Collide-a-scape

Last week, the New York Times put out a special section on energy that didn’t pass muster with Joe Romm. He declared:

I think it is safe to cancel your subscriptions to the one-time paper of record. While there are 1 or 2 reporters at the New York Times who get climate and energy, it’s obvious that most don’t and, more importantly, the editorial staff simply don’t know what they’re doing.

This is typical hyperbole from Romm that largely gets ignored by climate media watchers. But this particular rant caught Charlie Petit’s eye at the Tracker. As he noted, Romm was upset

because the section is full of news on fossil fuel industry expansion but not enough, not much at all actually, on why it’d be much better to look forward to a future with no fossils fuels at all and a stabilized atmospheric concentration of CO2.

Petit then says something that gives a clue as to why Romm gets a free pass for his heavy-handed attacks on journalists:

Romm’s energy sensibilities are on the side of the angels. We got an emergency unfolding and governments and their populaces are, most of them, pulling pillows over their heads so they can sleep.

But then Petit’s better journalistic angel takes over (my emphasis):

Would the  [Times] section have been better to have run a significant feature on the consequences to the planet if the growth curves of fossil fuel use implied by what industry and policy experts expect were to occur (not the same as what’s best)? Sure, why not. It is gut-wrenching to read, amid a few pieces on the struggles of the clean-energy business, how bullish analysts are on petroleum and natural gas. But cancel the paper? Romm seems to be temperamentally skating close to the mentality of police state censors: as in China when nothing in the news about policy matters could be printed without reference to Mao, as in the Soviet Union when it was ditto for Stalin (or, today, to the Dear Leader or whatever they call the monomaniac in charge of N. Korea). Not that I’d equate, at all, the edifice of climate science with the intellectual bankruptcies of various dictators. But to demand only one angle on news stories, an angle that has been given extensive coverage and is therefore not news anymore except when things come along to advance the ball, is to be delusional about that a news medium’s job is.

It’s not often that Romm gets called out by media watchdogs for his rhetorical excesses, so this one time was worth noting.

Just for kicks, here’s my revisions to the opening paragraph in this Climate Progress post:

Another week, another New York Times article Joe Romm post on extreme weather that fails to stretches climate science to simplistically connect the dots to global warming for the public.  The NYT Romm blew the Arizona wildfire story.  They He blew the Dust Bowl story.

And now, “one of the most influential global-warming blogs on the Internet” (according to Time magazine) has blown the Southwestern drought story. As Romm has so often reminded us, the media is remiss when it doesn’t connect disasters such as Australian wildfires and Russian heat waves to global warming. (The same goes for Arab revolts.) So, predictably perturbed at this NYT story, Romm titles his post:

NY Times Asks Why “Horrible” U.S. Drought “Has Come on Extra Hot and extra Early.” Their Answer is…La Nina, Of Course!”

Well, actually, that’s what NOAA’s David Miskus says in the NYT story:

A strong La Niña shut off the southern pipeline of moisture.

And, as I pointed out yesterday, that’s also what Climate Central’s Andrew Freedman reported in his WaPo’s Capital Weather Gang blog:

The drought was caused in part by La Nina conditions in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which altered the main storm track across North America, helping to steer storms across the northern tier, leaving southern areas desperate for rain. Although La Nina has waned, there are increasing signs that it may redevelop this fall or winter, according to the latest outlook from the Climate Prediction Center.

But if you absolutely, positively must mention global warming when discussing the Southwestern drought, Freedman shows us how to do it in a responsible fashion, in his next passage (my emphasis):

However, La Nina wasn’t the only force behind the drought, says [Marty] Hoerling, who leads a group of climate change attribution sleuths at NOAA. For now, though, the co-conspirators remain unknown. Although climate science research shows that droughts are likely to become more intense and more frequent in a warming world, particularly in the Southwestern US, observational evidence does not yet show clear trends in drought conditions in the U.S. to date.

Hoerling says his quick analysis led him to conclude that climate change has not played a major role in this event. “This is not a climate change drought by all indications,” he said, adding that this view does not in any way refute the fact that global warming is occurring, either.

Joe Romm, for all his blustery criticism of journalism, could take some pointers from an actual climate journalist like Freedman.

Joe Romm, deviating from his oeuvre, abandons science with this post. He begins:

Three years ago, Climate Progress published “Should you or your kids keep a cell phone pressed against your heads for hours?“  My answer back then was “no.”  It still is.

A year ago, I published, “Are cell phones safe? The verdict is still out.”  It still is.

Say it ain’t so, Joe! To buttress his “the verdict is still out” claim, Romm cites this WaPo story, which reports:

Cellphones are “possibly carcinogenic” to humans, according to the panel organized by the World Health Organization. But an exhaustive, eight-day review of hundreds of studies concluded that the existing evidence is insufficient to know for sure. And because cellphones are so popular, further research is urgently needed, the experts said.

(For a roundup of media coverage on the WHO panel report, see Charlie Petit’s post at the Science Tracker.)

Now let’s go to the indefatigable slayer of all quackery and dubious, science-free claims, who writes that,

the evidence supporting a link between cell phone radiation and cancer is so resoundingly nonexistent in epidemiology, preclinical science, and physics that it boggles the mind the WHO would come to even the tepid conclusion that cell phones should be added to Group 2B indicating that cell phone radiation might be carcinogenic.

Why is Romm, who regularly touts the accumulated body of climate science in his arguments for action on climate change, giving currency to irrational fears about a cell phone/brain cancer link that is not supported by scientific evidence? Here he is in the same post (my emphasis):

As I wrote three years ago, “You can choose to ignore the risks, of course, but from my perspective, I think the science is more than strong enough to raise concerns, and the measures needed to minimize risk are trivial.”

That is obviously even more true today.

No, it’s not. If anything, the science has shown exactly the opposite. Again, here is Orac:

There are a lot of problems with the claim that cell phones cause cancer, not the least of which is that the science and epidemiology just don’t support it. In particular, the INTERPHONE study, whose results were reported last year, showed no evidence of a link between cell phone use and glioblastoma or meningioma. In fact, to me the decision by WHO is exceedingly puzzling because, if anything, over the last several years the evidence has been trending more and more towards being inconsistent with with a link between cell phone use and brain cancer–or health problems of any kind, other than getting into car crashes because of texting or talking while driving.

If Romm wanted to be a credible voice on this matter and still be able to raise his concern in a responsible manner, he might have taken a page from Orac, who says near the end of his post:

I don’t dismiss on basic science grounds alone the possibility of a link between cell phone radiation and cancer. In other words, I do not consider such a link to be impossible. I do, however, consider such a link to be incredibly implausible and improbable based on basic science considerations alone. Add to that the essentially negative epidemiological evidence, and, for now, I consider the question of whether or not there is a link between cell phone radiation and cancer to be in essence a dead issue, the question having been answered provisionally (and strongly) in the negative.

Romm, citing only a Washington Post story, a CNN article, and this publication (which is edited by his cousin), gives undue credence to the cell phone/brain cancer link. For a guy who advertises himself as grounded in science, he sure has a poor way of showing it sometimes.

UPDATE: Here are some additional posts worth checking out. Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy. Ed Yong at the UK Cancer Research site. Maggie Koerth-Baker at BoingBoing. And William Connolley. Of course, nothing beats a good cartoon, and Scott Stantis in the Chicago Tribune captures the fear meme here.

Who knows why he even bothers sizing himself up next to Watts, but in case you were wondering, Romm wants you to know that his is bigger.

I have to keep reminding myself that Joe Romm comes from a journalism family. Because it escapes me how he could take issue with this rapturous story getting front page treatment in yesterday’s NYT.

Abby Haddad Carson and Robert Carson say Saturday is Judgment Day; the children, Joseph, Faith and Grace, right, do not.

The story not only has a legitimate news hook, but it’s also poignant, disturbing and, as the headline suggests, even humorous. It also does what journalism does at its best–connect a larger phenomenon to a personal story, of which, in this case, most anyone with parents and siblings will be able to relate to.

From one of the many (which includes academics and journalists) who get slandered by Romm:

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.

The response by some climate scientists and climate bloggers to a nuanced perspective on the tornado/climate change issue reveals just how zero sum the climate debate remains in some corners.

In a follow-up to this superb post, Andy Revkin draws attention to a missing component in recent tornado-related commentary from some prominent voices in the climate community:

Given continued assertions that human-driven global warming could be playing a role in the havoc down south, it’s also worth revisiting something that Walker S. Ashley, a meteorologist at Northern Illinois University, said last week on Dot Earth:

The heart of the matter lies with a growing and increasingly vulnerable population. That is what is driving “disasters.”

There’s no doubt that Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University is right when he says “climate change is present in every single meteorological event” — in the sense that the buildup of greenhouses gases is a background nudge everywhere.

But that’s a meaningless assertion without asking whether there is evidence of a meaningful influence — meaning enough of a nudge to the atmosphere that the contribution from greenhouse gases is relevant to policy and personal choices, in this case in tornado zones.

For the moment, there’s scant evidence to support this at any level — in the basic data on storm patterns or in tallies of damage and deaths. I’m not denying it’s possible, just that it’s relevant.

It’s fine for Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research to say he feels “it is irresponsible not to mention climate change” when discussing tornado outbreaks. Everyone’s entitled to his or her view.

My response would be that it is irresponsible not to mention the need to reduce inherent and avoidable human vulnerability to tornadoes in the crowding South, particularly in low-income regions with flimsy housing. I saw barely a mention of these realities in recent posts by climate-oriented bloggers on the tornado outbreak.

Revkin goes on to lay out why the issue of “avoidable human vulnerability to tornados” is important to stress–even for those who decide to emphasize a climate change angle.

He also recalls a five-year old  statement from leading researchers on a similar debate over hurricanes and climate change, which he wrote about in this 2006 story:

Ten climate experts who are sharply divided over whether global warming is intensifying hurricanes say that this question, a focus of Congressional hearings, news reports and the recent Al Gore documentary, is a distraction from “the main hurricane problem facing the United States.”

That problem, the experts said yesterday in a statement, is an ongoing “lemming-like march to the sea” in the form of unabated coastal development in vulnerable places, and in the lack of changes in government policies and corporate and individual behavior that are driving the trend.

Whatever the relationship between hurricanes and climate, experts say, hurricanes are hitting the coasts, and houses should not be built in their path.

In his current Dot Earth post, Revkin then says that he’d “love to see a similar statement now from meteorologists, climatologists and other specialists studying trends in tornado zones. Any takers?”

In the comments, Peter Gleick, who was among those who sought last week to score political points over the tragic tornadoes in the South, will apparently not be one of the takers:

Andy, disturbing that you seem to think that it is one versus another (growing populations, or bad housing, or coastal development VERSUS the risks of climate change). It is simply both, and we have to deal with both. No climatologist argues that we should ignore population or bad building design. Yet you argue we should ignore climate influence.

No, Revkin argues that the issue of human vulnerability in areas notable for extreme weather should be a more prominent part of the climate discussion.

There was also predictable pushback from Joe Romm, who wrote:

Revkin supports a too-little, too-late energy technology development strategy can’t possibly avert catastrophic global warming — nor can it generate funds needed for adaptation.  So it is hypocritical of him to attack others for not constantly saying how much we need to improve housing for those in tornado alley.

That’s precious coming from someone who “constantly” characterizes even the mildest criticism of any of his own un-nuanced perspectives on climate matters as an “attack.”

Regardless, it’s too bad that when tragedy strikes Romm only sees fit to use his widely read blog to warn of a future hell and high water, when he could also be talking up the need for measures that would lessen the hell visited on people today.

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.)

Say one thing about Joe Romm, he understands the value of getting ahead of a story to try and influence the media narrative. He’s kinda like Mike Tyson in his prime, who would launch from his corner stool like a ball of fury as soon as the opening bell was rung and pummel his opponent into a sagging heap. Romm is similarly relentless and too goes for the quick knockout.

But like Tyson, who also had no compunction about biting off ears and hitting below the belt, Romm has shown that he’s willing to fight dirty. See, for example, this post from Romm yesterday, in which he breaks a media embargo, that astonishingly, a Harvard University-affiliated journalism watchdog, seems okay with. (Harvard’s Nieman Journalism Watchdog appears to accept at face value that Romm has accurately characterized this report by American University communications professor, Matthew Nisbet.)

So days before the official release of Nisbet’s report, he has been forced to wade through the mud that Romm has thrown up. Every journalist writing about the report will now be forced to sift through the mud, too.

And where are the referees who are supposedly interested in fair play? They are writing approving headlines like this:

Killing a false narrative before it takes hold

Even Tyson got called out when he mugged his opponents.

UPDATE: It should be noted: Robert Brulle, who was a peer reviewer on Nisbet’s report, and who didn’t like the conclusions drawn, dramatically jumped ship last week and is now doing everything he can (in tandem with Romm) to torpedo the report’s credibility. In Romm’s latest post on this, I see he’s saying that a ”reanalysis” of the data has been done, with “the help of Dr. Robert Brulle.”  Yeah, no axes to grind here.

Is this what passes for acceptable behavior among scholars? Is it ethically appropriate for someone who doesn’t like the results of a study he helped review then join forces with a partisan blogger to deep six the report before it is even officially released?

Well, here’s a shot across the bow.

Time for a flashback, to put things in context.

A few years ago, Joe Romm got quite perturbed at former Real Climate contributor William Connolley over this post at Stoat and the comments William made in the thread. At one point, Romm couldn’t take it anymore and came over to “set the record straight.” He got more than he bargained for in this exchange with William, who deconstructed all of Romm’s distortions. William also distilled Romm’s modus operandi, with this eternal quip:

You’ve done so much out-of-context quoting that no-one is going to trust you any more.

Same as it ever was.