Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

Romm Cherry-Picking, With Fudge

Collide-a-ScapeBy Keith KloorNovember 1, 2010 8:15 PM

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Joe Romm has a curious post up today that begins this way:

While some confused people think we are headed to a post-partisan era, more reality-based analysts, like centrist political reporter Dana Milbank, know what nonsense that is.

Romm's "post-partisan era" link takes you to a piece he wrote several weeks ago that was critical of a bipartisan white paper that had advocated massive public investment be the cornerstone of a new energy/climate strategy, rather than carbon pricing. In floating this trial balloon, the authors of the proposal (representing three think tanks across the political spectrum) were in no way suggesting that the nation is headed to a "post-partisan era." So that's the first bit of sly disingenuousness in Romm's current post. The second involves referencing Dan Milbank's latest WaPo column to make a larger point about the emerging makeup of the Republican party, which Romm writes

is the most consequential political reality for climate and clean energy policy for the foreseeable future)...it's important to hear it from the bastion of centrist inside-the-beltway analysis.

I want to point out that Milbank, the "reality-based," wise "centrist," also wrote this column two weeks ago, in which he said that it was time for Democrats

to come up with an alternative to regulating carbon, a Plan B for climate change.

Milbank went on to discuss the "makings of a cross-ideological coalition" for geoengineering research:

At the conservative American Enterprise Institute, Samuel Thernstrom wrote this year that "ignoring geoengineering is potentially dangerous and irresponsible." At the liberal Center for American Progress, Andrew Light tells me that because "research is already starting in some parts of the world, we would be foolhardy not to be looking into it."

Conspicuously, Romm chose not to mention this bit of "inside-the-beltway" analysis.

2 Free Articles Left

Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

Want unlimited access?

Subscribe today and save 70%

Subscribe

Already a subscriber? Register or Log In