Joe Romm Throws (Another) Fit

December 22nd, 2008

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

I’d like to ignore Joe Romm, but when someone repeatedly slanders you on their widely read blog, setting the record straight seems like the least bad option. So here goes . . .

In his most recent fit, Romm gets upset because I have taken issue with how John Holdren, Obama’s pick to be Science Advisor, has at times characterized the relationship of science and politics. In The Honest Broker (which by the way, would make for a great stocking stuffer;-) I also take issue with the role that Holdren (and other prominent scientists) played in attacking The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg — not due to the substantive disagreements they had with Lomborg, but because of how the equated views on science with views on politics.

Joe apparently sees himself as a “thug,” smearing, sliming, and spreading lies about anyone who departs from his version of political reality. This is a shame because there are important issues behind Joe’s black and white view of the world. For example, he asks:

And what does Pielke mean by saying “because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views”?

This is a very fair question. But since Romm has encouraged people not to read my work, where I explain this in depth (see The Honest Broker), here is a capsule summary. Ironically enough, in a subsequent post on Climate Progress by Dave Roberts, the same claim is made (emphasis in original):

given the state of the world today a scientific temperament leads inexorably to progressive environmentalism

Roberts and Romm (who applauds these views as editor) of course mean that science leads to their shared political take on progressive environmentalism. But what of others who see themselves as progressive environmentalists? Like Nordhaus, Shelleberger, Rayner, Sarewitz, Laird, Prins, Green, myself and others? We also think that our views are amply supported by science and analyses, yet we differ starkly from Romm’s “end of days” fearmongering and support of politically impossible action on energy policy.

And this is exactly the problem that Romm fails to see, and for which I was critiquing Holdren’s views on science and politics. The “facts” do not determine whose political views are right and whose are wrong. Saying that science “inexorably” leads into a certain political direction is just wrong, and introduces a set of pathologies into the policy process. It leads people to the mindless tribalism and unsupportable claims to absolute certainty about science, as often displayed by Romm.

As his fit winds up, Romm shows that he is either willfully misinformed or just lying to support his ad hom’s when he writes (bold in original):

Pielke absolutely refuses to detail the specific policies he would embrace to stabilize at concentrations he says are needed

Geez Joe, how’d you miss those peer-reviewed papers, op-eds, Congressional testimony, and five years of blogging on climate policy? Luckily, I just assembled some of my various writings on mitigation policy here.

Finally, Joe coins a cute new nickname for me:

Pielke is a Delayer-eq, he is equivalent to a Delayer because he attacks any and all scientists who propose not delaying. Indeed, perhaps a better term is Delayer10F-eq . . .

Um, OK Joe. He’ll never be confused with Chris Berman, that is for certain;-)

Let me end by wishing Joe Romm and everyone else a happy holiday!!

13 Responses to “Joe Romm Throws (Another) Fit”

    1
  1. brian b Says:

    Roger,

    I’ve been meaning to ask you about cap and trade. I understand the various points you’ve made about why cap and trade is likely to fail, but I wonder how your arguments would change for other applications. Wasn’t a cap and trade approach used successfully on CFCs? How is the GHG problem different?

  2. 2
  3. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Brian B-

    No cap and trade was not used for CFCs. It was for “acid rain” caused by emissions from power plants.

    The short answer is that the GHg issue and acid rain are vastly different, most importantly the technology need for cleaning up air pollution from coal was available as was the ability to readily shift to cleaner types of coal. Neither circumstance is the case with respect to GHGs.

    I have on my list to discuss why the case of acid rain is not a good analogue for GHGs with respect to cap and trade and will get to this early in the new year!

  4. 3
  5. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Joe Romm is one weird guy:

    http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/22/finally-roger-pielke-admits-he-supports-policies-that-will-take-us-to-5-7%C2%B0c-warming-or-more/

  6. 4
  7. CoRev Says:

    Roger, I have stopped going to and logging any of his articles. He is so abusive, I don’t want any of my readers to be abused or ridiculed by him.

  8. 5
  9. Saint Says:

    Roger: Accuracy and argument don’t seem to have much of an impact over at Climate Progress. I’ve gone on Romm’s blog before to correct his many errors, and of course was treated to the ritual name-calling. I wouldn’t mind so much if he had something interesting to say. As you’ve experienced yourself, Roger, he invariably defends untenable positions with all the determination of someone unwilling or unable to admit error. Either way, it’s not very enlightening. Indeed, so careless is he with the facts, I’ve taken to calling him “Sloppy Joe” and now give his echo chamber a wide berth.

  10. 6
  11. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    I may put this gem from Romm up on my office door;-)

    “Following Pielke’s “specific policies” would inevitably result in the self-destruction of humanity as we know it. “

  12. 7
  13. Sylvain Says:

    I find it amazing how extremist like Romm treat people that share partly the same view, instead of going after those that disagree with him.

    Action on climate have been delayed by people like him, I mean fanatics, and not by more moderate people, like you. By wanting to score all their point with one grand slam, instead of one at a time, they give the all the chances to other to show the flaws of their position.

    If it wasn’t for such fanatics, who reject any action that they don’t agree with under the pretense that it is not enough, there would have been a lot more that would have been done.

    I guess it is easier to blame others for our own failure.

  14. 8
  15. brian b Says:

    Roger,

    Thanks for correcting my misunderstanding. I look forward to seeing your future comments on the analysis of cap and trade as applied to acid rain and the implications for GHG mitigation.

  16. 9
  17. Roger Pielke, Jr. Says:

    Sylvain-

    I see that Joe Romm deleted your second comment on his site (but not before I had seen it) ;-)

  18. 10
  19. Sylvain Says:

    Looking at how RC, Joe Romm and Deltoïd are handling the other side comments, is there any reason why anyone would take those guys seriously.

  20. 11
  21. Raven Says:

    I left this on Joe’s blog – let’s see if it gets posted.

    Joe,

    You just don’t get it. There is a limit to the number of people that are going to buy into your kind of disaster mongering and those people are already fully supportive of aggressive action. However, the majority of the population is much less credulous and understands the issue is more complex than you would like to believe.

    Roger’s moderate and sensible approach will reach more people than your fire and brimstone ever will. In my own case, Roger’s arguments have convinced me to reconsider my position on a modest carbon tax provided the proceeds are spent on renewables and R&D.

    I realize you are probably feeling pretty confident with Obama and his cabinet picks but you may want to take a look at what happened to Rudd in Australia after his debut at Bali. The recent developments in EU also don’t bode well for progress on emissions cuts. To make matters worse, China is starting to send signals that it will not be able to keep buying US treasuries at the rate which will put severe financial constraints on Obama administration. I am willing to bet that aggressive action on climate will be pretty low on the list of priorities when it comes time to make spending choices.

    The bottom line is you will likely find that Roger’s recommendations will be the only way to achieve any progress on this issue and insisting on more will simply give people an excuse to be fatalistic (i.e. there is nothing we can do so we shouldn’t even bother trying).

  22. 12
  23. PaddikJ Says:

    I made it about half-way through Romm’s tirade – the ranting, bald assertions, name-calling & apocalyptic pronouncements are entertaining for a short while, but quickly grow b o r i n g. Reminds me of the old Billy Joel song, “The Angry Young Man”:

    But his honor is pure and his courage as well,
    And he’s fair and he’s true and he’s boring as hell-
    And he’ll go to the grave as an angry old man.

  24. 13
  25. Climate Progress » Blog Archive » Finally, Roger Pielke admits he supports policies that will take us to 5-7°C warming or more Says:

    [...] published what he says is a “setting the record straight” piece, but he never actually disputes my criticism. The bottom line for Pielke, like Tierney [...]