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.
Dear Chris,
Thanks for providing me with today’s see?-now-that’s-why-I’m-convinced-AGW’s-a-crock moment. Weak bud. Really weak.
Apparently, ‘the “Enlightenment Ethic” of using science and reason to forge a better society’ is the excuse Chris uses to justify his propaganda. In other words, it’s ok to deceive the public for a good cause because the ends justify the means. The problem is that his idea of a “better society” is not the same as mine. “Using science and reason” by distorting it to achieve a political goal never ends well.
The Fabian Socialist Society created a stained glass window showing a heated earth being forged by hammers into a “better” world — a new world of scientific socialism where individualism must be relinquished for the betterment of the state. Its similarity to Chris Mooney’s idea of using the Enlightenment Ethic to “forge” a better society is quite a coincidence, don’t you think? You can see the Fabian Window here:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13959
For the hard core AGW faithful has it is a self evident truth is simply no way to questioning it , that is not itself intrinsically wrong . Don’t think science, think hard core religion and they you will get how people like Mooney think about ‘deniers’ or those that question the fatih.
I stopped reading Discover 4 years ago after reading how some climate investigators used weather balloon data from the 1940 -1960’s to show an increase in average temperature. When the data showed no increase they introduced a fudge factor to adjust for faulty calibrated equipment backing the raw data, and low and behold there was a rising in average temperature. I could not believe my eyes. If I had ever produced a science paper like that back when I did my undergrad, they would have tossed me out on my ear. The editors at Discover called it a “breakthrough study”, I called it fraud. I don’t buy that mag anymore.
I note from his bio that his blog won the prestigious (Un)Scientific American best-blog award…
He`s found his cash cow,now he`s gonna jerk on those teats `till they burn.
Perhaps we can all blog bollocks for a wage when industry rolls on its back and dies.
Thanks for the reminder bob.
The board of AGU believes that the debate is over and all we need is to have better communicators to nail that fact home.
Seems though that the first thing Chris needs to do is establish a small amount of trust with the public (and policy makers too).
Perhaps he’s been in the echo chamber a bit too long and has forgotten the basics of establishing trust – Like answering the easy questions.
It took me a simple web search to find that Kerry Emanuel did not provide this:
So, Kerry Emanuel did not in fact provide a back of the envelope calculation in his congressional testimony – he alluded to something similar, but that is not quite the same flavor of “truthiness” that Mooney hoped to “communicate”.
Emanuels testimony is here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/hearings/Emanuel%20testimony.pdf
So there are more Democrat PhDs than Republican? I’m not sure what that statement really means. It’s rare these days to get through a place like UC Berkeley today and not be a Democrat. There is tremendous pressure to conform and join the masses, and little refuge. And of course, if you are not a Democrat (or other stronger flavor of socialist), you are less likely to be published, obtain grants, and get tenure..
Are we now voting on science? Consensus is after all group-think. We certainly are passing legislation based on what must be Democratic consensus science. Next, we have judges ruling on science. For example, EPA regulation of CO2. How are they qualified to make that ruling? As if testimony of expert witnesses and precedent are sufficient to discover truth. Legality isn’t the same as reality.
Well now, Hectoring isn’t all that bad 🙂
“Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4–5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5–6 °C. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Weather = AGW. Simple.
Dittos; a man after my own sentiments.
.
“Science and paid PR don’t mix.”
Amen! All it takes is a quick history lesson to back that up. That was definitely some sketchy behavior from Mooney, now I have to take Discovery with a grain salt… or are some of the other writers more trustworthy?
frank-So, how correct something is in science is defined by it’s stagnation and lack of progress? Arrhenius being brought up as showing that these estimates are well established is funny, given that the basis for his calculation “agreeing” with modern computer models is pure coincidence, since the basis for his numbers later turned out to be wrong. A bunch of people doing the same flawed calculations over and over, that are so simple a monkey could do them (apparently) not trying to actually improve the calculations at all! That’s not merely not impressive, it’s depressingly discouraging for the ability of this field to advance at all, since the current generation is being trained to simply regurgitate dusty old ideas and not think at all.
How would they know if there is positive or negative feedback by doing a simple BOE? I haven´’t seen 100% proof in any direction, but the long term records make me believe it is negative. By the way the way he handled that comment was pathetic.
Let them (including this Mooney fellow) continue to dis scientists and scientific discovery. Let them show their shallow and unprofessional response to real inquiry. And let them offer twaddle instead of real insight–It simply serves to destroy what little credibility they have left regarding the subject.
Have no idea why anyone would give any credence to anything C. Mooney says. He was in Australia, some months ago and (for reasons that defy understanding) given a national platform, addressing the National Press Club. It was, to anyone with a scientific education and half a brain generally, perurile rubbish. I mean, the guy really sucks. Wet behind the ears know-nothing, is how he came across.
I’m confused. How would Lindzen and Emanuel both being MIT professors have such different views on climate sensitivity. In looking at their CVs Lindzen was a professor at MIT in 1975 and Emanuel got his undergrad in 76 and his Phd in 78 at MIT.
Was Emanuel ever a student of Lindzen?
Is Frank (at #:03 pm) aware of what has become known as “Arrhenius’s Error”? By the 1920s, it was determined Arrhenius was wrong and the influence of CO2 on the atmosphere was over-emphasized. Sure, NAS and MIT students could do the same calculations, but they’d be wrong just as Arrhenius was. That entire topic has entered the realm of Logical Fallacies (i.e. a propaganda tool). Logical fallacies are, like Arrhenius’s handmade calculations, logical, but false.
Yeah, stop hectoring!
Chris Mooney stand tough, you’re not alone.
We’ve paid billions/trillions for something anyone with a science degree from MIT can do on the back of an envelope………..
Anyone want to buy a million dollar super computer?
Here’s what he saw on that envelope:
MIT
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02139
Joke is on him, he wasn’t looking at the back.
Where is W.C. Fields when we need him?
Go away kid, you bother me.
Hoser says: June 13, 2011 at 3:40 pm
[Next, we have judges ruling on science.]
[How are they qualified to make that ruling?]
Judges have for a long time made rulings on science in the context of admission of evidence.
-Finger prints
-Toxicology
-Pathology
-Ballistics
-Accelerants
-DNA
None of these were accepted by the court until after a rigorous examination of the science from which the evidence was derived.
We have not yet seen a judge that knows enough about the history of law to not simply accept new scientific evidence uncritically; we await a skeptical disinterested judge.
At 3:40 PM on 13 June, Hoser writes:
Friend, why do you think that people like this Mooney git object so strongly to having their doctrines characterized as Liberal Fascism?
Accurate perception of their malevolence and hostility toward individual human rights puts a real crimp in the activities of a “communicator” of fascist propaganda like Mr. Mooney.