Home > AGW, Climate Change, Global Warming, Omniclimate, Policy > What Ever Remains Of Joe Romm?

What Ever Remains Of Joe Romm?

Earlier today I posted a comment at Stoat’s “Oh no! More snarking” blog. Little I imagined how quickly the situation would evolve in the expected direction.

This is my first comment (#14):

People defending Romm (and I don’t mean the way Connolley has mentioned the Caldeira miquote “incident”) remind me of that old saying, “He May Be a Bastard, But He’s Our Bastard“.

I have stopped reading Romm long ago when I realized his only goal is to preach to the converted. I might be missing “much on the political aspect of AGW or on the solutions” but then it is a fact that it is very hard to understand when Romm is right and when he is wrong, given that all critical replies have to be searched via Google (this is a problem on RC as well). And to anybody with Usenet 1990’s experience, vitriolic attacks must surely appear supremely boring.

I don’t mind if people want to become the Pope of AGW but given the size of the climate problem, I just do not see how any “useful truth” can be produced by somebody’s utter unhelpfulness in bringing people together rather than split them in “144k vs the damned”.

What can be in Romm’s future, in fact, if not more occasions to “overreach” against more and more people, as soon as they will say anything not of his liking. Just wait…one of this days, it will happen to Connolley too.

And so it is just a matter of time before Romm will only be talking to himself.

And there we went in fact. Romm intervened (#26) in what quickly became a disaster, as pointed out by Connolley in his inline replies.

Basically, Romm has been caught providing “out-of-context quotes“, so much so “that no-one is going to trust [him] any more” (presumably Connolley just referred to not trusting Romm any more about quoting, but there’s little preventing one from expanding the lack of trust to whatever topic about which Romm over-reacts)

Romm has also been found wrong about a remark by Keith Kloor, and invited to stay quiet rather than being impolite. So as somebody keeps claiming, Romm is still “not a liar” but it looks like the only thing saving Romm’s (AGW) soul at this point is his “substance“.

Good luck with that!

Advertisements
  1. 2009/11/05 at 22:11

    Wayne, I suspect you are one of Joe Romm’s believers. If so, that’s OK, but leave the foolishness over at his blog. There has been ample commentary on many different blogs, some of which are usually supportive of JR.

    For those unfamiliar with the commentary atmosphere at J Romm’s blog, you have seen a very, very mild example in Wayne’s comment.

  2. papertiger
    2009/11/05 at 21:32

    Hannity, Limbaugh, Jones, (who is Michael Bachmann? – haven’t a clue) these are talkshow hosts. They can’t bully anybody. What the heck?

    On the otherside President Obama, the most powerful man in the world, talking about climate change at MIT said, “those who . . . make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change, whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary. We’ll just have to deal with those people,
    Patrick Micheals has first hand experience of what it meant by “deal with those people”.

    Instapundit reminds us of Barrack threatening the use of tax audit against the ASU President and Board of Regents. Sure it was a joke, but a thuggish joke. The bully laughing at the powerless?

    Life sure would be easier if Exxon were opposing the Gore propaganda, instead of wasting money on CO2 sequestering.

  3. Wayne
    2009/11/05 at 11:55

    Sniff, sniff, is that hypocrisy I smell in the air? So, can I just get this right, you are claiming that someone who ‘quotes out of context’ and goes on the attack while preaching to the coveted can be dismissed? What really?

    So by my reckoning ALL of the right wing radio and TV blowhards can be dismissed? ALL of the Exxon funded nonsense – reports/documentaries/’research’

    So that leaves what exactly on your side? Certainly not the science, just petty nit picking…

    Right wingers ALWAYS do this – which is typical of the bigoted bully. They shout and cause trouble but when challenged turn into cry babies and claim the debate has become unfair. Compare – Hannity (out and our liar), Limbaugh (really? you think Limbaugh is doing just fine? No? And your criticism of him is where?), Alex Jones ((absolutely insane – with followers), Michael Bachmann (totally fruit loops), James Inhofe (leader of the flat Earth society on global warming) with Romm – Now with a straight face tell me again about truth and fairness…

    See one side is starting to fight back after being VERY patient for decades and the other is TOTALLY INSANE and calling the change in tactic unfair – CHUTZPAH – the defining characteristic of the right winger, eh?

    • 2009/11/05 at 12:54

      Please re-read my blog. And visit Connolley’s. You’re going off several tangents here, perhaps it’s time to start your own.

      • Angie
        2009/12/10 at 12:28

        You create a public blog, post divisive opinions, then get incensed when someone replies with his own opinions, which since they’re different from yours must make him a nut or an idiot, and then you make a rather lame attempt at a condescending response…

        Yawn.

        You’ve just reminded me why I should be reading books instead of blogs…

  4. papertiger
    2009/11/04 at 10:45

    I might be missing “much on the political aspect of AGW or on the solutions” but then it is a fact that it is very hard to understand when Romm is right and when he is wrong, given that all critical replies have to be searched via Google – incredible!

    Omni, I’m a bit narrow minded about things in the respect that when I read something I agree with by an author I tend to bin them as being in agreement in general with my position.
    For me the global warming hoax is wrong, top to bottom, side to side, whatever angle you approach it from.

    In my narrowness it never occured that you, being a separate entity, might find some truth buried within a Romm monologue, no doubt supported by trackbacks to previous Romm monologues.
    It makes me curious.
    What could it be that Romm got right?

    • 2009/11/04 at 16:34

      papertiger – I have heard your exact argument done in the other direction, with me, or Pielke Jr, or whoever else doesn’t fully buy the alarmist AGW position as “never possibly right”.

      Even a broken old-fashioned clock was right twice a day!!

      • papertiger
        2009/11/05 at 03:53

        Sure it has the general lack of substance, non specific refutation. I get your point.
        But it’s not as if I haven’t bumped up into a series of Global Warming arguments that on first blush I bought into, thought they could be on to something.
        Like when I heard glaciers were melting all over the world. My goodness that caused me quite a bit of concern. Then I find out the glaciers the alarmists were refering to have been receding since well before the other alarmists say the climate changed.
        The polar bears dying off due to lack of ice cover caused me many a sleepless night, until one day I was looking at back issues of Nat Geo from the 70’s and found out that increased ice cover was threatening the polar bear’s habitat 30 years ago.
        Not just these few examples. Most every AGW claim I run into is based on half truths, omissions, and contradictory evidence.

        Eventually, I started thinking why would they need to do that, if the “science” was so overwhelming.
        There are only a specific few bits of evidence regarding man generated co2 that I find credible, which perversely the alarmists do not pursue.

        pan evaporation; increased primary plant production,

        That’s the two times the broken clock was right as far as I know.

        I’m wondering if Romm provided you with something credible to add to the list?

  5. 2009/11/04 at 00:50

    Great beat down of Romm. Like you, I have stopped reading Joe’s Blog many months ago. I also try never to reference any of his articles on my blog. I do not want to send some unsuspecting questioner there for abuse from him and/or his minions.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: