Joe Romm is in that group.
Romm -- whose organization, let's remember, refuses to reveal its own funders -- just can't help himself. In a post whose very title says that civilization is imploding (actually it's fairly quiet here in Oregon, and it's even stopped raining for a few hours), Romm spends over 1500 words
But Gleick is right that he committed a serious lapse of professional judgment and ethics. He is right to regret his actions and make a personal apology.before reverting back into his shtick of rage, spending another 1,000 words attacking Andrew Revkin because Revkin wrote this and smeared him and didn't retract that and owes an apology and on and on and on.
And when exactly will Revkin apologize for his various lapses, including his absurd and I think hypocritical response to Gleick’s post?To review:
They're worse! ~1500 words
Gleick was wrong: 27 words
Journalist scum! ~1000 words
Whatever keeps the talk shows calling, I guess, right?
Oh yeah: I was wrong when I guessed that Romm would ignore the Swart and Weaver article claiming that the Alberta tar sands will only add +0.03°C to future warming. Romm did mention it -- and calls it confusing, and then turns the tables and claims the paper "makes a strong case against the tar sands if we want to avoid catastrophic warming." That, people, is how this game is be played.