This is pretty funny. Roger Pielke Jr challenged Joe Romm – one of the more, shall we say, “enthusiastic” global warming supporters – to a debate.
Romm declined, giving reason after reason. None of them sounded persuasive. Like a lot of stuff put out by global warming people, it is plausible, but not likely.
[JR: Roger, first off, you’ve never proposed a pathway to getting the dozen wedges we need deployed by 2050 to stabilize at 450 — let alone a strategy for achieving the number of wedges you think we need. You’ve merely attacked me or anyone else who’s ever proposed a strategy. That ain’t a debate. I have long awaited your actual plan for getting to 450 ppm, not a “vision.” I have a vision of eating everything I’d like, not exercising and yet losing weight and living to 100. I have no doubt an audience would rather be told that R&D and hypothetical future breakthroughs will solve all their problems and that they can just keep doing what they are doing. What precisely would it prove to actually demonstrate that?]
Second, you have repeatedly made misrepresentations in order to attack me and, more important, countless scientists and others who have never said or written anything about you. That’s reason enough to not give you a platform.
Third, it is virtually impossible to “win” an audience debate against someone who serially misrepresents the facts. There simply is no optimal counter-strategy.
Fourth, this supposed “up to $20,000” in charity is built around the notion of a “winner as determined by audience voting after the debate.” It is quite obvious as I have already pointed out that audience voting can’t prove anything unless you know the audience ‘s beliefs before and after, which is not possible. Among other things, It turns out the anti-science ideologues “vote strategically” (aka fib)!
If someone has that kind of money to donate money to charity, there are very needy people, as I’m sure you will agree, and so that money shouldn’t be held hostage to this sort of silliness. That strikes me as just the kind of thing Bjorn Lomborg would have a fit over (and yes, that’s a joke).
Finally, for the record, Foreign Policy has never communicated to me about any debate, so I hope you didn’t misrepresent to them that I had any interest in it whatsoever or that their offer would in any way affect my decision. I have no idea who you communicated with or what you told them. They are free to contact me, of course, so I can directly communicate to them what I have written here.
There is an easy rule that you can take to the bank. If they constantly avoid a debate, there is something seriously wrong with their position.
So be it.
But what was so funny was the very next comment on the blog:
I just watched a few minutes of Hannity on Fox while I was channel surfing to recalibrate my TV now that the Olympics are over. I happened to be passing Fox by when I saw Hannity was talking about Gore and global warming.
I love how he has to pretend he would never, ever watch Fox News.
More than ever before, I was shocked, and I now realize that they are playing some sort of political-ratings game over the most important problem that humankind faces today. They are playing a game over something of immense importance … to the future, to humankind, to other species, to my kids and future generations, and etc.
Someone — and probably plenty of people — deserve to be thrown into jail at this point, and for a very long time.
Hannity was doing everything possible — smirks, comments, graphics, and etc. — to make global warming seem totally fake and unreal, as if it’s just a political and selfish assertion on the part of Al Gore and a few biased and incompetent scientists. I’m not joking.
Hannity smirked at Global Warming! Off with his head!
Yet, I remember seeing (even) Rupert Murdoch commit, in person, in a speech, to have NewsCorp achieve carbon neutrality, I believe, and I’ve seen a transcript of another speech of his along the same lines. And, although ExxonMobil is not acting responsibly and is among the biggest deceivers in the history of the universe, nevertheless, when pressed, even Rex Tillerson, I believe, indicates that he doesn’t disagree with the scientific understanding that global warming is a problem and presents very real threats.
So I don’t get it — or perhaps I do, but it’s too terrible to get. A major and influential news network is either TOTALLY idiotic and incompetent, OR they are playing a mere political/ratings game with a vitally important issue, which is to say that they are being entirely immoral, under the circumstances.
Which is it? Are they entirely incompetent, or are they acting at the very height of immorality?
I’m not joking. Please, someone, correct me if I’m wrong.
But if I’m not, then it has gone way too far. Under the circumstances, at this point, ANY celebrity/star doing work with, or for, Fox or NewsCorp (and that covers lots of entertainment) should promptly submit their resignations. You’re either on the bus, or off, at this point of time.
Please correct me if I’m wrong. I can’t believe what I just saw Hannity do and say. If we — as a society — are going to put up with that, on an issue of this importance, we simply deserve what we will get. Period.
No sign-off this time. “Sigh” doesn’t express the feeling.
No, it really doesn’t.