Romm “bombshell” exposes Breakthrough Institute non-bombshell

So the Breakthrough Institute headline on the Nature paper by Roger Pielke, Jr. (debunked here) is

Nature Journal “Bombshell” Exposes Massive Global Warming Technology Gap

I kid you not.

The Breakthrough headline on the paper by Breakthrough Fellow Pielke actually includes a word of praise from Breakthrough Fellow Marty Hoffert! Needless to say, B.I. does not identify that the source of the word “bombshell” is B.I. itself.

The source, of course, is the praise Hoffert gave the paper in the Nature news story on the paper where Nature also amazingly failed to explain both Pielke and Hoffert are Breakthrough Fellows).

What’s next, Breakthrough Institute quoting Pielke’s father?

[For the record, I am the one calling my own post a bombshell, or, I should say, a “bombshell.” Got a problem with that?]

My effort at a screen capture here:

Nature Journal “Bombshell” Exposes Massive Global Warming Technology Gap
Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr., and two other climate experts find that the U.N. IPCC underestimated the global warming technology challenge — it’s twice as large as the world has come to believe. Read the article, the Nature editorial, the press release, the Breakthrough analysis, and Breakthrough’s FAQ.

  blog it

8 Responses to Romm “bombshell” exposes Breakthrough Institute non-bombshell

  1. Ben says:

    This whole affair is utterly shocking. Surely a retraction and an apology from the editor are necessary. What a boondoggle!

  2. Dano says:

    Shocking. Pshaw. It’s publicity.

    Joe, I saw Marty speak about three weeks ago. I was fine with most of what he said.

    I still don’t see why using this as a strategy, combined with a Socolow-Pacala wedge strategy is such a catastrophe/economy-wrecker/whatever.

    Any sort of adaptive management scheme would have this sort of technology promotion thing as a program. It would have negawatts. It would have multiple, adaptive strategies.

    It’s gonna take everybody, *ssholes and elbows, and again, in my view, just because your opinion is that it won’t work doesn’t mean we’re not going to do it.

    Your energy is better spent on positive vibes than negative. Negawatts are fine. Negavibes are not.



  3. David B. Benson says:

    Here is something else to rail about:

    entitled “US: Emissions Cuts Would Hurt World Economy”.

  4. Peter G. says:

    I still remain puzzled by your aversion to Pielke and now the Breakthrough organization. They think global warming is real, dangerous, needs immediate action, and massive research into new technologies. What’s your problem with that?

  5. Joe says:

    They mostly don’t believe in “immediate action” of a kind that matters — aggressive deployment with a cap&trade system. But I admit it’s confusing because they keep changing their positions when you try to pin them down. I’ll try to be clearer in a couple of new posts.

  6. matt says:

    Have any of you guys hear what the New Jersey Nets are doing to in the fight against global warming? Not only are there games now carbon-neutral, but they traded Jason Kidd to the Dallas Maveriks for the a “better environment” also. Julianne Waldron explained to the media that Kidd was giving off to much Carbon dioxide. “Jason Kidd always hustles when he is on the basketball court, and we all admire that greatly. But all of that running up and down the court, pushing the team out on fastbreaks, expending extra energy just to make a few extra points and possibly win a game, caused all of the players to breathe a great deal more heavily and thereby expel extra amounts of carbon dioxide into the air, and we all know that is bad for the environment. We made the difficult decision to trade Kidd in order to save the planet.” Check out this article I found on it Environmental Activism is the Key to the Current Success of the New Jersey Nets

  7. Alex Smith says:

    The Breakthrough Institute is funded by the Nathan Cummings Foundation.
    That is a small family with hundreds of millions of dollars, from the founder of Sara Lee, and other food conglomerates.

    Nathan Cummings Foundation used to fund all kinds of alternative environmental groups. Then, with a new funding manager, they swerved into a kind of rightist netherland, where environmentalism was the cause of all our problems, and must be killed off. Thus the “environmentalist is dead” craze.

    The agents of this institute, PR man Michael Shellenberger, and pollster Ted Nordhaus advertised a “break through” in their book. But in the end, it was just a bunch of empty nostrums. No plan at all – except to bash people who have worked for decades to prevent the problems now overwhelming us.

    Of course Roger Pielke would appeal to this crowd.

    I did two radio programs on “the death of environmentalism” as a phony gambit. Here is a link to the transcript of one of them:

    Beware the heavy hands of the (formerly friendly) Nathan Cummings Foundation. They have many arms (like AlterNet) which internally promote their own people, without acknowledging their funding and connections.
    It doesn’t surprise me to find this happening again, re the Nature publication. It’s like a smokescreen, where a small group of people, on the fringe really, make themselves look bigger and more populous.

    You can hear the two programs (the first includes interviews with Nordhaus and Shellenberger) at (56 MB)
    and (56 MB)
    (that is the one with the transcript).

    Radio Ecoshock

  8. Joe says:

    Alex — Great comment!