Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Planet Gore, ever wrong, never in doubt, adds libel to denial

Posted on  

"Planet Gore, ever wrong, never in doubt, adds libel to denial"

Share:

google plus icon

NOTE:  See below for definition of the inane “Gore effect.”

The mere fact that the National Review Online would name their climate blog “Planet Gore” (PG) tells you how little regard they have for science in general or for those working to prevent the greatest preventable threat to the health and well-being of future generations.

In the blogosphere, strong adjectives fly wildly, and I myself have been known to use them from time to time. But Chris Horner’s attack on me (and Grist’s Dave Roberts) today is beyond the pale. Responding to our shredding of what are easily two of the worst climate pieces of this century by a reasonably legitimate news operation (see “Politico pimps global cooling for Hill deniers” and “Politico’s journalist malpractice“), PG’s Chris Horner wrote:

On cue, aspiring Obama administration climate thug Joe Romm of the Soros-funded Climate Progress … and David “Nuremburg-syle trials for those b@$tards” Roberts of Grist did what they’re paid to do: change the subject by attacking the person with names and slurs.

First off, that requires an apology. I have made very clear I do not aspire to the Obama administration. Seriously, though, in what way am I “a brutal ruffian or assassin“? That does require an apology. It is inexcusable, even for someone with Bush-like language skills who doesn’t know the meaning of the word nonplussed and who once told CNN’s Glenn Beck, “This is a political issue because it’s been politicized, and we wouldn’t even be talking about it right now if it weren’t for the politicians.”

Second, Horner wins the 2008 “instant self-revelation award” for revealing himself to be a hypocrite in a single sentence. He calls me a “thug” and then claims I change the subject by attacking the person with “names and slurs.” As anyone who read my post can see, I provided extensive links to studies and experts who debunked the Politico’s central nonsense about global cooling. Characteristically, however, Horner simply rants without any appeal to facts or evidence.

Third, Horner works on climate issues as a Counsel at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which actually runs ad campaigns aimed at destroying the climate for centuries. You can read all about Horner at ExxonSecrets.org. He is a master of pushing long-debunked denier talking points, stating as recently as April 2005, “the atmosphere inarguably shows no appreciable warming in the 25-year history of satellite and radiosonde measurements (initiated in response to the cooling panic).” Amazing how “inarguable” denier claims turn out not only to be arguable but scientifically disapprovable — yet CEI still keeps the long-debunked statement on its website.

I once spent wasted time regularly debunking the deniers at Planet Gore, ultimately identifying some 40 pieces of disinformation (see below). One of their writers actually claimed Henry Ford invented the gas engine–and that engine couldn’t run biofuels. But life is short and one needs to pick one’s targets. PG is simply too inconsequential to matter.

Erika LovleyThe Politico, however, is a semi-respectable news organization. Or it was. They put a serious dent in their reputation by publishing not just the one inane piece I blogged on, but a second, “Tracking ‘The Gore Effect’,” by Erika Lovely (pictured here), that is indistinguishable from an article in The Onion, except for its lack of intentional humor.

The Gore “effect” is the claim by deniers that it gets cold or snows when Al Gore speaks. Seriously. Well, at least some of the deniers who point out such instances do so only half-seriously. But Ms. Lovley is apparently oblivious to even a microscopic amount of humor. As Grist’s Dave Roberts puts it:

It contains this priceless passage, which is my nominee for the single stupidest sentence written by any journalist this year, possibly this century:

While there’s no scientific proof that The Gore Effect is anything more than a humorous coincidence, some climate skeptics say it may offer a snapshot of proof that the planet isn’t warming as quickly as some climate change advocates say.

Read that again. “Some” skeptics say it “may” offer a “snapshot of proof” that the planet isn’t warming “as quickly” as “some climate change advocates” say. A journalist wrote that sentence. Politico published it.

If this is the level of journalism Politico finds appropriate, do you think you can trust its other stories?

For those who want even more links that debunk Lovley’s piece, go to this WonkRoom piece.

Related Posts:

« »

48 Responses to Planet Gore, ever wrong, never in doubt, adds libel to denial

  1. William says:

    C’mon, Joe…You say a lot of nasty stuff about a lot of people you’ve never met. Your blog on the Politico reporter easily could have made the same points, without the snarkiness.

    You attacked the reporter, Horner attacked you. Both bouts of nastiness are “beyond the pale.”

    The insults are off putting, irrespective of which side they originate. It’s one of the major reasons that Americans don’t care about global warming.

  2. Stuart says:

    Joe, keep up the good work. If Politico wants to publish junior high journalism and NRO wants to defend it then give ‘em hell. The stakes are too high to let the delayers win, so keep beating them on the head with science.

  3. Joe says:

    William — with all due respect, that is B.S.

    1) Please identify “a lot of nasty stuff about a lot of people you’ve never met” — five instances, please. And sorry but “denier” doesn’t count.

    2) “Thug” isn’t snarky, which was one of my points.

    3) I attacked the reporter’s reporting with links to the facts. Horner then attacked me personally. Now normally, the unwritten rules would suggest that he can only use harsh words against me in response to something I wrote about him.

    4) One “side” is desperately trying to save billions of people — including your descendents — from misery using science, while the other “side” is doing everything they can imagine to block action using disinformation. So you can try to create a moral equivalence, but it doesn’t exist.

    5) Your last sentence is the kind of absurd line that I have come to expect from delayers. The public knows nothing about the “insults” a few little blogs engage in on the Internet. They do, however, suffer the consequences of the disinformation campaign by the other “side” especially when semi-legitimate media outlets like Politico mindlessly regurgitate denier talking points.

    Most non-conservative Americans care a great deal about global warming. It is really only conservatives who have been so easily duped by the conservative disinformation campaign, as I have discussed many times.

  4. roy says:

    Joe, don’t back down an inch. I think the deniers are getting a bit scared and maybe (more) desperate as ignorance suffered a nasty put-down back on 4 November.

  5. John Hollenberg says:

    Joe, nothing wrong with your article. I went back and read it again. You call the reporter to task for not reporting the facts accurately. Very different from someone calling you a thug. I guess they didn’t have the facts to argue with your position.

  6. Dano says:

    One of Dano’s great regrets is catching Chris Horner lying through his teeth as a sock puppet on Tech Central Station (he used a fake name but used his CEI e-mail address to log in to comment); sadly, Dano didn’t take screen prints and press for an ethics violation.

    At any rate, let him have it if your lawyers in fact have a chance at this being libel. Lawyers have a code of ethics. If his licensure is still active, send a letter on your counsel’s letterhead to the state bar. Do it Joe.

    The guy is way up there as a FUD purveyor & needs a smackdown.

    Best,

    D

  7. Sam says:

    I hope Jon Stewart gets the the lovely Ms. Lovely on his show. Or gets Sam Bee to comment on her or play her.

    Hysterical. If only it weren’t so….

  8. groweg says:

    The advocates of anthropogenic global warming have made several claims and predictions that have failed to materialize. For example, a few months ago they talked about how the ice cover over the Arctic region was going to disappear last summer. It didn’t.

    [JR: Where are your links to this untrue statement? You have this completely backwards. It is deniers who said the ice cover grew last winter at a record rate so 2007 was a fluke. The climate models predicted the Arctic wouldn't be ice free til 2080, so this is another case where warming is happening FASTER than expected, not slower.]

    Not long ago they predicted this year was going to be the hottest on record. Obviously not so. The warming trend for global temperatures stopped in 1998 and temperatures have dropped over the past year.

    [JR: "They"??? "Dropped"??? Where are your links for these untrue statements?]

    Anyone can scare and control people by making frightening predictions. Its beginning to look like this is the modus operandi of the global warming hucksters.

    Scientists are becoming more outspoken about CO2 levels not determining global climate but that solar activity levels have consistently shown such a relationship. From a recent article:

    According to data from Britain’s Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming “will pick up again shortly.” Others aren’t so sure.

    [JR: This is an outright lie.]

    Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding “excellent correlations” between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn’t exist between CO2 and past climate changes.

    [JR: Long-debunked denier talking point.]

    The only question is how much resources proponents of this dumb notion will suck up and waste before the final collapse of their position. Think of the needless economic inefficiency caused by companies having to limit CO2 emissions and trade in carbon credits. Think of the ill-gotten gains accruing to those who sell commercial products feeding off the hysteria they have created among susceptible segments of the population.

  9. Rick says:

    What about the Soros thing?

  10. David B. Benson says:

    groweg — Every one of your paragraphs is factually wrong. That’s some sort of record.

  11. paulm says:

    Hey groweg you might want to look at the graph from the UK Met Office below….feel free to click on the others also.


    The trend is up – alot…Global Temperature Record

    CO2 delta Vs Temp Change rate


    Name Storms Vs Temperature


    CO2 Vs Mass extinctions

  12. Joe says:

    What Soros thing?

    It is public knowledge that he is one of many funders of CAPAF, which sponsors my website. In more than two years, nobody at CAPAF has once asked me to change a single word I’ve written. And George Soros wouldn’t know me from PG’s Chris Horner if we were trapped in an elevator.

    BTW, Soros invest in coal, so I’m not even certain what his investment in CAPAF would have to do with ClimateProgress anyway. CEI has gotten vast sums from ExxonMobil, btw.

  13. Darth says:

    Wow that ‘planet gore’ sight is funny. They never post anything actually about climate change just alot of stuff about Joe Romm, polar bears, new movies, how google believes in big government and other such nonsense.

    Also i saw no way to leave a comment – what are they afraid of?

  14. David B. Benson says:

    Darth — Reality.

  15. Nick Kong says:

    Politico responds to the letter by Dave Roberts:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/16025.html

  16. Nick Kong says:

    To original poster, William,

    Have the balls to leave your last name instead of running back to your colleague, Chris Horner, to claim that Joe “squealed” about Horner’s comments.

    Better yet, tell Chris Horner to do his own dirty work instead of posting garbage all over the internet.

  17. bill says:

    The bad news, if the current solar conditions continue, it will soon be so cold that even the dumbest amongst us will realize Al Gore is a kook.

  18. George says:

    Joe – Your handling of this whole issue has been childish from the start, with your pride and an enormous ego clearly getting the best of you. How does your reaction here square with the adulation TIME heaped upon you recently? (via your vanity article over on wiki):

    “Romm occupies the intersection of climate science, economics and policy. Resist temptation to lump him in with knee-jerk enviros. On his blog and in his most recent book, Hell and High Water, you can find some of the most cogent, memorable, and deployable arguments for immediate and overwhelming action to confront global warming.”

    Memorable arguments indeed. Attempting to discredit Horner by citing ExxonSecrets.org and your very own Climate Progress hardly passes for muster in objectivity. Based on your wiki-vanity profile it would appear that you’re used to getting pampered. It’s not surprising then that you have the audacity to whine about libel. Get a hug from mom and get over yourself.

  19. llewelly says:

    The Gore “effect” is the claim by deniers that it gets cold or snows when Al Gore speaks.

    That’s just the law of large numbers. Provided one is willing to go through all the available weather data for the whole of Earth.

  20. Rick says:

    Climate science aside, a website called planet gore is a perfectly reasonable concept. Even if Gore is mostly right about climate futures – especially if he’s mostly right, his lifestyle deserves some ridicule. And really the whole AGW movement must have some weaknesses and excesses worth poking fun at. We’re talking about human beings after all.

  21. ice age denier says:

    at least the Chinese know that the global warming, climate change,… whatever-scare is a ploy to tax Chinese manufacturing, and stall their progress. they correctly see this, and the stupidity that follows, as good ol American weakness. by the time we get round to taxing everyone, they’ll have stolen all the great jobs, like the recent 6000-employee IBM computer lab IBM put over there cause we’re basically too stupid.

  22. Dreadnaught says:

    We need to stop the name calling and start the trials for these deniers. They will pay for their crimes against Gaia.

  23. Jim Clarke says:

    “One of Dano’s great regrets is catching Chris Horner lying through his teeth as a sock puppet on Tech Central Station (he used a fake name but used his CEI e-mail address to log in to comment); sadly, Dano didn’t take screen prints and press for an ethics violation.”

    This is an amusing comment from one who has NEVER (to my knowledge) used his real name in over a decades worth of nearly constant snide comments aimed at those with a different scientific viewpoint!

  24. Rick says:

    legal threats over blog entries? I hate when that happens

  25. Dave says:

    I’ve never read this web site before. don’t think I ever will again. Stick to science, not whining and personal attacks. Have the courage of your convictions! The truth will win out. That’s what science is about. This web site is not about science.

  26. Nick Kong says:

    Clearly, Dave, you didn’t watch the floor of the Lieberman Warner debate last June. Because, if science is really winning, we would have had better climate policies five years ago.

    No, this blog and this post in particular is more than just about science. It’s about dispelling misinformation and garbage like what Chris Horner proclaims. And there’s nothing wrong with pointing out how inaccurate articles are, like the Politico piece that started this argument.

  27. Eli Rabett says:

    Joe, the way to get these guys is not straight on, but the Colbert way

    “With reactionaries, never argue on content or with logic. The only thing that works is to make them feel really, really bad and really, really stupid.”

    ridicule works.

  28. Jay Alt says:

    groweg writes:
    ‘Scientists are becoming more outspoken about CO2 levels . . . ‘

    Thanks for the update pal! You’re right on top of the “latest” talking point.

    If you tire of nagging people who are better informed, take a relaxing break –
    http://www.rescuepost.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/29/marlboro.jpg

  29. groweg says:

    Jay Alt:
    Thanks for reading my post, I appreciate your attention to it. I hope you have a great day.
    Regards,
    groweg

  30. Jim Bullis says:

    Al Gore deserves credit for publicizing the global warming problem, but he fails in analyzing solutions. He is not alone in this.

    It seems very reasonable to impose cap and trade rules or a direct CO2 tax. Another government action that would work effectively to reduce CO2 would be elimination of the oil depletion allowance. This is a subsidy to the oil industry and, indirectly, to the auto industry. We can also consider rebates and tax credits to projects like wind and solar energy producing systems. However, all these possibilities come around quickly to a cost to the public, whether it is a tax, a budget shortfall requiring a tax increase, rate increase for power, or simply increased price of gasoline.

    Even before the economic crisis there was a real need to find ways to make such added costs manageable for the public.

    On a long term basis there are clear potential benefits from improving building insulation or not so clear possible benefits from having solar panels on houses that reduce energy costs. Making changes to existing housing is often more of a cost benefit challenge, and sometimes the decisions hinges on a subsidy or tax credit. The fallacy of such stimulants is that their economic validity fails if widespread action were to occur such that everyone is taking subsidies from everyone. So planning needs to be based on cost analyses without subsidies. The cost analysis must also be realistic with full recognition of the cost of money needed to finance such improvements. There is a particular problem with residential systems, since the cost of retrofitting improvements on existing structures can be especially a problem, and the existing structures tend to be not due for replacement for many years.

    Comparatively, the automobile is a more frequently turned over asset. Thus, changes to cars can be much more near term solutions. Even cars are not turned in at a high rate so it important to get some real improvements in the pipeline right now.

    While it is possible to develop a car that could be make a dramatic improvement in the world rate of CO2 emissions, the emerging automobile products seem to be oriented toward making large energy consuming vehicles that purport to be efficient due to inclusion of plug-in electric propulsion capabilities. Since there seem to be not significant efforts to reduce energy requirements that such propulsion must provide, the benefits will be to simply shift from oil to coal as the basic fuel source for these cars, and if coal is the resulting fuel, the CO2 emissions could actually increase over status quo cars. A Draconian degree of “cap and trade” or other tax or mandate will be needed to prevent coal from being the source of the incremental load of these emerging vehicles. And even if the use of coal is suppressed, to power large inefficient cars on natural gas sourced electricity does not result in a major reduction in CO2 emissions.

    It is particularly important that foolish and false solutions not be subsidized such that the needed process of adjustment will seem unnecessary.

    A particularly egregious misstep in trying to find a climate solution is the “Karma” by Fisker. This is undoubtedly a muscle car requiring a 260 hp gasoline engine except for when it runs on electricity, when it will probably still require up to 260 hp in the form of electrical energy from coal.

    This misstep is particularly notable since it is a project of Kleiner Perkins VC firm, notable for strong statements about global warming. (Including those of its member Al Gore.)

  31. Bob Wallace says:

    Cars…

    Fisker Karma is a PHEV with a 50 mile battery only range. Based on average driving that means that ~ 80% of the driving can be done on battery alone. An 80% decrease in petroleum use.

    Where the electricity comes from is not determinable by Fisker. Over time less and less will come from coal and more from renewables.

    “the emerging automobile products seem to be oriented toward making large energy consuming vehicles that purport to be efficient due to inclusion of plug-in electric propulsion capabilities”

    That’s not what the manufactuers have announced.

    There are many very fuel efficient models to be released during the next couple of years. Chevy has (I recall) seven >30 mpg models coming to market in 2009. And the Volt should be out in 2010, seems to be on schedule. Ford is bring some of its efficient European models to the US. Other companies are doing the same.

    (Cited Chevy and Ford as they are pretty much what people mean when they talk ‘big cars’.)

    And, for those who need a large vehicle, a less fuel gulping hybrid is better than an ICE drive.

  32. Jade A. says:

    Thank you for shining the light on the deniers and their puppet journalist over at politico.

    “I never said it would be easy. I only said it would be the truth.”

    Morpheus – The Matrix

  33. dave says:

    What should the temperature be? How do we know? If we cut carbon emissions by 90% tomorrow what’s expected result? How will we know that whatever happens is the result of cutting carbon emissions? What if the result is unexpected? How will we know it wasn’t going to happen anyway? Whatever happens, then what?

    Wil Steger says our “climate is nearly spinning out of control.” Really? When was it under control, and who controlled it? Did we know it was under control before it started spinning out of control or only after?

    What will the temperature be, anywhere, on Tuesday?

    Just wondering.

  34. Dano says:

    This is an amusing comment from one who has NEVER (to my knowledge) used his real name in over a decades worth of nearly constant snide comments aimed at those with a different scientific viewpoint!

    Jim,

    first, problem is with the constant stream of false premises from the denialist fringe (including you), is that the denialists don’t have a different scientific viewpoint. Their constant assertion that they do prompts ridicule. Their (your) view is contrascience, not science.

    second, I learned my lesson with the CA recall, when I called out a PR firm in Detroit area spreading mis/disinformation on TCS, & they sent a VB virus in retaliation. It didn’t work and a buddy of mine (VB programmer) sent it back. Ah, well.

    Best,

    D

  35. dave says:

    I think a lot of us “deniers” would just like to know why it is off limits to question the orthodoxy on this. If you even broach the subject, the name calling and angry invective starts. Why can’t this discussion be had? Is there really a consensus when there’s no consensus?

    My otherwise goofy-friendly dog used to growl and snarl if you came near him while he was eating. No one was going to take his food but, similarly, you couldn’t have that conversation with him.

  36. Jim Bullis says:

    Dano, I wish you would be more specific about what Jim you are talking about. (It might be the most common American name.)

  37. Jim Bullis says:

    Bob Wallace, it is not necessarily true that an ICE with mechanical coupling to wheels is worse than a hybrid. To be specific, the Prius engine at 36% to 38% efficiency is about as good as a pure electric car running on electricity made from natural gas, and this varies somewhat depending on what natural gas generating equipment we are talking about. It is a lot better than running on coal, which I think is a very big problem because it will be hard to displace coal which is abundant and cheap with natural gas. I think natural gas will compete only if it is very cheap, and as it is used more extensively, this cheapness will be less likely. I believe the EIA data about natural gas reserves more than I believe Boone Pickens.

    My main theme is that large or high performance vehicles are a bad way to go since they fundamentally require a lot of energy, either due to weight which causes large rolling resistance losses or large projected frontal area and bad aerodynamic form which causes high aerodynamic losses. High performance, if used in driving practice, is also lossy, even with regenerative braking, though this helps.

    I do not think we will solve the CO2 problem until we rethink the basic automobile.

  38. Dano says:

    Dano, I wish you would be more specific about what Jim you are talking about.

    The Jim who made the italicized statement in my comment 11/30 12:14.

    —–

    I think a lot of us “deniers” would just like to know why it is off limits to question the orthodoxy on this. If you even broach the subject, the name calling and angry invective starts. Why can’t this discussion be had? Is there really a consensus when there’s no consensus?

    You can question the “orthodoxy” all you want. Don’t expect folks to want to seriously discuss someone’s personal opinion on why ocontrascience and denialism should be taken seriously, however.

    That is: if the denialists had some testable hypotheses, their own collected data, models, empirical evidence, journal articles, body of work, scribbles on a napkin that justified a movement that routinely uses ‘Mannian’ ‘Algore is fat!’, Hansen totems, Climate Audit as a reference, etc, then they might be taken seriously. IOW: what denialists have to prop up their opinions isn’t of any value save ridicule.

    Best,

    D

  39. cliff says:

    Eli Rabett, you are SO right. Ridicule will save the planet.

    its just about the only way to convince a rethuglican of anything, put them into a logic chain that makes them realize they are a idiot, without having to tell them they are a idiot.

    a great example was posted on dailyKos, and I used a similar logic chain on my dad… (different subject though)

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/29/2052/9599

  40. cliff says:

    oh and fyi guys, that’s a made up story.

    the logic chain of idiocy Does work tho, at least its worked for me. again, different subject than the story, tailor the subject to the idiot -err climate change denier or whatever.

  41. dave says:

    Made up? Really? It was, like, so real I cried. I’m this many (holds up six fingers).

    Idiot, rethuglican. Made my point. Thanks Cliff.

  42. E.M. says:

    Quoted from above:
    The Gore “effect” is the claim by deniers that it gets cold or snows when Al Gore speaks.
    That’s just the law of large numbers. Provided one is willing to go through all the available weather data for the whole of Earth.
    -end quote

    Neither of these is true. The “Gore Effect” is the name given to the observation that when AND WHERE Al Gore speaks, it is much more often than normal, quite cold or snowy. There is no implied causality, only an observed statistical anomaly. It is quite funny… and folks run with the humor of pretending that their might be causality to intensify the humor.

    From cliff Says:
    Eli Rabett, you are SO right. Ridicule will save the planet.
    -end quote

    Uh huh, that’s the way to convince folks you are right, use ridicule… (Yes, that’s sarcastic). Frankly, it’s that tendency to ridicule and insult that is most offputting about the AGW advocates.

    BTW, just for fun: Google “2008 record cold snow” and stand back. The sun has decided to be quiet for a while and the world has caught a cold phase. If this holds for another year or two, better duck and cover, because attempting to convince folks to deny themselves life’s pleasures during a cold recession will not be easy. This is also the most likely real cause of The Gore Effect. (And yes, the cold is real. Look up ski conditions around the world. Record cold and snow from New Zealand and Australia to Europe and even south Brazil & Alaska, it isn’t just a local weather thing…)

    The jokes of the form “I had to shovel 18 inches of global warming today” have already started.

    One final bit of advice: Lose the ‘deniers’ labeling behaviour. All it does is flag the user of ‘deniers’ as a rabid ideolog. It smacks of the dark ages inquisition “Do You Deny Our Lord?” (and nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!! ;-) Also be prepared to speak to the issues, not just toss links at folks. It just looks like the tosser doesn’t have a clue and is doing an appeal to authority argument.

    Who’s right on AGW? I don’t think it will matter. The general public will decide based on the last decade of personal experience, and with a new cool phase underway (PDO, La Nina, and Solar Cycle 24 all pointing to cold weather) they won’t bother to look at links and decide if it’s CO2 or not; they will just be glad for any warming they can get. Trying to repackage it as “climate change” is doomed to fail. Climate is never stable. Attempting to tell folks they are cold because it’s too warm will just get you laughed at…

  43. sarah says:

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.
    Sarah
    http://www.thetreadmillguide.com

  44. Eli Rabett says:

    To continue, by hijacking Henry Farell and Michael Berube on David Horowitz

    ————————-
    Farrell: However, I think that they don’t provide good guidance when dealing with, say, Chris Horner, on, say, the horrible state of the climate. It’s worth examining Horner’s modus operandi to see why. His main line of attack is that of the standard political hack, concocting a farrago of innuendoes, half-truths and out-and-out lies in order to beat down those whom he sees as his political opponents. However, when he’s attacked in the same terms as those he himself engages in, he’s perfectly happy to appeal to norms of reasoned debate in order to accuse his accusers of themselves being politicized. When Joe Romm tries to engage him in reasoned debate, he has lost the battle before he has started it. This grants his preposterous claims a credibility that they don’t deserve, and sets Joe up to have the bejasus beaten out of him through distortion, selective editing etc.

    Berube: In this context—Climate Progress as opposed to Planet Gore—this grants Horner, and his complaints about scientists and serious policy types, a certain legitimacy. Joe’s job, therefore, is to contest that legitimacy, and to model a way of dealing with Horner that does not give him what he wants: namely, (1) important concessions or (2) outrage. He feeds on (2), of course, and uses it to power the NRO Freedom Center and Massive Persecution Complex he runs out of his one room apartment; and most of the time, we give it to him by the truckload. Scientists and policy types need to try (3), mockery and dismissal, and thereby demonstrate, as I put it on my blog, that when someone tries to blame climate change on Al Gore’s house, that person needs to be ridiculed and given a double minor for unsportsmanlike bullshit.

  45. Eli Rabett says:

    Well, we are on a roll here. Eli’s friend Chris Horner has made a living on the tale that he quit Enron in 1997 because they wanted him to help drafting a climate treaty. They must have made up by 2001 and 2002, because Our Friend Chris was lobbying for Enron Wind and Enron as part of the Bracewell and Guiliani team. Poor baby Rudy must have made him do it

    Interestingly, Chris dumped on Enron after it fell to try and dirty up Al Gore. Clown doesn’t even stay bought.

  46. dave says:

    Eli, sorry the climate is not to your liking (“horrible state”). What about it do you find so offensive? What evidence do you have that cutting CO2 emissions will make it more agreeable? Can you describe what a climate in ship-shape (non-horrible) might be? Just wondering.

  47. Dan G. says:

    Dave asks:

    What will the temperature be, anywhere, on Tuesday?

    For someone interested in the subject you still don’t know the difference between climate and weather? How embarrassing.

  48. davd says:

    The point, Dan, is that the same people who lack the ability to predict the weather with accuracy are predicting climate 20, 50, 100 years down the road. What makes you so confident that those dire predictions are correct when they cannot make accurate local predictions into next week? It has nothing to do with weather vs. climate. It is about the natural and unpredictable variations in both.

    The IPCC models predicted only rising temperatures, but we are in a ten-year cooling trend. Doesn’t this give you the slightest curiosity about the integrity of those models? Think it through.