Now Revkin is a Denier
January 26th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Maybe Joe Romm’s employers over at the Center for American Progress have a vision for how his tantrums and fits serve their interests on advancing climate policy. I certainly can’t see how his antics do anything more than paint the CAP as a hotbed for intolerance and ignorance. In Joe’s latest rant he calls the NYTs Andy Revkin a climate denier, or I think he does, as Joe speaks a language unto himself. Here is an excerpt (emphasis added):
Andy asserts:
I’ve been the most prominent communicator out there saying the most established aspects of the issue of human-driven climate change lie between the poles of catastrophe and hoax.
Following that shockingly un-scientific statement, he includes the link to his 2007 piece, “A New Middle Stance Emerges in Debate over Climate,” that touts the views of Roger A. Pielke Jr., of all people! The “middle stance” is apparently just the old denier do-nothing stance with a smile, a token nod to science, and a $5 a ton CO2 tax [which is why I call them denier-eq’s]
Joe’s strategy of tarring those who hold reasonable views as deniers is re-enforced when he takes Revkin to task for having the gall to discuss climate politics in his reporting:
Uhh, Andy, you’re the science reporter, not the political reporter.
Joe’s strategy is one that I explain in The Honest Broker: by collapsing political debates onto science one can then try to impeach the political views in terms of science. This explains Joe’s constant use of the term “denier” which is usually a term used to impeach via Holocaust symbolism those who don’t accept the consensus views on climate science.
Of course the problem for Joe is that Revkin (as well as me) have always accepted the consensus views on science. More than anyone else Revkin is probably responsible for broadly disseminating those views via his reporting, and has been routinely criticized by those skeptical for not taking a more skeptical view himself.
So Romm’s attacks collapse in a heap of intellectual incoherence. A “denier” is thus anyone whose views on the science differ from Joe’s views (whose views on climate science are indeed unique) and thus because his opponent’s views on science are wrong, he can then dismiss their political views with the sweeping contempt of “denier.” Thus, because Revkin works from the scientific consensus on climate change he is thus a “denier” or in Joe’s special language a “denier-eq.” Thus, Joe can them proceed to impeach Andy’s identification of a wide-ranging debate on climate policy among people who want action. Joe would prefer that no views other than his own receive attention, thus the frequent juvenile blog tantrums and fits.
So if the Center for American Progress envisions Joe painting their organization into a small corner where nuance, debate, and above all a range of views of climate policy are not allowed, then they are succeeding beyond wildest expectations, and Romm is not only marginalizing himself, but the institution that pays his salary.
January 26th, 2009 at 9:28 am
The Holocaust actually happened – it wasn’t an unverifiable computer modelled projection. If there are ‘Nazis’ in the climate debate, then they aren’t to be found in the ‘denier’ camp.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Don’t be silly, Roger.
I don’t call Andy a denier, as anybody who reads my post can tell. He is a serious journalist.
Contrary to whatever point you were making, he is a science reporter, indeed he is the NYT’s lead reporter on climate science. If he is going to do political analysis, he should do what the NYT and every other major media outlet does when a reporter writes analysis — they say it is analysis.
But that is really a side issue. Some day, perhaps, you will explain it whether you believe that on our current emissions path we are headed toward ” irreversible catastrophe” as Obama put it today. And if so, doesn’t that warrant more than $5 a ton of CO2.
Some day.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
It would seem that the pronoun “them” in the bracketed “which is why I call them denier-eq’s” would refer back to the antecedents “he” (Revkin) and Roger A. Pielke Jr. If you did not intend to call Pielke Jr. and Revkin denier equivalents (which is the same thing as calling them deniers-that’s what equivalent means) then you might be a little more explicit as to whom you’re referring when you say “them.” I’m not saying that my grammar is flawless or that I never structure my sentences in a confusing manner, but I wouldn’t fault anyone who read your post for believing that you did call Andy a denier.
January 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Joe,
In the first paragraph, you appear to say those who support the middle stance are “denier-eq”, you name two people. However, a reader might think your only calling Roger the denier-eq.
In the second you say Andy Revkin is pushing he middle stance. As you just defined those pushing the middle as “denier-eq”, many readers would believe you place Andy in that group.
I noticed you posted 5 extremely long articles, and it’s barely 2pm. You must type like the wind!
January 26th, 2009 at 1:06 pm
What bend and lucia said. That’s exactly the way I read it.
If “them” refers to only one of “he” and Roger Pielke Jr., then it should not have been “them”.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:33 am
Joe – Why spend even $1 on a non-problem? When did CO2, even when its atmospheric concentration was thousands of ppmv, cause a catastrophe or an ‘irreversible catastrophe?’