Just read the “Conclusions” of Mooney’s book on Amazon. He has obviously gone way out of his competency and freely speaks of things he can’t possibly understand. As far as I am concerned, anybody who believes it possible to measure Liberals and Conservatives has an infantilistic view of “measure” and of “politics”.
Think about it…there are decades of studies about the meaning of “political spectrum” and everybody agrees even the usage of two axes isn’t really good enough. There comes Mooney though, and we’re back to a single axis, left and right, and we should throw all that previous work away? Unlikely.
The pages about “conservatism and the amygdala” will surely be read in the future, in comedy sketches though, like we read today about the scientist who couldn’t believe the flight abilities of the bumblebee.
Anyway, the icing on the cake is the fact that the Conclusions aren’t that idiotic really, and Mooney says he now admires “conservatives”, and goes as far as to recommend “conservatives” and “liberals” “need be operating together“. Well, Brainy Boy, that’s not achieved really by calling your book “The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science–and Reality“, is it??
You know things are going down the drain when an English Major interviews a Cartoonist to talk about psychology and the identification of scientific “myths”.
The level of absolute idiocy is reached of course when the owner of a website purportedly debunking 173 climate change “myths” and well-known for its unethical treatment of non-compliant commenters writes:
Debunks that offered three arguments, for example, are more successful in reducing the influence of misinformation, compared to debunks that offered twelve arguments which ended up reinforcing the myth.
Avoid dramatic language and derogatory comments that alienate people. Stick to the facts.
Who knows, John Cook might one day read his “Debunking Handbook” and ditch Skeptical Science completely.
(If Revkin can do it… 😎 – my Twitter account in English is ‘omnologos’)
1– @bbcworld there is something preternatural in seeing every good climate news invariably more than compensated by some badclimate news refers to “Temperature and CO2 feedback loop ‘weaker than thought‘” by Roger Harrabin, which includes:
The authors warn, though, that their research will not reduce projections of future temperature rises.
2– Total rout for AGW : UK Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change refers to “Science chief John Beddington calls for honesty on climate change”
3– another case of gross misrepresentation of the literature, thereafter conveniently disregarded? refers to my comment “Himalayagate 2”
4– Building a broad climate coalition of scientific/professional organizations reminds of “100 Scientists against Einstein” refers to “Climate change activists work to regain momentum” by Eric Berger, Houston Chronicle
5– Science : “Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion? (answer: mostly biomass) refers to
Science 23 January 2009: Vol. 323. no. 5913, pp. 495 – 498 “Brown Clouds over South Asia: Biomass or Fossil Fuel Combustion?” by Örjan Gustafsson et al
6– ClimateDepot “warmists” have been scoring own goals for quite some time – and still they do – refers to “The Disastrous Setback for Climate Advocacy of Late 2009” by Chris Mooney in “The Intersection” where I comment
I fully agree with redlink18…disparaging any comment that falls outside of the party line and concentrating on blaming a handful of well-paid individuals when there has been a clear and massive change in public opinion in the USA like in the UK, all of that will lead Mooney’s “camp” nowhere.
On the other hand, given that the “warmists” have been scoring spectacular own goals for quite some time now, no wonder they show no chance of getting anything right at the moment.
7– “try and change the Received date! Don’t give those skeptics something to amuse themselves with” refers to “East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – 1189722851.txt”
8– Using religious language to fight global warming refers to “Using religious language to fight global warming” by Helen Grady, Analysis, BBC Radio 4
9– @Revkin: Watts is at third of Gandhi’s four stages: “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win” refers to “Poorly sited U.S. temperature instruments not responsible for artificial warming” on Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog
Thomas Richard at Climate Change Fraud links
(using what might be unfortunate and wholly un-necessary homophobic undertones) to Chris Mooney’s rather unusual “Thanks for the Traffic, Morano” blog.
Mooney’s contribution to the global consciousness contains pearls of literature like the following:
So…my last post, “The Deniers’ Last Stand,” has had quite a lot of incoming traffic from ClimateDepot. I guess Marc Morano over there somehow thinks I help him make his point
It must be the first time ever that somebody has in any way lamented somebody else’s incoming link to his blog…
Anyway…I find it telling that Mooney is surprised by the amount of traffic coming from ClimateDepot, and feels the need to write: “So Mark: Let’s keep linking to each other“.
What it is telling is that usually Mooney, like several other AGWers I have met in all these years debating the topic, cannot even contemplate providing his readers with links to non-AGW sites. Because he disagrees with their content to the point of pretending it does not actually exist.
It’s an attitude reminding at the same time of an inferiority complex, childishness, an urge to censor, and/or a fear of reading anything not singing one’s own tune, lest the virginal eyes of the AGW believers be poisoned by non-conforming writings.
Time will tell which of the above interpretations is correct.