Jump to content

Talk:Joe Romm

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.37.85.89 (talk) at 20:03, 26 October 2009 (→‎Addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Scientist?

I don't think Romm is a scientist. He certainly isn't *now* and I don't see anything here to suggest he ever was. The article in Science [1] for example is policy, not science. His own blog says Joseph Romm is the editor of Climate Progress. Joe is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and was acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy during the Clinton Administration. In December 2008, Romm was elected a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science for “distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies.” Read what Wikipedia has to say about Joe. [2] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Romm's brother User:Baron Dave reverted my changes [3], but I've reverted them back, ha ha, two can play at that game. BD has a fairly obvious WP:COI but I don't care too much about that. Claiming that pubs are peer-reviewed requires some evidence; it certainly isn't acceptable to list a whole pile of stuff and then say "some are p-r, put the others in a different sections". The burden is the other way around; please put any that are clearly PR into a PR section. "Annual reviews" [4] for example doesn't look PR; I don't see any instructions for reviewers, for example. And as for "scientist"; publishing a P-R article doesn't make you a scienits; what does isn't clear, but I don't see anything to justify the tag: if you're reverting it back, what do you see? Note by comparison that James Hansen doesn't say he is a scientist, because it isn't necessary William M. Connolley (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your original changes were foolish. You claimed (and still don't demonstrate) that some articles are not peer reviewed. And then take your own preconceived notions and claim he isn't a scientist because all his published articles aren't peer reviewed. Shame, shame. A PhD in Physics and a continuing practice in the field earn one the right to be called "scientist". Deniers love to tout their own credentials and discredit others, and we have to keep the record straight. Joe might be writing more about policy than doing labwork, but research scientists have a long and honorable history. The record should be kept straight, and I'm going to put the article back to the original. [Posted by Baron Dave].

Hello, guys. Baron Dave, I have no problem calling Joe Romm a "blogger". His blog has become very notable in the energy efficiency and climate blogosphere. In the article, we clearly note that he is a PhD physicist who writes and speaks on science and science policy. It is not worthwhile arguing about whether he is a "scientist" - readers can draw their own conclusions, since the facts are stated. FYI, Connolley is a well-credentialed climate scientist who has worked extensively in the field, and he and Joe Romm are on the same side; so I would give Connolley's suggestion much consideration. Connolley is also a very frequent Wikipedia contributor and has done much to make sure that the coverage of climate science on Wikipedia is accurate. I welcome Connolley's (and other independent commenters') input on this article. By the way, William, I had checked, some time ago, to make sure that all of the articles listed under the PR heading were from peer-reviewed publications, but I could have made a mistake. If you know differently with respect to any of them, we can certainly move them out of the section. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BD: I wonder if we can keep the discussion civilised? If you find yourself getting too involved because JR is your brother, permit me to remind you of WP:COI which strictly interpreted prevents you reverting at all. I've changed "peer-reviewed" to "journal", which is alos stretching things a bit, but less of a claim. "Future Directions for Hydrogen Energy Research and Education" (Principal Investigator), Report to the National Science Foundation, November 2004 doesn't look P-R to me. Nor does "Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions: Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond", Interlaboratory Working Group, (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Oak Ridge National Laboratory, September 1997) And "Greening the Building and the Bottom Line: Increasing Productivity Through Energy-Efficient Design" (with Browning), Rocky Mountain Institute, November 1994 (peer-reviewed by U.S. Green Building Council) is odd: what does P-R by the building council mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These changes look OK to me. Note, however, William, that the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, writing in The New York Times today, calls Romm a "physicist".[5] -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romm has recently changed his blog's official bio to emphasize his science background. Given the description by Friedman; Romm's MIT Ph.D. in physics; the fact that he was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; his oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs; his authorship of a number of scientific reports; and his election as a Fellow of the AAAS, I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be hasty about this. I have some quibbles I'd like resolved. Could we start with the least impressive (form a being-a-scientist pov), the AAAS fellow bit. An honour,no doubt, but the citation Romm quotes is distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future and for persuasive discourse on why citizens, corporations, and governments should adopt sustainable technologies which is primarily communication, not science. Fellow of the AAAS currently incorrectly states that it is an honor accorded to distinguished scientists. I'm going to correct that: the AAAS themselves say something rather different; the fellows category includes people who have been communicating and interpreting science to the public and I put it to you that this is most likely the category that Romm belongs in (if you think otherwise, I challenge you to nominate any other significant contribution he has made in the past 5 years). [In support of this, [6] lists him among "General Interest in Science and Engineering" rather than, say, the "physics" that F claims for him].
No problem, but I moved this detail and the citation lower in the article, where more detailed information ought to be. The WP:LEAD should just present an "overview" of the detailed sections below. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see I'm too late. Well, I can't really complain about the F quote. It is a real quote from a RS, and it is in quotes, so fair enough.
As to the publications... weeeellll... take the 2004 one on "Future Directions for Hydrogen Energy Research and Education". I found [7] which I think must be the thing concerned. It looks like a conference, not a publication. The grant proposal says "submitted as an article for publication in a journal such as Science or Nature, planned to make the impact to the largest members of society with interest." clearly that never happened (or it was submitted but never published). It doesn't look like a peer-reviewed article, which was the original claim. It looks like an unreviewed unpublished conference report. So I think there is a certain amount of boosterism going on here.
William M. Connolley (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check that out and find out where it was published. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that this is my fault. You are right - it was a report to the National Science Foundation and was not otherwise published. I've changed the the heading to "Selected journal articles and reports." Sorry for the confusion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge; 60 Minutes

I tidied up the first line ("scientist" doesn't need to be in quotes if you have a source, and we have many), added the 60 Minutes appearance 4/27/09. Including the final NTSB report of the Bridge (in Crticism) seemed reasonable but hastily added on, so edited and rewrote the last section. However, I couldn't figure out where you had put the references. The last line (about 70,000 bridges) should be connected to the Guardian article just under the Notes section. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baron Dave, did you save your change? I don't see it. I agree with the editor who removed the additions to the Criticism section: What later happened with the bridge does not seem relevant to Joseph Romm's bio. It should go in the bridge article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers: Hmm... I must not have saved. Hope this one took. I like my second attempt better anyway. Still, all the cites aren't in place. The concerns about the final NTSB report should be linked to the NPR article, the 70,000 bridges at risk is from the Guardian article and the 700 bridges with similar design flaws as noted by the FHWA is from the wiki article on the collapse. Do we need a cite for the 60 Minutes appearance? Please fix, as my wiki-fu is lacking. Thanks. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baron Dave. A couple of comments: The 60 minutes appearance should be mentioned further down where it says that Romm is "often cited, quoted or interviewed by journalists to explain the impact of public policy and energy technologies". Also, you need to link the 60 minutes clip or transcript. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any changes re "sci". Perhaps just as well. I've reverted the changes re the bridge: BDR, you have a WP:COI. You cannot revert anything controversial. You're welcome to persuade us on talk, but you can't do it yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers: I'll trust you to put the 60 Minutes mention where you think apt. A clip that features Joe is at http://enviroknow.com/thesource/2009/04/26/60-minutes-powered-by-coal-video/ . William M. Connolley: I don't think the Criticisms section should be there at all, but it got put back in after I deleted it. It's whining about one subjects, and criticisms of individual issues are handled in the blog, not the bio. Still, if it's going to be in, then the controversy should be played out and include the final NTSB report which pretty much agrees with what Joe said: The bridge fell due to poor design, but climate change is an issue that should be addressed and will be a stressor for the huge number of bridges that no one looks at regularly. Baron Dave Romm (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree, the section is cr*p. I've removed it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a cite for the 60 minutes appearance and have now moved the information further down. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, BDR, with the 60 minutes link. Plus there is a short video on Chinese coal plants; plus, Romm is quoted in the 60 Minutes article from April 23, so I cited them all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a physicist

Romm isn't a physicist. He certainly isn't now - he is an author and climate blogger. I don't see any evidence he once was, either. He has no peer-reviewed papers published on physics in any kind of recognised physics journal (and no, having a degree and doctorate in physics does not make you a physicist) William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William, this description, as you know, is right out of the New York Times, and the citation is right there. I have put back the quotation marks (which is unnecessary in the Lead), if that helps you, but you had previously agreed that these descriptive words, directly out of the New York Times and plenty of other major media sources, are appropriate (See above, where you wrote "I can't really complain about the F quote. It is a real quote from a RS, and it is in quotes, so fair enough"). I don't see why we need all these citations and quotation marks in the Lead, when they appear again further down in the article, but if that's what I need to do to satisfy you, fine. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said: with quotes, it is acceptable, because it makes it clear that it is someones view of reality, rather than reality, which it clearly isn't. Who took the quotes out, then? William M. Connolley (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twas BaronDave [8]. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romm lead

Ahem. It's correct in the body (Thomas L. Friedman wrote…), but not in the lede. It's controversial, which makes it a WP:BLP violation, unless a real reliable source can be found. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial. Romm has a Ph.D. in physics from MIT. PBS calls him a physicist here. The Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Thomas L. Friedman, calls Romm a "physicist" here. Scientific American calls him a physicist here. Physicsworld calls him a physicist here. WNYC's "On the Media" calls him a physicist here. US News & World Report calls Romm "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues, and a go-to witness at congressional hearings". He was Principal Investigator of the NSF study; He had oversight of the Dept. of Energy's renewables programs; he wrote a number of scientific reports; and he was elected as a Fellow of the AAAS. I think it is fair to quote Friedman in order to characterize Romm. Would you rather quote US News? -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is controversial, and USN calls him a phony. How about phony[USN] physicist[Physicsworld]? No, I suppose that would be a WP:SYN violation.
  • Sorry, that was a mistake, it wasn't USN who called him a phony, but I'm sure we can find reliable sources that would, and it's too good an alliteration to pass up.
And I still don't yet see a reliable source calling him a physicist, although I'm now sure that such sources exist. Friedman is not an expert in qualifications, and all the others are "about the author" blurbs. USN does say "an oft-cited expert on climate change issues", so I suppose that might count, but it could mean "oft-cited as an expert" rather than "Off-cited and an expert". Perhaps we should add the scare-quotes back. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newsweek calls him a physicist here. So does The Washington Post here. And the Wall Street Journal here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll grant you Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal, if those are articles, rather than editorial pieces. The Washington Post is probably just advertising copy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If WMC says it (that he is a physicist) is not so, then it's controversial. No doubt about it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can safely say, based on the numerous links provided by Ssilvers above, that Romm is a physicist. This looks like edit-warring to me. We work by concensus here, and I for one agree with Ssilvers. Jack1956 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if WMC, speaking as a climate change expert, says that Romm is not a physicist, then it's controversial in the real world. That is clear. That being said, it being in quotes in the lede seems satisfactory to me until such time as we can find a reliable source that Romm is not a physicist. I'm sure that that source could also be found. I consider, though, "physicist" or "expert", not in quotes, to be a BLP violation, and will revert if I notice it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romm isn't a physicist. However, if Ss can find enough erroneous sources that say he is, and is determined to push unreality into wiki, the rules say he gets his way. this isn't good, but there is nothing to be done about it William M. Connolley (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're basically saying that Newsweek, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Thomas L. Friedman, Physics World, etc, are all wrong and you're right. Can you provide sources to support that? Ssilver has provided sources and that's how things work here. Jack1956 (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, only Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal provide reliable sources that he's a physicist. Friedman is not reliable per se (per WP:BLP), and the others are quoting background material which was probably supplied by Romm without further checking. But that's still adequate for inclusion in the article (with quotes), until and unless reliable sources can be provided that he is not a physicist. WMC, it's your move, if you can find real-world sources that he is not a physicist. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So you're basically saying that ... are all wrong and you're right. Yes. WMC, it's your move - I don't intend to do any more William M. Connolley (talk) 20:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for "physicist and climate expert"

Collecting all the cites above in one place:

Re the Friedman cite: No per Wiki standards it would only be fair to state that Friedman has characterized Romm as a climate expert. To state that he is one, we need to point to demonstrated contributions in the field of climate science (I don't contest physicist) accepted by peers. His blog does not meet that standard.--173.79.138.229 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A number of those are "about the author blurbs" (which I, for one, do not consider credible, even in peer-reviewed journals — but there isn't a clear Wikipedia consensus), news background (which is rarely cross-checked), and the event listing is hopeless, as it's almost always taken from the principal. However, there are enough (2 for "physicist", and 1 for "climate change expert") for it to be retained in the lede. I'm heading out shortly, or I'd refute the claims individually. As an aside, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists have been caught lying in print before, and here my only problem for the book is that we don't know which imprint it's under, whether non-fiction or pseudo-non-fiction. The matter is controversial if WMC (speaking as a real climate expert) disagrees, so we can only use sources from reliable publishers, a further restriction of our WP:RS criteria. An individual, even if an expert, may not be used to source a controversial statement about a living person, so we can neither include Friedman's word in favor or WMC's word against. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "about the author" blurbs are often provided by the author. Romm is not a published journal author on climate, he is no more a 'climate expert' than Freeman Dyson is a climate expert, less so in fact, as Freeman is published on nuclear winter.--173.79.138.229 (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romm has written an entire book about climate: Hell and High Water (book), and his blog is all about climate. It doesn't say he is a "climate scientist", it says he is a climate expert, and there are plenty of sources that call him a climate expert. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writing a pop sales book does not qualify one as an expert, even a good one. The book is largely about the politics and policy of climate. BTW, did you read that Wiki link on the book and the Romm bio there?
...one of the world's leading experts on clean energy, advanced vehicles, energy security, and greenhouse gas mitigation.
'worlds leading' is hyperbole, that aside it is supportable from Romm's professional work at the US Department of Energy. That bio does not use the word climate (and I suspect he wrote himself). Also writing a blog, even a popular one, does not make one an expert, or we're all instant experts. There are not 'plenty' of usable sources that call him a 'climate expert' - we have here the news sources: the US News piece and Friedman, and the physics world 'about the author. These do not meet the WP:RS standard of Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article, rather they simply assert it. Since you agree 'climate scientist' is not appropriate how about a change to 'climate policy expert'? That removes ambiguity about what aspect of 'climate' in which he's expert. Even that change I think is less than the best we can do, as Romm's professional training/work has been in physics and then at RMI and the US DoE. Thus he'd be best described as an 'energy expert' (as in the '..High Water' reference), as his climate work is not as professional scientist. Order of preference then for the change: 1. 'and energy expert', 2. 'and climate policy expert'.--128.29.43.2 (talk) 20:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What does a person need beyond a doctorate in physics to qualify as a "physicist"? Are there licensing requirements, like psychologists or social workers? Residencies, like doctors (well, physicians who claim the title "doctor", as medical professionals)? Wikipedia's not a WP:RS of course but the qualifications described in physicist seem pretty flexible. Professional physicist does not seem to set too high a bar either - though, that's not being asserted here anyhow. I think it would help to agree on terminology. JohnInDC (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see. I take it the nub is whether he's a "scientist"? JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A physicist is someone who does physics. Romm doesn't William M. Connolley (talk) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to be dense, but you can be a lawyer and not practice law, a doctor and not practice medicine. You take the label by virtue of your training and qualification, not your employment or vocation. If you can't call yourself a physicist after you graduate with a doctorate in the field, then when can you? What has to come next? JohnInDC (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(I appreciate that for purposes of the article, the issue is moot, for now; my interest is pretty much academic at this point.) JohnInDC (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have a doctorate in maths (or technically numerical analysis) but I wouldn't call myself a mathematican. If you were a lawyer but are no longer practicing law you're probably a retired lawyer. Just like if you were a soldier but have stopped. Or a roadsweeper. But as you say, all this is academic William M. Connolley (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Connolley has been critical of Romm on Connolley's blog, and that Romm dispute's Connolley's statement that Romm is not a physicist. See this. Connolley and Romm also have an outstanding bet about the progress of ice melting due to climate change. See here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All part of the robust give-and-take among people who inhabit the same general (and public) field of endeavor. WP:AGF! JohnInDC (talk) 21:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vair exciting "notes" but if you have a point, it would be better made directly rather than through insinuation. Though thank you for reminding me about the bet with Romm; shame he wouldn't pony up more. You interested? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to insinuate anything. I am just pointing out that Connolley knows Romm and is critical of him, and so I think that clouds his judgment on this issue. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thats what I said. Are you interested in the bet? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, thanks, and I don't think discussion of a bet is appropriate for article talk space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article Lead

Copying from above discussion for convenience and adding a few new ones. Please try to discuss in chronological order, so it is easier to follow the discussion, instead of just sticking comments into the previous discussions:

New ones:

  • I could keep adding more. There are thousands of google hits on Romm and the words scientist, physicist, climate expert, energy expert, etc. because Romm is a leading expert, invited several times to testify before the Congressional committees on science and technology, author of a book (Hell and High Water) that explains, in extensive detail, the scientific understanding of climate change, and other books and numerous articles on related subjects, etc. Romm's blog is often named as a leading climate blog. He has written extensively on the subject in various national magazines and journals. Because of challenges to these well-supported assertions, I have been forced to keep adding footnotes to the Lead. WP:MOS suggests that the Lead section shouldn't be bristling with footnotes; rather, the well-cited discussion in the body of the article below is ample support for the description of Romm in the Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:RS, and you will see that these national magazines and new sources qualify under Wikipedia's definitions of reliable sources. A consensus was reached for this language several times. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • My opinion is that the article is fine as it stands. We have been over this repeatedly. It is my opinion that all the major national news magazines and newspapers cited for the propositions in the Lead, together with the detailed information in the article, are adequate to support the statements made in the Lead. Why do we need to keep coming back here every other week to argue these same points over and over again? The case for Romm being a climate change expert has been made repeatedly and should stand. I myself added several links to substantiate this, but these were reduced to one. People need to stop pushing their own POV on this and move on. Jack1956 (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I doubt a complete and honest investigation would find him to be a physicist or climate expert, we have adequate sources for it to appear in the article, and in the lede. (I'd use "climate policy expert" if even one source used that term, but I can't find justification.) In other words, although I think the article inaccurate, it accurately reports the view of reliable sources, so should remain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romm is neither a physicist nor a climate expert. However, enough people are determined to deny reality and use inappropriate sources as a bludgeon that the entire exercise is too tedious to correct William M. Connolley (talk) 12:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Romm's book, "Hell and High Water", contains an extensive survey of climate science. His earlier book, "Cool Companies" is a survey of how large companies could cut emissions using current technology. He has written numerous articles about climate science. Moreover, Romm's blog has received much attention as a pioneering climate blog. The blog often posts information about climate science as well as all other climate change issues. Romm was recently elected to the AAAS. The article quotes Romm being praised specifically for combining a "deep knowledge of technology, policy and science". Romm is a well-rounded climate expert, and the statement of that fact by various major media is fair to note in the Lead of the article. I think the Lead as drafted uses words scrupulously and with precision, and ought not to be the target of tendentious attack. Tim riley (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC) 18:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Riley: The issue at hand is the authority with which to label Romm a 'climate expert', as opposed to say a policy or energy expert. Thus a book about companies cutting emissions lends little support. Membership in the AAAS lends no support. Indeed Romm's membership in AAAS was awarded with the statement for "distinguished service toward a sustainable energy future" - again lending support for the title renewable energy expert but not climate expert. The "deep knowledge of technology, policy and science" does not make one a climate expert, any more than it makes one an 'expert' on any other specific field. A blog has no critical review and lends no support. There are literally millions of books available from people who publish reviews of some scientific, engineering, or policy issues - especially in alternative energy areas. Such a book does not earn one the title expert, despite the far too commonly self imposed label of expert by authors of the lowliest books. Wiki would be complicit in this trend by simply saying 'he wrote a book, he's an expert'. From all this we end with merely the assertion Romm is a 'well rounded climate expert'? We don't need assertions, we need backup. I suggest rather that these red herring arguments are tendentious. There are many cites that would lend support. A climate textbook would make the case. Peer reviewed work, in climate, would make the case. An academic position teaching climate science OR policy would make the case. A professional position studying the science or policy of climate, such as Romm held at the US DoE in renewable energy would help make the case. But not the above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.29.43.3 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ...

Section suggestion: addition of controversy/conflict of approach to global warming between Bill McKibben of 350.org and Mr. Romm ... 99.37.85.89 (talk) 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Joe_Romm&oldid=322197896"