Dr. Roger Pielke writes in with an update:
[UPDATE 5/7: Joe Romm offers 3,300 wacky words in response to this short post. Crazy. Anyway, the simple response is, did Gore remove the slide I called him out on for using? Answer: Yes. Game, set, match. For those many readers here for the first time (thanks Joe, this is now the second most viewed post in the history of this blog!) here is a link to my recent book on climate change.]
This is strong language from Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. who wrote to me and suggested I share this with my readers. After getting slimed by Joe Romm for the nth time, he finally had enough. He writes:
It is long overdue for the environmental community to start pushing back on Romm as he continues to stain their entire enterprise. His lies and smear tactics, which are broadly embraced and condoned, are making enemies out of friends and opponents out of fellow travelers. Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy. Lies and character assassination not so much.
I recommend reading the entire article here
Romm gets nasty with his enemies. Look out. Now with GE getting smart, he will find others to attack. Must be a bad day when GE fessus up.
Romm attacked the Koch brothers. To bad they ae MIT grads also. Now he can attack the school.
MIT seems to be the last bastion of sanity over there
Oil companies understand the laws of supply and demand far better than their customers do. They have been funding the Environmentalist movement for years to make trouble. It is effectively impossible to build a new refinery. That means low supply, high demand, which means high prices and profits.
Romm is a hysteric. The hoax drew him in and now he is stuck with his gullibility hanging out for all to see.
” Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy. Lies and character assassination not so much.”
I have not read a lie by Joe Romm, but on this blog there was a graph from Mr. Goddard showing sea levels rising and in a later posting from Mr. Sowell the statement that ocean levels are falling. This would mean that either Mr. Goddard or Mr. Sowell are not telling the truth. Which non-truth teller is being posted on this blog and why?
My posts started getting un-posted so I’ve pretty much stopped reading his site.
Joe Romm lies? It’s contageous in the AGW camp. So does Ben at Wott’s Up With That:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/the-silliest-rebuttal-yet-from-ben-at-wottsupwiththat/
I like the theory that Romm is actually anti-green and is so over-the-top as to do the green-movement an intentional disservice.
sceptical,
You assume people are lying because they use different data sets?? FYI, your hero Joe Romm is a poisonous little toad, vile and filled with hatred. Like others here, I can’t stomach reading his really despicable pseudo-science blog, where he routinely censors or vilifies even the most reasonable comments if they don’t support his failed catastrophic AGW fantasy. That’s some HE-RO you got there.
sceptical says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
“I have not read a lie by Joe Romm…”
Well, newcomers are always welcome. From this site you can learn a lot about the hysterical fantasies of people like Joe Romm.
sceptical is a denier of the truth: that his God Romm is really a phony. “he has never read a lie from Romm”.
I am too busy laughing at that, maybe someone can help him out and educate him on one of the 4 billion lies that man has told.
[snip. Understand, but we’re not them. ~dbs, mod.]
sceptical says:
“I have not read a lie by Joe Romm”
Well, here’s your chance. Documented and linked.
@sceptical
Does it frighten you that there might be more than one opinion on a subject? That the science isn’t as settled as you have been spoon fed to believe?
Try reading both articles and evaluate the arguments on their merits (not with ad-homs, appeals to authority or counting PhDs). Use the differing viewpoints to form _your_own_ opinion, rather than expecting the uniformity of narrative portrayed by the alarmist camp – for that unifom narrative is the hallmark of doctrine, not science.
Pitting thesis against antithesis is how _science_ is done. Doctrine on the other hand requires only one point of view.
Joe Romm lies?
Talk about old news.
A cornered animal is the most dangerous animal. Like a cornered animal, when you challenge someone’s belief with unassailable facts and/or threaten that person’s money then that is when the person is most dangerous. I’ve long said the quickest way to make someone really angry is to be right.
I have a different perspective. I know it hurts to be personally attacked, but Romm is a nutjob. He goes full stupid on many issues. I say, Romm is one of the better spokesperson for the skeptical argument. Sure, his little group of groupies will soak up anything he says, but any rational individual can see how vapid and petty his arguments are. Let him blather himself in circles. He is a source of much humor. Best of all, its on someone else’ dime! Some one else is paying (I didn’t say Soros) for our amusement! I would tell Mr. Pielke to wear his attacks as a badge, but that would be akin to wearing the army service ribbon. I mean sure, its an accomplishment, but every soldier has one. Me, just being an average skeptic would like to be attacked by fullstupidRomm, but once you have one…….pphhhttt.
Paid to lie. I pity him. Imagine that he knows the truth but can’t say it for fear of his paymasters.
=======================
@Skeptical
“I have not read a lie by Joe Romm, but on this blog there was a graph from Mr. Goddard showing sea levels rising and in a later posting from Mr. Sowell the statement that ocean levels are falling. This would mean that either Mr. Goddard or Mr. Sowell are not telling the truth. Which non-truth teller is being posted on this blog and why?”
I often try to be civil even when dealing with total screwballs — of which there is no shortage on the internet in general and any blog discussing climate change. But it’s really hard sometimes. If you take a look at the sea level rise data from Colorado University http://sealevel.colorado.edu/ you’ll find that the overall trend is up, but for the past several years, the rate of change of sea level has dropped off which is presumably what Mr Sowell is talking about. (I personally do not think the slight drop off is indicative of anything).
If you are seriously looking for enlightenment, take a look at the 130 years of sea level data (Wikipedia has a nice chart) and try to reconcile it with the hysteria about sea level rise. I can’t. I don’t think you can. I don’t think anyone can. Even the IPCC — an organization not known for its moderation — can only conjure up a rise over the next century of 1-2 feet. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-5-1-figure-1.html Based on the historic record, I’d bet on the low end of their range … about a foot.
James Sexton says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm
“I have a different perspective. I know it hurts to be personally attacked, but Romm is a nutjob. He goes full stupid on many issues.”
There is an old comic from the Seventies. In the first panel, Washington says “I cannot tell a lie.” In the second panel, Nixon says “I cannot tell the truth.” In the third panel, toothy Jimmy Carter says “I cannot tell the difference.” Romm is lucky that he cannot tell the difference. He lives in a world of hysterical fantasy. If he could tell the difference, he could not live there.
Romm is the Mike Malloy of alarmists.
If you know who Malloy is you know that is not nice.
Steve Oregon
I have to go rinse my eyes out, Romm and Malloy in the same post!
ARRRGH….
I don’t keep up with what Mr. Romm has to say, why would I?
I’m sure deliberately telling lies will always catch you up.
There’s no real excuse for being ignorant tho!
Lately I can relate to what Pielke Jr has to say, I’ll be tuning in to this guy so to speak.
Romm is Frankie Carbone from Goodfellas. With a lisp.
sceptical says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
” Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy. Lies and character assassination not so much.”
I have not read a lie by Joe Romm, but on this blog there was a graph from Mr. Goddard showing sea levels rising and in a later posting from Mr. Sowell the statement that ocean levels are falling. This would mean that either Mr. Goddard or Mr. Sowell are not telling the truth. Which non-truth teller is being posted on this blog and why?
===============================================
Uhmm, first, show links…….It stops the he said/she said arguments. Secondly, understand Romm intentionally takes things out of context and presents strawman arguments. Thirdly, endeavor understand the general concept of sea-levels and time, instruments, and locations. Lastly, (and I know this is a hard concept for people like you) opinions posted here are not always the opinion of Anthony. He allows for a full discourse of ideas. Some may or may not be valid, but people here get a fair hearing. It allows the readers to discern for themselves instead of being told what to believe. Tricky stuff, I know, but it seems to work …….. in a free society. Pinhead.
Steve Oregon says:
May 6, 2011 at 6:47 pm
Romm is the Mike Malloy of alarmists.
If you know who Malloy is you know that is not nice.
you mean the guy who can’t stop saying “BUSH CRIME FAMILY”, “BUSH CRIME FAMILY”, “BUSH CRIME FAMILY” over and over again? i think he has Bush and Kennedy confused…probably some kind of defense mechanism…
Going to Pielke Jr’s site, and then following the links back to his 2009 article was worthwhile just for the final paragraph:
“Now that Gore has admitted that including the slide based on CRED data was a mistake, it raises a more fundamental: How could it be that Al Gore presented obviously misleading information before a large audience of the world’s best scientists, which was then amplified in a press release by AAAS, and none of these scientists spoke up?”
It is indeed interesting that bogus information can be presented to large groups of scientists and the further promulgated by AAAS without objections by AAAS or the scientists.
Theo Goodwin says:
May 6, 2011 at 6:43 pm
James Sexton says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:42 pm
“I have a different perspective. I know it hurts to be personally attacked, but Romm is a nutjob. He goes full stupid on many issues.”
There is an old comic from the Seventies. In the first panel, Washington says “I cannot tell a lie.” In the second panel, Nixon says “I cannot tell the truth.” In the third panel, toothy Jimmy Carter says “I cannot tell the difference.” Romm is lucky that he cannot tell the difference. He lives in a world of hysterical fantasy. If he could tell the difference, he could not live there.
=========================================
Agreed, and, it’s telling of our own toothy problem, that I recall the same comic.
We may be getting “long of tooth” my friend.
Romm is a snake who neglects to shed his skin.
Gavin Schmidt is the Team’s bulldog, Joe Romm is their hit man. Not necessarily a good one though, but Gavin isn’t a great bulldog either.
i think he has Bush and Kennedy confused…
I can certainly understand that. They are after all, both crime families whose patriarchs were admirers of Adolph Hitler and whose younger whelps went into careers of warmongering and public disservice.
-jcr
John Blake says:
May 6, 2011 at 8:23 pm
> Romm is a snake who neglects to shed his skin.
I like it! I don’t know what it means, but I like it!
I read Romm’s article to which I arrived from Pielke Jr’s site. Having read the (so far) 11 comments at CP, [snip too graphic]
evhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJtW3JRoi2s&feature=player_embedded lord monckton hear what he has to say very important
Dr Pielke:
I, too, have been subjected to Romm’s lies and I consider it to be a great honour.
Of course, it is not as great an honour as being banned from posting comments at RealClimate. I, Willis Eschenbach and several others have achieved that honour which is the clearest recognition for an adherence to scientific integrity.
I congratulate you on your achievement of one of these honours and I am convinced that you have sufficiently high integrity to obtain the other.
Richard
Romm is an absolute joke. Its amazing he continues this pathetic quest for some sort of peak standing in the scientific community. His tactics only make him more of a pimple in the scientific community. He could have the decency to admit he’s wrong once in a while. But we all know he would never do that in a situation like this. If he did, I’d be the first to give him kudos.
I do thank him for the comedy almost daily though. So many of his claims are a great way to get a good laugh on those days where you aren’t having much fun.
@ skeptical, and the concept of “truth.”
First, I’m an attorney. Also, I’m a chemical engineer by background. It is one thing to know a statement is false and make the statement anyway. That is commonly considered a lie, and the person making the statement a liar. It is quite another thing to have in mind some facts and a logical conclusion based upon those facts, and making a statement of that conclusion.
The concept of “truth” has been discussed and debated by philosophers for millennia, if not longer. In a court of law, truth is sometimes different from the common conception. Evidentiary rules require a certain level of truth, in particular with hearsay testimony. Hearsay is defined as “a statement made out of court that is offered in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” In science and engineering, we speak of “universal truths.” Such universal truths might include the pull of gravity, and the speed of light, and the second law of thermodynamics.
A jury, or sometimes a judge in the American legal system, is used to determine what is more likely to be the truth. This is because in an adversarial system such as a lawsuit, each side presents what is usually contradictory evidence. It is quite common for eyewitnesses to the same events to have completely different recollections, and each eyewitness is telling the truth as he or she saw the events. Even then, the rules of evidence are such that some evidence simply cannot be admitted or presented to the jury, so the full truth cannot be determined.
Also, in a different arena, after-action reports in military engagements require careful analysis to determine what actually happened, or the “truth,” as sometimes several different observers saw things differently.
You might bear these things in mind when making statements about one person or another not telling the truth. Science has a way of adjusting its generally accepted principles as new data is produced, or new analyses are applied to old data. In my engineering field, chemistry and the accepted principles there have changed dramatically in the past 100 years. The infant science of climatology, the study of the Earth’s climate, is necessarily undergoing changes in what is accepted as true.
As to your specific charge, the truth regarding the state of the ocean’s surface, and whether it is rising, remaining constant, or falling, is not at all certain. We have some data. We also have different data. We have data from some places at some times, but not all places at all times. We suspect that the ground is not static, but is rising in some areas and sinking in others. We have islands that should be underwater if certain claims about sea level rise are true, yet the islands remain above water. There are also ancient docks and ports that are now underwater. We also can see undersea canyons just offshore from some river mouths, which some people maintain is proof-positive that the sea level was one hundred feet or more lower in the recent past. How recent is debatable.
The data I referred to in my comment on my guest post is for public consumption, taken from the source I referenced, sealevel.colorado.edu and the Pacific Ocean Basin.
You are welcome to pull that same data up, analyze it in any manner you choose, and refute the argument and conclusion I came to and wrote. I suggest that you do that, rather than charge someone, especially an attorney, as a liar who is not telling the truth.
There is room in the debate for warmists, even those who hold firmly to the tenets of man-made, CO2-induced catastrophic warming of the entire Earth. The evidence weighs quite heavily against that position, as is more evident with the passage of time. However, you might want to consider how you present your views, and how you characterize others.
Yesterday I posted a comment on his website about his alleged ‘lies.’ Here is what is up on that page today.
“Joe Romm Lies” [06 May 2011]
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/05/joe-romm-lies.html
Let me try and help you out. Trawl through the following:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/2/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/3/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/4/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/5/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/6/?s=romm
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/page/7/?s=romm
You can keep trawling by replacing the 7 on the last link with an 8 and so on……
There are those that have no more significance than a skid mark in three day old underwear. Need I say more?
Roger S
I am sure you knew you were wasting your time when you wrote this piece although it is written very well indeed. The ‘Sceptic’ to whom you have replied has not yet reached a level of intellect and language that will allow them to understand the importance of your post.
His allowed commentators are a right bunch of slickers! Yes, they are slickers.
Leave poor Joe alone – he’s doing a great job.
(admittedly not the job he set out to do)
Well said Roger S.
James Sexton – could you please follow your own advice:
“Uhmm, first, show links…….It stops the he said/she said arguments.”
to support your statement:
“Secondly, understand Romm intentionally takes things out of context and presents strawman arguments. “
Jimbo,
Thanks for the many links. One of the comments led to an interview with John Cook, the producer of what I refer to as the “Skeptical Pseudo-Science” blog, which Steven Goddard so effectively deconstructed. Cook is a nutjob who makes his living as a cartoonist, and he mixes apocalyptic end-times religion with his crafty misrepresentations of science:
“I’m a Christian and a strong aspect of my faith is social conscience – hating injustice and caring for the poor. As I pored through the research into global warming impacts, I learned that poor and developing countries are those worst affected by global warming. Ironically, these are the countries least able to adapt to climate change.
“The other motivation for me is I have a 10-year-old daughter and the latest science tells me she’ll see one to two meters’ sea level rise in her lifetime. This isn’t the rabid predictions of alarmist environmentalists – these are the results from multiple peer-reviewed studies using independent techniques that all arrive at the same answer. With such solid evidence being laid before us…” &etc.
That is, in fact, a rabid prediction of alarmist environmentalists, and the evidence flatly contradicts Cook’s wild-eyed assertion. If his daughter lives to be 90 years old, there might be a half meter sea level rise.
Cartoonists are natural propagandists. Cook has a professional looking website, but as the Taiwanese government used to refer to proposals from the mainland PRC: it’s sugar-coated poison. ‘Skeptical Science’ is not as venomous as Romm’s truly despicable blog, but it is just as dishonest. And like most climate alarmist blogs, censorship of opposing ideas is commonly employed against scientific skeptics.
In your sea level rise bit you forgot:
Sceptical should be more sceptical.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
If Romm didn’t exist, we would have to invent him.
Regarding John Cook’s quote:
[My capitalization and bolding]
Do they?
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044770.shtml
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-33.html
I feel sorry for Cook. One of these days he’ll look at the latest sea level figures, and one of these days he’ll figure out, as has Tom Fuller, that alarmism is a War on the Poor.
============
Romm and Cook are both mad. The madness wouldn’t be contagious except for the money.
======
Mr. Sowell, “As to your specific charge, the truth regarding the state of the ocean’s surface, and whether it is rising, remaining constant, or falling, is not at all certain.”
Exactly my point. This is what you claim to believe but you then make definitive statements that ocean levels are falling. If you wanted your statement on ocean levels falling to be taken in some kind of context then you should have qualified it with that context.
“Vigorous debate is welcome and healthy. Lies and character assassination not so much.”
One need only read through the comments on this thread to see character assassination. The vitriol against Mr. Romm is rather telling.
Smokey says:
It is strange because the quote that you gave us doesn’t show any evidence whatsoever that he mixes apocalytic end-times religion with what he says about the science. Rather, he just mentions that “a strong aspect of my [Christian] faith is social conscience – hating injustice and caring for the poor”. The people I have seen who mix in this end-times stuff with their environmental views are anti-environmentalists like James Watt, who apparently thought there was little reason to worry about protecting the environment with the Second Coming right around the corner.
(And, what exactly that Cook says in that comment about the peer-reviewed scientific studies is untrue? The link you give just shows current sea level rise…It does not predict future rise.)
As for Pielke Jr. and Romm: While I don’t personally follow Romm myself, I have noticed that if there is lying going on, it seems to go the other way too. Pielke Jr. at one point put up a post claiming that Romm “ordered” the media not to talk to him. What I found bizarre about this claim on its face is that saying Joe Romm ordered the media to do something is kind of a bizarre use of language…Usually, people who issue orders to others have the authority to do so. But, I thought, well maybe Romm really has such a Napoleon complex that he did issue such an order even though he has no such authority. So, I looked at what Romm said…and while he did say that he thought media who used Pielke as a source completely undermined their credibility, he did not order them to do anything. When I pointed this out to Pielke, he refused to acknowledge his wording was at all false or misleading, saying that it was a matter of interpretation. It was all rather bizarre and surreal. [Strangely enough, I have not been able to track down this whole post and exchange on Pielke’s website despite my best efforts to search, so I don’t know if he removed it at some later time or if I am just having bad google-karma.]
My google-foo seems to have improved and here is a link into discussions between Roger and I as to whether Romm ordered the media not to talk to him: http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2009/10/giant-fish-big-fish-and-minnows-of.html?showComment=1256229797586#c6468801739024047692
Above comments: Leave poor Joe alone – he’s doing a great job. and we would have to invent if he did not exist etc…. Totally agree and i am a 100% denier! this guy is God’s gift to the anti-AGW movement LOL
Well, of course, he lies, he is, after all, a liar.
A true anecdote: Communists always lies, because, otherwise, they can not get to the position where they can enforce, to keep, their way with violence.
sceptical says:
“The vitriol against Mr. Romm is rather telling.”
Yes, it’s rather telling you that there is a firm basis in fact supporting the comments. If you want to see real vitriol, read what Romm constantly says about Anthony Watts. The comments here are child’s play by comparison.
So tell us, why are you Joe Romm’s apologist? Dr Pielke showed convincingly that Romm is a liar. What makes you want to be Romm’s defender and enabler? Are you his nephew or something?
“It is long overdue for the environmental community to start pushing back on Romm as he continues to stain their entire enterprise.”
Personally, i find Romm entirely representative of everything the Green and environmental community stands for. For instance, the green flagship organisation Greenpeace lied about the remaining oil in the Brent Spar to sway public opinion, exaggerating the numbers by a factor of 100 (i think). Lying and smear campaigns have always been acceptable to the environmental community when it serves their purpose, after all, they need to save the planet and the end justifies the means – i have never experienced a different attitude by them.
Jimbo says:
May 7, 2011 at 3:55 am
“Regarding John Cook’s quote:
The other motivation for me is I have a 10-year-old daughter and the latest science tells me she’ll see one to two meters’ sea level rise in her lifetime. ”
Even worse, she has a mad father.
Well there are such creatures crawling on the face of Earth as Romm: always have been and always will be I suppose.
I note that Romm has a new posting up jetting out venom at Pielke junior and WUWT etc, in his finest style.
Read it for yourselves.
Kindest Regards
Your comments got through on WUWT. My comment yesterday in Climate Progress did not. Perhaps if Romm allowed for open debate there would be less vitriol and character assassination which he has brought on himself by being very economical with the truth.
Sceptical, one day you will realise that you have been lied to about AGW.
Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past. 50 million climate refugees. Disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period. Constant adjustments of past temperatures………………………………..
For someone who is so sure of himself he is really afraid of open debate.
That tells you everything about him.
Calling a Joe Romm, or John Cook, mad seems like absolving them of their crimes.
Mad has a charm. It suggests behavior beyond a person’s control, like being sick.
What Romm and Cook practice is self serving, evil, and entirely within their control.
@ Roger Sowell says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:55 pm
@ skeptical, and the concept of “truth.”
Informative post and opinion about truth and lying. My take does not add to your point, but having spent a career in marketing and sales management, I believe that delivering information with the intent to deceive is lying. That’s my basic definition of lying.
This definition covers a lot of ground, including outright falsification and the use of half-truths.
I think that legal uses and definition of truth are useful, but sometimes are not always effective in getting to the truth. How is it that the courts have judged CO2 to be a pollutant? It’s not rational, and it’s not factual. Where did the system go wrong in getting to the truth?
Baghdad Romm, Barney Fife of the left, standing guard over the sacred global warming propaganda.
He really thinks Roger Pielke Jr. is the only one with these questions about global warming? He really thinks Roger Pielke Jr. is trying to smear Al Gore and all other people that promote global warming? This is what comes from the mind of Baghdad Romm.
papertiger says:
May 7, 2011 at 10:23 am
“Calling a Joe Romm, or John Cook, mad seems like absolving them of their crimes.
Mad has a charm. It suggests behavior beyond a person’s control, like being sick.”
I do think it is out of their control.
Smokey, ” If you want to see real vitriol, read what Romm constantly says about Anthony Watts. The comments here are child’s play by comparison.”
Ah, of course, the always persuasive “they do it too” argument. The beauty of your argument is that it justifies anything and everything.
Jimbo, “Sceptical, one day you will realise that you have been lied to about AGW.”
People have tried to lie to me about AGW, but I have enough sense and understanding to be able to make reasonable well informed judgements and so can see where the lies come from.
FYI, here is Romm’s response to Pielke Jr’s charges: http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/07/roger-pielke-jr-false-accusation-gore-exaggerating/ I frankly haven’t waded through the whole thing myself and I don’t know if Romm’s characterization is completely honest…but I do know from past dealings with Pielke Jr, as I have noted above, that he essentially just makes stuff up and then when called on it claims that it is a matter of interpretation. That is basically just a rationalization for spreading falsehoods. And, while Romm is in the employ of a “think tank” with a clear political point-of-view, Pielke Jr. is an academic and apparently a quite respected person in the field of science policy, a fact that kind of frightens me, to be honest. I would expect much higher standards from such a person.
Joel Shore says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:59 am
Bill Moyers retracted and apologized for claiming that about James Watt back in 2005.
“Bill Moyers Smears a Better Man Than Himself” (Power Line, Feb. 6, 2005)
“The Post Issues A Correction” (Power Line, Feb. 7, 2005)
“Good News, A Media Alert, and a Lament” (Power Line, Feb. 8, 2005) – Moyers apologizes.
Having now read through Joe Romm’s discussion of the events, it would seem that Pielke jr has rather misrepresented the situation.
I would be very careful about accepting what he says in future as the truth.
Joel Shore says:
“…while Romm is in the employ of a ‘think tank’ with a clear political point-of-view, Pielke Jr. is an academic and apparently a quite respected person in the field of science policy, a fact that kind of frightens me, to be honest.”
Heck, AGW – which is too insignificant to measure – frightens Joel Shore. Even natural variability frightens Joel. But I do appreciate his confirmation that Joe Romm is a bought and paid for shill. It follows that Climate Progress is just an NGO/QUANGO pseudo-science propaganda blog. We already knew that here, but it never hurts to remind folks like Shore did that Romm has his thirty pieces of silver, and he doesn’t give a damn that his anti-science propaganda supports the misguided policy of converting food to fuel, leading directly to starvation due to higher food prices impacting the world’s poorest. Warmists are just modern-day eugenicists.
It should also be noted that John Cook cooks the books by inventing bogus temperature charts and posting them on his blog. The debunked Michael Mann’s Hokey Stick chart comes to mind. Cook mixes his religions, cherry-picking fake charts that show more than 200% more warming that even the IPCC claims in order to buttress his CAGW religion. He also disregards the fact that all traditional Western religions rate hypocrisy as one of the most reprehensible human character flaws. Cook has that particular flaw in spades. Joel Shore may know physics, but he’s a dull blade when it comes to understanding human nature. [And to show I’m not down on all alarmists, I think Keith Kloor is a stand-up guy. Likewise lukewarmers Lucia and Steve Mosher. ]
# # #
@sceptical: Alarmist lies were posted by Steve Goddard for everyone to see. Yet you are blind to that, and accuse others – who simply have a different view of the subject – of being “liars.” You know what? That is pure psychological projection on your part. Thieves believe everyone else is a thief, and you call honest folks liars. Think about it.
Want to see who the actual liars are? Read the Climategate emails and the Harry_read_me file. You will see a whole gang of mendacious reprobates who connive behind the scenes, and invent years of fake temperature data. And when the light is shined on them, they scurry for cover like cockroaches. Honest folks have nothing to hide. Think about it.
Ben U.: Thanks for the correction. As the post that you referenced notes, what Watt apparently actually said was:
I have to say that such a quote is only partially reassuring to me, however. I would prefer to have someone in charge of our natural resources who believed that they must be preserved for future generations into perpetuity rather than believing that such preservation is necessary only until some uncertain time in the future when “the Lord returns”.
At any rate, my larger point still stands, namely that in the quote that Smokey referenced, Cook did not “mix[] apocalyptic end-times religion” with science or policy issues, and in what I referenced, Watt did, albeit with a more ambiguous message than I had been led to believe.
Smokey says:
No…It does not follow. My point is that one should just be careful when analyzing information from sources that have a strong ideological point-of-view: That means sources you love like ICECAP, Monckton’s policy institute, and anything associated with ClimateDepot and Senator Inhofe. In fact, I don’t think think I can remember a time when you linked to something that was not from such an ideological / advocacy-oriented source, so it is kind of strange for you now to disparage such sources in such strong words.
And, unlike Romm, these sources are peddling stuff that the scientific community general finds to be complete nonsense. (I imagine that mainstream scientists might quibble with some of what Romm and Cook choose to emphasize or how they summarize the science, but they would agree that the science present is way more accurate than that from the sources that you rely on.)
Since your charges against Cook are just vague nonsense, I don’t really see how I can respond to them.
Pielke should be ashamed of himself. If he had any shame.
That means sources you love like ICECAP, Monckton’s policy institute, and anything associated with ClimateDepot and Senator Inhofe.
And, unlike Romm, these sources are peddling stuff that the scientific community general finds to be complete nonsense.
==========================
Arrrrwww getting desperate are ya, Joel?
You just can’t stand the fact that guys like Morano and D’Aleo…are on to the game of the “scientific community” that you so blindly defend like some automaton.
Please cite your evidence of the “nonsense” that they are peddling.
Cite your evidence.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Smokey, “That is pure psychological projection on your part. Thieves believe everyone else is a thief, and you call honest folks liars. ”
I never called anyone a liar. Seems you may be playing fast and loose with facts. Imagine that, someone on this blog playing fast and loose with the facts.
sceptical says:
May 7, 2011 at 5:12 a
One need only read through the comments on this thread to see character assassination. The vitriol against Mr. Romm is rather telling.
==============
One need only read through the comments from you to see cognitive dissonance in action.
And what? The truth?? [I am sure that is an alien concept to you, but still.]
How is the truth…character assassination??
What is “telling” about telling the truth?
It just tells what it is.
Looks like your side has a little more to answer for where this is concerned.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
skeptical posted the following May 7, 5:08am:
“Mr. Sowell, “As to your specific charge, the truth regarding the state of the ocean’s surface, and whether it is rising, remaining constant, or falling, is not at all certain.”
Exactly my point. This is what you claim to believe but you then make definitive statements that ocean levels are falling. If you wanted your statement on ocean levels falling to be taken in some kind of context then you should have qualified it with that context.”
—————————————————————————————————–
The above skeptical post was in reply to Roger Sowell’s post of May 6, 11:55pm. The 6th paragraph of Sowell’s post is as follows:
—————————————————————————————————–
“As to your specific charge, the truth regarding the state of the ocean’s surface, and whether it is rising, remaining constant, or falling, is not at all certain. We have some data. We also have different data. We have data from some places at some times, but not all places at all times. We suspect that the ground is not static, but is rising in some areas and sinking in others. We have islands that should be underwater if certain claims about sea level rise are true, yet the islands remain above water. There are also ancient docks and ports that are now underwater. We also can see undersea canyons just offshore from some river mouths, which some people maintain is proof-positive that the sea level was one hundred feet or more lower in the recent past. How recent is debatable.”
——————————————————————————————————–
To put Roger’s 6th paragraph in a context there were 8 other paragraphs. The first five summarized (in a masterful manner) some exceedingly complex but essential issues at the core of human affairs. Paragraph 7 cited a reference, and number 8 invited Skeptical to examine it regarding sea level data. Sowell’s final paragraph provides a claim that the evidence is increasing against the catastrophic results of manmade CO2. (Any readers joining this thread recently would be well advised to go back to Roger Sowell’s brief essay of May 6th.)
Now I have a question for you Mr (Ms?) skeptical. Where exactly in this May 6th post of Mr Sowell does he, as you say, “…make definitive statements that ocean levels are falling”? Obviously, the answer is that he didn’t. So how could you screw this up so badly?
There are at least two possibilities to explain your mistake; (a) your reading skills are in need of remedial attention, or (b) you are referring to something said by Mr. Sowell in a different time and place —a time and place outside the flow of comments on this thread. If (b) is true, then you, Skeptical, are in breach of ordinary acceptable manners appropriate in this discussion, i.e. you should have referenced the time and location of Mr. Sowell’s statement so that we (casual readers) would be able to see the accuracy of your reports of what he wrote, as well as the context of his remarks. To drive home this point, let me alter the last sentence in your post of May 7, 5:08am using, for the most part, your own words. “If you wanted your [criticism of Roger Sowell] to be taken in some kind of context then you should have qualified it with that context”.
Please note, I do not want to further engage you on this. After a few hours of running around this website (frustrating even if at times quite enlightening) I managed to find what appears to be the basis of your claim. Mr Sowell doesn’t need any help from me to handle you there, but your sloppy out of context reply to Sowell annoyed me enough to spend a few more minutes to let you know about it. Just one small step in the ongoing loss of sympathy for your cause tonight.
Ron
Thanks for the response Ron. I’m not sure why you think you are arbitrator of what is proper or not. The moderators allowed my post to be posted and so it was obviously within ordinary acceptable manners. Mr. Sowell did make the claim that “ocean levels are falling” without supporting evidence, but this doesn’t seem to matter to you. Nope. The important thing is to make sure people post the way you think is proper on this site instead of people correcting bad information.
[Mod comment : Please give links or references to support claims, it helps everyone. eg. when you say “Mr. Sowell did make the claim that “ocean levels are falling””, provide the link. Unfortunately, Mr Sowell did not provide the link when he referred to “my comment on my guest post”, or we could all have easily seen his words “ocean levels are falling” and avoided a tedious argument. (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/04/desperate-measures-indeed/) – mj]
Joel Shore says:
“As the post that you referenced notes, what Watt apparently actually said…”
The name is Watts, not Watt – Watt is voltage times current, as any physicist worth his degree should know.
And of course, climate progress is an NGO/ QUANGO propaganda blog. WUWT provides a forum for honest discussion; CP spoon feeds propaganda, which is why Joel Shore posts here – plus the fact that CP doesn’t have that much traffic despite being financially supported by a far-Left NGO.
And despite what Shore claims, I rarely link to Climate Depot, or to Inhofe, or to the others he names. Sometimes, but not very often – not that they are wrong. It’s just that other links are preferable. [One rime Joel Shore was complaining about a couple of charts I’d posted. So I posted fifty similar charts, from numerous different sources, showing the same conclusion. Joel Shore objected to all 50, every one of them. The veneer of science in his comments covers up a mind that is made up and closed tight.]
Joel Shore is once again attacking the messenger, rather than the messsage: which is that CAGW is a bogus, falsified conjecture; it is debunked pseudo-science, and anyone still pushing the CAGW narrative is promoting anti-science and has no use for the scientific method.
Joe Romm is only able to survive on-line because he heavily censors opposing views, and because he’s a very well-paid NGO propagandist. Apologists like Joel Shore don’t give a damn about the scientific method; Shore supports Romm’s misinformation agenda and his anti-science beliefs. That is all that matters to Joel Shore and Joe Romm in this debate, and to hell with the scientific method, which only gets in the way of their CAGW narrative.
Smokey says:
The name is Watts, not Watt – Watt is voltage times current, as any physicist worth his degree should know.
No…The name of the person who I was talking about is James Watt.
As I noted, you hardly ever link to anything that is not from a strongly ideological source. You have provided no evidence to dispute this.
How many of the sources were peer-reviewed or were they all from the right-wing echo chamber?
This is an interesting position give that you are the one who is attacking scientists and defending positions completely at odds with those of the respected scientific societies around the world, who one thinks might know a thing or two more than you about the scientific method. And, I am the one who has dedicated my career to science.
And, by the way, I did not really express support for Romm because, unlike you, I don’t blindly support people just because they agree with my point-of-view on certain things. What I said was that I don’t really follow Romm enough to have an opinion, but I have followed Pielke Jr. enough to know that he seems to have a serious problem distinguishing truth from falsehoods of his own invention.
It took more than 3 thousand words because Joe Romm lacks the ability to discern the difference between opinion and science and due to that disability he cannot accept that Gore’s original slide was misleading people as to where the science is at.
Romm admits Gore removed the slide Pielke criticized and he admits the source Gore had relied upon had adjusted their science presentation as well.
He tries to excuse that removal as being from outside pressure. . . .indeed it was. . . .because there never was any scientific support for it. . . .and that was the point Peilke was making that it was misleading no matter what beliefs people may continue to hold.
Peilke is also right that the take no prisoners attitude of people like Romm is damaging to science as wide positive public opinion is necessary to keep it funded. Romm plays to a very different agenda and people should indeed push back against it.
Joel: “And, unlike Romm, these sources are peddling stuff that the scientific community general finds to be complete nonsense.”
Actually I found the topic of this thread to be Romm trying to obfuscate the distinction between science and opinion. Arguing that many others do also, including many in the science community, does not justify such obfuscation. Do you actually have an argument that what Pielke is saying is not true in support of Romm? Or are you just going to rely on an argument that others do it so why not?
Hmmm … this behavior by Joel Shore brings to mind a subject, a topic, seen throughout history, notably, apologetics, as an ‘activity’.
Google searching: apologists through history results in quite an impressive number of hits.
Associated, although the flip side of the coin (from Apologetics as classically defined) is heretic.
Heretic –
1. a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
2. anyone who does not conform to an established attitude, doctrine, or principle.
Heretics through history
But, I think the activity he engages in is more along the lines of dissembling.
Dissembling –
1. Conceal one’s true motives, feelings, or beliefs.
2. Disguise or conceal (a feeling or intention).
Notably wiki’s discussion of the above link on dissembling was categorically included in the Lie web page entry.
Of note also was this title, found during a web search: Truth isn’t reached by a dissembling path at, of all places, pharyngula … never mind the post which followed …
.
savethesharks says:
Is this a serious question? Can you honestly not tell the difference between science and what Morano and D’Aleo of peddling? Surely you have been around in one of the many threads in which Smokey has linked to one of the graphs from Icecap showing temperature and CO2 levels and I have patiently explained that:
(1) The graph shows a short time period where the fluctuations in temperature due to ENSO and other things are clearly larger than any underlying trend in temperature, usually with a cherrypicked start period to boot. (And, sometimes cherrypicking which temperature series is shown, for good measure.)
(2) The graph plots temperature and CO2 with the axes scaled so that the temperature curve over the longer term would only be expected to have a similar slope to the CO2 curve only if the transient climate response (TCR) were about 4 or 5 times larger than the central estimate from the IPCC report. Even if you naively use equilibrium climate sensitivity in place of the more appropriate TCR, the scaling of the graph would still be off by a factor of three.
(3) If you scaled the axes more honestly, it would be clear that the temperature fluctuations over such a short period of time basically make a meaningful comparison to the rise in CO2 impossible. And, of course, climate models forced with steadily increasing greenhouse gases show similarly noisy temperature fluctuations over such short time periods.
As for Climate Depot, here is a link to Marano’s glowing recommendation to check out the “Slayers” book of such pseudo-scientific nonsense that Spencer, Lindzen, and even Monckton seem to want nothing to do with it: http://www.climatedepot.com/a/8921/New-Book-By-Team-of-International-Scientists-Slaying-the-Sky-Dragon–Death-of-the-Greenhouse-Gas-Theory Here’s some info on Marano: http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano Pretty impressive if your criterion for trusting someone’s view of the science is that they have impeccable far-right credentials…not so impressive if your criterion is that they have any sort of serious scientific background.
If I were you and wanted to be taken seriously by anybody outside of small community who base their scientific opinions on their agreement with a preferred ideological viewpoint, I would be running as fast as I can to dissociate myself from such people.
Please see the following site with all the data, the graphs, and discussion of the Pacific Ocean Basin sea level data from sealevel.colorado.edu. My hope is to remove any ambiguity in exactly what data was used, what adjustments were made, and any confusion that may have resulted related to my statement that ocean levels are falling.
see http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/are-sea-levels-rising-or-falling.html
I very much appreciate the positive comments regarding my above statement on “truth.”
And Mr. Moderator, my apologies for not including earlier a link to my guest post.
See these lies:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08769.html
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01348857f69c970c-pi
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
You could have fooled me.
Sceptical, are you in fact Joe Romm? ;O)
Sceptical, see these lies:
It’s going to lead to disaster. We will all be drowned as sea levels have been rising since the end of the Little Ice Age – waaaaay before you were born.
Joel Shore says:
Is this a serious question? Can you honestly not tell the difference between science and what Morano and D’Aleo of peddling? Surely you have been around in one of the many threads in which Smokey has linked to one of the graphs from Icecap showing temperature and CO2 levels and I have patiently explained that:
============================
Huh? Is this a serious answer?
I will address your individual points in successive posts
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore says:
Can you honestly not tell the difference between science and what Morano and D’Aleo of peddling?
===============
OK….Morano aside….(not in the same league as D’Aleo but he still has some valid points)….
Can you honestly not tell the difference between your own blinded CAGW dogma, and the attempt by D’Aleo, Monckton, and others, birddog in to the truth (wow….that is called the scientific method….such as it was at least) as opposed to spin?
I thought not.
For a very intelligent physicist, you appear to be just as susceptible to cognitive dissonance and groupthink phenomenon, as anyone else….if not more so because you think you are right.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:20 am
(1) The graph shows a short time period where the fluctuations in temperature due to ENSO and other things are clearly larger than any underlying trend in temperature, usually with a cherrypicked start period to boot. (And, sometimes cherrypicking which temperature series is shown, for good measure.)
================
What graph?
And demonstrate the alleged “cherrypicking”.
Your side is all too familiar with that technique so I trust your expertise on the subject so lets see the analysis…and the evidence.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Simon Barnett says:
May 6, 2011 at 5:32 pm
@sceptical
Does it frighten you that there might be more than one opinion on a subject? That the science isn’t as settled as you have been spoon fed to believe?
Try reading both articles and evaluate the arguments on their merits (not with ad-homs, appeals to authority or counting PhDs). Use the differing viewpoints to form _your_own_ opinion, rather than expecting the uniformity of narrative portrayed by the alarmist camp – for that unifom narrative is the hallmark of doctrine, not science.
Pitting thesis against antithesis is how _science_ is done. Doctrine on the other hand requires only one point of view.
Real science requires that people stand on their own two feet. Doctrine – on the other hand – is so much easier – it only requires that people kneel…
(2) The graph plots temperature and CO2 with the axes scaled so that the temperature curve over the longer term would only be expected to have a similar slope to the CO2 curve only if the transient climate response (TCR) were about 4 or 5 times larger than the central estimate from the IPCC report. Even if you naively use equilibrium climate sensitivity in place of the more appropriate TCR, the scaling of the graph would still be off by a factor of three.
============================
Your side is all too familiar with moving baselines and goalposts and scaling to make the axes fit the predetermined political agenda….so you should be familiar with such technique.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:20 am
(3) If you scaled the axes more honestly, it would be clear that the temperature fluctuations over such a short period of time basically make a meaningful comparison to the rise in CO2 impossible. And, of course, climate models forced with steadily increasing greenhouse gases show similarly noisy temperature fluctuations over such short time periods.
==========================
Oh really?? Then show what you propose to be the more “honest” scaling of the axes…so you can make a “meaningful” comparison to your liking.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore says:
May 8, 2011 at 10:20 am
Pretty impressive if your criterion for trusting someone’s view of the science is that they have impeccable far-right credentials…not so impressive if your criterion is that they have any sort of serious scientific background.
========================
Regardless of the foregoing….pretty UNimpressive if my criterion is listening to a tired argument from authority fallacy.
Regardless of its source….including you, Joel.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Joel Shore says:
If I were you and wanted to be taken seriously by anybody outside of small community who base their scientific opinions on their agreement with a preferred ideological viewpoint, I would be running as fast as I can to dissociate myself from such people.
========================
What about a LARGE community who base their scientific opinions on their agreement with a preferred ideological viewpoint, Joel?
You should know bro….you should know.
Pot calling kettle blackimus maximus.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Jimbo, so you too agree that sea levels are rising and Mr. Sowell was incorrect when he claimed otherwise.
savethesharks says:
Here is one example of a ICECAP graph: http://iusbvision.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/icecap1.jpg?w=448&h=336 This shows the larger context for the case of the HADCRUT data: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1978/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2002/to:2008.7 (green = what ICECAP plotted, red = larger context).
Take the ICECAP graph that I show and look at how the CO2 data is scaled. If you work it out, it is scaled so that on the temperature axis it corresponds to a rise of ~0.83 C per decade. The actual expectation from the IPCC AR4 is that the temperature rise will average about 0.2 C per decade over the next few decades. This corresponds to the CO2 graph being scaled so that it rises by 0.13 C over the entire range of the graph, rather than the ~0.55 C that it rises now. If you overlay such a line on the plot in place of the current CO2 line, you will see that it makes quite a dramatic difference in the appearance of the graph. (And, of course, that is without accounting for the cherrypicked start time of the graph.)
sceptical says:
One need only read through the comments on this thread to see character assassination. The vitriol against Mr. Romm is rather telling.
You know, I read this site and Romm’s site. What I find rather ‘telling’ is that you are incapable of seeing the ‘vitriol’ against Pielke over there.
The future will expose all for what they really are people like gore and romm will be laughed at.
Here are a couple of other ROMM-threads on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/not-evil-just-romm/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/not-evil-just-destructive/