He’s Lost It. Romm Has Reduced Himself To Telling Opponents To Meet Him After School

Joe Bastardi stays classy. (Photo credit: Accuweather)

There’s nothing wrong with a friendly bet among gentlemen. I’d like to think that Rob Honeycutt and NoTricksZone had a difference of opinion, and so we decided to cordially shake hands on it like two gentlemen would. No one tried to drag the other through the mud.

But what we see at Joe Romm’s Climate Progress here is something totally different. Irked by growing public skepticism and statements made by Joe Bastardi on why he thinks the globe is starting to cool, Romm just couldn’t take it anymore. Frustrated, he lashes out.

Like a schoolyard bully who has just lost his best marbles, he calls Joe Bastardi out to the schoolyard to settle it once and for all, publicly taunting and singling out Joe Bastardi to meet him out there to duke it out in a climate bet. Romm has clearly reduced himself to a sort of schoolyard climate punk, thinking he can drag people through the mud and settle things that way. Clearly he has long exhausted his professional means. 

Romm, you blew it; you’ve shown you got no class acting like that. Twelve-year olds can act like that, but not professionals.

Maybe some other punk in your neighborhood will show up for your classless bet, but Bastardi isn’t coming for it. He’s got something maybe you had long ago – CLASS.

Joe Bastardi has left his response at his European Website here. And he’s right; this is not about meeting out in the schoolyard to settle scores. Things will be settled in time, scientifically, professionally. That’s why I tell the cock-sure warmists…be patient, things will unfold. Qué será, será.

And Bastardi asks what I think is the key question:

But what will you do if it goes down? Will you actually stop your obsession with destroying those that disagree with you and shutting down debate? Can we get your committment to that? If it goes up, I will be forced to become an advocate for your position, which if I am proven wrong, I will. I rather doubt the vast majority of people opposed to me will open their eyes even if we went into a mini ice age, as some have opined. In the end, there is the difference. I am not guided by blind faith, but faith formed from the foundation of facts on past events. If the facts prove me wrong, then I will be guided by what I know to be is right.”

The answer to the above question depends on how much class these people have. So far, it looks like they don’t have much. Joe says that if the temperature rises in the next 10 years, he’ll change his position, not because of losing, but because of what obsrvation and science say. But Bastardi accepts the challenge, like a gentleman with class would.

But at the very least, the challenge has been accepted, and you can keep your money. What you need to do is be rich enough in your heart to open your mind to other ideas, and if need be, like me, change if you are proven wrong over the coming years.

Given what I have experienced so far, it’s much easier to believe the globe will cool than people actually admit it is doing so, no matter what.”

I hope that Joe Bastardi didn’t let Romm get under his skin too much. His reply was too long, meaning he spent too much time responding to a classless person that deserves to be ignored.

Overall in this preliminary wrestling match, Bastardi just pinned his opponent in about 6 seconds flat.

================================
Update: Romm needs to spend less time in the schoolyard, and more time in the math classroom. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/romm-math-fail/

47 responses to “He’s Lost It. Romm Has Reduced Himself To Telling Opponents To Meet Him After School”

  1. Rob Honeycutt

    I don’t know, Pierre. Did he accept the bet or not? He says, “…the challenge has been accepted, and you can keep your money.” That’s kind of like saying, “I’m betting but I’m not betting.”

    He also rambles on about God, his income level and 20 to 30 year projections and never really acknowledges the terms that Romm sets forth.

    1. NeilM

      Joe puts his own reputation on the line, and for someone who earns a living from long-range forecasting that’s surely a hefty enough ‘bet’.

  2. DirkH

    Joe Romm says: “Heck, people’s lives are at stake if, instead of planning for ever-worsening heat waves, governments and cities and businesses and individuals think we’re going back to the cooler temperatures of the 1970s.”

    Okay, so the predictive skill of climate models can save lifes, right? Let’s see… There was loss of life in the Queensland floods… And the warmists say extreme rainfall is exacerbated by increased moisture from all the Global Warming… Surely the models have predicted that, right?
    http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/official-queensland-gov-global-warming-report-drought-24-flooding-0/
    “Queensland Gov Global Warming Forecast Didn’t Even Mention Floods”
    ” I looked for the page on floods, but there wasn’t one. Looked for the paragraph on it, but again, no sign. Not even a word.”

    Don’t bet on climate modelers to save anything but their own ass, i would say…
    (Some serious fudging with the models must be going on right about now 😉 )

  3. J Torrance

    P. Gosselin,

    Wow! You managed to go from writing

    “Glad to see he wants to settle it that way, and not through a wrestling match (though the result may very well end up being the same).”

    to writing

    “Like a schoolyard bully who has just lost his best marbles, he calls Joe Bastardi out to the schoolyard to settle it once and for all, publicly taunting and singling out Joe Bastardi to meet him out there to duke it out in a climate bet.”

    in less than a day.

    Make up your mind – do you like people challenging other people they disagree with to bet or not?

    1. Dana

      Exactly, J Torrance. When I read this blog post, it made me wonder if Pierre is bipolar. Yesterday he seemed happy that Romm had offered Bastardi a similar bet as on this blog, now suddenly Romm is a schoolyard bully? WTF?

      Pierre, your bias is showing.

  4. R. de Haan
    1. Rob Honeycutt

      R de Haan… From that article you just linked: “According to the Bureau of Meteorology, 2010 was Australia’s coldest year since 2001. Since logic tells us the planet can’t be getting hotter and colder at the same time, we can confidently pronounce global warming dead, buried and comprehensively beaten.”

      Hm… So because 1.5% of the surface area of the Earth (Australia) had it’s warmest year in 2001, in spite of the global average temperature being tied for the warmest in the instrumental record, this reporter declares global warming dead?

      My tongue is bleeding because I am biting it so hard.

      1. Rob Honeycutt

        Excuse me… That should have read “coldest winter since 2001.”

        1. Beano

          That would be coldest year according to the article.

        2. Rob Honeycutt

          I’m doing too many things at once today. Blah!

      2. Mindert Eiting

        Dear Rob, what do you mean with instrumental record? Did they use in 1822 other thermometers than today? There is something funny about that year because it was the warmest in the period 1701-2010. Many warm years are behind us.

        1. Rob Honeycutt

          Mindert… What you seem to fail to recognize is the different between local temperatures and global temperatures. We will continue to see record low temperatures well into the next century, locally. But those records are going to become fewer and fewer, while record highs are going to become more frequent. Already record highs outnumber record lows almost 2 to 1. By 2100 that is expected to be 10 to 1 or better.

          The point here is, you can’t conflate temperature records of local areas (even the size of Australia) with global average temperatures.

      3. DirkH

        Why are you so frustrated? Isn’t AGW science solid and sound? What can happen? Global Warming will surely find it’s way to Australia real soon now, after all, the BOM predicts drought, endless drought and heat, so it must come to pass – the climate models have spoken. And you believe in climate models.

  5. R. de Haan

    New revised solar forecast now at the level of the Maunder Minimum of 1675 -1715
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/18/nasa-sunspot-number-predictions-revised-again/#more-31931

  6. Rob Honeycutt

    Did Bastardi accept Romm’s bet… or challenge… or wager or whatever they want to call it? I’m not so sure.

    Here’s the original article that prompted Romm’s article:
    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/257040

    And here’s Bastardi’s response:
    http://www.accuweather.com/world-bastardi-europe-blog.asp?partner=accuweather

    Seems like a lot of back pedaling to me.

    1. Mike Pollard

      It’s unbelievable. Bastardi says if he’s wrong he’ll be driven from the field! Well, isn’t that the point? Either his forecasts are correct or they are not. If correct he’s a genius. If he’s wrong, he should be driven from the field. If he has any confidence in his ability you would think he would be only too happy to support that confidence by taking the bet. But apparently he does not believe in his ability. So why shouldn’t he be driven from the field right now?

  7. Beano

    Would you really want to take Joe Bastardi out to the schoolyard?

    Joe Bastardi

  8. Dana

    Nope, Romm emailed Bastardi directly, and Bastardi refused to accept the bet. Bastardi also appears to be either a pathological liar, incapable of reading a simple graph, grossly ignorant of the subjects he’s talking about, or some combination of these possibilities.
    http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/18/joe-bastardi-in-accuweather-chief-long-range-forecaster-s/

    It would be quite foolish to make a prediction or bet based on what this guy says. In fact, it makes me more confident in my warming bet that Bastardi is predicting (but refusing to bet on) cooling.

  9. slimething

    So much for civil discourse PG. It can always be counted on the foaming-at-the-mouth section of the AGW isle will resort to calling those they disagree with, liars, ignorant and other debase rhetoric. Character assassination; right out of the handbook and typical.

    So now science is settled based on whether Joe Bastardi accepts a bet, which if he did, then what, wait for the legions of lemmings to get in line to “prove” him wrong too?

    Has the scientific method really sunk to this level? Really? How about some retroactive betting on all the failures of AGW “science”. 🙂 Yeah, let’s do that and settle the science once and for all.

    I’d like to see some of the blowhards criticizing Bastardi, including Romm, do some of their own forecasts and then we’ll see just who looks ignorant and doesn’t understand the subject. Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

    So while 2010 produces an El Nino and causes non-denialists to wet their pants, I’d like to ask them just one question: Why are you all so unhappy all the time? One would think the world is about to end. Oh wait……..

    1. Dana

      “I’d like to see some of the blowhards criticizing Bastardi, including Romm, do some of their own forecasts”

      Yeah, um, that’s kind of the point. Romm is predicting that the planet will warm over the next decade (and beyond). Bastardi predicts cooling. Romm is willing to put his money where his mouth is, Bastardi is not (frankly I think Bastardi knows he’s full of sh*t).

      Not to mention that climate scientists have projected future warming. You should try reading the IPCC report sometime. It would do you a lot of good.

      1. DirkH

        “Romm is willing to put his money where his mouth is, Bastardi is not (frankly I think Bastardi knows he’s full of sh*t).”

        Bastardi makes his living doing forecasts. Should he engage in a bet every time he does his daily job? I sure wouldn’t if i were him. I’m a computer programmer. Should i spend my free time writing open source software after doing the same thing for money during my daytime job? Well, maybe i should, but you know what, the daytime job suffices.

        Also, i notice with amusement that you descend into vulgarities. This usually happens when one runs out of arguments, doesn’t it?

  10. grayman

    Pierre, I personaly am not a betting man, my father taught me never bet unless it is a sure thing, then said there is no such thing as a sure thing. A reputation is worth more than a monetary bet! When i read the post on yours and Robs bet, I thought yea right, but when you guys said that it would go to childrens charity i decided to join in and if the bet changes to what Dana wants to do if the warmers win count me OUT. If it stays for children, and when decided which charity(hope doctors w/o borders) I will pay regardless who wins, which as soon as decided i am going to pay and send you and Rob confirmation. So no matter who wins bet the KIDS win! Dana please quit being so OBTUSE, it makes you look the fool!

    1. Dana

      I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that understanding basic science is “being so OBTUSE”. Welcome to denial land.

      1. grayman

        Yes Dana understanding basic science is not being Obtuse, But the tone and concept of your post are being OBTUSE!

  11. slimething

    I’m not aware of Joe Romm (or Dana for that matter) making any successful forecasts, is anyone else?

    According to Merriam-Webster, the definition of forecast is:

    to calculate or predict (some future event or condition) usually as a result of study and analysis of available pertinent data; especially : to predict (weather conditions) on the basis of correlated meteorological observations

    Dana, would you mind pointing us to where Romm has made any forecasts/predictions based on the above? People bet all time without one speck of knowledge on what they are betting on. History is replete with examples of gamblers placing bets on impulse in desperation to make it appear they have some sort of special insight on the subject they are risking their money for. I think it’s safe to say Joe Romm, and most people in this debate, are just shooting from the hip. Joe Bastardi OTOH has detailed the reasons for his conclusions, has a long record of successful forecasts, and mans up when he’s wrong.

    So while it may give comfort to supporters of Joe Romm that Joe Bastardi will not gamble and that this somehow validates or invalidates a prediction, it may also indicate a deeper issue of certain individuals with narcissistic tendencies that compel them to feel their positions are justified when others refuse to enter into their bet.

    1. Dana

      I’m really not sure what you’re asking for, slimeman. Bastardi has stated his reasons for believing the planet will cool (PDO, etc., ignoring the anthropogenic warming signal), while Romm of course believes the planet will warm in accordance with the AGW theory. If you want a more specific explanation, I recommend the IPCC report.

      By the way, I have made numerous correct predictions. For example, in 2008 I predicted that either 2009 or 2010 would break the surface temperature record (2010 did). I’ve made a number of wagers (none with money involved) with ‘skeptics’ on Yahoo Answers. Or at least I’ve attempted to – most of the time they won’t accept the bet. My predictions have been right almost every time. I can provide links if you want verification, but my forecasting ability isn’t really the issue here.

  12. M White

    “Former Penn State wrestler, Accuweather meteorologist, national bodybuilder and life-long Penn State wrestling enthusiast Joe Bastardi”

    http://www.happyvalleyhalfnelson.com/2009/12/29/wrestling-with-the-weather/

    Joe Romm or Joe Bastardi.

    There’s only one way to find out

  13. grayman

    Dana, I enjoy this site becuase of good articles and great comments and i really enjoy it when the posters have good back and forth debate w/o going to the extremes that happen so many other times on so many other blogs, be they climate, political, or what ever they may be. I no Pierre does not censor the commenters and i am glad of that. I just would like to keep it all civil so it does not come down to it and i hope you do agree on that if nothing else. Iam sure there are many things we would agree on and many we do not, I would like to discuss on a polite manner with you all we can, as you and Rob do sound like men with passion as am i but am having to learn to not let the passion get the better of me. Pierre has my e-mail adress if you would like it, i am sure we can have good conversations. If he is unable to give it to you then i will just not up to posting that up at the moment as i do not want some body hacking me. Look forward to your response.

    1. Dana

      If you’d like to have an email conversation, that would be fine with me, grayman. I’m sure Pierra has my email address as well.

  14. slimething

    Basically then Dana what you are doing is acknowledging Romm has no first hand knowledge or forecasting ability, which means he does not understand the meteorological aspects of weather/climate, and he is simply Appealing to Authority. Thanks.

    Your argument is Bastardi is ignoring the anthropogenic contribution to the climate system, but AGW prognosticators are not ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room, that being the sun, oceans and clouds which completely swamp the immeasurable portion of influence that CO2 is assumed to have. Interesting.

    BTW, how’s that AGW science ‘hot spot’ research doing? You know, Gavin’s Big Red Dog the IPCC used? I’m referring to more recently Santer 08 which purposely left out 9 years of data in their “analysis” that when extended to the entire data record, failed by 200-400%. Remember? Oh yes, that one.

    2010 broke what record? UAH didn’t. RSS didn’t. Hadley didn’t.

    grayman, if you wish to experience Dana’s polite mannerisms, just head over to RealClimate and read a few of his posts.

    1. Dana

      Room is not a climate scientist. Neither is Bastardi. So I really don’t see your point. Understanding and accepting scientific evidence and reality is not an appeal to authority. Room and I don’t say the IPCC is right because it’s comprised of the authorities (although that would be a smart position for most people to take), we’re saying the IPCC is right because their conclusions are supported by the scientific evidence. Bastardi’s are not, they’re based on a lack of understanding of climate science.

      Climate scientists don’t ignore the Sun or natural cycles. If you think otherwise, you need to read some scientific literature.

      If you’re talking about the tropical troposphere ‘hot spot,’ it’s not an anthropogenic signal. And the data isn’t good enough to conclude whether or not it’s there. I really don’t see what point you’re trying to make here.

      As for 2010, it tied for the record hottest in UAH, GISS, and NOAA. If you take the average of all data sets, 2010 is the hottest. I’m not treating any data set preferentially. There’s a good post on this at skeptical science called Monckton Myth #2 if you’re interested in seeing the data and analysis.

      By the way, I don’t post on RC. Perhaps you’re confusing it with SkS (which is a great compliment). My posts there stick to the science and are in no way rude, if that’s what you’re trying to imply.

  15. Edwin Adlerman

    I understand Romm’s frustration, and think this essay is entirely relevant to the debate:
    http://cadiiitalk.blogspot.com/2011/01/science-public-policy-and-james-hansen.html

  16. slimething

    Yes, yes….he’s not a “climate scientist”, another cliche from the AGW talking points bulletin. Only a “climate scientist” is qualified to perform work on “climate science”. Not physicists, chemists, statisticians, thermodynamicists, or those very much unqualified meteorologists….nah, they’re just a bunch of dummies. Never mind there were no such thing as a “climate scientist” not that long ago, but there have been some very smart people who knew quite a bit about weather and climate processes. I was reading this online book about the Arctic. No mention the authors were “climate scientists”, so they must not understand the subject.
    http://www.archive.org/stream/arcticice00zubo#page/444/mode/2up

    Funny how people play with numbers. UAH is most definitely not a tie with anything, just as GISS is not at .01 over it’s high. Sure statistically they are tied (it’s meaningless anyway), but you chose to cherry pick the definition of a tie vs a record depending on what story you wanted to create. Had UAH been +.01 over 1998 would you have called it a tie or a record?

    Ah I see Dana. Anything that you think supports AGW, the data is okie dokie, but if it doesn’t, the data is surely inadequate. OTOH, when evidence is given observationally and through published material indicating a warm bias in the SAT records which contaminate the data, those must be ignored; all is well. Then there’s the issue of making up values where no measurements are taken, and that’s just grand. Oh but that rascally satellite data….. Got it.

    Question: what is likely to have more error, one sensor that can be calibrated to a traceable standard and maintained, verified and adjusted to meet specifications at regular intervals, or several hundreds/thousands of sensors that have never been calibrated or put through any quality control procedures?

    BTW, what does the NOAA reference mean by this?
    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/crn/programoverview.html
    “One of the principal conclusions of the 1997 Conference on the World Climate Research Programme was that the global capacity to observe the Earth’s climate system is inadequate and deteriorating worldwide and “without action to reverse this decline and develop the GCOS, the ability to characterize climate change and variations over the next 25 years will be even less than during the past quarter century” ( National Research Council [NRC] 1999). In spite of the United States being a leader in climate research, we do not have, in fact, an observing network capable of ensuring long-term climate records free of time-dependent biases. Even small biases can alter the interpretation of decadal climate variability and change.”

    Having made a living the QA field for the last 25+ years, I can assure you if the SAT were used by any industry giving a rat’s behind about the quality of the information, it would have been in file 13 many years ago and the supplier put out of business. Yet, this is climate “science”, where Quality isn’t just a word, it’s a slogan.

    So what exactly is the AGW fingerprint? There’s been so many, but they keep getting rubbed off and removed from the fingers making it quite difficult to falsify the schizophrenic hypothesis.

    http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/servlets/purl/881407-xk2Sdg/881407.PDF
    “Tropospheric warming is a robust feature of climate model simulations driven
    by historical increases in greenhouse gases (1–3). Maximum warming is predicted to occur in the middle and upper tropical troposphere.”

    There are several examples of that, including IPCC. Santer 08 was supposed to refute Douglass et al 07, but we all know what the truth is now don’t we? 🙂 Using your logic, the data for LT/MT is inadequate, yet Santer 08 set out to show the data agreed with the observations. Didn’t they know the data was corrupt as you say? Nothing in Santer 08 indicates that.

    The same for OHC. AGWland was dancin in the streets after Hansen et al 05, and so were lead authors at IPCC, who strangely were also co-authors of that paper; what a coincidence. Even Hansen called the data “precise” (an incorrect use of the term, but whatever). 1993-2005 was the PROOF of AGW; the upper 700m to be precise (correct use of the term). Lyman 06 published a 30% drop in OHC, and since then there have been no less than 5 reanalyses done. Yet, there it is rearing it’s ugly head, warts and all, no matter how much warming is teased back in, the oceans are not warming as advertised.

    It must be chore keeping track of everything made up as you go along.

  17. slimething

    To Dana,
    Sorry for the RC reference. I may have mistook you for someone else.