24 October 2009

Joe Romm's Latest 3,500 Words on Me

If you'd like to see the dynamics that I describe here in action, have a look at Joe Romm's latest fit. I encourage everyone to have a look. Maybe I touched a nerve? ;-) It is sure going to be fun when my book comes out, stay tuned!

Let me add that for those visiting here for the first time, wanting to see what all the hubbub is about, you can find my publications -- peer-reviewed and otherwise -- at this link. If you have questions about any of this work, or specifically about any of my views, please use this thread to ask, I'm happy to answer.


  1. Roger,
    Since most of the global warming arguments evaluate to appeals to authority; I’ll comment on this thread with an appeal to the wisdom of George Bernard Shaw.

    Never wrestle with a pig, you get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

  2. Can we have an ultimate cage fight and put it on pay-per-view?

    Poor Romm...
    He has mindless celebrities and over the top shameless government bureaucrats on his side.

    But, the climate just is not cooperating with his hysteria mongering.

    And, with every passing day, more evidence comes out debunking his doomsday religious cult.

    Where will Romm direct his next ad hominem attack -- at the climate itself? I can see Romm screaming it from the rooftops now (hands shaking, face red and veins popping):

    “The global climate is an AGW Hysteria DENIER!”

    I can hardly wait. Old Joe and his sidekicks James Hansen and Al Gore are sillier than The Three Stooges.

  3. In response to Joe's claim, exactly what is the consensus position on extreme weather events and did you agree to a consensus position that there is some discernible increase in extreme weather events (as distinct from monetary disaster losses) or not?

    Second question. Has the scientific community actually presented any statistical evidence for any increase in extreme weather events or do they rely on insurance companies for that? I've only ever seen bald innuendo with no presentations of long term trends (excepting hurricanes). The data I've looked at show no extreme weather event trends anywhere so there could hardly be a human footprint but surely someone else has noticed this? Surely all this needs to be thoroughly thrashed out as an issue to stop people claiming this that or the next weather event is, or is not, evidence of climate change?

  4. Roger what does Romm have to lose if the IPCC and adherents are not right? This personal invective has me baffled. Science is always evolving what was true today may not be tomorrow. My favorite is the Alvarez's who turned dinosaur palentology on its head.

  5. Mr. Pielke:

    Believe you fully realize that Joe Romm and Al Gore and their particular followers are clearly Political Scientists. What occurs from time-to-time, is that Political Science morphs into a quasi-religion. The Political Science quasi-religion in this particular case tries to validate itself through one sided science and makes the bold statement that “the debate is over”.

    The mere fact you are being vilified by these people is a perfect signal that you have many valid points. When they can not overcome your points with valid arguments, the vilification begins. Recognize the song, just a different beat?

    Krugman and DeLong merely take the Political Science quasi-religion and attempt to make Political-Economy arguments. However, Krugman and DeLong are Super Keynesians who have run out of ideas a long, long time ago. Krugman and DeLong spend more time attempting to attract attention to themselves than putting forth any sound Economic Policy arguments.

    Maybe Hunter S. Thompson put it best in regards to Romm, Gore, Krugman, and DeLong: “When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro”.

  6. I have posted this at Joe's blog but it will no doubt be censored.

    Sorry Joe,

    But I don't know how anyone can give you any credibility. In my eyes you have none while Pielke jr stands high. Understand that you lost you the little credibility you had in my eye after you censored one of my comment, that you must have disagreed with, but had no argument to refute it.

    Because of people like you, I am a proud denier, while I will fight almost every you say, I did agree with many policy action propose by Pielke jr.

    As I said before with people like you Exxon doesn't have to fear that any policy will get enforced anytime soon. I guess that you are the most valuable player in the hand of deniers like me. So keep bashing on people that share your opinion that AGW is real.

    (You will probably erase this comment like you did other of mine in the last year, anyway I'm posting the same at Pielke).

  7. As I postulated in my previous comment JR censored my comment on his blog.

    Not sure why.

  8. Sylvain:

    The web site you are posting to is part of The Center for American Progress. They will never allow a post that does not fit/applaud their agenda.

    You see, The Center for American Progress is all about "agenda".

    Since The Center for American Progress is about and lurking, will go get some reinforcements as Pielke is going to need them.

  9. I counted 265 publications. Not bad.

  10. Oh my. I posted a rather lengthy post critical of both your rhetoric/conduct and his, and they censor it. I guess we know who is the honest dog in this fight.

  11. Hey Roger,

    Romm's promoted you to Swift Boater status.


    Of course it might mean more if he could read.

    His inability to grasp the distinction between saying...

    "Clearly since 1970 climate change (i.e., defined as by the IPCC to include all sources of change) has shaped the disaster loss record."

    ...and saying CO2 is causing the current disaster loss record, well, does not bode well for Romm's hold on rational discourse.

    Oh, and of course, you once botched a Google search which, as everybody knows, invalidates all your peer reviewed research. (As Romm believes the internet is telling him.)

    So, Roger, keep that in mind when you have your next post-tenure review.

  12. The depth of Romm's desperation is clearly evident in his pathetic, childish bleatings.

    When you are fighting for a lost cause, when you have no real arguments, no logical basis for your position, you end up trying to drag you opposition down into the slime pit where your comfort zone is.

    Still means Romm is gone past pathetic and is rapidly approaching permanently Stuck-on-Stupid.

  13. The most debunked? Golly Roger, you must be proud!

  14. I still maintain Climate Proress & Real Climate are the equivalent of double agents secretly working for big oil & king coal. How else do you explain their clumsy arguments?

  15. Too funny. Last week I wrote this:

    "Perhaps a better line of attack would be to categorize me as a denier because I deny being a denier."


    Just seen over at ClimateProgress in the comments:

    “He [Pielke Jr.] even denies being a Denier!”

    That’s the quote of the day.


  16. -3-jgdes

    You can see the consensus statements from the Hohenkammer Workshop here:


    I am happy to address any questions about it.

    Your second question is really best addressed in the context of specific phenomena in specific places over specific periods. The IPCC engages in two important tasks with respect to documenting changes in climate and ascribing cause -- detection (of a change exceeding documented variability over a period 30-50 years) and attribution (to specific causes). Both are exceptionally challenging in the case of extremes.

  17. -10-T. Greer

    Feel free to post your removed comments here.

  18. Ok, I see now. It seems Romm is mistaking the phrase "climate change" for "Anthropogenic climate change". I daresay that's natural if you only read that one line in the consensus statement and ignore the rest. And you maintain that Evans peer-reviewed publication is mere speculation citing other speculations rather than a scientific attribution analysis. And it's clear now that the IPCC doesn't do attribution either. So it's fair to say that the whole idea of increasing anthropogenic-induced freak weather is based on opinion that it should be happening rather than any observations that it is.

    But you really weren't helped by your collaborator Peter Höppe, saying: "Climate change may not be the dominant factor, but it has become clear that a relevant portion of damages can be attributed to global warming" just after the had signed a statement claiming attribution wasn't possible. Now that would confuse anyone! He basically ignored what he wrote and invented something else for the press. So this is all pure politics - ie violence, duplicity and frequent malversation - nothing whatsoever to do with any science on extreme weather event trends. Gawdelpus!

  19. -19-jgdes

    You have it basically right, however, Nature did run a correction on their story:

    "*Roger Pielke Jr. has noted on his blog, Prometheus [link here], that his quote to Nature’s reporter read, in its entirety: “Clearly since 1970 climate change (i.e., defined as by the IPCC to include all sources of change) has shaped the disaster loss record.” Pielke further notes that the terms “climate change” and “global warming” are not interchangeable. Nature regrets the confusion. – Eds”"

    I don't think Romm notes that Nature ran a correction. I have posted up the entire statement in a subsequent post.

  20. See the comments I made at the time:


  21. Rober, do you disable pasting into your comments for some reason? I was going to make a convenience link of the URL above, but find I can't paste it.

  22. -22-StY

    No, there is apparently a problem with some browsers and Blogger. Someone once told me a workaround to get this to work when having this problem, and maybe they'll reply here. Sorry.

  23. I know this is considered to be the great scientific debate of our times, but his "war" justs proves that it is not turtles, but charlie uniform november tango's all the way down.

  24. That was me. What I do is type a letter or two at first and then preview it- at that point you have a choice to edit your entry. At that point, I have been able to copy and paste. I use Firefox.

  25. -23-Roger,

    1) I have experienced (and worked around) the same issue. Lately it has been intermittent. At the moment, I am not experiencing the problem. Blogger.com might be well on the way to correcting it.

    Your problem may fall under this known issue:

    “If you have a customized template or have inserted some 3rd party code into your template, your embedded comment form may not appear as normal.”

    If I am not mistaken, your “Recent Comments” widget is “3rd party code”.

    2) Meantime, one solution might be to revise your settings.

    From your “Dashboard”, select Settings, Comments, Full page (rather than “Embedded below post”). Among those sites (such as mine) which use that option, I have never had a problem.

    3) With your current settings, I often have to right click over the comments area, select “This Frame” & “Open frame in new tab”. I have to do that repeatedly for every step through the process of posting a comment. This requires at least three new tabs to be opened for each comment.

  26. Roger,

    FYI, I just changed my settings to "Embedded below post" (see my previous comment).

    I like that option better. I'll see how it works on my site.

  27. Romm is a character assassin. Anyone who disagrees with his worldview gets hit with personal attacks.
    See his attacks on Rob Bradley Jr. of the Institute for Energy Research. Bradley once worked for Enron (along with several thousand other people) so anything he now does, in Romm's mind, has felonious intent.
    Romm won't debate anyone in person. Note his refusal to engage with Roger. In his recent TV appearance opposite Marc Morano, he was more nervous than a hooker in church. Romm hides behind his blog so that he can attack whomever he chooses.
    Joe Romm: the Internet's answer to Savonarola.

  28. Surely Romm and Podesta are simply two evil characters from a Vince Flynn novel?

  29. I posted a comment to Romm.

    I said, "Eight links back to yourself. That's one more then the total number of participants at the Kudymkar, Russia Action 350 protest.

    Будь здоров"

  30. Can I give you a little constructive criticism?

    And please think hard about it when deciding whether this will be approved because this is a fault that many climate blogs share.

    For a guy who complains about Joe Romm's blog maintenance it surprises me how labrynthian and convoluted the process is to post a comment here.
    Over at Romm's place you type in your comment send it through. It appears as a ghost comment under the "pending moderation" header.
    Maybe he approves it, maybe he doesn't (in my case approval will never come. That's ok. I send him personal barbs anyhow.)

    With yours I have to sign in. Then I have to find the right comment format on a drop down screen. Then I have to type in a "secret word" to defeat the oodles of spam that somehow gets past the google commenter device (note that's a sarcasm).
    Then after that I find my comment awaits your personal approval.

    After all of these hoops, chutes, and ladders I had to navigate to get here, I can't help thinking, What is Pielke afraid of?

    Are you afraid there will be an avalanche of Joe Romm minions swooping in on your blog to make you look bad?

    Trust me on this. If they are following Romm they don't have enough on the ball to give you a proper tussle.

    You give us the facts as you see them, right?
    If you weren't I'd have heard about it from people I trust, so I assume yes. So what's to fear?

    This is something that Jen Marohasy did by necessity (she's not particulary computer savvie), Climate Skeptic does by design, and Lubos Motl does to some extent. It serves them well. They let the conversation happen.

    Open this thing up a bit. Make it easy to comment. Make it easy for Romm followers to comment.
    Then sit back and watch your readers rip Joe up.
    You'll be glad you did.

  31. Sorry Pielke, I choose life, plus I enjoyed A LOT the REMORA comparison. By "trying" to simplify too much you end up confusing more. Maybe that is what you want, to CONFUSE. I think JR is right about you. Plus there is one principle of life coded into International Law that you often ignore: Precautionary Principle.