I’d like to ignore Joe Romm, but when someone repeatedly slanders you on their widely read blog, setting the record straight seems like the least bad option. So here goes . . .

In his most recent fit, Romm gets upset because I have taken issue with how John Holdren, Obama’s pick to be Science Advisor, has at times characterized the relationship of science and politics. In The Honest Broker (which by the way, would make for a great stocking stuffer;-) I also take issue with the role that Holdren (and other prominent scientists) played in attacking The Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg — not due to the substantive disagreements they had with Lomborg, but because of how the equated views on science with views on politics.

Joe apparently sees himself as a “thug,” smearing, sliming, and spreading lies about anyone who departs from his version of political reality. This is a shame because there are important issues behind Joe’s black and white view of the world. For example, he asks:

And what does Pielke mean by saying “because his scientific views are correct, then so too are his political views”?

This is a very fair question. But since Romm has encouraged people not to read my work, where I explain this in depth (see The Honest Broker), here is a capsule summary. Ironically enough, in a subsequent post on Climate Progress by Dave Roberts, the same claim is made (emphasis in original):

given the state of the world today a scientific temperament leads inexorably to progressive environmentalism

Roberts and Romm (who applauds these views as editor) of course mean that science leads to their shared political take on progressive environmentalism. But what of others who see themselves as progressive environmentalists? Like Nordhaus, Shelleberger, Rayner, Sarewitz, Laird, Prins, Green, myself and others? We also think that our views are amply supported by science and analyses, yet we differ starkly from Romm’s “end of days” fearmongering and support of politically impossible action on energy policy.

And this is exactly the problem that Romm fails to see, and for which I was critiquing Holdren’s views on science and politics. The “facts” do not determine whose political views are right and whose are wrong. Saying that science “inexorably” leads into a certain political direction is just wrong, and introduces a set of pathologies into the policy process. It leads people to the mindless tribalism and unsupportable claims to absolute certainty about science, as often displayed by Romm.

As his fit winds up, Romm shows that he is either willfully misinformed or just lying to support his ad hom’s when he writes (bold in original):

Pielke absolutely refuses to detail the specific policies he would embrace to stabilize at concentrations he says are needed

Geez Joe, how’d you miss those peer-reviewed papers, op-eds, Congressional testimony, and five years of blogging on climate policy? Luckily, I just assembled some of my various writings on mitigation policy here.

Finally, Joe coins a cute new nickname for me:

Pielke is a Delayer-eq, he is equivalent to a Delayer because he attacks any and all scientists who propose not delaying. Indeed, perhaps a better term is Delayer10F-eq . . .

Um, OK Joe. He’ll never be confused with Chris Berman, that is for certain;-)

Let me end by wishing Joe Romm and everyone else a happy holiday!!