own standards, but I’ll judge him by mine and trust that his motivations really are what he says they are.
Steve Koch (57), Morano is very skilled at what he does. Sometimes, he goes off message, and sometimes, well, he aint what you imagined.
Heraclitus (58), I can appreciate that not everyone will care for this type of post, irrespective of where they stand on the issues. But I’m sorry, I have to disagree with you that Romm’s screechy posts against Revkin and others are always backed up by facts. I also speak from experience.
As for Romm not posting anything as crass as this post, hmm, I happen to think crass comes in various forms. Willful distortion of someone’s position and character assasination (see here and here for a perspective of Romm from one of his main targets) counts as crass in my book.
Keith
Granted my use of “hate” was a little over the top. I have no idea how you feel “personally” about Joe Romm. That said it wasn’t long after I started visiting your site that I realized JR was one of your bete noires.
“Would you ask the same of Romm, since he’s written many scathing attacks on Revkin and others, such as Roger Pielke Jr. Do you think he hates them? “
I read Climate Progress from time to time as I actually find there is some good stuff there. However what I find most offputting about CP is precisely the rants about people like RPJ and Revkin. In particular the pissing matches between JR and RPJ are beyond weird. Would I ask the same of Romm? I would – but I probably wouldn’t get as polite a reply as I got from you 🙂
Keith,
Maybe you better watch out. Look at what the nut case who tried to take over the Discovery Channel was writing two years ago.
“In a January 2008 post, the man, using the screen name misterfifteen, explains that he specifically targeted Discovery because he believes its identification with environmentalism is a sham:
‘Discovery is hugely responsible for what is happening and their ineffective programming must be protested and dealt with. The time for pussy-footing around the subject is done. It’s time to protest them until they start changing their stupid message. They ARE glorifying the damned fishermen who are overfishing the planet and I would think that you would see that for yourself instead of defending them.'”
The Discovery Channel? He wanted to blow them up because of The Deadliest Catch? If the Discovery Channel is a target, what chance do luke warmers have? (But God bless Darwin for taking him out of the gene pool.)
Hey, I thought the violent types were in the Tea Party?
Moreno may be skilled but he does not write much. He writes a headline and maybe writes a 1 sentence teaser but you have to click through the link to really understand the story. I guess that is a skill. Very frequently he doesn’t even write the 1 sentence teaser but just has a quote from the article. He aggregates articles that undermine the CAGW narrative. Moreno is a propagandist, like Romm, but the stories to which he links are still interesting.
If Romm (and others) can blame CAGW for any and seemingly every extreme weather event, and at the same time denounce people who disagree with such hyperbole, can I blame him (and others) for the behavior of James Lee?
(serious question)
“KK
You are absolutely right about this (“I see his tactics being tacitly endorsed…”).
Romm deserves attack simply for the reason that it is embarrassing to tell anyone at this point that one participates in the climate change debate. That would mean them thinking that we take Romm seriously.
Serious answer:
No.
Crazy is crazy, and afflicts people of every political affiliation.
TerryMN (63):
This guy at the Discovery channel sounds seriously disturbed. There’s angry rhetoric all over the web, radio and tv, from the Right & left (though the truly whackjob stuff seems to emanate from Beck these days–he’s giving El Rushbo a run for his money). So you gonna blame Beck & Limbaugh for the actions of a similarly deranged person who might pull a same stunt one day?
Do I think it’s possible to create a hostile, hateful climate that triggers some individuals to deranged behavior? Sure. But tying this Discovery lunatic to Romm? Not a chance, especially since Romm doesn’t even talk about population issues (he thinks that train has already left the station and he’s right about that.)
At any rate, I categorically reject such insinuations that Romm could somehow be responsible for the actions of this guy today.
“At this point meteorologists probably have more credibility than climatologists”
… for fools
A maniac tries to kill people in the name of rabid environmentalism. I (one of the few admitted conservatives commenting on this blog) say it is inappropriate to blame the whack job on the ranters on the environmental left, and our fair moderator turns it into an opportunity for another bout of liberal Tourettes.
How in the hell this nut job’s psychotic behavior translates in some minds into an argument about the “truly whackjob stuff” coming from Limbaugh and Beck blows my mind. At times I wonder if there is any point in even talking to some people.
Talk about mindless group think.
GaryM, try reading Keith’s comment again. You’re making the exact same point.
PDA,
It gets tiresome having people tell me to “try reading” something just because they disagree with my criticism of it. Try, just try, not to assume that the people you disagree with are stupid or illiterate. It gets really tiresome.
To use your own words, try reading what I wrote, not what you want to think I wrote. My comment is not the exact same point. My answer to TerryMN was simply “No.” Where did I write “No, but the truly whackjob stuff is coming from Barack Obama, should we blame him?”
The truth is that allegations like TerryMN’s are made against conservatives all the time. Think Nancy Pelosi blaming conservatives for the murder of Harvey Milk (who was killed by a Democrat), or Democrats in general blaming the Kennedy assassination on conservatives (when he was killed by a confirmed communist), or the Unibomber (another bright green leftist light). But I left it alone, simply dealing with the insanity of the moron at hand.
I know liberals are tone deaf to this stuff when they spout it themselves. That is why I sometimes have to chuckle at the high dudgeon so many of you show at a Joe Romm when the bile is directed at you. But sometimes I just lose patience with the constant need liberal skeptics/luke warmers have to show their liberal bona fides. So sue me.
To be fair, I wasn’t making an allegation – just an (admittedly controversial) question. I don’t blame Romm for the actions of a lunatic. But sometimes, to me, it seems like people like James Lee are/were being “called to action” with some of the rhetoric in this debate. I can give examples, if needed. Anyway, just an observation (via question), albeit maybe one an over-provocative one for the thread at hand. Glad to see you back btw, Keith!
There is an extraneous “one” in my penultimate sentence (the first). My bad, please disregard/strike.
GaryM,
You said “Crazy is crazy, and affects people of every political affiliation.”
Keith said “There’s angry rhetoric all over the web, radio and tv, from the Right & left”
The only difference between your comment and Keith’s is that he names a specific person associated the right. That was all it took for you to come out swinging.
You were the one – you, GaryM – who brought James Lee into this thread. Preach at me if you want from your imagined high horse.
You were the one ““ you, GaryM ““ who brought James Lee into this thread. Preach at me if you want from your imagined high horse.
PDA -that was me.
Was there a similar conversation back in March when the Argentinian couple shot their two children and then themselves out of despair over global warming?
I am intrigued by the reaction to the Discovery channel story from Joe Romm and Anthony Watts. Here’s my post. Let’s move the discussion over there, if people are interested.
Keith #59 – Your demonstration of Joe’s crass posting appears to be a couple of posts from the Breakthrough blog – I’m not sure that someone else’s opinion of him is good justification of your point. Can you not direct me to anything more obvious in his own posts? I’ve only been reading Climate Progress for a year or two, so maybe I’ve missed something. I’ve looked again at the recent post on Andy Revkin and I can’t see many points he makes that aren’t justified, whether or not you fully agree with those justifications.
What with your latest post above you appear to be becoming slightly obsessed by personality (well, a personality).
Lazar Says:
September 1st, 2010 at 8:09 pm
“At this point meteorologists probably have more credibility than climatologists”“¦ for fools
Lazar,
It is cowardly and childish to attack someone anonymously. I’m surprised that KK did not challenge your cowardly and childish attack, especially since this site seeks to be a place where respectful, mature conversation can occur without childish insults.
Meteorologists predict the weather for a living and their performance can easily be judged on a daily basis. When a meteorologist predicts rain tomorrow, most of us modify our plans accordingly (for example, carry an umbrella). The predictions of meteorologists have credibility and can easily be tested for accuracy.
Climatologists predictions are very difficult to test and are much less trusted. When a climatologist makes a prediction that x is going to happen in 35 years, it is greeted with a “whatever” by a large segment of the population.
There is no doubt that the prediction problems of meteorologists are orders of magnitude easier than the predictions of climatologist, therefore meteorologists’ predictions are more accurate and trustworthy than climatologists’ predictions.
Steve Koch,
You missed the context of the claim to which I was responding…
“Many, many meteorologists are anti CAGW and are now speaking up. At this point meteorologists probably have more credibility than climatologists.”
The comment seemed to imply that meteorologists have more credibility on climate science than climate scientists… which is foolish… pointing out that such a belief is foolish is not childish (it is a rational rather than an emotional response)… it is not an “attack”… as for “anonymously” and “cowardly”… I really couldn’t care if that is how it is perceived…
If you wish to change or clarify your comment to…
“There is no doubt that the prediction problems of meteorologists are orders of magnitude easier than the predictions of climatologist, therefore meteorologists’ predictions are more accurate and trustworthy than climatologists’ predictions.”
… I do not think the above is foolish… but I disagree that meteorology is less complex than climate science… at least in terms of the amount of study required… how you gonna measure complexity?… and I disagree with the generality of the claim “meteorologists’ predictions are more accurate and trustworthy than climatologists’ predictions”… I would trust a prediction of the global average surface temperature change due to changes in boundary conditions, or a prediction of the increase in atmospheric water vapor under a given forcing, more than a prediction of the weather a month, or even seven days in advance.
Regarding politeness… excess politeness as well as excess incivility can hinder a discussion… relative to what the goals of the discussion are… the politeness of Collide-a-scape makes it a useful forum for ‘people-hunters’ to study and collect thoughts and language… note the emphasis on philosophical and semantic points in this forum… the politeness is also a deterrent to most of those who have technical ability in science… because they can’t tolerate fools… note the lack of technical discussion in this forum… neither emphasis is right or wrong… it just depends what you, or rather, Keith Kloor, wants…
TerryMN, nope: GaryM‘s 61 was before your 63.
Keith, we get it. You have a hard-on for Joe Romm. Christ on a pogo stick, move on, please.
As for Marc Morano’s site (which Judith Curry finds funny…that’s *funny*), this one does the aggregation thing too, and is wittier by far:
http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/
And this funny one’s not a headline/quote aggregator, it’s just brilliant:
http://theclimatescum.blogspot.com
Nice parody on Romm, thanks. Following your link, I found his braggart postings preposterous. In particular, I was intrigued by his qualifications as a physicist, so I made a probe:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/29/climate-progress-why-i-blog/#comment-294408
It was a surprise that it was published. Three regulars jumped on me. Needless to say that all my subsequent innocent attempts were censored out:
Al Tekhasski says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
September 2, 2010 at 3:35 pm
Joe, I did not say anything about misrepresentation or else. I did read your bio, but did not find the information I want. I just want to know what your background in physics is, which topics you are familiar with at professional level, to find a proper level of communication on your blog.
And another attempt was unsuccessful too:
#66: I totally agree that one needs a solid working knowledge of physics to get involved in climate “communication issues”. Please note that the applied problem as “climate change” involves several diverse disciplines. Failure of one “leg” of climate problem to be treated properly makes the entire solution questionable. What I am asking is to illustrate the presence of this wide background, that’s all.
=== === ===
Joe seems to be quite concern about inflation of his scientific credentials. Very funny.
Well I thought the post was a nice bit of humorous satire.
Maybe there’s a cultural difference, but in Oz when someone stands up for their own perfection and rightousness the way Romm does he is not asking, but begging to be satirised.
Setting yourself up as the fount of all wisdom as Romm does is seen as the equivilent of walking around a golf driving range carrying a sign saying “I bet you can’t hit me”. 🙂
I clicked on the a link in the blogroll and wound up browsing to this site #mce_temp_url# .
On their blogroll, they have a category towards the bottom “OTHER VOICES – ‘SKEPTICS’, INDUSTRY, MARGINALIZED VIEWS”
Besides the unapologetic bias, one of the blogs listed in the category is http://rabett.blogspot.com/ . Since when are Eli and the “Bunnies” considered “skeptics?” Fictional characters perhaps. Could the quirky 3rd person narrative style have been perceived as satire?
(and when will I become proficient at HTML? I used the little icon, 3rd from the right. Oh well!)
Oh dear! Neither one of my links turned out!
The site is Nature Blog that listed Eli’s blog as “Skeptic”