Today Joe Romm, the man behind the blog Climate Progress, posted a clear, concise, and completely reasonable article about climate change.
It contained no baseless attacks directed at the Kochs, climate change deniers, or nuclear power plants. It had no pictures of starving African children, no images of little girls with gasmasks, no videos of babies eating arsenic. In fact, it was completely lacking any vitriol, bile, contempt, disdain, hostility or even malevolence.
Not only were these familiar graphics missing, the content of the article was entirely reasonable. Romm stated:
I believe climate change is a serious problem, perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has ever faced. In my opinion, and in the opinion of the majority of scientists in the field, the evidence for this is overwhelming. While there are significant uncertainties in some of the data, there is a substantial basis on which to base sound policy.
Many people oppose taking action on climate change due to the uncertain impacts it may have on our own economy. I believe these fears are unfounded, as significant investment in new ‘green technologies’ will lead to an innovative boom in the United States. We can become the leader in this new technological revolution if we start now.
I urge those who are skeptical to take another look at the science. For too many on both sides of this debate resort to using ad hominens and making baseless accusations against the other side. The science can stand on its own without these tactics.
There were some who disagreed with Romm’s position, and they pointed this out in the comments. Notice his entirely measured and polite response:
Yet another mainstay of Climate Progress was missing: The Romm-Romp. In a typical Climate Progress post, the introductory paragraph has multiple links to….Climate Progress. Here are a few examples. This post contained no links to Climate Progress or Think Progress at all.
Surprisingly, Romm referenced only well accepted peer-reviewed literature as the basis of his claims.
Also, he clearly differentiated between Carbon and Carbon Dioxide, and never once used the phrase “Carbon pollution”.
Supporters of Romm were stunned at the sudden switch to a reasoned and rational discussion. Look at a screen image of this comment:
So far he has not retracted the article. I cautiously extend my support to Romm, perhaps he has turned over a new leaf. I hope his readers will be able to cope with the drastic change of tone on his blog. If you want to support Romm, please go leave him a comment. I’m sure he will politely accept your support.