01 March 2010

Breaking ... Foreign Policy to Host Proposed Romm-Pielke Debate

This just in ... Foreign Policy has graciously agreed to host a debate between me and Joe Romm this fall. We also have commitments of as much as $20,000 to be devoted to charity as a result of the debate. This means that the event will serve a good cause.

Will Joe show? Pleas join me in encouraging Joe to take part in this event.

27 comments:

copner said...

Roger, I don't understand what specifically you plan to debate on, other than "climate policy". There's no specific proposal for the audience to vote on other than "we like Roger" or "we like Joe".

(And maybe that's where he'll wiggle?)

As a side note, I find Joe Romm's blog, and style of debate incomprehensible. The style seems to be all about playing the man rather than the ball, and the method of analysis seems to start with the conclusion and then work backwards from your opponent's argument to who they are, and then trying to find some tenous indirect link to the Republican Party, oil, etc. That is assumed sufficient to win the argument.

The same kind of style seems also to pervade on realclimate and other warmist blogs. I myself have been called a Palinite, tea bagger and so forth, when I've made comments on the IPCC or even simply asked questions (I'm not even an American). In another case, I noticed when a new poster questioned the user of a particular phrase (which they found offensive) - the answer was "Sarah Palin's used that phrase too" (which of course assumes the new poster was a Palin support, of which there was no evidence).

In short, I just can't understand his style of debate. Is it now a normal style of debate in the USA? (it didn't seem to me when I spent a lot of time in the USA in the 80s and 90s) Is this style of debate only found in climate change, or elsewhere as well?

P.S.
Good luck with the debate... if it goes ahead

Richard Tol said...

I can't help you there. I've been banned from Joe Romm's blog.

Sabrina McCormack has also closed her's.

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

-1-copner

I assume that we will debate alternative approaches to reaching stabilization at 450 ppm. Joe foes on about the weakness of my ideas related to this, so it seems like a perfect topic for us to debate.

copner said...

Roger, that is indeed more specific. But perhaps I wasn't very clear, I was sort of asking whether there would be a specific motion to vote on, as in "This house believes X".

I did look over at climateprogress comments. Doesn't look like there'll be a debate though anyway.

Jeff said...

My prediction is that he will say he will not dignify your ideas and your "legitimacy" by agreeing to a debate. Only he'll say it in 2000 words.

markbahner said...

"My prediction is that he will say he will not dignify your ideas and your "legitimacy" by agreeing to a debate."

So Joe Romm will deny (an astounding!) up to $20,000 to charity?

As ol' ;-) Roger would write, "Not good."

ljohnson said...

Roger: just pop me an e-mail if you hear anything from Joe.

And, as a Canuck, my sympathies to all US hockey supporters....no really....its bad form to win at home....

ibjc said...

If his performance against Marc Morano was anything to go by, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for acceptance.

Reiner Grundmann said...

I never tried to post anything before on the Climateprogress blog so was surprised at the demeanor displayed by the host of the blog. But maybe it just takes a long time to get through the filter.
In the comment I tried to find out why so much attention is given to one person if that person is not 'relevant to the debate'

demiurgenext said...

I attempted to point out the inherently self-defeating position of Romm and company in refusing to debate as if they held the high ground and had nothing to gain, explicitly citing the change in polling data showing AGW belief trending substantially downward in the US and the implications of that for policy goals they obviously endorse. In that I led with the fact that an insular community that only validated their own world view was no longer a viable option.

Unbelievably, Romm's response was literally 'I know you are, but what am I.' I'm still laughing as I write this. He then deleted the majority of my comment and claimed that there was no change in the polling numbers in the United States over the issue of AGW.

It's hard to take the moral high ground when you refuse to debate and censor any comment you don't agree with.

Ah well, I suppose they'll continue to deny there's no negative outcome to such exclusionary and inherently deceitful policies.

Craig said...

ljohnson-

Canuckistan will be reabsorbed back into the socialist collective after the next Olympics. ;~)

Congrats to the Canadian men and women hockey players.

markbahner said...

ljohnson,

I take comfort in the fact that by 2035 (according to the IPCC ;-)) there will be no ice left in Canada.

And I know we can beat y'all in water polo.

;-)

Mark

P.S. On behalf of Medecin san Frontiers and the poor sick folks they help, thank you for your very charitable offer!

itisi69 said...

Chicken little. Say it ain't so, Joe.

Raven said...

Here is Romm facing off with Morano.
Perhaps that is why get is worried about facing Roger.

http //www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTXsfHTe9Tc&feature=player_embedded

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

Submitted at Romm's place:

Roger Pielke, Jr. says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 1, 2010 at 9:14 pm

Joe-

I propose that we debate our alternative visions for getting to stabilization at 450 ppm. You can even write the debate resolution as you’d like.

Foreign Policy has agreed to host, we’ve got up to $20,000 for charity, it’ll be at a time and place of your choosing.

How about it?

kmye said...

Re:Raven #14

Cheers! Had not seen or heard of this before (and still haven't watched, but am about to).

Just wanted to fix your link for folks that're cutting and pasting; took me a minute to figure out what wasn't working.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTXsfHTe9Tc&feature=player_embedded

markbahner said...

"I propose that we debate our alternative visions for getting to stabilization at 450 ppm. You can even write the debate resolution as you’d like."

Hi,

I have a potential alternate resolution. Resolved: The Waxman-Markey climate change bill should be passed and signed into law.

Mark

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...

Number 15 above disappeared at Romm's, some things never change!

Craig said...

If he won't debate in person, why not use a cardboard cutout and have someone else play his role with his positions?

BTW, why is 450 a meaningful limit?

Reiner Grundmann said...

Here is my reading of the situation

Looking at Joe Romm's blogpost again, it is clear that it has nothing to do with Roger, or debate, or integrity of climate science or policy. It is only about Andy Revkin's perceived 'defection' from the alarmist camp. It is all about political coalitions and Romm is whining as he sees someone influential becoming more critical.

Does this make sense?

W.E. Heasley said...

Rambling 4000 Word Romm vs. To The Point Pielke…….the rumble at FP…….be there or be alone!

Vegas: over and under is 100,000 words by Romm, early line is Pielke by three touchdowns.

Richard Tol said...

-20-Reiner

Sure. Joe Romm behaves as the narrow-minded leader of a religious sect. Anyone who slightly deviates from the doctrine is declared a heretic and forever shunned.

Roger was blacklisted a long time ago. Nothing he says can ever be true other than as a cunning disguise to tempt the faithful.

Andy Revkin has been found to consort with the infidel and now has to repent or face banishment.

It's time to call in a few anthropologists to study this in depth.

Frontiers of Faith and Science said...

Joe Romm is doing a Baghdad Bob.
Maybe he really is a true believer, and is not cynical as he seems.
Maybe he really does feel justified in being such a fact-resistant boor.
In that case, heretics like the Pielke's, Lindzen, Spencer, etc. etc. etc. are truly beneath contempt and deserve no space in the public square.
And the 'betrayal' by Revkin for daring to listen to heretics must really sting for a true believer.

Harrywr2 said...

Craig said... 19
BTW, why is 450 a meaningful limit?

It's the 2 degrees C warming scenario.

Craig said...

Harrwr2-

Is that scenario meaningful given such natural variability such as the Sahara Desert 20000 year cycle?

ljohnson said...

Roger: I will wait until the end of the week. If we have not heard from Joe by then, I will make the donation to MsF.

DeWitt said...

Harrywr2,

The 450 number comes from IPCC stabilization scenarios SP450, SP550, SP750 and SP1000. See Figure 10.21 on page 791 (page 45 in the Chapter 10 pdf) of the AR4 WG1 report, for example.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter10.pdf

This part of the report is looking pretty shaky to me right now as I'm pretty sure their carbon cycle model is broken, not to mention that there probably isn't enough economically recoverable fossil fuel to even get to the higher levels.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.