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.
In all fairness, I know that there are people who become pests on a forum (we have our own here). Since I never go follow the proceedings at places like Discover or Scientific American (far too biased away from Science, ironically), I don’t know if the poster was hectoring or being a pest.
In common parlance, “hectoring” is what a comedian would say the guy in the third row that keeps hollering insults at his jokes is doing. Perhaps Chris sees this poster as that, in which case fine.
However, a very valid question was raised, and for him to simply ignore it and close comments is a sign that he has no answer. After all, very simple back-of-the-envelope calculations have also shown that people who go by the name of “Chris” tend to be loudmouthed, opinionated, and arrogant. And don’t bother asking me to see those calculations, any second year phrenologist or astrologist or numerologist could easily demonstrate it.
Yeah, I consider AGW believers to be in the same general category…
clearly he’s taking lessons in how to destroy a blog from charles johnson of little green footballs.
JohnA says:
“It must be “Sweeping Statements Week” on WUWT. I must try to forget all of the liberal professors and Democratic supporters who have suffered in their work situations because of left wing demagoguery from people like Chris Mooney. They clearly existed only in my fertile imagination.”
Agreed if you use the term “Democratic supporter.” Don’t agree if you include “progressive socialists” as an element of “Democratic Supporter.” There is a VERY BIG difference…. What I’m worried about is that the “Democratic supporter” may not realize that s(he) has been “sucked into” a whirlpool of doom.
Lots of “Democrats” simply have not awaken. And NONE of those who are feasting on the public teat ever will, and you know it!
Free the envelope!!!
I find interest in that long “Liberal” fascist rant of Mr. Mooney’s that he specifically mentions how:
…without once considering how many of the members of the AAAS surveyed were actually educated and experienced in any of the hard sciences. The Association states that it is “Open to all,” and membership comes automatically with a subscription to their magazine, Science.
So what Mr. Mooney’s cited 2009 survey indicates is that the overwhelming majority of Science subscribers responding were “Liberal” fascists.
Think we wouldn’t get the same kind of response from the subscribers to Discover or The American Prospect?
Let’s give a little thought to the kinds of response one would get if one were to undertake a similar survey of the subscribers to Reason or to Liberty magazine.
Probing Mr. Moody’s cited bolus of arrogant bullpuckey is entirely too much like that stint in the pathology lab back in medical school, checking samples of excrement for ova and parasites. No matter where you poke it, or how you parse it, it’s still…er, feces.
At 3:00 PM on 13 June, John A had written:
Inasmuch as the twittering Weiner has become the public face of the National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP, because they quit being “Democratic” when they enacted Obamacare over the howling rage of their own core constituencies in 2010), I would think that the expression “Democratic supporters” has an – er, athletic connotation we should take pains to avoid.
Please, no more jockstrap jokes.
“Your comments are verging on heresy at this point.”
There. Fixed that for the kid.
Frank says: “Today, students at MIT and elsewhere can do hand calculations or use simple models of radiative and convective heat transfer to explore climate physics, and they find climate sensitivities in the same range as those reported in the first National Academy of Sciences report on anthropogenic climate change in 1979.”
Maybe the students can, but a really top genius of a Heat Transfer Expert is Dr Adrian Bejan – he who writes the heat transfer textbooks they use at MIT. He can show you on the back of an envelope that the atmosphere works like an enormous heat engine that very effectvely self-stabilises, dumping any additional heat out into space, or retaining it if it is not so hot. In fact as a heat calculation problem, it was so uninteresting to the famous man that he ignored it for years, then stepped in, made a few quick calculations of the correct type and quickly showed the AGW idea was completely off-base using just a few basic principles of convective heat transfer.
Don’t ask the vacuous students, ask the professor. I can recommend highly his recent book “Convective Heat Transfer” to anyone who wants to understand how Nature actually works.
http://www.amazon.com/Convection-Heat-Transfer-Adrian-Bejan/dp/0471271500
AGU Release No. 10–39
15 November 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—The American Geophysical Union’s board of directors has approved two new members who will bring expertise in science policy and communication: policy advisor Floyd DesChamps and author Chris Mooney.
Hmmn – “communication” ? “expertise” ? no wonder the “superiors of science policy” are in trouble, or is the message, threaten those who dare to ask for facts, information, rather than spin, thus the REAL agenda. Is this where they got (and lost) that scientific consensus they tried to foist on the world. Deny or threaten the right to ask polite questions and what does that make one?
@roger Knight
“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.”.
I think you’re being overly generous, Roger. I tried a very polite enquiry on another thread, pointing out that commenting had been switched off, and was moderated out of existence. It’s the first time I have ever been on his blog. He clearly does not want to go near the issue because he know he doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It was a wild assertion that could not be substantiated. Someone spotted it. Oops.
@CodeTech
“In common parlance, “hectoring” is what a comedian would say the guy in the third row that keeps hollering insults at his jokes is doing.”
No, that’s ‘heckling’. We English Majors do know some things.
He’s a protege of the late climate change propagandist, Stephen H. Schneider. I saw an interview with Mooney during the COP15 debacle. It was very revealing. He mentions Joe Romm as a “climate expert”. Wow.
Back of the envelope calculation? All you need to scribble is Figure 1 from this publication.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2011/04/14/biggest-drop-in-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions/
He’s a child……. nothing more needs said.
One would think that MIT Professor Richard Lindzen’s students have an entirely different point of view.
Anthony, Thanks for the support! (Which I must emphasise I didn’t ask for, and comes as a great surprise to me.)
In fairness to Chris, I ought to say that while we’ve rarely agreed on much, he has in the past been very open about allowing contrary views on the blog, and this event is quite uncharacteristic. It may be that several recent discussions have upset him, somehow – he’s said more daft things than usual recently and I’ve been bored enough to spend the time pointing it out (e.g. the ‘Democrat War on Science’ thread) – but I’m still trying to find out from him what’s up. Recent traffic wasn’t particularly heavy, compared to other times in the past.
I’m pretty sure the comments got closed when he saw that he had attracted WUWT’s attention.
My sincere thanks to all.
CodeTech @ur momisugly June 13, 2011 at 6:48 pm
It’s true that Nullius is a regular at Discovery, as well as other climate blogs. However, from what I’ve read, he is unfailingly polite, calm and rational. Did you catch his rejoinder after Mooney’s hectoring charge? One word and a period: “Noted.” That’s class.
Nullius is deadly at spotting holes in arguments and concisely exposing them. I consider Nullius one of the most skillful writers I’ve seen in online debate. I’ve no doubt that his consistent effectiveness is the source of Mooney’s complaint and inability to follow up. Mooney is embarrassed and he should be.
Why would anybody so much as discuss Arrhenius any more if t has been shown time and again that CO2 concentration changes follow temperature changes, not the other way around?
P.S. Take a look at Chris Mooney’s photo. Would you give this guy your car keys for a minute? Case closed.
Reminds me of when I first started infoming myself about this topic (I was a warmist at the time), I was at Gavin Henson’s place and asked a question, in all innocence. I had no idea it wasn’t allowed. My comment was censored. I don’t even remember the question. I think I got the answer here …
jonjermey says:
June 13, 2011 at 2:26 pm
Chris Mooney has form in the atheist community as well, being one of the most prominent voices for ‘accommodationism’; essentially the view that we should be nice to believers even if they are talking complete nonsense, supporting violent extremists and spending our taxes on it because… because…
I know that no one else has commented on this, but may I make the comment that some reject accomodationism because they see no good reason to be nice to “believers” and I reject it because not all “believers” believe the same thing!! Let’s not fall into the trap of lumping all “believers” in the same boat – remember, many terrorists think they are doing the right thing for their belief system by targeting “believers” of other belief systems. I also would like to say that it is possible to be a sceptic about AGW and not a sceptic about other things, such as moon landings and even religious beliefs.
Meanwhile, back at the climate conversation….
What amazes me the most about writers like this one is how they start out with a paragraph or two to show how unbiased they are. A few fair mined statements that neither Democrats nor Republicans, blah, blah, blah. Then just as your settling in for some actual fair minded comparisons, you get, well, Democrats have “vastly more PhD’s and experts”
OK, I know how to count PhD’s. How does one count “experts”? Does he know the definition of “expert”? I believe it is “anyone from out of town”?
I’ve no doubt that the Democrats have vastly more degrees than the Republicans.
How many philosophy degrees does it take to balance one engineer anyway?
At my favourite local watering hole, there is a stellar serving staff who almost all have degrees. Three in fine arts, at least two in philosophy, a couple of political science majors. All except one vote left of centre.
Gosh, I wish I’d gotten a degree. I could have been a server, a profession in which it appears the vast number of people are highly educated left of centre and…. what? they make HOW much?
Changed my mind, don’t want that highly educated degree job thing after all.
One thing that seems to happening with more frequency and intensity is the over the top reactions in the AGW community to reasonable questions. As a professional working in the field of mental health, this idea of people responding with high expressed emotion to any query which they view as not being “approved” is interesting. It suggests a firm denial of the nature of humanity and it’s inherent curiosity. Most sites ( including this one) will get pretty contentious sometimes, but it’s the immediate anger on a consistent basis which I find worrying in the pro-warming sites. It appears that unless you are 100% in support you must be a denier. No individuality, no interpretation, no doubt. There is a great PhD here for someone one looking at high expressed emotion in the AGW community. Even for myself as someone who believes the climate is warming and that we have something to do with it, this situation looks more like Scientific McCarthyism than true debate to improve our understanding of what is occurring. Such behaviours are commonly related to those who have some doubt as to their beliefs, but cannot for some reason recognise or accept those doubts for fear of devaluing themselves as a person.
From Alexander Feht on June 13, 2011 at 10:48 pm:
Because the (C)AGW alarmist rant against that is: This time around it is something new and different, Something UNPRECEDENTED! This dramatic rise in CO2 concentrations that humans are causing is UNPRECEDENTED! Therefore CO2 MUST BE DRIVING THE TEMPERATURES UP, just as Arrhenius PROVED would happen!
Yeah, it doesn’t make sense to me either.
Only if he’s wearing his parking attendant uniform.
The On-line version of today’s Guardian (UK) has a headline that shouts ‘Why Extreme Weather is the New Normal’ but no comments are allowed. The same issue also repeats the (wildly inaccurate) story from the Telegraph by the incredible Louise Gray about Australian climate scientists suffering deatjh threats and their university moving them to a secure location – No comments.
Just love the debating tactics of eco-Marxist pseudo-journalists!