Pielke Jr: Joe Romm Lies

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Henry chance

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.

Darren Parker

MIT seems to be the last bastion of sanity over there

Lady Life Grows

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.

pat

Romm is a hysteric. The hoax drew him in and now he is stuck with his gullibility hanging out for all to see.

sceptical

” 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?

kramer

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/

MattN

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.

Theo Goodwin

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.

BenfromMO

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.

Simon Barnett

@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.

Brian

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.

James Sexton

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.

kim

Paid to lie. I pity him. Imagine that he knows the truth but can’t say it for fear of his paymasters.
=======================

Don K

@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.

Theo Goodwin

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.

Steve Oregon

Romm is the Mike Malloy of alarmists.
If you know who Malloy is you know that is not nice.

Douglas DC

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.

Mike Mangan

Romm is Frankie Carbone from Goodfellas. With a lisp.

James Sexton

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.

joe

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…

Charlie A

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.

James Sexton

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.

John Blake

Romm is a snake who neglects to shed his skin.

Doug in Seattle

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.

John C. Randolph

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!

2kevin

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]

morgo

evhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJtW3JRoi2s&feature=player_embedded lord monckton hear what he has to say very important

Richard S Courtney

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

Thrasher

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.

Jimbo

Yesterday I posted a comment on his website about his alleged ‘lies.’ Here is what is up on that page today.

“UPDATE: Roger Pielke, Jr.’s charges are laughably false. I debunked them 2 years ago (see here) and will do so again shortly. What I wrote about him below is true, as Gore’s office reconfirmed today.”
http://climateprogress.org/2011/05/06/nisbet-media-analysis-washington-post/

“Joe Romm Lies” [06 May 2011]
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2011/05/joe-romm-lies.html

Jimbo

sceptical says:
May 6, 2011 at 4:55 pm
……………….
I have not read a lie by Joe Romm, ……………

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……

Mac the Knife

There are those that have no more significance than a skid mark in three day old underwear. Need I say more?

stephen richards

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.

Adam Gallon

His allowed commentators are a right bunch of slickers! Yes, they are slickers.

3x2

Leave poor Joe alone – he’s doing a great job.
(admittedly not the job he set out to do)

Dr T G Watkins

Well said Roger S.

Louise

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.

Jimbo

Roger Sowell says:
May 6, 2011 at 11:55 pm
@ skeptical, and the concept of “truth.”……………..

In your sea level rise bit you forgot:

“Large-scale abstraction of groundwater for irrigation of crops leads to a sea level rise of 0.8 mm per year, which is about one fourth of the current rate of sea level rise of 3.3 mm per year.”
Sources: IGRAC and Wada et. al. [also in pdf]

Sceptical should be more sceptical.
http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

John Silver

If Romm didn’t exist, we would have to invent him.

Jimbo

Smokey says:
May 7, 2011 at 3:35 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. 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.
New York Times March 24, 2010

[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

kim

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.
============

kim

Romm and Cook are both mad. The madness wouldn’t be contagious except for the money.
======