Kid blogger Chris Mooney (at left) often writes fascinating articles for their sheer single mindedness of purpose – making anyone who doubts AGW in even the slightest look like fools. I’ve been on the receiving end a few times but generally never bother to respond. I do however, find it interesting that he gets to blog at Discover magazine, while at the same time writing hit pieces for Jim Hoggan’s paid public relations inflamers over at DeSmog Blog. Science and paid PR don’t mix.
But back to our story, Chris must have never been to Missouri, or taken a course where science is taught to be tested by replication and verification. Otherwise, he wouldn’t get so upset when the aptly named commenter “Nullius in Verba” (Take nobody’s word for it) asked to see the calcs behind what Mooney was writing about. It starts out innocently enough:
In the article is this passage about Kerry Emanuel’s “back of the envelope” calcs that prove the issue:
And then comes the obvious question, since the calcs were not included in the article, nor by any link nor citation. The response however, is the surprise:
See the comments yourself here
Hectoring? Wow! So much for the “discovery” in Discover magazine. Change the name to “Don’t Ask Magazine” perhaps?
I guess that makes anyone who asks to see proof of BOE calculations either from Missouri, a denier, or both:
OK I’ve had my chuckle and made my point. Ribbing aside, Chris Mooney really could do everyone a great service by simply answering the question, or writing to Dr. Emanuel and having him show it for him if he doesn’t know what those calcs are. Either way, next time Chris writes about how we all just need better communications, using trusted messengers, remind him of this over the top response.
h/t to Tom Nelson
UPDATE: After only 5 comments, comments for the article were closed. No discussion allowed. That’s really lame Chris.
Chris Mooney is first and foremost a BS artist. His job is not to actually prove, but convince the fence sitters and belittle the oposition.
It’s simple:
1) double CO2
2) ???
3) we burn in the fires of a planetary catastrophe!
When I tried to post:
Whats wrong with wanting to see the calculations? Isn’t not being able to see (thus not able to replicate) part of this annoying divide?
Trusting facts and figures is one thing, seeing raw data and results re-creation should be solid gold.
I got:
Sorry, comments are closed for this item.
It isn’t so much they don’t want dissent, as much as the debate must already be settled…
Of course, the comments are closed now. That was fast.
I suppose that Mr. Mooney’s Discover online forum is yet another one of those virtual venues in which questioning the religious beliefs of the proprietor will get you bounced out of the bar.
But I do like that “hectoring” comeback. Damned thin skin under Mr. Mooney’s coat of weasel fur.
Facts, they do not need facts, they have grants.
Grants outweight Facts.
An English Major, no less. Leave the kid alone, blame instead the fools listening to his empty pomposity.
He already shut down comments. Freakin coward.
[snip – over the top personal attack against Mr. Mooney]
“3) neither Democrats nor Republicans are inherently anti-science ” says the author of The Republican War on Science.
Which is it?
Hmmm, comments closed. Looks like Mooney is a moonbat that can’t take any questioning of his beliefs…
Silence to all the “hector(ers)?” Those who doubt shall be smitten, or is it kitten?
Richard Black, Damian Carrington, and now Mooney. It’s the #leftwingwaroncomments I tell ya!
Another good one for not allowing debate is Greg Laden.
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/05/are_all_these_tornadoes_being.php
Apparently using references and logic is not allowed; at least if you are not on the AGW side.
Greg has a thin skin too, you will note. He didn’t like that I questioned why he would believe models over data. In e-mail communication, he also didn’t like my use of the term “warmist”. I used quotations marks, and in the same sentence as “skeptic” and “lukewarmer”. This, from a blog owner that does not allow “deniers”, as he calls them.
Greg, hypocrisy. Hypocrisy, Greg.
Lets be honest here, none of this stuff has been about science or facts anyways. Its about a fight for power of determining the future direction of the country or countries involved in this nonsense.
Well, he does say that you have to be a MIT science student to do it – which he isn’t. So I guess that’s why he regards the request as “hectoring”.
I was unaware of Emmanuel saying any such thing, but I find it highly amusing. He really said that to Congress? They just don’t get any respect at all. If it really is that easy, perhaps he will spare us five minutes of his time and show us that BOE. Who knew it was so simple?
I asked Chris to explain why the comment by Nullius was “heckoring” and my comment was deleted. I then said: “I was mistaken that this was a science blog but I see its just a warmists propaganda blog. No wonder there are very few comments”.
Within a few minutes the comments were closed.
That seems to be a basic ploy: Add “Everybody knows” or “It’s easy to calculate” in front of a statement then become affronted when anyone asks for proof.
Hey, I thought the Science was settled, way back when Chris was still in diapers. Are we now hiding the decline of used envelopes for the sake of the grand children ?
Any real science enjoys having a lively debate on its basic premises. Any real science is more than happy to publish it’s theory, results, raw data and assumptions in the hope of eliciting information that will improve it’s understanding of nature. But AGW is not a science, so much as it is a religion.
Could he stand a day at a farm? Or would even that be too much for his physic?
English Major eh? Then I guess he understands the term “buffoon.”
Maybe someone should do him a favor and point him toward the article on a “simple” sensitivity calculation on Judith Curry’s blog. http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/14/co2-no-feedback-sensitivity-part-ii/
This may disabuse him of ‘back of the envelope’ excursions.
In the first comment we have a please and a thanks. That’s the kind of over the top rhetoric that leads to hectoring dontchaknow.
Loved the “noted” bit too