Contest: Dismantle Pielke’s post before I do. Prize announced below.
I’m on my way to Houston to give a talk, so I won’t have the time to point out all of the errors and misstatements that Pielke, a blogger, makes myself before Monday.
I do think it’s funny that Pielke, a blogger, identifies me as “Joe Romm, a former political appointee,” as if that were, like, my entire resume or even the most important thing to know about me. It would be like me, I don’t know, just referring to Pielke (a blogger) as, say, a blogger. I suppose he means to imply (cleverly) that all of my comments are politically motivated. They are not.
That said, I am delighted he answered me as directly (and incorrectly) as he did, as we can finally — finally! — get to the heart of why he’s wrong and dangerously so.
I leave the next two days to my readers to beat me to the punch in spelling it out. Whoever does the best job I will elevate from the comments to a post of his or her own — and then take further trial posts as a potential permanent weekly guest blogger on Climate Progress.
[Hint to readers: Start with his answer to #2, then go to #1, and finally to #3. I count 4 major flaws in his response to me. I would also note that it's ironic that he said "it does not appear that" I read his paper. It's pretty clear he does not even understand what his own analysis shows or what the IPCC was saying. Second hint: "frozen technology"]