Collide-a-scape

Joe Romm has a curious post up today that begins this way:

While some confused people think we are headed to a post-partisan era, more reality-based analysts, like centrist political reporter Dana Milbank, know what nonsense that is.

Romm’s “post-partisan era” link takes you to a piece he wrote several weeks ago that was critical of a bipartisan white paper that had advocated  massive public investment be the cornerstone of a new energy/climate strategy, rather than carbon pricing. In floating this trial balloon, the authors of the proposal (representing three think tanks across the political spectrum) were in no way suggesting that the nation is headed to a “post-partisan era.”

So that’s the first bit of sly disingenuousness in Romm’s current post. The second involves referencing Dan Milbank’s latest WaPo column to make a larger point about the emerging makeup of the Republican party, which Romm writes

is the most consequential political reality for climate and clean energy policy for the foreseeable future)…it’s important to hear it from the bastion of centrist inside-the-beltway analysis.

I want to point out that Milbank, the “reality-based,” wise “centrist,” also wrote this column two weeks ago, in which he said that it was time for Democrats

to come up with an alternative to regulating carbon, a Plan B for climate change.

Milbank went on to discuss the “makings of a cross-ideological coalition” for geoengineering research:

At the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Samuel Thernstrom wrote this year that “ignoring geoengineering is potentially dangerous and irresponsible.” At the liberal Center for American Progress, Andrew Light tells me that because “research is already starting in some parts of the world, we would be foolhardy not to be looking into it.”

Conspicuously, Romm chose not to mention this bit of “inside-the-beltway” analysis.

There, what did you make of that headline? What’s entering your mind?

Now head over to this post by Watts, and tell me what you think he’s up to. Well, one reader caught on pretty quick:

Good on you Anthony, we need to get a link going in peoples minds between Bin Laden and the likes of Romm and McKibben.

In an inline reply, Watts professes no such insinuation:

It is not my intent to compare them, I only want to point out that like with the 10:10 fiasco, AGW proponents that don’t want this sort of bad publicity, should distance themselves. I’m going to add that to the body of the story so it is clear.

I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: Watts and Romm are two sides of the same coin. They both like to play the guilt by association card.

UPDATE: True to form, Romm plays his card here with an update:

Memo to Watts:  You know your smear-fest has hit a new low when one of your own ‘tribal’ members, Keith Kloor, calls you out.

That’s so precious. That Romm considers me a member of the WUWT tribe should be a revelation to my friends and colleagues.

UPDATE 2: I see that Romm changed the text containing his reference to me, and that he’s at least letting the reader know. That didn’t happen the first time around when we tangled last year, so it’s nice to see he’s showing improvement in some areas.

James Lee, the demented guy who was killed after taking hostages at the Discovery channel headquarters, is turning into quite an illuminating inkblot in the blogosphere. Exhibit A is this headline from Anthony Watts:

When warmistas attack

Exhibit B would be the majority sentiment that flows from that post’s comment thread, of which this one was among the first few out of the box:

Are you surprised? All of the unbalanced minds are on the Alarmist side. Now watch for the reaction of Romm and Hansen and all of the other spittle-flecked lunatics. Will they have the guts to embrace his actions?

Joe Romm, for his part, rightly criticizes the warped nature of Watts’ headline (as well as the equally cringe-inducing first line from that post) and the offensive tenor of many of the commenters in that thread.

On the central figure in the tragic event,  Romm also correctly observes:

I don’t think you can tell much about this guy from his actions and writing other than the fact that he was crazy every which way.

Then Romm, being Romm, couldn’t leave well enough alone. In the next breath, he forfeits the high ground when he writes:

But you can tell a lot about the anti-science, pro-pollution blogosphere by how they react to this and whether or not they denounce Anthony Watts.

Really? Does that also apply to the (presumably pro-science, anti-pollution) liberal blogosphere, a representation of which Anthony Watts (oblivious to the odious comments from his own readers in the thread of his post), gleefully points out in the thread of this Think Progress post?

This is the thing that puzzles me about Romm. He could have simply let the Watts post speak for itself. It was a gift staring him in the face. Instead, he had to overreach and demagogue it.

So I guess we can tell a lot about Romm and Watts, too, based on how they treat this sorry episode.

Not me, silly. I still have no clue why I blog.

But I have in my possession the first draft of Joe Romm’s recent post, “Why I blog.” It’s a rough, bullet-point version that was smuggled out of Romm’s kitchen window by a source who shall remain anonymous. Here it is:

I joined the new media because the motherf#!$*! mainstream, status quo, false-balance media are so utterly, miserably, failing to report on the looming end of civilization.

What I have learned most from my blog is that hyperbole works! The louder I shout, the more insults I hurl, the more credible I become.

I am channeling the spirit of George Orwell. He was a truth teller. So am I. Don’t believe me? I’ll blowtorch your name in public.

I dicate all my posts not just because I love the sound of my voice, but because I love the poetry of my meandering 2,000 word posts, and the artistic beauty of those 50-word headlines.

I blog because it gives me more pleasure than the treadmill. Also, I simply would burst from acid reflux if I didn’t have a vehicle to truth-tell.

I blog because my brother lost his house to Hurricane Katrina. That singular event, which I admit, had nothing to do with global warming, motivated me to become an unflinching truth-teller.

George Orwell. Note to self: insert more references to Orwell.

A key goal of my blog is to save you time by being as verbose as possible. I know that sounds like a contradiction. It’s not. I never contradict myself. Remember, I am a truth-teller. The point is, you don’t need to bother going anywhere else for truth-telling. Everything you need to (and should) know about climate science, climate politics, and the motherf#$%&! status quo media is what I tell you.

On that note, F-you Andy Revkin! I’m the man! Not you! And I’m gonna drum that home from hell to high water.

I blog because I love my commenters. They reinforce my basest instincts, they appreciate my truth-telling and they never fail to say that in the most adoring terms.

The ultimate reason that I blog is because it’s too late for humanity. But I want the cockroaches who will inherit hell and high water to know that somebody was out there yelling from the rooftops.

The ultimate, ultimate reason that I blog is because there’s a great hunger for such ravings. That is what keeps me going. Your hunger for my rants. Thank you all for lapping it up!

Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger do a deep dive into the Romm/Pielke Jr. affair. Some trenchant observations made by the Breakthrough boys, such as this one:

Romm knows that a debate with a non-skeptical liberal like Pielke would disrupt the Manichean fairy tale that global warming is an epic struggle by scientists and climate realists against global warming deniers and ignorant reporters. That’s because publicly debating Pielke will inevitably require Romm to acknowledge that Pielke is not a global warming skeptic nor an opponent of action to address global warming.

By contrast, Romm relishes debating skeptics like Morano and relishes offering them a platform precisely because doing so reduces the climate debate to an argument between skeptics, who oppose carbon pollution limits of any kind, and advocates like Romm, who demand emissions reductions in the name of climate science.

Here’s something else they write, which I wonder if establishment greens will take note of:

In the end, Romm’s bullying does not serve efforts to effectively address global warming; it serves the political interests of the self-proclaimed progressive wing of the Democratic Party. As the chief spokesman for climate legislation in Washington and the pointman on climate for the Center for American Progress, Romm is no rogue actor. On the contrary. In framing global warming as apocalypse, polarizing the debate, attacking alternatives to cap and trade, and using character assassination against working journalists and academics, the green and liberal establishment in Washington has, in Romm, precisely the spokesperson it deserves.

It’ll be interesting to see if Romm retains that position of authority going forward. He’s been fierce about the Waxman/Markey bill and utterly scornful of alternative proposals on the table. If a new climate bill is introduced in Congress, especially one that eliminates cap and trade as the major policy mechanism, where does Romm go from there?

Yeah, why would one prominent guy who writes about climate policy want to debate another prominent guy who also writes about climate policy? Here’s Joe Romm, in a response to a reader, explaining why he has no interest in debating Roger Pielke, Jr:

The question is why waste any time on him at all? He isn’t a climate scientist and doesn’t dispute the science and asserted on this blog we must stabilize at 400 to 450 ppm CO2. So not much to debate there. And he certainly isn’t an expert on climate solutions. He simply isn’t relevant to the debate anymore.

So if he’s not relevant to the debate, then why waste a precious Sunday writing over 4,000 words about him?  How many posts have you done on Roger in the last year alone, Joe? How many tens of thousands of words have you wasted on someone who “simply isn’t relevant to the debate” anymore?

In that same response, here’s a chestnut Romm pulls out everytime he tries to de-legitimize a voice in the climate debate:

The fact that he is so widely debunked should tell you that he puts out a lot of misinformation and disinformation. As I’ve said many times, it is a waste of my time to give him a platform to spread mis- and dis-information and then have to use all my time debunking it.

Joe, it is clearly not a waste of your time, or why would you keep at it? Oh, and as for that “widely debunked” assertion, has anybody informed William Connolley of this yet, because here’s what he wrote last summer, in a post on another Rommian screed against Roger:

RP is pointing out, yet again, that evidence for increased cost of GW in disaster related losses is thin at the very best, and that people seem very happy to quote outdated reports if they support their pov. Unfortunately, this is a message that many people don’t want to hear.

I happen to think Joe Romm is an important voice in the climate debate–both for better and worse. He has the ear of media elites. I just wish he thought his opinions weren’t the only ones that mattered.

UPDATE: Foreign Policy magazine has agreed to host a debate between Roger Pielke, Jr. and Joe Romm. Here’s hoping that Romm accepts.

UPDATE 2: Hilarious comment from a reader at Roger’s blog:

My prediction is that he will say he will not dignify your ideas and your “legitimacy” by agreeing to a debate. Only he’ll say it in 2000 words.

Is Joe Romm becoming the Michael Mandelbaum of climate change in Thomas Friedman’s op-ed columns? Romm still has a way to go before he can approach Mandelbaum’s record number of appearances. But today’s column brings the latest evidence that Romm is a fav of Friedman.

What’s doubly perplexing about this is that Friedman has never cited Andy Revkin’s work at Dot Earth, a far superior informational source on climate change related news and issues. Maybe Revkin is just too evenhanded and nuanced for Friedman’s boilerplate arguments.

[UPDATE: The Breakthrough Institute weighs in and issues a challenge to the media and climate advocates.]

Okay, I was really hoping to leave all this unpleasant Joe Romm stuff behind. I’m gratified by the emails of support I’ve received from colleagues and the public show of support. (See here and here for two that I particularly appreciate.)

But this thing seems to be taking on a life of its own, as other climate bloggers have picked up on the battle between me and Romm. Notably, William Connolley started a thread last night and I’ve felt obligated to engage it. Romm evidently didn’t like the direction of the thread, so he recently jumped in, essentially cutting and pasting from his original blog attack. But it’s worth reading again in this context to see the comments to Romm in parens from Connolley.

I should also mention that Romm took additional shots at me last night in the comments section of his blog. I responded shortly thereafter, but he thus far has decided not to let it pass his censor. So I’ll just post my response below. As you can see, it also lists the date and time I emailed it to Climate Progress:

Your comment is awaiting moderation.

Joe,

Other than yourself (though I recall you claiming numerous times that you do not want to be called an environmentalist), can you tell me what enviros I have supposedly “smeared”? This is the first time anyone has brought this to my attention. I know you referred to David Roberts in your original post as being one of them. I’ll have to check with David on that one, as I think he might disagree. At least I hope he would.

And for the record, I believe Roberts is a huge talent: first rate mind, truly excellent writer. For example, just look at the post he recently wrote diagnosing why the climate bill is being strangled of credibility and probably doomed to not passing. That said, he’s a big boy and not everything he writes is green gospel, right? Is it okay to make occasional criticism of posts of his or would that always constitute a “smearing”? I’d especially like to know with respect to his latest post.

And while we’re on the subject of smears, I’d be curious to know if you ever thought that calling Roger Pielke Jr.”the most debunked person in the science blogosphere” might be a smear? I only ask because I don’t think I’ve ever made such a bold and blanket assertion in any post I’ve written. Can I issue that kind of statement about someone, safe in the knowledge that it is not a smear?

So aside from Roberts, please tell me what other enviros I’ve “smeared” and do provide the links, please.

Oh, and thanks for clearing up that confusion about the missing “denier” and “delayer” text. (What a relief to hear I’m just a delayer!) I can’t imagine that me mentioning your deletions in my blog had something to do with you releasing my comment nearly a day after I sent it to you. I do hope you see your way to releasing this comment in a more timely manner than the last one, because I’d rather not have to post it on my obscure blog, where it stands much less of a chance of being read.

[UPDATE 1: See bottom to read about the deletions and textual changes Romm makes in his post and follow-up response.]

[UPDATE 2: Science journalist and University of Colorado professor Tom Yulsman, (a colleague and friend), weighs in here.]

[UPDATE 3: Since publishing his post on me, Romm has made so many changes in the text that it's hard to keep track of them. But the most obvious one, as of 11/6/09, is the headline. Where it used to read: "Meet Trash Journalist Keith Kloor," it now says, "Meet Blogger Keith Kloor."]

In an obvious effort to damage my reputation, Joe Romm makes many sweeping accusations in this post.  Among the biggest is this one:

Day in and day out, Kloor just trashes people who disagree with him.

Wow, I invite anyone to scan the last week of my blog or any random week in the last nine months to see if that’s true. Why Romm would make such an obviously refutable statement boggles my mind.

The reason for Romm’s 2700-word attack seems to stem from this critical post I wrote on him several weeks ago. So I’ll mostly address his grievances related to that. Honestly, the stuff he throws out in the second half of his post amounts to a string of selective quotes from various posts of mine, all taken out of context–and all meant to buttress Romm’s contention that I am some poseur journalist. (And he never provides links to the actual posts.)

So Romm alleges that I’ve “smeared” his parents in this post. That’s the charge I take most seriously. Here’s the prelude: After being caught trying to feed Stanford climate scientist Ken Caldeira a quote, Romm defended himself this way:

It is exceedingly common in regular journalism to ask people for a quote that makes a very specific point — I’ve been asked many times by reporters to do similar things.

I took exception to that, and wrote this:

I’ve never done this during my career as a magazine journalist. I don’t know any magazine writer that would do such a thing. Perhaps it happens in the newspaper world, but I’d be shocked if it occurs in the the way Romm suggests.

It also bothered me that Romm wanted that canned quote for this reason:

I want to trash them [Dubner & Levitt] for this insanity and ignorance.

As I wrote here:

It would be one thing if Romm said to Caldeira, I want to refute Dubner and Levitt, or I want to repudiate them.

But no, Romm says he wants to trash them. That’s plainly out of bounds. That’s not how reputable journalists operate–we don’t set out to deliberately trash people.

Now, in my original critical post, I admittedly tried to tweak Romm with a reference to his family journalistic connection, (mainly because he invokes it often at Climate Progress):

I suspect that Romm is trying to rationalize his own behavior with the kind of lazy practice that perhaps happened with regularity in a past era–maybe even at the Times Herald Record in the 1960s and 1970s, which is where Romm first learned all about journalism, when his parents were at the helm of that Hudson Valley paper. But I wouldn’t want to impugn his parents’ legacy or that paper’s reputation with such an accusation. Maybe I’ll just call up some old friends who worked at that fine paper in recent years and see if it was “exceedingly common” for them to feed sources quotes when they reported their stories.

So how is that a smear of his parents? How could it be, because Romm himself asserts that feeding sources specific quotes is standard journalistic practice. So if that’s the way it’s done–and I contend not–then me pointing to a hypothetical past in which his parents might have practiced this can’t be a smear. After all, Romm rationalizes his own behavior by saying everyone else does it. Everyone else would seem to include all journalists, including his parents, right?

Yes, I write rhetorically that perhaps the practice of feeding quotes was once common decades ago (and I honestly don’t know), but I wouldn’t want to assume so either, which is why I write with respect to his parents:

But I wouldn’t want to impugn his parents’ legacy or that paper’s reputation with such an accusation.

Here’s the rest of what I wrote in that paragraph:

Maybe I’ll just call up some old friends who worked at that fine paper in recent years and see if it was “exceedingly common” for them to feed sources quotes when they reported their stories.

Somehow Romm interprets this as me digging for dirt on his father:

Note that in the above quote, he even threatens to try to dig up some dirt on my late-father and his paper, which again, is just far, far beyond the pale of acceptable practice even on the blogosphere.

Huh? Maybe I wasn’t being arch enough, but what I’m trying to say here is that I don’t believe my contemporaries at his father’s old paper actually engage in the practice of feeding sources quotes.  I suspect that if I called them up (and I never did), they would cringe in horror at the suggestion.

Now, this rebuttal has already gone on too long, so I’ll take up a few of the other Romm gems about me in a separate post. But in the meanwhile, I’ll leave you with this beaut from him (his emphasis):

Kloor’s blog posts this year prove he is an anti-journalist, the Glenn Beck of bloggers.

Joe, I’m glad to see that you’ve been reading all along.

UPDATE: In a follow up response in the comments section at Climate Progress, Romm explains that he meant it figuratively–that I supposedly “trash climate bloggers, day in and day out…” He goes on to amend this statement to: “week in and week out.” Never mind that this is still false; Romm can’t even bring himself to acknowledge the change in the original post with a customary cross-out.

In that same follow-up response, Romm calls me a denier and delayer. Wait, you won’t find that there anymore, because he deleted it shortly after I wrote another comment (that never got through his censor) expressing my surprise at this.  I had told him that this latest charge struck me as astonishing, because from 2000-2008 I was an editor at Audubon Magazine. During that time, I helped conceive and edit two special issues on climate change. I asked Romm if I was some sort of “denier” mole during my tenure there. Or if I warranted this label because I was critical of him in my blog.

I have yet to receive an answer or an explanation as to why he deleted the sentence about me being a denier and delayer. As I understand it, bloggers use cross-outs when textual changes are made,

In characteristic Romm fashion.

In his post today, there’s way too many distortions of what I’ve written and who I am for me to respond in an off the cuff manner. I also don’t want that to eat up my Sunday. But because I’m a freelancer with all the job security of a…freelancer, I’ll take the necessary time to respond in full later.