Meet blogger Keith Kloor

UPDATE 1:  Besides smearing my parents on his blog, besides questioning both my honesty and sanity on the same blog, Keith Kloor tried to smear me at Nature blogs, as one of my commenters notes below.  In the original version of that Nature blog post, Kloor wrote that Pielke said “Dubner and his co-author Steven Levitt have indeed been slandered” by me.  I asked Nature to take down that statement.  I pointed out that not only did subsequent reporting by Pooley and others show that my original piece was accurate, Kloor knew the charge against me was false when he wrote it (!) — since later in the same piece he quotes from the Bloomberg piece by Pooley that backed up my account (see “Bloomberg interview of Dubner and Caldeira backs up my reporting on error-riddled Superfreakonomics“).  Nature changed what Kloor wrote, not surprisingly, which is why the current (corrected) version of Kloor’s piece no longer makes much sense:

Roger Pielke Jr., never one to shy away from a battle, believes that Dubner and his co-author Steven Levitt have indeed been criticized by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress.

Yeah, I “criticized” them.  Can’t argue with that.  As the commenter below notes of Kloor’s false charge against me in Nature:

Why else is that Nature would have had to doctor up your first post at their climate blog? Do you think that they were worried about any legal problems you may have brought to their publication by defaming Romm? Or do you think they were simply embarrassed that they had hired someone who doesn’t know the difference between slander and libel?

So yes Kloor has been trying to spread false charges about me — again and again for months, as you will see. But at least Nature intervened to stop him in this case.

So after months and months of Kloor smearing me, misrepresenting what I wrote, and attacking other climate science advocates, I finally decided to do one post to set the record straight.

Some might have you believe that journalists (even those who are really mainly bloggers) should not be the subject of hard-hitting critiques by bloggers (though apparently bloggers can be).  I think even bloggers have the right to set the record straight.

UPDATE 2:   As one of the commenters at Nature blogs wrote in response to the original smear by Kloor:

What a nonsense disclosure, Keith. You haven’t just “weighed in on the matter on my own blog.” There’s almost not a week that goes by in which you don’t have something derisive to say about Joe Romm, often times in concert with Roger Pielke Jr.

So there’s no surprise that when there’s a controversy over a book replete with climate change errors that have been discussed at length across the internet, that you should focus on charges of “slander” by Roger Pielke Jr. against Romm. Are either you or Pielke Jr. lawyers who can speak competently about “slander”? Are you aware that unfairly raising charges of slander is also a form of slander?

This is extremely unprofessional. But par for the course for a blog that got off to an extremely rocky start by having Roger Pielke Jr. as one of its original authors.

Kloor often flaks for Pielke, who just happens to be a Senior Fellow at The Breakthrough Institute (TBI).  As I discuss in “A Breakthrough Institute primer,” TBI has dedicated the resources of their organization to trying to kill prospects for climate and clean energy action in this Congress and to spreading disinformation about Obama, Gore, Congressional leaders, Waxman and Markey, leading climate scientists, Al Gore again, the entire environmental community and anyone else trying to end our status quo energy policies, including me

Finally, for a complete debunking of the underlying charge that my critique of Superfreakonomics was in any way a smear of the authors, read “One error retracted, 99 to go. Superfreaknomics authors will, in future editions, correct their claim that Caldeira believes “carbon dioxide is not the right villain.” What follows is an updated version of the original post.

Friends, Rommans, countrymen, lend me your ears….

One of the oldest rhetorical tricks is to emphasize a point by pretending to deny it.

This notion is so core to rhetoric that the ancient Greeks even had a few related figures of speech named for it “” most broadly, apophasis (from the Greek word for “to deny”), the figure of speech that stresses an idea or image by negating it. As Shakespeare has Marc Antony say to the Roman citizens in the “Friends, Romans, Countrymen” speech after Caesar’s assassination, “Sweet friends, let me not stir you up to such a sudden flood of mutiny.” He wants “” and gets “” a mutiny.

There is a related figure, Paralipsis, which Wikipedia describes this way:

Paralipsis, also known as praeteritio, preterition, cataphasis, antiphrasis, or parasiopesis, is a rhetorical figure of speech wherein the speaker or writer invokes a subject by denying that it should be invoked. As such, it can be seen as a rhetorical relative of irony.  Paralipsis is usually employed to make a subversive ad hominem attack.

The device is typically used to distance the speaker from unfair claims, while still bringing them up. For instance, a politician might say, “I don’t even want to talk about the allegations that my opponent is a drunk.”

… Proslepsis is an extreme kind of paralipsis that gives the full details of the acts one is claiming to pass over; for example, “I will not stoop to mentioning the occasion last winter when our esteemed opponent was found asleep in an alleyway with an empty bottle of vodka still pressed to his lips.”

Paralipsis was often used by Cicero in his orations, such as “I will not even mention the fact that you betrayed us in the Roman people by aiding Catiline.”

This is all by way of introduction to one Keith Kloor, a blogger who week in and week out trashes climate science bloggers, including me, often parrotting the disinformation of Roger Pielke, Jr., “the most debunked person in the science blogosphere.”   Since his blog is obscure, I have ignored him until now, and plan to do so again in the future.  But Nature’s climate blog has started running articles by him [which is no great claim to serious journalism — one of the first Nature blog posts was by Pielke himself, and Lambert (aka Deltoid) writes a must-read debunking of it here (be sure to read the comments)].

As a result, I looked at Kloor’s website and saw that he went after my parents with the clever rhetorical smear:

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….

I dealt with the substance of the issue Kloor is commenting on here — “Anatomy of a debunking: Caldeira says Superfreakonomics is “damaging to me because it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and filled with “many” misleading statements. Dubner continues to make false statements, parroted by Pielke and Morano. DeLong urges authors to “abjectly apologize” for the chapter.”  And I discussed it further here, where I solicited the feedback of a real journalist — Bloomberg interview of Dubner and Caldeira backs up my reporting on error-riddled Superfreakonomics. Dubner is baffled that Caldeira ‘doesn’t believe geoengineering can work without cutting emissions.’ While I have never claimed to be a professional journalist — and I was acting as a both a blogger and expert colleague of Caldeira’s who was, among other things, expressing outrage in a private email at how his work was misrepresented following a recent email interview on the exact same subject — what I did once is what many journalists do today routinely (much more so than in the past, in fact, especially in radio and TV news).  As I’ve said, it was a unique case and in retrospect I would do it in the manner Pooley suggested.

But what Kloor does routinely in his public blog is what no serious journalist in the world does even once. I am quite sure you will be shocked both by what he regularly writes on his blog and even more that he would actually try to pass himself off as anything but a run-of-the-mill blogger, as someone who is in a position to lecture anyone else on what journalistic practice is.  I would have ignored him, as I have done for months now, but for his attack on my parents, including my late father, which is simply beyond the pale even in the tough to-and-fro of the blogosphere.

As you can see in the excerpt above, he cleverly smears my parents with apophasis/paralipsis, the rhetorical device which literally gives him “deniability.”  But a smear it is.  He has no knowledge whatsoever of any bad journalistic practices at that paper — in fact both of my parents were award-winning journalists — but simply hypothesizes that they may have done something “with regularity” that he views as “lazy practice.”  As we’ll see, one sure fire way to know that you are practicing good journalism is to be attacked by Kloor.  Kloor’s blog posts this year prove he is the Glenn Beck of bloggers.

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.

But as outside the mainstream this attack was, it’s actually standard operating procedure for Kloor.

On October 18, Kloor suggested Michael Tobis is might be “delusional.”

UPDATE:  My point in that cite is primarily about Kloor’s language, to show that he is just a run-of-the-mill blogger has no business criticizing other bloggers for using strong language.

On October 17 Kloor wrote:

More proof that environmentalists can’t chew gum and talk about climate adaptation at the same time comes in this post from David Roberts at Grist.

The cognitive dissonance from this crowd continues to amaze me.

Note the broad brush smear that all environmentalists are morons.

As is typical of Kloor, Roberts wasn’t even talking about adaptation.  He was merely stating the obvious (in pictures), that “The idea that sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere will save us is akin to the hope that a math equation can be solved by erasing one of the numbers.”  As an aside, as I’ve written many times, even one wedge of carbon capture and storage — under 1/10th of the total solution — represents a flow of CO2 into the ground equal to the current flow of oil out of the ground. It would require, by itself, re-creating the equivalent of the planet’s entire oil delivery infrastructure (see “How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution“).  And Roberts’ point was we have all lot of other problems besides climate change.

On October 9, I wrote of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize award, “Obama and his international negotiating team led by Secretary of State Clinton have helped create the first genuine chance that the entire world will come together and agree to sharply diverge from the catastrophic business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions path.  This award simultaneously acknowledges what they have achieved and pushes them and the world toward delivering on Obama’s promise.  It is well deserved.” Kloor quotes those words and writes:

It’s all about politics with Romm, which if he was honest, he would at least own up to in this case. He knows the award isn’t deserved; any sane person can see that.

This from a guy who criticized me by saying “That’s not how reputable journalists operate-we don’t set out to deliberately trash people.”  That’s all he does is trash me and Roberts and Tobis and our “crowd.”

This from a guy who brags in his blog “I’ve been an adjunct journalism professor.”

For the record, here is Zbigniew Brzezinski, who “served as national security adviser to President Carter and is now a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies” on PBS’s News Hour the same day:

JUDY WOODRUFF:  Dr. Brzezinski, I’m going to start with you.  What was your reaction?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, I feel he definitely deserved it, but he also has to earn it.

WOODRUFF: Definitely deserved it. Why?

BRZEZINSKI:    But also has to earn it.  He deserves it because, in the course of less than a year, he really has refined America’s relationship with the world. He has grandly improved America’s image in the world. He has committed America to a series of policies designed to resolve conflicts and to deal in a non-unilateral fashion with key issues. And he has committed America to grand goals in the area of nuclear weaponry, global problems and so forth.  You know, if you consider that this has taken place in the course of just several months, that’s a tremendous accomplishment for the most powerful state in the world, to have its total posture changed, redefined, improved, more idealistic.

Huh.  Woodruff didn’t say Brzezinski was dishonest and insane.  I wonder why.  Maybe she’s not a blogger like Kloor.

Note that Brzezinski pretty much said exactly what I said.  Obama deserved it, but now he has to deliver.  Anyone can disagree.  This isn’t climate science, just an opinion.

Week in and week out, Kloor just trashes people who disagree with him.  In some cases merely for expressing an opinion, as I did here.

Now I use tough language — though mostly for people demonstrably pushing scientific disinformation and in any case not the beyond-the-pale trash talk Kloor routinely does — but then I don’t claim or aspire to be professional journalist as Kloor does.  I view myself as a champion for climate science.  I also try to imagine what future generations would say and then dial that language back maybe 50% — since I rather expect they’ll be violently cursing our names for decades if we listen to the likes of Kloor.   Unlike Kloor, however, who spends the majority of posts in fact-free trash talk, I spend the overwhelming majority of my posts actually reporting on climate science, solutions, and politics.

In Kloor’s brand of trash blogging, misrepresentation is standard operating procedure.  He writes:

At any rate, one of Romm’s constant themes at Climate Progress is that the mainstream media is incompetent and unscrupulous when it comes to climate reporting.

That half truth is another clever smear.  Yes, a constant theme of CP is that much (though not all) of the mainstream media is “incompetent” when it comes to climate reporting.  But “unscrupulous”?  That’s a very strong word —  a Kloor-type word.  I don’t think I’ve ever accused a member of the mainstream media of being devoid of scruples.  I certainly don’t think the mainstream media is unscrupulous when it comes to climate reporting (and I don’t count Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh in the MSM).  In any case, if it’s a constant theme, Kloor should have no difficulty finding 10 examples.  But he can’t because the charge is just another false smear.

The above quotes are but a fraction of the trash blogging you can find on Kloor’s blog.  Rather than subjecting you to any more, let me just end with the clearest evidence that Keith Kloor is the Glenn Beck of bloggers.

On August 12, in a big wet kiss titled “Morano Bridges the Climate Divide” (whose opening line is “Yes, you read that right”), Kloor writes:

If you think the public discussion of climate change is best served by a free flowing exchange of information and perspectives, then Morano’s Climate Depot is one of your gateways, like it or not.

Yes, you read that right!

Kloor is praising the latest disinformation-fest of the guy who was the first to publish the Swift boat smear against John Kerry, the guy who was “previously known as Rush Limbaugh’s ‘Man in Washington,’ as reporter and producer for the Rush Limbaugh Television Show” (thank you SourceWatch), the guy who was the right-hand disinformer for Inhofe — a Senator so out-of-the-mainstream even the Washington Post mocked him as “the last flat-earther,” — the guy who routinely makes stuff up and misrepresents scientists’ work, as I (and others) have repeatedly shown (see, for instance, Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Morano, CO2 “” but not the sun “” “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850 and Inhofe and Morano keep making stuff up, this time utterly misquoting Revkin on Hansen).

Morano keeps smearing serious reports by just making up stuff, writing recently, “Why does Eilperin fail to note that a top UN IPCC scientist, Mojib Latif of Kiel University in Germany told a UN conference earlier this month that he is now predicting global cooling for several decades….”  The answer is that Morano’s assertion is an outright falsehood (see here).

For more, see ConWebWatch’s “Lies, Conservatives and Statistics: Marc Morano’s Fantasy.”

But for Kloor, Morano is just helping us all develop a “healthy habit” by being “a true news aggregator” — when in fact over 90% of Morano’s links are to disinformers and deniers and outright smear-jobs.  His occasional links to genuine climate science blogs are primarily to mock them.

Oh but it gets better, which is to say shockingly worse.  On September 15, Kloor actually criticizes Morano, “He exploits everything-even a noble man’s death- to score cheap points for his side.”  Duh.  But quickly goes on to say:

Look, I’m already on record about the value of Morano’s site. I also get a ton of traffic every time he links to me; I’m glad when it happens because as I have argued, he has a constituency that I think is important to communicate with. Let me also say I have a soft spot for him. The guy is unfailingly congenial and polite. And he has a sense of humor.

Tell that to John Kerry.  Or Murtha.  Or the hundreds of serious climate scientists who Morano and Inhofe have repeatedly smeared over the years for doing nothing more than trying to inform the public about the dangers of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions.  Or the countless environmentalists whose tireless efforts to avert catastrophe have been met with lie and lie after lie.

Tell that to the billions of people whose lives will be needlessly ruined if policymakers and opinion leaders actually believe the disinformation and misrepresentations that Morano pushes day after day after day.

Morano isn’t “communicating” with his “constituency” — he is feeding them a pack of lies.

Oh, but Morano links to Kloor and drives traffic to him.  And Morano makes him laugh!  And apparently he’s not rude to Kloor.  Why should he be?  His BFF Keith Kloor serves a useful function as a third party source who misrepresents and smears the people he disagrees with, so Morano can link to him approvingly without having to spend the time himself misrepresenting and smearing.

Where the heck do they teach that in journalism school?  Is that what they teach at the University of Colorado’s Center for Environmental Journalism, in Boulder, where he was a Fellow “during the 2008-2009 academic year”?

Kloor is a run-of-the-mill blogger who often flaks for delayers like Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow — and University of Colorado at Boulder professor — Roger Pielke, Jr.  He is not an arbiter of good journalism.  Quite the reverse.  He is a model of what not to do.

So if you’ve ever been attacked by Kloor, take it as a badge of honor.

29 Responses to Meet blogger Keith Kloor

  1. Gail says:

    the link to the David Roberts post at Grist doesn’t work for me when I click the clicky.

    [JR: I can’t explain what happened but I have fixed it.]

  2. leftymartin says:

    However valid your criticism of Kloor may be, in reading through this piece, I was continually reminded about an old adage pertaining to pots and kettles.

    [JR: You simultaneously got the point — and missed it!]

  3. kkloor says:

    Wow. All I can say, for the moment, is that I’m in good company, given how often you’ve attacked Andy Revkin at the NY Times.

    [JR: You aren’t fit to be in the same sentence as Revkin. He’s a serious journalist who most of the time does first-rate reporting. I criticize him for occasionally getting the story wrong — yes, sometimes very wrong. But you aren’t even interested in the story, just in trash-talking enviros and trying to get noticed by the so-very-humorous-albeit-unintentionally Morano.

    And if that’s your initial response to this post, well, you’ve really jumped the shark.]

  4. Anonymous says:

    Getting a message through to a destination involves the concept of signal to noise ratio.

    With enough money, it’s possible to increase the noise in public discourse enough to obscure the signal.

    That appears to be one of the tactics of climate deniers and their fossil fuel industry funders – just create confusion, increase the level of noise in the system, and obscure the signal.

    Thank you for your efforts, Joe, in cutting through the miasma of noise about climate filling the mainstream media and climate denier blogs.

  5. Leland Palmer says:

    Oh, this is Leland Palmer. I made the above post anonymously by accident.

    Sorry about that.

    Funding paid propagandists to increase the noise in the public debate is a terrible problem, and it’s a problem we on the other side don’t really have an answer to, yet.

    Arguing with the paid propagandists is an incomplete answer, because by definition paid propagandists cannot change their minds, and must continue to criticize, in one way or another.

    Climate Progress is as close to an answer to this tactic as we have at this time, IMO.

    [JR: Thanks. And indeed, a key goal of those folks, beyond noise and obfuscation, is to waste the time of climate science realists. I am endeavoring to reduce the fraction of posts I devote to them. The Superfreaks are not, however, in this category, so they have gotten more of my attention.]

  6. Marc Hudson says:

    I do sympathise with you over this guy going after your parents, but perhaps the adage “never wrestle with a pig, you both get muddy but the pig enjoys it” applies here?

    Keep up the good work: Climate Progress is indispensable.

    Marc Hudson

    [JR: Oh, I agree. But I feel one post for the record is a necessity after all these months and months and months of his trash-talking climate science realists. Otherwise, people could be left with the impression that he actually is serious journalist making serious critiques of environmentalists. Obviously, Nature got fooled.]

  7. kkloor says:

    There’s just way too many distortions of what I wrote and who I am for me to reply off the cuff. But I’ll respond in due time. Also, I certainly was not placing myself in Revkin’s caliber, but I was noting he was good company to be in, given the shrill manner you’ve often “criticized” him.

    [JR: “Journalist,” heal thyself! You are in a glass house throwing boulders with this comment. Yeah, I excerpted you repeatedly at great length and directed people to your website where they can see for themselves — some distortion.

    All you do is distort what people write and who they are.]

  8. Gail says:

    Thanks Joe, I wanted to read the Roberts post but not give KKloor, who I never heard of before, any traffic. Attacking the ethics of your parents is just so despicable, I can’t believe how low some people will sink.

    I guess it just goes to show how desperate they are?

  9. Dean G. says:

    Wow! I pity that fool Kloor if he ever meets your mom. She’d wipe the floor with him.

  10. Vinny Burgoo says:


  11. Lou Grinzo says:

    The more noise, the better, at least from the deniers’ viewpoint, as someone else pointed out above. And I’ve been one of the people constantly reminding everyone online that we’ve yet to see how ugly this fight will get.

    But even taking all that into account, these comments from Kloor are a running broad jump over the line. It is in very poor taste and totally uncalled for.

    JR is definitely spirited (and, I suspect, somewhat over-caffeinated at times), and that’s not to everyone’s liking. But nothing, as in NOT ONE BLOODY THING he’s ever said or implied would warrant this kind of comment from Kloor. The fact that Kloor showed up on this site and did anything other than apologize provides us with the latest (but surely not the last) re-definition of chutzpah.

  12. Rabid Doomsayer says:


  13. Eli Rabett says:

    Keith clearly doesn’t understand the difference between telling Revkin to drop dead (Limbaugh) and to do a better job (Romm). Things happen out there in Colorado.

  14. Leland Palmer says:

    To me, these tactics of using every sort of lying, spinning, and disinformation to keep our self-regulating system of government from responding to what appears to be destabilization of the climate seems downright evil. Destabilizing the climate, if Lovelock’s scenarios are anywhere close to the truth, could kill billions of people, and pretty much have to fit any definition of evil I am familiar with.

    I’ve always been cautious about attributing evil motives to people that just disagree with me, but, really, I don’t know what else to call this sort lying and spinning that threatens a couple of billion years worth of evolved complexity.

    What has grown up in the heart of our American system, unknown to most of us, are elitist ideas and covert propaganda techniques that appear to me to be just evil.

    If we value life, destabilizing the climate and potentially, in a worst case scenario destroying all life on earth pretty much has to be evil.

    So many groups call their intellectual opponents evil that it’s hard to know whether to use the “evil” word or not. Certainly, we don’t want to alienate people like Lamar Alexander, who seems to be a very good and high principled man, who supports nuclear energy out of what appear to be the very best motives. Even Inhofe and Bond appear to be just errand boys for our fossil fuel cartel, and probably don’t think of themselves as evil, although their actions will likely lead to effects most people would think of as evil, I think.

    But we have to consider the possibility that the U.S. really has become the evil empire, and try to get at the financial core of these efforts and ideas, and at least understand what has happened to our wonderful self-regulating democracy which now appears to be the hostage of our financial elites and our oil cartel, in my opinion. Really, if our system is covertly being run by financial elites whose actions will likely destabilize the climate, as ethical people we have to try to understand and change our system.

    The world is changing, and we have to change with it, and anticipate the changes in order to short circuit the developing runaway positive feedbacks the climate system is developing and bring the climate system back into control.

    I hope that people reading this blog will at least take a look at the ideas of carbon negative bio-energy plus CCS (BECCS), for example, because BECCS at least opens up the possibility of bringing the earth’s climate system back into control by putting carbon back underground, as close to as climate system that contains 7 billion people can be to being in control.

  15. kkloor says:

    Alright, for those who care to read it, my response is here:

    [JR: Wow. His “rebuttal” doesn’t rebut anything. Thus, he remains in no position to lecture anyone on what good journalistic practices are. Quite the reverse.

    As I expected, he chose not to refute the critique — and instead doubled down on the attack. Again, that’s his primary mode. He still doesn’t get that he was trying to smear my parents according to his logic — not mine! Now he’s trying to claim his threat to dig up dirt on my father and his paper was somehow being “arch.” Seriously. These folks misrepresent everything I write, even the obvious jokes, but then Kloor pleads that in a long smear post, this out-of-bounds threat was being “arch.” It goes to show they can dish it out, but they can’t take it — and they certainly can’t refute it.

    Finally, he replies to my sum up — “Kloor’s blog posts this year prove he is an anti-journalist, the Glenn Beck of bloggers” — with what I guess is supposed to be semi-arch, “Joe, I’m glad to see that you’ve been reading all along.”

    Another small, but telling misrepresentation of what I wrote. As anyone can see, I said that it was after seeing the Nature piece that I went back to look at Kloor’s blog. Then I saw what he’s been up to. Day in and day out (figuratively), Kloor just trashes people who disagree with him. No, that doesn’t mean every post, it just means, that’s his predominant style. But now that Kloor has bizarrely become a literalist (at least for others, not for himself, of course), let me change it to week in and week out, Kloor just trashes people who disagree with him.]

  16. Mike says:

    “I also try to imagine what future generations would say and then dial that language back maybe 50%”

    I do sometimes think Joe’s rhetoric is a little excessive, but I’m sure it’s not even half of what the billions of people whose lives may be destroyed by climate change would say about people like Kloor. BTW, have you seen The Age of Stupid?

  17. [JR: Note — I disabled the link to his blog. Once is enough.]
    Here is [Kloor’s] most recent defense as obscurely offered above:

    I wrote a much longer set of comments, but realized that I’m far less sanguine than Romm when it comes to someone posting such vicious and pathetically cowardly veiled threats against my father and family, to say nothing of the gutless hypocrisy to pretend that such threats were anything else. The rhetorical structures of Mr. Kloor’s methodology have been adequately analyzed above. It can scarcely come as a surprise to anyone gifted with no more than the potential for integrity to discover that Mr. Kloor does not even acknowledge the presence of such analyses, much less honestly try to address them.

  18. kkloor says:


    How interesting. In your response to my comment (14), you say that you actually meant it “figuratively”–that I supposedly “trash people, day in and day out.” You go on in your response to amend that statement to say that I trash people week in and week out.”

    Never mind that this is still a falsehood; you also conveniently forget to show (via a cross-out) that you’ve made this change in the text of the post.

    [JR: Not a falsehood, as anyone who looks at your blog can see. You easily average more than one trashing per week.

    Not all online changes are made via cross-outs — heck the guy you admire, Revkin, changed every line I debunked in a recent online NYT article and never acknowledged a single change or its source!

    This change was acknowledged in the comments, but in any case, I was just making the piece consistent. You conveniently forget to mention that, as any reader can see, in my first mention of you, I write, “Keith Kloor, who week in and week out trashes climate bloggers, including me, often parrotting the disinformation of Roger Pielke, Jr., “the most debunked person in the science blogosphere.” “]

    And what about the comment I sent to you earlier–about how I find it astonishing that, after being an editor at Audubon for nearly ten years, with two special issues on climate change under my belt, you deem me a delayer and denier. Is that information not necessary for your readers to know? Was I some “denier” mole all this time? Or did I suddenly become one after I wrote critical posts of you?

    [JR: I never called you a denier. I had written in my comments “These deniers and delayers misrepresent everything I write” — a generic comment meant to encompass all you folks, with you being a delayer, but then I realized it might be misread (willfully, as you did, or otherwise), so I changed it before I saw your comment. I was including you among delayers, with Morano and his ilk being the deniers.

    Then I read your comment and deleted it since it no longer made sense. You’ve obviously been a delayer for a long time, long before you starting smearing enviros.]

  19. Steve Bloom says:

    Not too long ago Kloor spent about five years working for the Audubon magazine. People in such positions frequently get a lot of pushback from grassroots environmentalists in their organization, and often end up with a visceral dislike of them. Of course it’s also possible that Kloor started out that way.

    It’s amusing that Kloor has yet to say anything about Dubner. His excuse a few weeks ago was that he hadn’t read the chapter yet, but that’s starting to wear thin. Of course any reasonable treatment of Dubner from a journalistic standpoint will have to be a complete evisceration, so it’ll be interesting to see how Kloor dodges that.

  20. Greg N says:

    I agree there’s not much value in wrestling this particular pig. They like the noise, they like to give the impression there’s a controversy being debated.

  21. AManuel says:

    GregN; when two pigs wrestle, neither one comes out cleaner.

  22. Thom says:

    Kloor, you’re kind of a joke. Why else is that Nature would have had to doctor up your first post at their climate blog? Do you think that they were worried about any legal problems you may have brought to their publication by defaming Romm? Or do you think they were simply embarrassed that they had hired someone who doesn’t know the difference between slander and libel?

    You’re a real piece of work.

  23. kramer says:

    “Tell that to the billions of people whose lives will be needlessly ruined if policymakers and opinion leaders actually believe the disinformation and misrepresentations that Morano pushes day after day after day.”

    And how are their lives going to be ruined? By runaway global warming disasters or by not having access to US wealth, technology, and technological know-how to bring them up to a modern (and sustainable) living? I think it’s the latter…

    [JR: The science says otherwise.]

  24. Sable says:

    kramer you fail to realize that wealth and technology are derived from – and utterly dependent upon – a relatively stable and amenable environment. Your argument puts the cart before the horse.

  25. Matt says:

    Addressing your response to kramer’s post, what science says otherwise? As a scientist, I’m sorry to say that I see very little scientific evidence on your side of the fence. I see that pushed alot, but rarely see any truly scientific evidence to back it up. Proponents of global warming typically speak in the name of science without truly understanding it. There is one fatal flaw in the “science” of the IPCC and others. Inventing a conclusion and then manufacturing the science to support it is not the way the scientific method is supposed to work. To truly be scientific, all data should be unbiased (this means no temperature monitoring stations located next to buildings surrounded by concrete) and conclusions should be drawn from that data. Also, you cannot simply discard data that does not fit into your “model” or hypothesis. I believe there is certainly cause for further scientific investigation.

  26. Thom says:

    Matt, there is, as you state, a “fatal flaw” in your own reasoning. Where is the evidence that the IPCC is “inventing a conclusion and then manufacturing the science to support it”?

    Can you provide any evidence of this Matt? Perhaps you would be more comfortable over at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog, or hanging out with Keith Kloor, current contrarian journalism professor du jour.

  27. Anna Haynes says:

    This appears to be the “Tobis delusional” quote, and I side with Connolley that it’s (somewhat) defensible. Although “the climate activist community” sounds like talk of “The Left” – it suggests a difficulty getting beyond binary thinking.

    “Michael Tobis is to be applauded for being open to the idea of geoengineering, but he’s delusional if he thinks the climate activist community is also open to it”

    As for the rest – speaking from experience (too many iterations thereof, alas) try not to let the personal foolishness/attacks get under your skin.

  28. Thom says:

    With all the reaction to Romm’s post on Kloor, you gotta’ wonder why Kloor has set up this whine. Kloor started the whole thing by posting on Nature’s blog some hit piece against Romm, relying on Roger Pielke Jr. as his stand in critic. Well, Nature had to edit the original, apparently to protect themselves from Kloor. Here’s the and here’s what happened after an editor apparently the new version that removed the “slander” jab at Romm (psst, Keith it’s actually libel) and also edited out Kloor phony disclosure.

  29. Marion Delgado says:

    He was discussed on Deltoid. His offensive defense is based on the notion that since he only demonizes environmentalists every day in the abstract and only demonizes you personally somehow he is therefore not an environmentalist-basher or prone to personal attacks, and meanwhile it’s us who are simply out of control.

    Food for thought:

    The incompetent troll actually — actually — wrote that a reporter talking to a source never has a pre-planned story in mind. Indeed, you should tell your editor and your source, for example, nothing more specific than “I’m doing a story on geology.” Not what the story’s about. Because that would be telling.

    Of course he got the vapors over me pointing out that that reflects the very best close-cover-before-striking school of journalism, and also having the temerity to mention his many vicious shill slurs on environmentalists, to the point of telling him he was the one who couldn’t “walk and chew gum” (since he pushes the Superfreakonomics dichotomy) and not his pet hate targets.

    He angrily demanded that I be denounced for commenting on Deltoid, in fact. To no avail, alas.

    I got bored, but I could have said, Kloor, since I’m only attacking you personally, according to you, and only demonizing anti-environmentalist shills in the abstract, QED the tenets of Kloorism mean I’m free of any flaw.

    He belongs writing for Reason or better, Bulldozers over America magazine, really, not Audubon. Somehow I doubt Reason, National Review, etc. would give Joe Romm a job, why does Audubon have a nature-hating (even nature-denying – his attack that anyone who believes in wilderness is in the Church of Al Gore was completely worthy of Ayn Rand) editor/columnist. It’s beyond evaluating Kloor. That he’s a 5-car pile-up is obvious. it’s to the point of finding out why and how.