jackassery

Conference treats press like crap; treats CEOs like butt buddies; doesn't give me a beer

I've been thinking a bit about how to get another post or two out of the Wall Street Journal Eco:nomics conference.

But you know what? The Wall Street Journal Eco:nomics conference can blow me.

I've never been to a conference where the press was more walled off. And this was a conference by a media company! First off, laptops weren't allowed in the main presentation room -- too "distracting." (Who's distracted by a guy with a laptop in the back of the room?) So there was no way to post real-time updates from the main room. That meant we were stuck down in the press room, watching the conference on TV.

To boot, the press wasn't allowed in the lunch roundtables. Or the cocktail reception before dinner. Or the dinner. Or the "cordials" after dinner. Or the breakfast roundtables the following day. Practically speaking, this all but precluded press from having unscripted encounters with conference participants and speakers -- always the best parts of these conferences.

We were at least fed dinner, but -- and this was the unkindest cut of all -- no alcohol. You don't deny journalists their booze! You just don't.

So basically, press got to watch the thing on TV in a dry basement room. Perhaps if the conference sessions had been scintillating -- or at least as entertaining as last year, when none of these press restrictions were in effect -- it would have been all right. But frankly, the conference was boring, wonky, and flat. Corporate PR was dutifully delivered by folks like Ford CEO Alan Mulally and Duke CEO Jim Rogers, in the face of questioning that could charitably be described as friendly. Gore delivered his usual shtick. Inane cranks like Bjorn Lomborg and Vaclav Klaus delivered their usual shtick. And so on.

So I could squeeze another post out if I tried, give the thing a little more publicity, but I never got my beer, so eff it. I already tweeted that b*tch anyway.

On Sen. Bob Corker's 'support' for carbon legislation

A cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of its pollution permits and refunds the auction revenue back to taxpayers is functionally equivalent to a refunded carbon tax -- or at least as close to a functional equivalent as carbon policy is likely to get in this world.

So when Obama unveiled a budget that contained a cap-and-trade program with 100 percent auctions and 80 percent rebates, you'd think advocates of refunded carbon taxes would have been thrilled. They could have said, "this isn't exactly what I'd advocate, but it's a step in the right direction. I welcome Obama's willingness to compromise."

So what did Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who allegedly supports a refunded carbon tax, do?

He called the proposal "sleight of hand." He said:

I guess his claim on Tuesday night that no one earning under $250,000 would pay more in taxes did not apply to this massive climate tax increase all Americans will pay.

This, remember, is from a guy who allegedly wants a carbon tax.

Moments later, Corker's office said:

Corker has worked to ensure that whatever Congress implements, be it a cap-and-trade system that acts as a tax or a transparent carbon tax, that 100 percent of the tax revenue is returned to the American people and is not used to increase the size of government.

Obama proposed an auctioned system that returns 80 percent of the revenue. Corker wants 100 percent of the revenue returned. Because he didn't get exactly what he wanted -- only 80 percent of what he wanted -- Corker is badmouthing the plan and working to destroy it.

Corker has talked his way inside the carbon policy tent and now he's trying to burn it down. He's got lots of company.

Inhofe’s resident media agitator leaving to start a new climate-skeptic website

The barons of Big Oil and Big Coal will undoubtedly chink glasses with their paid mouthpieces this weekend over news that fellow cynic Marc Morano is leaving his taxpayer-funded propaganda job to establish a climate change “news” website. Morano, if you don’t already know, has been the Roscoe P. Coltrane to one of the Senate’s […]

A finger to Slate, but a grudging thumbs-up to George Will

This week in climate fingers and thumbs, we’d like to flip the bird to Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) for holding up the confirmation of key Obama science nominees in order to get his way on Cuba policy. Menendez has no complaints about the qualifications of John Holdren and Jane Lubchenco, and just last summer he […]

Slate tricked into publishing a parody of its own reflexive contrarianism

In 1996, physics professor Alan Sokal submitted a paper to the postmodern culture studies journal Social Text. When it was published, Sokal revealed that the paper was an elaborate ruse, a parody, filled with the most absurd postmodernist tropes he could dream up. It became known as the Sokal Hoax.

Slate has just been the subject of what future historians will likely call the Pellettieri Hoax. Jill Hunter Pellettieri wrote an article lampooning Slate's penchant for vapid, picayune, deeply privileged, self-conscious contrarianism ... and tricked Slate into publishing it!

Well played, Pellettieri. Slate, you've been punk'd!

Surrendering in advance: just how the Democrats roll

"I think it's unlikely we will pass a cap-and-trade bill with 100 percent auction."

-- Sen. Jeff Bingaman, giving away a crucial element of good climate policy before negotiations have begun

‘Clean coal’ flack won’t say whether coal contributes to global warming

CNN aired a segment on Wednesday morning on the “clean coal” debate. Highlights include commentary from Sierra Club coal guy Bruce Nilles, footage from the big Capitol Power Plant protest on Monday, and a clip of the Coen brothers ad that debunks the notion of “clean coal.” But the real treat is Joe Lucas, vice […]

He is not 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' and is owed a correction by the NYT

I will examine here the February 24 New York Times article by Andy Revkin to show that Al Gore is not "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements," as he was accused.

Part 1 detailed how Roger Pielke, Jr. started all this by repeatedly misstating what Gore had said in his AAAS talk (video here). These indefensible charges would have died on the gossip grapevine of the blogosphere, had they not been picked up by Revkin.

I have written multiple emails to Andy in an effort to get him to clear Gore's name in print, and he refuses. If he won't, I feel that someone must for the record and the search engines. If I could clear Gore's name without criticizing Andy, I would. But I can't.

My reason for writing this post is simple. Having your reputation stained in print in the New York Times is a very big deal for anyone because:

• That story is reprinted and excerpted around the planet. It lives on forever.
• The NYT is the "paper of record," and thus considered highly credible (though it shouldn't be).

Let's look at exactly what Revkin wrote in "In Debate on Climate Change, Exaggeration Is a Common Pitfall" (see here, original links, emphasis added):

In the effort to shape the public's views on global climate change, hyperbole is an ever-present temptation on all sides of the debate ...

Mr. Gore, addressing a hall filled with scientists in Chicago, showed a slide that illustrated a sharp spike in fires, floods and other calamities around the world and warned the audience that global warming "is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented."

...

Both men, experts said afterward, were guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements.

Mr. Gore removed the slide from his presentation after the Belgian research group that assembled the disaster data said he had misrepresented what was driving the upward trend. The group said a host of factors contributed to the trend, with climate change possibly being one of them. A spokeswoman for Mr. Gore said he planned to switch to using data on disasters compiled by insurance companies.

Do you see what Revkin did here?

Sen. Menendez holds up science appointees to get leverage on Cuba policy

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) is reportedly holding up the confirmation of two of President Obama’s top science nominees, both of whom are expected to play key roles on climate policy. Menendez has no complaints about the qualifications of the two — physicist John Holdren, nominated to lead the White House Office of Science and Technology […]