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.
Before I read this article, I had never heard of Chris Mooney. Apparently, he’s no one of any importance…
The Merriam-Webster dictionary of american English defines a hector as a person who is a “bully” and a “braggart.” It further defines a bully as “a blustering browbeating person; especially : one habitually cruel to others who are weaker.”
It appears that Chris Mooney owes apologies to the target of his ad hominem and smear attack and to the general audience for bullying them with the abrupt closure of comments after only five comments in response to his own bullying accusations. The public can draw its own conclusions about who is and is not “hectoring” in this debate.
Not surprising coming from Mooney. I’ve been following the discover blogs for a few years now and his always follows the same pattern of left-wing propaganda – Republicans being anti-science, anything from a right wing politician that can be distorted or belittled to show how they’re such anti-science “deniers”, dumb, racist, etc. I was actually put on a permanent screening (awaiting moderation…) list for my “anti-science” comments that (gasp) challenged the troubled logic of AGW supporters.
Is asking for the back of the envelope calculation hectoring? I can hardly see where that is bullying anyone.
Hectoring?
Honestly, I don’t think I’ve ever heard that term before. Now not only do I know it, but I have doubts Mooney knows what it exactly means as it sure doesn’t fit the circumstances.
Is Mooney becoming Moonbat II, The Sequel (neither as good nor as inspired as the original)?
Frank,
Arrhenius did a very meticulous job proving that a doubling of CO2 leads to a 5-6 degrees C of warming and was responsible for changing the world from a glacial period thousands of year long to our current inter-glacial period. Unfortunately for Arrhenius, it appears CO2 doubling was not the cause of the current inter-glacial. When challenged by Angstrom, incorrectly BTW, Arrhenius is purported to have revisited his calculations, changing the result for a doubling to 1.6 (2.1 with water vapor feedback) degrees C in 1906. It would be interesting to see a translation of that paper.
As it stands, Arrhenius’ most recent BTE calculation is 1.6 degrees, which is remarkable close to many estimates by today’s scientists and surprisingly, the temperature record.
sad. i found nullius’ reponses over at climate etc clear and helpdful
“UPDATE: After only 5 comments, comments for the article were closed. No discussion allowed. That’s really lame Chris.”
No, that’s just really Chris.
Better lodge an FOIA request for the back of that envelope, before it disappears. After all, this is only 2011 and our storage of envelope backs is limited!
Is Mooney becoming Moody? I have submitted far more challenging comments than Nullius and never got censored and never got a warning. Maybe it was his blog seperation from Sheril Kirshenbaum or his NEW direction that has made him testy.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/06/02/new-directions-at-the-intersection/
I am very worried about Mooney’s shift to psychology. I can see the day when Mooney turns into Nurse Ratched and starts claiming that people who ask for calculations on the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 doubling are hectoring crazies that should be admitted to special climate change reorientation centers where frontal lobes can be replaced with global warming “belief chips”.
Come on guys,
Didn’t Willis E do some back of the envelope calculations (in Excel) and show us the global warming equation?
Discover the decline.I read only one of his Discover comments. He was writing that viewers of Fox News were clearly less informed than most people about global warming. To be ‘less informed’ you apparently had only to be sceptical, which, to my mind, seemed more scientific. Chris Mooney is a sad example of the failure of liberal arts education in America’s universities–neither liberal, nor art, nor much in the way of science either.
I wonder what Richard Lindzen would say about all of this….
If the calculation is so simple why are the IPCC’s predictions so inaccurate?
Before we condemn Mooney too strongly for over-reacting, let’s keep in mind the possibility that Nullius had been on his case in prior threads.
Why would anyone bother to read a blog that doesn’t allow spirited comments? Most of the fun in WUWT is in the comments.
Waste of time, but I sent a compaint to editorial@discovermagazine.com
Calculations??? I don’t have to show you no stinking calculations!!!!
As they say, “That was then, this is now.” Mooney’s response is so out of left field, no reasonable person could view this exchange without viewing Mooney as petulant, at the very least.
Laying Out a Comments Policy
by Chris Mooney
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2009/06/04/laying-out-a-comments-policy/
“Our general rule is that comments must be substantive and on topic, and must avoid profanity, personal attacks, and hectoring.”
Roger Knights says:
June 13, 2011 at 5:32 pm
Before we condemn Mooney too strongly for over-reacting, let’s keep in mind the possibility that Nullius had been on his case in prior threads.
=====================================================================================
So he closed all comments because of one poster, Nullius?
…….all the more reason to condemn (your word) him
( I would have used “make fun of”)
He closed the comments because he’s lame and can’t answer questions………………
We’re way far past the benefit of the doubt phase, and well into the Chris Mooney is an overt propogandist engaged in political warfare within the natural sciences profession phase.
At 5:32 PM on 13 June, Roger Knights had written:
Yes, doubtless asking politely – but persistently – that Mr. Mooney support his assertions with reasoned argument and factual proof.
That’s sure as hell “hectoring in the eyes of any “Liberal’ fascist.
The problem is that the earth system is NOT made up of simply Radiation and CO2. There are other complications that make a mockery of these back of the envelope experts. You know, like clouds and precipitation and other messy stuff they have not successfully modelled on the back of an envelope or otherwise.
Sorry Moon boy, you only prove your and Climate Scientists ignorance with such a puff piece.