Kloor's five strikes

Keith Kloor is a free-lance writer who reportedly now teaches journalism at NYU; during 2008-2009 he was on some sort of fellowship in Colorado. He has been blogging for a couple of years on climate issues at Collide-A-Scape, generally on meta-level issues concerning the image of particular individuals and their claims in discussions of climate, rather than any technical science questions. Some of his stuff has been mildly interesting. His best stuff has been interviews with bloggers and scientists who have had differing stances in discussions.

But he has also persisted in a pattern of what I consider deception - whether inadvertent or deliberate - in misrepresenting the views of other people. He usually does this with selective quotation in a way that almost completely reverses the meaning of the person who made the original statement. Is this the sort of thing he's teaching journalism students? I have commented extensively on several threads at Kloor's, but his latest instance of this pattern was just too much, I've committed to not returning. You can take a look and see whether my assessment of his persistent misquotation is fair or not. Herewith 5 specific examples:

(1) Kloor's obsessive jeremiad regarding Joe Romm of Climate Progress, accumulated over many, many, many posts, but as a typical example see this one from February 2009. Here Kloor selectively quotes Romm's stated opinion that reporter Andy Revkin has gotten behind the current science on global warming impacts to declare that Romm is "hysterical or inconsistent" because previously Romm had praised Revkin. Kloor seems to have his back up on this because Revkin is a highly respected "award-winning" journalist, and Kloor seems to think Romm has no right to tell Revkin when he's wrong. But Revkin was clearly, unequivocally wrong in the article under discussion in Romm's post, which essentially equated a complete distortion of global warming science by George Will to some minor quibbles with Al Gore's movie. Yes, both sides make "mistakes". One side honestly admits them, quickly corrects them, and if you look closely you will note the mistakes are on exceedingly minor issues that don't change the thrust of the message. The other side, well, pretty much the opposite on every count. Anyway, with Kloor's selective quote you might think Romm was just attacking Revkin and calling him ignorant or other epithets with no basis in fact - except that in that very same article Kloor quoted from, Romm stated:

"What Revkin does is what we all do, including Gore. I was not trying to accuse Revkin of journalistic malpractice, but of making the same kind of choices and honest mistakes. When such actions rise to the level of mistake or, in Gore’s case (or my case here), something between a correction or clarification, a correction or clarification should be made quickly. Now we will find out if Andy is journalist enough to realize that the widespread condemnation his article has received requires a correction and/or clarification itself.
It boggles the mind that any serious reporter for the New York Times would quote such an inane point of view, let alone present it with no response whatsoever. [...]
Seriously, Andy, what purpose does the Times serve? Either there is such a thing as facts — in which case Will is a liar and you should say so — or there isn’t — in which case every New York Times reporter should just find a different job, which, I guess, It’s pretty much what’s going to happen anyway, and maybe we just shouldn’t mourn that."

I.e. Romm is holding Revkin to a high standard, one an award-winning journalist at a major newspaper should be held to; he's not accusing him of being wrong about everything, but about one specific article that was indeed egregious in its neutral "stenography" in regard to blatant misinformation. Kloor's claim this is "hysterical or inconsistent" could only be valid in a world of personality cults, where the word of an "award-winning" reporter is not only to be respected, but never to be questioned.
There are plenty of other instances of stupidity in Kloor's attacks on Romm. I particularly liked the one where Kloor left out the "New" part of "New York Times", while attacking Romm for not saying something that he did in fact say, afterwards updated with Kloor's apology that he "speed-reads" Romm's posts because they are so long. Keith, maybe if you slowed down a bit you'd be a better journalist?

(2) In March 2009, after some discussion of the very same Revkin article by climate blogger Michael Tobis of Only In It For The Gold, Kloor gleefully attacked Tobis by quote-mining this gem:

I don’t think his dragging Gore into Will’s muck was a minor transgression of a fine point of propriety. I think it was palpably evil.

I've posted my own take on why Tobis' words regarding "evil" here were entirely justified. In any case, Kloor then goes on to quote what seem to be Tobis' blaming Roger Pielke Jr. for Revkin's mishap here. But in fact, the post in question was largely a *defense* of Pielke: the title itself suggests Pielke was being "framed" (by other bloggers) to take the blame for the Gore/Will fiasco by Revkin. Tobis instead clearly states: "As far as I can tell the blame for this particular travesty rests squarely with Revkin."
Why does Kloor twist Tobis' words around to mean essentially the opposite of what Tobis' actual blog post says? More "speed-reading" problems? Well, there are worse examples to follow.

(3) The David Brin case, this past July. Brin had written an article about distinguishing "deniers" from "skeptics", a version of which was apparently published in "Skeptic magazine". If you read Brin's article it's very clear that to qualify as a true climate "skeptic" now you have to be almost entirely ignorant of any of the scientific evidence. That evidence is now so overwhelming (see IPCC reports, etc) that anybody who is a "Skeptic magazine"-type skeptic, seeing the evidence, would be convinced we have a very serious problem on our hands regarding climate. Keith Kloor, however, chose to selectively quote Brin to make it appear that his article was actually about distinguishing "pro-science" skeptics (such as presumably himself? Roger Pielke Jr.? Unnamed bloggers?) from anti-intellectual "deniers". It was not, as Brin himself confirmed in comments on the post. Every one of Kloor's "pro-science" skeptics is clearly in Brin's "denier" camp, if you actually read Brin's article. That Kloor chose to misrepresent Brin this was is very strange, but again seems typical - speed-reading again, I guess. I found this case particularly bad because Kloor's selective quotes were from a *print* article, not available online (the version I linked to just now was an earlier article on the subject, though Brin later confirmed it was substantially the same).

(4) Climate scientist Gavin Schmidt of NASA and the Real Climate blog has had several forays on "Collide-A-Scape". The most recent episode involved some debate with fellow climate scientist Judith Curry. Schmidt was evidently trying to figure out what Curry was on about regarding uncertainties and complaints she had regarding models, and so was trying to get specific details on the issues she claimed to be concerned about. This was evidently a frustrating process, as perusal of that thread and linked discussions should make obvious. As Schmidt pointed out in the comment just linked, "You [Curry] brought up a series of issues which were just not relevant." He then concluded his comment with an explanation of why he was bothering at all to try to get to the bottom of this:

When smart and informed people see basically the same information but come to different conclusions, I find that interesting since there might be something to be learned. I’m not interested in winning an argument with you, I’m interested in seeing whether there are issues that might not have been considered or where there might be new information that could be brought to bear. I am not here to play games.

Schmidt is clearly showing frustration at the lack of any "learning" so far from their discussion. This is not a complimentary or conciliatory comment, it is a highly critical one. So what does Keith Kloor do with it? Why pull out just the seemingly conciliatory part and highlight it in his next post. The post itself had very little commentary from Kloor, but it was immediately seized upon by Curry with Kloor's support in the comments... as I pointed out later in the thread:

As usual Keith leaves out the damning context of the apparently conciliatory quote – the one this “chasm” is centered on was preceded by:
“I have merely been trying to see whether you have any actual basis for your complaints about a specific statement in AR4 (which I think was (and is) a justified conclusion). You brought up a series of issues which were just not relevant.”
The problem here is exactly what I stated in that same thread:
“the one thing we really can learn … is the need to be extremely careful and precise in the things we say and claim. Scientists should exercise greater care in their work, and those criticizing the science should also be precise and exact in their statements.”
Dr. Curry has made many statements in these threads that have almost all been of a very vague character, made in a careless manner that led either to confusion or frustration on the part of people trying to respond (for example, Gavin’s continued attempt to respond to the IPCC AR4 attribution question regarding post-1950 change, while Dr. Curry kept talking about pre-1950 issues), or in cases where she actually was specific (that the latest GISS model sensitivity had dropped, that models were tuned to temperatures, that no-feedback sensitivity was much more uncertain than radiative forcing), at face value these statements were all clearly wrong. Dr. Curry responded to many of these with “clarifications” of one sort or another, but why not be specific and precise at the start about what you’re claiming, if what you’re actually saying is not what the rest of us interpret by it at face value?
Clarity in communication is the real problem here. Gavin seems to have been trying to be very precise in his statements and responses. Dr. Curry, not nearly so much. There’s a real issue here, and it’s not a “both sides do it” problem. The confusion is fostered by only one side here.

Kloor is playing the Revkin stenographer game writ small, with selective quotation to distort the truth of one-sided misbehavior.

(5) The worst case, though, is Kloor's recent return to attacking Michael Tobis. At least one notable thing about this August 14th distortion is Kloor's technique is so blatantly obvious this time around. Kloor calls Tobis (and Romm for good measure) a hypocrite for making moral arguments regarding climate, while pointing out that "mitigation (curbing carbon emissions) has to take precedence over adaptation, and that in any event, adaptation [is] largely a local matter." which Kloor interprets to mean Tobis is downplaying "adaptation", i.e. helping people handle the consequences of climate disruption. But reading the original comment you can see it starts with the clear statement: "Adaptation is crucial. It is necessary, but it is not sufficient." Tobis' point regarding precedence is simply that, if you don't mitigate, the amount of adaptation needed just keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger. And worse than that, because we can't readily model all the regional responses but we know that some of them will involve significant changes in, for example, precipitation patterns, we can't even know in advance what adaptations are needed! Do you prepare for 1000-year drought, or 1000-year flood, or one after the other??

The best comment I've seen on this question is this quote from John Holdren:

We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. We’re going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.

That is exactly the point. Kloor completely misses it. Perhaps he was speed-reading his own comments? But he still has not corrected his post on Tobis. And I have no intention of writing any more about Keith Kloor, or visiting his blog again. Sorry Keith, your 15 minutes is over.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Well, he did, eventually,

Well, he did, eventually, down in the comments, assert that I am "sincere". I still don't know what he meant by "hypocrite". But you know, if he puts me in a handful of most influential people, and others take him seriously, he is still doing me a favor.

I was warned by a third party not to "expect a real apology" from KK. I am not sure why apologizing is something he can't manage, but I pretty much have the sense he regrets that particular escapade.

I think the contemporary horror of admitting mistakes or changing opinions is one of our problems.

I agree that Kloor was at fault in every one of the cases you mention. And I was, to differing degrees, aware of all of them. But somehow, he just manages to keep things interesting, and once in awhile, in between insulting me, he flatters me. And unlike other journalists I'll refrain from mentioning, he isn't consistently foolish.

Good post, Arthur. MT and GS

Good post, Arthur. MT and GS need to be gotten on board.

Not that it's any excuse, but part of Keith's problem is that he's intent on establishing a narrative as soon as he can and then ignores contradictions that subsequently crop up. IIRC people actually get trained to do that in J-school, although if they do run into a contradiction they're supposed to go back and fix the narrative before proceeding.

I agree totally. I've

I agree totally. I've frequently had a look at KK's blog because other people refer to it in various places. I was a bit mystified why people thought it was worth the trouble. The last few posts and comment threads have cured me, especially the Tobis one.

He seems to be an eager exponent of the cheap shot journalistic approach that really, really irritates me. Stick a mike under someone's nose and misquote what they said yesterday and try to get a rise out of them. Regardless of the answer, it's always 'newsworthy'. I find it distasteful as well as dishonest.

Thank you, Arthur, for this

Thank you, Arthur, for this post. I stopped reading/replying at KK's blog because of the persistent bashing of Joe Romm. JR is one of the few people that tells it like it is and does not pull punches. Yes, his tone is emotional and atypical of his peers, but people relate to emotions so his message is likely resonating with the general public more than the others'.

Thanks, Arthur. You concisely

Thanks, Arthur.

You concisely and accurately summarized the situation, and your comments, as well as those of others here, pretty well summarize my feelings.

I don't know Keith, aside from reading a bit of his site, but he's always come across as what I call a "friction generator", meaning a person who always manages to take just enough of a different position to trigger a lot of responses. One can surely find examples in public discourse where that's a good thing, as it can drag some important topics into the fray that have been ignored or downplayed for various reasons. But in the cases I've seen on his blog, Keith is causing a lot of pointless friction, what fiction writers call a "plot loop": You start at point A, go around in a big circle and wind up at the end of an episode or chapter or major scene right back at point A.

blablabla...yawn. Didn't

blablabla...yawn. Didn't read it all. So funny when you schoolgirls get upset at each other. :)

Wow, the coolest thing I

Wow, the coolest thing I learned from your post is that I have a wikipedia page. Who knew! Quite incomplete, I'll have your readers know, though.

Here's the thing Arthur: it's really hard to take this seriously when you open this way:
Keith Kloor is a free-lance writer who reportedly now teaches journalism at NYU; during 2008-2009 he was on some sort of fellowship in Colorado.

The rest of your post is supposedly some sort of detailed deconstruction of my supposed pattern of deception. You obviously put a lot of work in it. So why couldn't you be bothered to actually check out that I do teach at NYU--and have since the mid 2000s (see the upcoming Fall semester page for undergraduate course listings, look under "Advanced Reporting") and that I was on a journalism fellowship during the 2008/2009 academic year at the University of Colorado's Center for Environmental Journalism. All you have to do is read the About page at my blog to learn this stuff, btw.

So your first sentence is quite lazy and obviously meant to be disparaging. If you can't play fair there, why would I think you're playing fair in the rest of your post? And you're not. You know the old saw: you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

Anyway, sorry to lose you as a reader, Arthur.

Brickbats Prove Worth. .

Brickbats Prove Worth. . .

These brickbats are actually a complement to Kloor's contribution to climate reporting.

quoting Kloor:

> "So your first sentence is quite lazy and obviously meant to be disparaging. If you can't play fair there, why would I think you're playing fair in the rest of your post?"

One might suggest *actually reading it*, Kloor, and not swooning after only one sentence. I chuckle because this is exactly one of the of Kloor's faults Smith documents. I remember when Kloor was being accurately accused of lazily using the "he said/she said" narrative -- Kloor, without irony, pleaded that because he got some rude replies from "deniers" *and* "warmists", he really must be on to something! If I wanted Kloor to fall down a manhole, I would put up a "Watch Your Step" sign nearby and criticize his eyesight, then wait a few seconds for the tumble.

Kloor attracts high quality commentators. I was very impressed with Kloor highlighting Jonathan Gilligan's comment by making it a full post. http://www.collide-a-scape.com/2010/06/20/ I recommend following Kloor only from second hand reports of the competent.

I am not surprised Kloor is a journalism teacher - he is a wild bag full of every modern journalistic shortcut combined with self-importance combined with good intentions. He is thus a stereotypical journalism professor. At NYU, if Kloor bumped into Jay Rosen in the halls, both worthies would explode at the speed of light from the interactions of particles and anti-particles. (This is a snarky way of saying Kloor would benefit from critical self-examination.)

But climate disruption reporting is most definitely enhanced by having Kieth Kloor participate. Proven by the interest displayed here.

Did Kloor really just refuse

Did Kloor really just refuse to read the article because the first sentence used the word "reportedly" for something which is indeed true?

I don't know how to react to that, other than to say 'WTF'?

Keith Kloor says: You know

Keith Kloor says:

You know the old saw: you're entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

And, that relates to what Arthur said how exactly? You didn't dispute any of the facts that Arthur gave...You just expanded on them a bit. You may not have liked the tone (which may not have been exactly admiring but is, at least in my opinion, not really disparaging) or that Arthur didn't research the details of your fellowship and what you are teaching more completely, but that hardly makes Arthur's facts wrong.

kkloor writes: Here's the

kkloor writes:

Here's the thing Arthur: it's really hard to take this seriously when you open this way:
Keith Kloor is a free-lance writer who reportedly now teaches journalism at NYU; during 2008-2009 he was on some sort of fellowship in Colorado.

The rest of your post is supposedly some sort of detailed deconstruction of my supposed pattern of deception. You obviously put a lot of work in it. So why couldn't you be bothered to actually check out that I do teach at NYU--and have since the mid 2000s (see the upcoming Fall semester page for undergraduate course listings, look under "Advanced Reporting") and that I was on a journalism fellowship during the 2008/2009 academic year at the University of Colorado's Center for Environmental Journalism. All you have to do is read the About page at my blog to learn this stuff, btw.

Why is it hard to take the criticisms seriously because of that opening? Arthur reported accurately, the facts seem to be in order- you essentially are agreeing with him.

I understand how nitpicking might give you the opportunity to avoid the substance of his post, but at least find some nits to pick!

Thanks for doing this,

Thanks for doing this, Arthur.
(And thanks Lou for "friction generator" terminology)

Let me join the chorus of

Let me join the chorus of approbation - but add that this is part of a general trend of a general type of blogs/venues. Collide-a-Scape is right in the middle of them.

I might add that whenever I

I might add that whenever I see M. Tobis accused of being a hot-head, or Wm. Connolley accused of overstating the AGW problem, I know I'm dealing with someone who hasn't been given a program for tonight's opera.

I've elaborated on Arthur's

I've elaborated on Arthur's critique here:


KLOOR is the one who is

KLOOR is the one who is obsessive in comparison to Romm? LOL!

Well, Keith does have a

Well, Keith does have a delusion he clings to rather obsessively, which is that a blog that not only allows but encourages free commentary by the very sort of flying monkey that depresses you whenever one comments on your blog, Tom, can somehow play a constructive role in resolving conflict in the "climate debate." There are lots of things wrong with that idea, among them that much of the "debate" isn't about science at all but simply reflects the broader "culture war" (David Brin's phrase when he pointed out this problem, notwithstanding that Keith seemed unable to understand it).

Contrary to Keith's guess,

Contrary to Keith's guess, this post took me almost no work - less than a quarter of the time spent on the recent Prius post, for instance (which involved a bit of data entry). I had 4 of the 5 on this list in my head from the start when I commented on his blog regarding the latest instance. if I'd thought to spend more time I would have found a better Romm example, and perhaps would have improved wording to shorten the article a bit. But Keith's right about one thing - the time was wasted if I thought it would change him at all. Luckily my only real purpose was to vent. And now I'm done, enjoying a great vacation and have no intention of spending further time on this!]

I had occasion to visit the

I had occasion to visit the Curry-Schmidt manufactured controversy and came to the conclusion that both Curry and Kloor had fallen victim to a phenomenon I encountered when I first innocently started searching for more information and trying to learn. I was fascinated but appalled as I spent hours chasing down every fallacious link presented by the misinformationalists. It took at lot of time and energy, and all of my sketchy education, reading things like the Duae Quartunciae (sp?) rebuttal of Monckton, and realizing that the senate site in question was Inhofe/Morano's creature, finding that Fred Seitz was bought and paid for, and the like. It all sounded so plausible, and with a little wishful thinking I could easily have bought into it.

KK appears also to have gained a wide audience with his technique. It's sad that it inflates fake skeptic positions at a time when they need to be deflated.

I am so grateful to Arthur Smith and all those who take the time and trouble to deconstruct what is going on. All those whose lay status prevents them from evaluating the science are stuck with gut feeling, a lot of reading, and watching what is going on in the real world. I think an honest layperson with normal education, which despite my deficit in that department is less than I have, can figure out that things are awry by looking at world weather over time and talking to older people, farmers, gardeners, and the like. Of course our recent season is a wakeup call, but there will be other years like those after 1998 and people will rub their eyes and pretend it was all a tempest in a teacup.

Back to Collide-a-Scape, it appeared that there was a considerable fan club that was deaf to any entreaty involving facts. My personal reaction to Dr. Curry was based on her comments on RC before any of this blew up - it looked like a clear case of fluffing, fudging, and failing to back down to me.

Interestingly, the thing that gave me the most respect for Dr. Curry was Dr. Schmidt's description of her qualifications and goals, and also above the praise for her work before she ran off the rails and began to suggest that we all depend on our info from places like CA and WUWT.

I watch tactics, since that is something I can understand, and this business of attacking comment editing on various website and making outrageous claims about it is on the rise. It's very successful because it's hard to disprove.

I'm grateful to Tenney Naumer whose post of your article on ethics finally brought me to this site.