King Julien of the Climate Blogosphere
It must infuriate Joe Romm when people don’t take his word as gospel. Here’s how he opens his latest effort to slime a respected scholar and shape the climate narrative to his liking.
We’re starting to see pieces of counterfactual history on the climate bill in The New Republic and elsewhere based in part on discredited scholarship.
Of course, Romm being Romm, cites himself on that claim of “discredited scholarship.” He’s so classy that he doesn’t provide a link to Bradford Plumer’s studiously fair article in The New Republic. Romm also can’t bring himself (as of yet) to acknowledge where it is “elsewhere” that we’re seeing examples of this “counterfactual history.” (Nature, in this article and editorial, is thus far the most prominent publication to give Nisbet’s report a fair hearing.)
The other day I compared Romm’s relentless, attacking style to that of a famous pugilist. But his imperious proclamations are so cartoonish that he also reminds me of King Julien, a character from the hilarious Penguins of Madagascar movie and TV show. (One of the joys of being a parent of small children is having an excuse for arrested development.)
Of course, Romm being Romm, cites himself on that claim of “discredited scholarship.”
More accurately, Romm cited a post of his that largely presents Brulle’s analysis. Brulle was a selected peer reviewer on Nisbet’s report who pointed out serious flaws that were largely ignored (one of two reviewers to openly state that, Boykoff the other one).
Romm also can’t bring himself (as of yet) to acknowledge where it is “elsewhere” that we’re seeing examples of this “counterfactual history.”
Romm’s cited post pointed to a blaring inaccurate Revkin headline. Perhaps you should read it.
In addition, there are the following inaccurate headlines:
Nature: “Environmental groups and their supporters spend more money on climate-change and clean-energy activities and campaigns than sceptical right-wing groups and their industry supporters, according to a report by a US social scientist”
Morano: “”Environmental groups spent more money on climate-change than “˜skeptical right-wing groups and industry'”
Well, I counted 11 Romm posts that he links back to for supporting evidence. What Revkin article are you linking to in this orgy of self-citation? I didn’t see any original article and excuse me if I can’t be bothered to read through all of Romm’s own previous posts.
It’s in the “discredited scholarship” link you posted, from 4/13/11.
http://revkin.tumblr.com/post/4592239565/greens-far-outspent-fossil-fans-in-cap-trade-fight
Fascinating. Three posts so far from you and still nothing on the substance of the report. Have you even read it?
at the risk of repeating myself. what tim said. c’mon keith make an effort in this case please.
Tim and Marlowe,
The Nisbet report concludes that the environmental community expends considerable effort and resources on a strategy doomed to fail. Whether it is doomed or not is a matter up for discussion. That the strategy has failed is an observable fact.
Keith’s RommDerangementSyndrome… same ole, same ole
Paul, if that is what Nisbet is saying, it’s the Texas target shooting version of research, shooting a bullet at a barn door and drawing a bullseye around it
I have given Romm’s propensity for citing himself a name: The Romm Romp.
Read about it here:
http://climatequotes.com/2011/04/23/epic-romm-romp/