Joe ends his reply to me by noting that all he was aiming for was a result I said he achieved, i.e., “I think Romm is probably right on the merits.” I don’t take those words back, I think he probably did.

But I did intentionally include the word “probably” in that original statement. I think its importance may not have been fully recognized.

The point was that while I think Joe probably wins the argument on the merits the posts are so stream-of-consciousness and bloated, so clearly not edited for greater organization, clarity, succinctness, etc., that it is genuinely difficult to tell whether Joe wins or is just, well, a crank. That’s the real worry about good information that’s poorly presented — that it can lose occasional readers and critics who can’t or aren’t willing to tell it from run-of-the-mill crankery. And it presents real obstacles to even those (me?) who would really like to know and generally give Joe’s insights the benefit of the doubt.

There were (as I read it) two points to the two posts: (1) to call Revkin out on yet another in the genre of false-equivalence articles and (2) to do the hard and detailed work of detailing how and why the equivalence really was false. Both were worth doing. But neither was done as effectively as they could have been given the excess verbiage, poor organization, and rambling nature of the posts.

(I grade papers — I recognize these posts as falling into the sort “Paper written by an otherwise ‘A’ student who wrote at the last minute, didn’t proofread adequately, didn’t organize in advance, and ended up with a ‘B-’.” ‘B’ students who try to do this really fall on their faces. If Joe wasn’t an ‘A’ student there’s no way I could even have said he ‘probably’ wins on the merits.)

I suggested aiming for 300 words and no repetition. Joe says that can’t be done given the second goal I mention above. OK — so organize and split the posts. The first goal could have been accomplished better in succinct stand-alone post with links to detailed support — 300 words or less. The second could have been done better with more care, organization, and editing. Longer would be OK, but better organized.

I don’t want to be too harsh here. Joe, you and your site do a lot — a lot — of good. But there are these unfortunate instances where blogging through dictation software (http://climateprogress.org/ 2007/ 07/ 29/ the-best-voice-dictation-software/ ) really does get in the way of achieving what I take to be one of the blog’s primary goals — the communication of important information.

Anyway, thanks again for your efforts and responsiveness. You already said you’d “try harder,” and I believe you — so no reply really necessary. Just thought I’d add a bit about “probably.”

That’s why Tom Yulsman is here complaining.

Nice try, Tom.

By the way, Tom…..why is it that the only person using the term “evil” in connection with Andrew Revkin is….Tom Yulsman?!

Yes, that’s the charitable interpretation, but once in a while he has to move forward, else what’s the point of Revkin being on the tightrope in the first place?

Oh, and Gore’s a politician, and Will’s a journalist. One is supposed to be held to the highest standard in print, while the other’s speeches are understood to be coming from a politician that will, by sheer nature, be somewhat unclear on matters such those Revkin wasted so much ink on. Perhaps this was more an attempt at equating the truthiness of journo’s to politicians? That’s even more despicable!

I have found myself yelling at Andy e.g. for linking to Luboš’ BS blog, for citing Lindzen or Michaels, etc. etc. But then methinks it is part of his mission to try to engage these people, not piss them off immediately. Quite a tightrope to walk.

Thanks for the reply — I do appreciate your thoughtful replies to peoples’ comments, mine included. And yes, important to be right on the merits.

Thanks

(Note: doing something evil does not make a person evil. We are all capable of doing evil.)

Revkin is one of the few reporters who is thoroughly familiar with the details, history, development, timeframes and personalities involved in global climate disruption, and also with the horrendous risks posed to all humankind by the crisis and the very, very pressing timescale (e.g., serious droughts and water shortages due to disappearing glaciers and snowpacks maybe just around the corner, but surely not further away than a decade or so). Accordingly, he (yet again!) indulged his very obvious habit of crafting a story which strongly implies (a) that the two sides are roughly equivalent in credence and scientific support and (b) that the issue is essentially POLITICAL rather than a matter of PHYSICS (though he always carefully avoids actually stating this). What is evil about this presentation of false equivalence is that it is thoroughly misleading to casual observers (like me, until recently!) who look to the “paper of record” to figure out what issues are of real concern — a lot of those folks would have the bejeebers scared out of them if Revkin consistently told the story straight, instead of falling back into the same kind of “he said, she said” reporting, looking to convey faux balance. Occasionally he actually hits the nail on the head, but this is usually followed shortly by yet another adventure in fake equivalence. I don’t know what the deal is with Revkin, but on balance he is probably doing more harm than good. The whole Gore/Will thing was revolting.

(By the way, I answer to Michael or “mt”, not Mike, thanks.)

I am not sure where the balance of Revkin’s efforts lies. I have appreciated much of his work in the past. To me, though, this one disaster alone seems to go a long way to outweighing the positive effects of his better reporting.

However, I am not especially interested in which way St Peter will direct Revkin when he shows up at the pearly gates. I am much more interested in whether the major media will get off their compulsive difference-splitting and resume their responsibilities of taking the facts of the matter into account when discussing controversies.