Tom & Joe, Unplugged

Online Prescriptions Tramadol One of my sources in the National Security Agency tipped me off to a call NSA intercepted earlier today between NYT columnist Thomas Friedman and the well-known climate blogger Joe Romm. Here’s the transcript:

https://fotballsonen.com/2024/03/07/5f6yyqn6pa Tom: Hello?

Joe: Tom, it’s me, Joe Romm. Am I catching you at a bad time?

https://www.mominleggings.com/sp86opiykd3 Tom: Oh, hey Joe. No, it’s cool, I’m just getting off the plane in Shanghai. Did you see my column today?

Tramadol Cheap Prices Joe: Yeah, loved that small town letter by the Pentagon guy, saying we all need to do our part.

Buy Cheapest Tramadol https://asperformance.com/uncategorized/ig7xbmi8ocl Tom: It’s true! The guy is right, we all “need to pony up: bike to work, plant a garden, do something.” That’s why I’ve recently instructed our housekeepers to stop using the washer and dryer. One of our eight bathtubs will now be used just for washing clothes and I’m installing a maze of clotheslines in the backyard of the guesthouse. Now those bastards that like to make fun of me will see that I’m walking the talk.

Joe: Excellent. If you saw my post today on your departing public editor, you know I’m doing my part.

https://www.worldhumorawards.org/uncategorized/hofx0i7ib Tom: Speaking truth to power, brother. As always. And I like how you’re keeping the pressure on Revkin, even though he’s ancient history.

https://www.mominleggings.com/z02np6z7fk Joe: He still has Dot Earth, though. That’s a powerful brand. I’ve got to break his hold on that last segment of influentials who listen to him more than me.

Tom: I hear you, brother. That’s why I’ve never quoted him. I know you’re the man on climate.

Best Tramadol Online https://www.jamesramsden.com/2024/03/07/epi0sxx2y Joe: I appreciate that. But it’s been, like three months since you plugged me. It’s getting to be about that time, isn’t it? And why won’t any of those “dreadful“ NYT reporters call me up for an interview?

https://www.goedkoopvliegen.nl/uncategorized/tq53opcf Tom: Well, you are hitting them pretty hard.

Joe: Oh, please, they need to grow some spine. Besides, it’s like one of my fans said in a tweet last month, I’m just working the refs.

Get Tramadol Prescription Online https://elisabethbell.com/xg9o0ze Tom: I know, I know. Listen, I’ll be here in Shanghai for a day, attending this green tech conference with my minder. I’m telling you, it’s like I said before, if only we could be more like China, we’d be able to kick our carbon habit once and for all.

Joe: And you can go back to using your washer and dryer.

Tom: (laughing). That’s a good one. Listen, I’ll be back in time for Obama’s big BP speech on Tuesday. Let’s talk right after that and I’ll squeeze you into the next column.

https://worthcompare.com/fqhkkq7f8m https://tankinz.com/l9od029kpx Joe: You’re the best.

https://asperformance.com/uncategorized/7m9mtki6a11 Online Tramadol Cod Tom: Anything for America’s fiercest climate change blogger.

28 Responses to “Tom & Joe, Unplugged”

  1. Tom Yulsman says:

    https://www.goedkoopvliegen.nl/uncategorized/wpdr8eh Hysterical, and right on the money!

  2. Ron Broberg says:

    https://musiciselementary.com/2024/03/07/wzk4eh4j Read the following to know why 1 Joe Romm is worth more than a room full of Pielke Jrs or the entire Hartmann Report:
    http://climateprogress.org/2009/03/26/full-global

  3. lucia says:

    Can joe actually stick to two sentences at a time? Even on the phone?!

  4. keithkloor says:

    https://www.jamesramsden.com/2024/03/07/06tipod3 Well, I wouldn't know about the phone, since I've never talked with him. Andy Revkin made an interesting observation on his FB page yesterday, after he linked to the said Romm post lambasting NYT public editor:

    Tramadol Online "Joe Romm, a nice guy in person, hides behind a reader in posting an attack on my credibility as a climate communicator on his Climate Progress column today…"

    https://wasmorg.com/2024/03/07/ksgge2txkuh So I bet he is a nice guy in person. But that still doesn't excuse the inflammatory and often downright malicious hit jobs on journos and people like RPJ. And many, many people who believe Romm is on the side of the angels with respect to AGW science and policy are willing to wink at that side of him. That's why I stay on him. Hardly anyone else calls him on this stuff–at least not publicly.

  5. lucia says:

    https://fotballsonen.com/2024/03/07/grmuyyf1g I agree he is an inflammatory blogger. As far as I can see, he very little does other than polarize. Many of his posts read like stream of consciousness screeds; two paragraphs into a typical post I find myself scratching my head and thinking "huh? Well, I guess he wrote a book…."

    It's difficult for me to believe that anyone takes him seriously, but evidently some people do.

  6. Stephen says:

    Joe is often over the top in his commentary like many bloggers. However he does cover many issues in more depth than most media these days (sadly) and generally does a good job marshalling facts and evidence to support it.

    Keith not sure what you were trying to accomplish here.

  7. keithkloor says:

    Stephen, the fact that you wonder what I'm trying to "accomplish" speaks volumes. It's interesting. I've been getting that question more and more lately, from all sides:

    "What are you trying to accomplish" with X post. It suggests I'm blogging with some larger intent–be it political, ideological, or whatever. I'm not. The thing I want to achieve most with this blog is a broader (not necessarily larger) audience, and intelligent and lively conversation in the comment threads. (I would, however, like to see more focus on the policy end.)

    That said, I also recognize that there are diminishing returns with straight-up criticism of bad boy bloggers and hypocritical op-ed columnists. So spoofs are a good way around that. Keeps it light too. Do I expect you or anyone who otherwise values Romm to like it. Of course not. In the zero-sum world the climate change debate lives in, you either love Romm (and excuse his over-the-top shennanigans) or not.

    I'm in the middle on that one too, even though he's filled one of those Sunday screeds last year trying to destroy my reputation. Of course, he didn't know me from Adam and he got all unhinged, which caused him to later edit and walk back his most outlandish accusations. Stoat, ironically, did all the heavy lifting for me. See the comment thread here where he demolishes Romm, who shows up (and no doubt wished he never did): http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/oh_no_more_

    Bottom line: bullies shouldn't be encouraged. They should be confronted. I take special offense to his attacks on Andy Revkin, not because I'm friends with Andy (I'm not), but because Andy represents the best of climate journalism: his body of work speaks for itself and his posts at Dot Earth–what he's been able to create there–is just a fantastic forum that richly explores the complex, intersecting issues of climate change and sustainability.

  8. Ron Broberg says:

    Tribalism: Who's "in" and who's "out"

  9. Stephen says:

    Keith I think you are indeed accomplishing a broader conversations with your posts but not this one. It's either "LOL Romm's an idiot" or "how unfair to Romm/Friedman"

    Doing a 'Romm post' is not helpful in my view. And Romm undermines himself with his vitriol and partisan attacks, even when he presents a solid argument with good data.

    Andy has done some great journalism even though I don't agree with some of his more recent takes. I think Andy can defend himself and does.

  10. Steven Sullivan says:

    Oh, so *that's* why you 'stay on him'. I was wondering if maybe it was personal. </rolleyes>

  11. Steven Sullivan says:

    "In the zero-sum world of climate change debate, you either love Romm (and excuse his over-the-top shenanigans) or not."

    Well. I don't 'love' Romm, or not, but rather find some of his posts good, and some not. I'm pretty sure there are other commenters who are like me in that regard.

    Similarly, Andy Revkin has done great work, and some not-so-great. I think he might agree; he's done an occasional public mea culpa. Certainly it's possible to critique Revkin without being a 'bully', or implying support of everything Joe Romm writes or how he writes it.

    IOW, it's not zero-sum. Could it be you're a *little* blinkered on anything related to Romm, K?

  12. I agree with Stephen’s take, that “Romm undermines himself with his vitriol and partisan attacks, even when he presents a solid argument with good data.”

    In the light of the internet debate about climate change and energy issues, for all his faults, he does work to support scientific understanding of the issues. Does that excuse him for being a bully sometimes? No. But does being a bully sometimes mean that he should be vilified, if his net influence on scientific understanding is positive? My primary interest in the internet debate is in increasing scientific understanding, so someone’s direction on that front is paramount in my perception of how positive/negative I view them.

  13. (cont'd)
    McIntyre in my opinion has a negative influence on scientific understanding of the public. As DeepClimate once said it, he provides fodder for the “skeptics”, and he does so very effectively. With McIntyre, the problem as I see it is that he misses the forest for the trees in his various criticisms, and seems all to happy to let people walk away with the impression that the science is seriously flawed. His feeble excuse when called upon it (“but that’s not what I said”) deep in a comment thread is not convincing, as it’s not followed up by making very clear what he means and doesn’t mean next time around. That coupled with his nearly continuous harassment of individual scientists and casting doubts about a whole scientific field (whether intentionally or not) makes my opinion of him very negative indeed. He seems to actively work to lower science’s credibility (whether intentionally or not).

  14. In a newer thread Judith Curry suggested that it would be very worthwhile to figure out how to put this energy and expertise (well educated people delve into specific scientific details) to productive use, rather than dismissing. I would add that it should ideally be put to good use indeed, rather than it being put to destructive use, as a lot of it currently is. It looks like many of them have a deep felt contempt for climate science (fed in no small part by McIntyre) and often miss the forest for the trees (imitating McIntyre). That makes it very hard to see their energy (as currently used) as positive to the scientific and policy related discussions.

    Michael Tobis said over at CA:
    “The fundamental question is: Are you interested in improving the world’s and your own understanding the climate system as a physical system, a problem which in principle really ought to be at least partially resolvable? Or are you interested in demeaning and undermining the people who have made the most effort toward doing so.”

  15. Judith Curry says:

    Bart and Michael; the answer is that this group is definitely interested in moving the science forward. They feel that they have been disrespected by main stream scientists, and that mainstream scientists haven't been playing by the rules, which raises their ire. And because their ire has been raised, then the main stream scientists feel justified in ignoring them. I originally viewed this as a chicken and egg problem, but after delving into this considerably, in my opinion it was not the bloggers that committed the first foul.

    The climate researchers thought the situation with the bloggers was analogous to the war with big tobacco, and adopted the same strategies. This strategy was inappropriate since the bloggers are not politically or economically motivated, and it has backfired, and the current impasse is the result.

  16. Steve Firtzpatrick says:

    Hysterical; I do not know any scientists who write such funny stuff! I can now see why one of my daughters is studying journalism.

  17. Steve Firtzpatrick says:

    Judith,
    You are right. I (and I am sure many others) simply want to move the discussion forward on basic technical issues; like if two graphs are significantly different or not. If we can't get past the basic issues, how can we address more complicated ones? I can understand that climate scientists, or anybody with a technical background, become frustrated with really crazy blog comments (Stefan-Boltzmann is wrong, CO2 doesn't increase due to burning fossil fuels, etc). Heck, I have many times tried to technical inject sanity into some blog threads, and I know Willis has invested a *huge* amount of time toward this end, often with little to show for his efforts.

    But the way-out stuff is clearly not the issue on this tread. There are lots of reasonable and thoughtful questions being asked, which I think could be (and should be) addressed in a meaningful way. Something like "You are not up to understanding anything about the climate" doesn't really qualify as addressing the question, nor does "that question is ill-posed", but it seems altogether too often to be what is on offer.

    I have read a fair amount of original literature, and given considerable thought to the subject. Based on what I know, I am not convinced that future warming will be nearly as high as is typically projected. But I am open to reasoned argument that shows why I am wrong. What I am not open to is the suggestion that anybody who works outside of climate science is incapable of reasoned evaluation of "the science".

    Climate scientists who believe future warming requires immediate and substantial public action would advance their cause if they did more to address serious questions and doubts. A constructive discussion about the best public actions to address global warming depends very much on the absence of major doubts about the magnitude and certainty of that warming.

  18. Tim Lambert says:

    Judith, you are mistaken. Look at, for example, this post of mine from 2004. You'll say that the same attacks on the science being made even before McIntyre and Watts and co started blogging.

  19. Judith,

    Thanks for your reply. I very much want to believe that what you say is true, and I hope it is. But a lot of the CA minded folks seem to me politically or economically motivated. Perhaps I’m being blinded by the peanut gallery in my perception, and perhaps I’m throwing away the baby with the bathwater. I agree that it’s not wise not constructive to dismiss the expertise and energy of the more scientifically minded critics. But then I would suggest that those sincerely interested clearly distance themselves from the contempt and suspicions raising crowd, since that are the public face of the critics, and it’s severely hampering communciation with mainstream scientists and their supporters. Problem is, McIntyre himself has had a major influence in instilling contempt and suspicions into his very wide following. It doesn’t just raise my ire; it’s entirely un-constructive to moving the internet discussion with critics forward (regardless of how it all started).

  20. Judith Curry says:

    Bart,  I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.   Note, this book was not written with any input from McIntyre (he was unaware of the book until he received a copy of the galleys), but documents the “hockey stick wars” from McIntyre’s first interest in the problem based upon blog posts and other pieces of documentation including journal publications.  This book was nearly completed before the climategate emails, a chapter is appended at the end with emails that provide further information in completing the understanding of these events.  The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book.  If you read this book, which i think accurately lays out the perspective of McIntyre, you will understand why McIntyre comes across as suspicious and occasionally contemptuous.  Taking what is in this book at face value, one is left wondering why McIntyre is as polite as he is.  Note, McIntyre is not angry about all this (and he is often criticized for not being angry; particularly in the wake of climategate and also at the Heartland Conference).

  21. Judith Curry says:

    Bart,  I recommend that you read the “Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.   Note, this book was not written with any input from McIntyre (he was unaware of the book until he received a copy of the galleys), but documents the “hockey stick wars” from McIntyre’s first interest in the problem based upon blog posts and other pieces of documentation including journal publications.  This book was nearly completed before the climategate emails, a chapter is appended at the end with emails that provide further information in completing the understanding of these events.  The book is well documented, it obviously has a certain spin to it, but it is a very good book.  If you read this book, which i think accurately lays out the perspective of McIntyre, you will understand why McIntyre comes across as suspicious and occasionally contemptuous.  Taking what is in this book at face value, one is left wondering why McIntyre is as polite as he is.  Note, McIntyre is not angry about all this (and he is often criticized for not being angry; particularly in the wake of climategate and also at the Heartland Conference).

  22. Steve F,

    “If we can’t get past the basic issues, how can we address more complicated ones? ”
    soudns as if these technical matters ought to be resolved before the rest of the science can be discussed, and long before we may discuss policy options. That’s exactly what concerned scientists and citizens fear: That it’s used as an option to delay action (whether intentionally or not).

    “A constructive discussion about the best public actions to address global warming” does https://giannifava.org/uhq4biutcml NOT depend on these technical details at all. That’s the crux of the matter. They make people not see the forest for the trees, in a very effective way. If that’s not McIntyre’s purpose, he should really rethink what he’s doing.

  23. Keith Kloor says:

    All, please be patient while we fix the software comment glitches in the next hour. Thanks, Keith

  24.  
    Judith,

    Even if I were to accept the thesis that McIntyre has valid reasons for his contempt and suspicions, how would that change my perception of his current influence on the public (mis-)understanding of climate science? I may understand more where he’s coming from, even feel some empathy for how he’s been (mis-)treated, but I don’t see how such understanding would excuse the massively negative effect he’s had on how climate science is being perceived by a good chunck of the public, and how people use the nitpicking as an excuse to not having to think about response strategies (see my response to Steve F just above). In the end, that’s what counts (public understanding); not some hurt feelings of person A and person B.

  25. Judith, I recommend you read Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,  by Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway.
     
     

  26. And JC, given Bishop Hill’s (Montford’s)  background and a level of scientific chops that has him saying, this year, “My gut feeling is still sceptical but I don’t believe it’s beyond the realms of possibility that the AGW hypothesis might be correct.”,  why on earth would you take his book ‘at face value’?  Do you seriously think the ‘spin’ is to be discounted here?
    The bigger question, why are you, now one of the public scientific faces of this debate,  apparently *so deeply  impressed* by the arguments of this  cadre of articulate nonscientist skeptics,  and so willing to go to bat for them?   Is it some particular affinity for libertarian world-views?
     
     
     
     

  27. Judith Curry says:

    EDITOR: Removed test comment by imposter.//KK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *