Here’s the heart of Fleck’s argument about Romm’s tactics:
We need to be having serious and thoughtful discussions about the strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches. I don’t know the answers, and I really want to think hard about the best arguments made by a bunch of different smart people about how best to approach the problems of greenhouse gas reductions, geoengineering and climate change adaptation. Joe’s decided that he knows what’s right, which is fine, but his approach of labeling and trashing those who disagree with him, of essentially trying to silence them (”unquotable and uncitable”) rather than thoughtfully discussing the differences, makes him a harmful figure at this point.
Here’s the comment I just left on John’s site:
I also felt the need to “have Kloor’s back” in the Romm affair . . . Last night, my wife asked me why I felt so strongly about it. I told her that Keith’s being a friend and colleague was part of it, but that something else was even more important: Bullying, vituperative outbursts by Romm are doing much harm to the cause of grappling with climate change . . .
To borrow a term from the geosciences, Romm is the “typesection” for climate activist zealotry — the example by which all others are identified. As much as we would like to just go about our business and ignore him, his excesses must be called out.
This thing has 5 Comments
Enough posts about the blogosphere infighting now? I’d like to see you, Kloor or Romm provide some perspective on this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091103/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_climate_talks
Yulsman, excellent defense you’re running here for your friend Keith Kloor. Now Kloor is a journalism professor but he screwed up the difference between “libel” and “slander.” Nature had to go and remove those portions of his post from their blog.
You’re also a journalism professor. Would you like to enlighten readers?
Thom: You brought this up, so why don’t you enlighten us.
Thom -
There’s a common style of Internet argumentation in which one picks out the dumbest thing one’s opponent has said, on some trivial point where they’ve obviously been wrong, by way of avoiding the actual substance of the thing at hand.
If you’re interested in some sort of evaluation of Keith’s journalistic qualifications and expertise, he’s got a huge body of work for you to draw on. From what I’ve read, it’s pretty good stuff.
FWIW, I’ve been a working journalist for nearly three decades, and the whole “libel” v. “slander” distinction really hasn’t come up that I can recall.
Well, here’s the original, post Keith did on Romm, and here’s what happened after an editor apparently dipped in an fixed Kloor up. And here’s the NYU Journalism Handbook. Should help you two understand that libel if the written form of defamation. Guess what the spoken form is?