Some people (not Eli, once more, as I hasten to add) might be persuaded that there was a pattern of attacks over at Prometheus against Gore, Hansen and now Romm, that departed from reality sort of instantly, and that ventures into technical matters were fraught, but somehow always came out at the same place. Perhaps Brad (and Eli would never think of talking for him), but just perhaps, Brad had seen ten, twenty, thirty or more of these posts, and concluded that there was an underlying cause, but as Eli said, this would be a conclusion that perhaps others had drawn. And then, those others, not Eli, of course (and that is true) thought how this pattern might be motivated by other connections. True that is drawing a conclusion based on a pattern, something always fraught, but just maybe there is a history to all this.

Still, members of the Pielke fan club do comment on things in the water world and intend to continue in the spirit of fraternal exchange which we know (unlike others) that shall always be present at inkstain.

If that was Brad’s substantive concern regarding Pielke’s comments in Andy’s story, he should have said that. He did not, choosing the ad hominem argument instead.

By way of comparison, you made a substantive argument. So I don’t think this is, as you said, “a problem with my criticism of Brad,” so much as an illustration of the problem with Brad’s post.

P.S. Thanks for keeping your Pielke comment record on my blog intact!

The problem with your criticism of Brad is that the subject of his post was a figure in Gore’s talk to the AAAS, where Roger had had a fit about a graph Gore showed. This got telephoned to Andy Revkin.

At the end, it turned out that that graph Gore showed had come from the NY Times and was an accurate representation. Moreover, the graph that Roger claimed to be accurate, was not.

Of course, Eli blogged on it with screen captures and graphs.

In short Roger P. dissembled about what Gore said and showed and got called on it, but not before the whole thing had blown up.

I guess it’s time for another blogger ethics panel.

I’d agree that “weasly” and “smears” is not helpful language. I would hope Keith is learning something here about his use of language like that in these discussions.

But Keith is factually correct in arguing that your piece in question used ad hominem arguments with respect to Ropeik and Pielke. You did not address the substance of what either of them said, but rather encouraged your readers to dismiss their views solely on the basis of their associations. That’s a textbook ad hominem argument. That does nothing to help me, as your reader, understand in any sort of serious and thoughtful way why you might think Ropeik and Pielke are wrong.

I’m not sure how Kloor’s comments were part of a “serious and thoughtful discussion.”

First, Romm’s importance does not come from Tom Friedman, but his reputation and place in the DC policy establishment. You have it backwards, Friedman gives him ink because of this.

Romm has worked the policy circuit for a long time. If you object to this you obviously have a serious problem with Roger Pielke Jr. who is engaged in the same activity.

Second, it’s a mistake to think of Romm as a journalist especially in this case. Caldeira and Romm have known each other for a long time and Romm was very familiar with Caleira’s ideas.

Third, Kloor has become the leading edge of the Colorado phalanx against Romm. Roger lost a lot when he went after Hanson full tilt and is not about to repeat that mistake. Kloor got one back in the nose when he really went too far and now is whining full time

You have to read RPJr and Kloor’s blogs in tandem to see what is going on. It’s interesting to watch the difference between Kloor’s approach and Ben Hale’s.

Finally, dsquared is the one to quote and it applies to Kloor

“Okay, point one. The whole idea of contrarianism is that you’re “attacking the conventional wisdom”, you’re “telling people that their most cherished beliefs are wrong”, you’re “turning the world upside down”. In other words, you’re setting out to annoy people. Now opinions may differ on whether this is a laudable thing to do – I think it’s fantastic – but if annoying people is what you’re trying to do, then you can hardly complain when annoying people is what you actually do. If you start a fight, you can hardly be surprised that you’re in a fight. It’s the definition of passive-aggression and really quite unseemly, to set out to provoke people, and then when they react passionately and defensively, to criticise them for not holding to your standards of a calm and rational debate.”