It must infuriate Joe Romm when people don't take his word as gospel. Here's how he opens his latest effort to slime a respected scholar and shape the climate narrative to his liking.
We're starting to see pieces of counterfactual history on the climate bill in The New Republic and elsewhere based in part on discredited scholarship.
Of course, Romm being Romm, cites himself on that claim of "discredited scholarship." He's so classy that he doesn't provide a link to Bradford Plumer's studiously fair article in The New Republic. Romm also can't bring himself (as of yet) to acknowledge where it is "elsewhere" that we're seeing examples of this "counterfactual history." (Nature, in this article and editorial, is thus far the most prominent publication to give Nisbet's report a fair hearing.) The other day I compared Romm's relentless, attacking style to that of a famous pugilist. But his imperious proclamations ...
