OK then, Nate Silver. Don’t take my advice.
Why not go and do something really stupid, like kiss goodbye to integrity, pay Danegeld to your tormenters, and humiliate one of your innocent writers?
Oh. No. Wait. You already did.
If Silver still doesn’t realize he’s the victim of an orchestrated plot by a handful of deep green astroturfers to destroy his site as punishment for his failure to pay proper obeisance to Mother Gaia, maybe he should check this out. (H/T My Right Penguin)
I think this is a highly effective method of dealing with various blogs and online articles where these discussions pop up. Flag them, discuss them and then send in the troops to hammer down what are usually just a couple of very vocal people. It seems like lots of us are doing similar work, cruising comments sections online looking for disinformation to crush. I spend hours every day doing exactly this. If we can coordinate better and grow the “team of crushers” then we could address all the anti-science much more effectively. – Rob Honeycutt [Skeptical Science], February 11, 2011
Now let’s go and look at the “controversial” Roger Pielke, Jr. piece for which Silver has been taking so much flak.
And guess who tops the list of sneering, trolling commenters.
Rob Honeycutt · Top Commenter
Note to Nate Silver… I’m rather taken aback by this article by Roger Pielke. It’s just fundamentally wrong. Not just a little wrong. It is statistically and demonstrably wrong. It’s easy to show by just looking at this information from Munich RE.
Geophysical disasters (and losses) have remained flat while weather and hydrological disasters (and losses) have escalated dramatically over the past 30 years.
When I read 538 I have come to expect good data and good analysis. Pielke’s work here falls far short of that mark.
That name. Where did I see it before?