I was honored on my speaking tour in Australia to have two women drive 11 hours to hear David Archibald and me speak. People in the Bay Area don’t have to drive that far, or they can hop on BART. As many know, Joe Romm runs the blog Climate Progress.
While other bloggers wailed about how terrible it was that I was on a speaking tour, I’m doing the opposite, suggesting that this is a good opportunity to hear from the other side of the aisle and ask factual questions (assuming questions are allowed).
Here are the details if you’d like to go:
| Monday, July 19, 2010 | |
| Talk: Joe Romm: After BP, Climate Progress? | |
|
Does the oil sloshing around the Gulf of Mexico improve or impede the chance of major energy legislation getting through Congress this year? After decades of debating climate science, is the United States making any progress toward acting upon it? A former official at the U.S. Department of Energy and a vociferous blogger, Joe Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, gives his insight into the urgency of the climate crisis and the hope for technology to solve it. He also sounds off on what he says are distortions and inaccuracies in mainstream news coverage of the climate debate. Join us for a no-holds-barred conversation with one of the country’s most passionate clean-energy commentators. Purchase tickets online. |
|
| Time: | 5:30pm: check-in; 6pm: program. |
| Location: | Commonwealth Club, 595 Market Street, San Francisco. |
| Cost: | Members free, $20 non-members, $7 students (with valid ID). |
| Info: | 415-597-6700, http://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/auto_choose_ga.asp?area=1&shcode=1868. |
| Monday, July 19, 2010 | |
| Talk: Joe Romm: After BP, Climate Progress? | |
|
Does the oil sloshing around the Gulf of Mexico improve or impede the chance of major energy legislation getting through Congress this year? After decades of debating climate science, is the United States making any progress toward acting upon it? A former official at the U.S. Department of Energy and a vociferous blogger, Joe Romm, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress, gives his insight into the urgency of the climate crisis and the hope for technology to solve it. He also sounds off on what he says are distortions and inaccuracies in mainstream news coverage of the climate debate. Join us for a no-holds-barred conversation with one of the country’s most passionate clean-energy commentators. Purchase tickets online. |
|
| Time: | 5:30pm: check-in; 6pm: program. |
| Location: | Commonwealth Club, 595 Market Street, San Francisco. |
| Cost: | Members free, $20 non-members, $7 students (with valid ID). |
| Info: | 415-597-6700, http://tickets.commonwealthclub.org/auto_choose_ga.asp?area=1&shcode=1868. |
Map that can give you directions here
Hey Anthony,
Are you or any other skeptic speakers coming to the Portland Oregon area any time soon?
It seems that we are avoided on the skeptic circuit.
Vice President Biden was here last week and made me an hour late for a job interview.
I actually got the job, I was amazed.
From a strictly prejudicial point of view one might observe the following:
1.) It is the skeptics who encourage open debate while the alarmists directly try to stifle debate. In nearly every case, they actively refuse or evade public debate. They even try to prevent the media from airing skeptical views, asking them if they ought to interview holocaust deniers every time they do a show on the holocaust or creationists every time they do a show on evolution.
2.) There are some exceptions. For example, one Buzz Bellville engaged me on the WSJ /Michaels thread and was civil and reasonable, though we disagreed on a number of facts and interpretations. I salute him, and I salute those on this blog who emulate this example. But on the whole, alarmists tend to either blindly appeal to authority or resort to condescending and sometimes quite vile ad hominem.
3.) The skeptical scientists are totally open with their data and methods while the alarmists, particularly (but by no means exclusively) those who manage the critical surface records, refuse to divulge and and methods even to the point of illegally defying FOI requests. The mere fact that an FOI request should be necessary in the first place is a scandal to the jaybirds.
4.) The alarmists tend to mischaracterize grossly the basic arguments made by most skeptics. Though skeptics do the reverse on occasion, it is the alarmists who are the primary offenders.
I congratulate Anthony for his openmindedness and genuinely scientific attitude. A sin committed by a saint is no less a sin. Likewise, if a scientist violates scientific method, his product (correct or incorrect) is not science, regardless of how many funky letters follow his signature.
I don’t get the connection between oil in the gulf and climate change (which is a very natural process). I do know that to forestall freezing to death in the dark we’re going to need that oil more than we need a band of greenies nay saying energy production.
Anthony,
While I applaud your sentiment that we all should consider both “sides” of the debate I would contend that you should use some care in proposing just who on the other side might usefully further the debate.
I have just been to Romm’s site and it is typical hate mongering rubbish. EG he refers to Monckton as a “hate speech promoter. ”
I suggest there is absolutely nothing to be gained from listening to this dope.
REPLY: I think there is a lot to be gained. You can’t be effective without first understanding your opponent. – Anthony
Technology caused the climate crisis and technology will be called on to fix it.
But only technology of the past. Wooly thinking here.
May I recommend this article:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2469
Understanding E = mc^2 by William Tucker.
An explanation of the size of the problem. Understandable by lawmen.
dp says:
July 17, 2010 at 11:13 pm
I don’t get the connection between oil in the gulf and climate change (which is a very natural process).
It’s called being opportunistic. Yes, it’s that cheap of a tactic. It’s an opportunity to pounce on fossil fuels and big corporations and call them evil. I think Marx would be proud.
ctm and Mosh live in that vacinity. They’ll be on location?
Reply: It’s walking distance but I work that evening, Maybe Mosh will attend. ~ ctm
Anthony says:-
“I think there is a lot to be gained. You can’t be effective without first understanding your opponent. – Anthony”
Wondering just what you mean by ” a lot to be gained ” EG a better understanding on greenhouse forcings and associated global temperature feedback sensitivities which is to me the very core issue of the whole AGW debate. I cannot recall Dr Romm contributing to this burning topic. That is not to say he couldn’t if he chose to do so. I am not questioning his scholarship, more his attitude and apparent priorities.
Also I would have thought that being well informed on your subject was the prime requirement to being effective in promoting a viewpoint rather than worrying about understanding your opponent in any debate.
And, as one who has visited his blog from time to time, with the best will in the world I fail to see how Dr Romm would help in this.
Perhaps Anthony you know Dr Romm personally and if so I willingly defer to your opinion of his worthiness in this context.
Ron,
Engaging them with rational questions that expose their religious convictions as ideology rather than science is the best way to prove the bed wetters aren’t wearing any diapers.
REPLY: I think there is a lot to be gained. You can’t be effective without first understanding your opponent. – Anthony
[stop it ~ ctm]
[stop it ~ ctm]
???
I ask a serious question. I think people like me are regarded here, derided as, insulted as being cockroaches. How can we be asked questiones?
Charles, this places reaps the harvest of the nasty seeds it sows.
Reply: I don’t know your point of view. I haven’t looked at your history and don’t know who “people like me” are. I don’t remember everyone I interact with. Anthony posted a notice with a certain amount of graciousness and you appeared to have been going against it. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment. I thought you were deriding Romm btw. If I misunderstood you because you have a history here who’s context I did not take into account, I apologize. ~ ctm
People of an open mind want to learn and understand.
People of a closed mind already have an absolute in their minds that nothing will get through unless their idol is found to be corrupted.
David Archibald and ME (not I)
to hear us (not we) speak
sorry
http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/600617/n/Weather-Wars
Anthony. this has just been viewed in OZ. Maybe something of interest especially those who cannot stand Kerry Emanuals cant.
regards
I’ve visited a warmist climate blog on occassion. I’m interested in what the counter arguments are. But I find they spend so much time complaining about this blog and calling people who don’t agree with them names that I don’t find myself spending much time on them.
I don’t think Joe wanted me to understand him, because he banned me from his site.
But he’s easy, anyway: Paid Political Propagandist.
=======================
The videos I have seen of Romm were in discussions that included Mark Morano. It seemed personall attacks where all he has in his tool box. He has good turnout because the Leftist at Center for American Progress work hard to promote him. If he gets 50 – 60 people, the promotion helps.
Joe is insisting the west has permanent heat and drought. Like record lows last week in San Diego.
Bitter and angry old men like Joe and Hansen give the carbon movement a nasty taste. Both will not be around much longer because they are old.
Peter H says:
July 18, 2010 at 3:19 am
“[…]I think people like me are regarded here, derided as, insulted as being cockroaches. […]”
Truth is in the eye of the beholder.
“to hear David Archibald and I speak?”
Proper English would be “to hear David Archibald and me speak.”
You wouldn’t say “to hear I speak.”
[Fixed, thanx. ~dbs]
Go early. The max capacity is 200 some in the audience. $20 dollar tickets.
Romm says this of Lord Monkton:
“shameless purveyor of hate speech and anti science disinformation”
If some one attends, could they ask Joe to give actual physical examples of this claim or is it just an arm chair fabricated smear.
Really hate to chip in $20 bucks just to hear Dr Romm on the off chance the pre-screened questions might be less censored than his blog.
I checked out the Commonwealth Club’s upcoming calendar. Found a few items that might be more interesting –
The Hurricane Katrina Disaster
Europe’s Social Capitalism vs. America’s Wall Street Capitalism
Angel Island: Immigrant Gateway to America
Carbon Warriors: Roz Savage and David Kroodsma
Climate Change Effects On Animal and Plant Species
The New, New Math: Calories & Carbon
Should On Duty Police Be Carrying Firearms?
Population Aging as a Feminist Issue
David Boies: Challenging Law And Making History
Women and Climate Activism: From Courtroom to the Arctic Tundra
The Leading Edge for Corporate Social Responsibility
Power Shift: The US Navy And Global Energy Reform
Increasing California’s Connectivity with High-Speed Rail
Joe Romm is your best PR agent. People who go to his talk will be more convinced than ever that AGW is over-hyped.
I dunno about this one. I wouldn’t hand over my $20 to Romm for roughly the same reason that I wouldn’t fork my $24 over to the Field Museum (see following post). Surely we have a mole that can give us back an adequate summary of anything Mr. Romm says that’s worth knowing about….
mod: this is not intended to be insulting material, I intend this to be as factual as I can make it. These details can all be confirmed by a little research.
Romm’s not difficult to understand. Remember, he was a former Clinton Administration official, the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Department of Energy. Back in his office holding days, he saw “Climate Change” (and government regulation of) as the Wave of the Future, a wave that he was sure he was destined to ride to fame and fortune. So he set himself up as a well known “opinion maker” in order to position himself as a key official whenever the Climate Change Regulatory Apparatus was inevitably put in place. He had all the right credentials, of course. It looked like a sure thing.
Also, there were the private money making ventures. From wiki, certainly not some “right wing” source: “Romm is also the executive director and founder of the non-profit Center for Energy and Climate Solutions, which helps businesses and U.S. States adopt high-leverage strategies for saving energy and cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emissions[4] and is a principal of the Capital E Group, an energy technology consultant.” (remember that “non-profit” doesn’t take into account the 6 figure salaries paid to the corporate officers)
Point: He is not “just” a blogger with an opinion. This is the business venture of a lifetime for him, and he has his entire professional and personal persona invested in it.
As I said, things were looking great 18 months ago. All of his longtime plans were coming to fruition. And what happened? Everything has fallen to pieces, in ways that have been well chronicled here. Everything he had hoped for, both personally and publicly is collapsing. That alone explains the rage, and the primal screams. Joe bet on the wrong horse, and it’s too late in his life for him to change his bet now. If the AGW ship goes down, he goes down with it, and he knows it.
This is a man who is literally fighting for his life, and yet who probably knows that the game is already lost. For that, wait till August 9th to see if any energy bill actually passes the Senate or not – that’s what this is really all about.
Any talk about anything besides that is just rhetoric meant to obfuscate the issues and savage his enemies.
It occurs to me that Commonwealth presentations are sometimes carried on the radio; can’t remember which station or network. Would this presentation be one of them?
I would be useful if someone did an article on the major warmist sites. A quick summary like:
politics/science/bitchin
number of articles per day
comment policy
funding if applicable
Personally, Skeptical Science is the only one I bother with.
“I think there is a lot to be gained. You can’t be effective without first understanding your opponent.”
What is there to understand. Does anyone really believe that for Romm it’s all about science? I think his function is all political.
Just look how he’s attempting to spin and capitalise on the BP accident.
I can think of better things to do with $20,
I’ll bet Chris Monckton would have some good questions for him.
wws – Sorry I can’t provide a link , but masterresource.org has plenty on Romm . Among other things , he shilled for Enron while at the DOE and apparently has ties to BP as well . As Dennis Miller put it , ” Beware of prophets seeking profits “, although he was referring to Al Gore .
While i doubt it will have a sellout like Anthony down under, Iwould like to hear it or read about his talk. I have been to acouple of warmist sites, the thin i find troubling with them is they always have the same 4 to5 commentors were as this site has 10 to 20 different people with comments, and actually speak of science.
the commonwealth club talks are often broadcast on KQED.
From the commonwealth club website description of Romm’s talk:
Also know: The speakers and audience will be videotaped for future broadcast on the Climate One TV show on KRCB TV 22 on Comcast and DirecTV
Joe Romm on Enron in a Published Essay
“Increasingly, such technologies will operate over the Internet itself. Companies like SiliconEnergy have developed software that uses the Internet for real-time data collection and analysis and energy management. We believe energy outsourcers like Enron (discussed below) may ultimately manage hundreds if not thousands of buildings over the Internet.”
– Romm, “The Internet and the New Energy Economy” (2002).
Romm was talking up Enron all the way till their implosion. Now he talks up Communist China. These issues could be presented to him in questions at his dog and pony show.
I suspect that Joe Romm is just another one of Lenins “useful idiots”.
@ kwik says:
July 19, 2010 at 4:53 am
I suspect that Joe Romm is just another one of Lenins “useful idiots”.
————–
Just a historical note: Lenin was not referring to liberals, but to capitalists who would sell to Soviet Russia what it needed to build a socialist industrial society.
“Useful idiots” was the phrase Lenin used to describe communist sympathizers in western nations. Like the New York Times and Jane Fonda and most employees of the State Department. Mike, you’re thinking of Lenin talking about the rope that capitalists would sell that they eventually would hang themselves with.
“[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios [about global warming and destruction of the environment], make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts one might have . . . . Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
S Schneider
Useful idiots:
“The term is commonly attributed to Lenin and Stalin, sometimes in the form “useful idiots of the West”, to describe those Western reporters and travelers who would endorse the Soviet Union and its policies in the West.”
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiots
(they should know)
Romm has a popular book out.
Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #75,296 in Books
“Straight UP”
If I misunderstood you because you have a history here who’s context I did not take into account, I apologize. ~ ctm
ROTFLMAO
I don’t think everybody got that one, including the one it’s directed act. That comment fits in with this thread:
ctm, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/19/tink-fitzhew-vs-the-usgs/
But if I’m giving you credit for inking a brilliant reply based on an intellectual capacity I don’t know that you have, forgive me.
So no one went to hear the oracle of warming warning?
Personally i would rather go to the dentist.