As a skeptic of AGW, I and many of my peers are often subjected to scrutiny and accusations of being in the employ of “big oil”. It’s a standard line used by warmists, almost as effective at denigration as playing the race card in an argument that has nothing to do with race.
“Oh, don’t pay any attention to him, he (insert one) /works for/is paid by/is supporting/is a shill for/ big oil” is how it usually goes when warmists want to shut down a conversation.
On Twitter this weekend, a bit of sparring by Andrew Neil of the Spectator and the BBC led to one simple question by Dana Nuccitelli:
Yes, I was kind of curious also. Thanks for bringing up the question. But just as soon as the question started getting asked, we have this followup from Dana:
Stop fishing? That’s funny. Why wouldn’t he want his co-workers to know he’s got this plum gig over at the Guardian, that bastion of all things green, where he writes about the evils (and silver linings) of carbon emissions?
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jun/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-iea-silver-lining
His bio at the Guardian is rather sparse, listing him only as an “environmental scientist and risk assessor”: http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/dana-nuccitelli
Since that bio is a bit slim, how about this one from his Linked in page:
Source: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/dana-nuccitelli/7/a44/661
And who is Tetra Tech?
Source: http://www.tetratech.com/markets/oil-a-gas.html
It reads:
“We support oil and gas exploration and production, gathering pipelines, transmission pipelines, compressor/pumping stations, processing facilities, refineries, storage facilities (above ground and below ground), and rail, truck, and marine terminal import and export facilities.”
This revelation about Dana working for a company that supports “big oil” in the form of oil and gas exploration and production may very well revoke Dana’s “green card”.
And ironically, Tetra Tech is big in mining too, for those that want to talk trash about Steve McIntyre’s work in the mining industry.
Welcome to the Streisand effect, Dana.
As a follow up to this primer, you can read Andrew Neil’s essay on the issue here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
Addendum: If Dana wants to argue that the reason he works for this company that supports oil and gas exploration and production, is that he believes that such things can be done in an “environmentally friendly” way while managing the risk, so that we can continue to use oil and gas in the face of the risks he talks about, I would certainly be OK with that. – Anthony
UPDATE: his response? Fingers in ears: la la la la la!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hilarious! On the heels of our angry nobody at NatGeo. The facade crumbleth.
Just as an aside, I notice that the image chosen for that Guardianenvironment article is another of those lying, into the sun, shots that makes pretty while clouds of condensing water vapour look like thick black dirty smut.
Oh this is going to be fun, especially as Andrew Neil has felt the full force of disapproval for deviating from “the consensus” and isn’t one to back down…
Thanks, Anthony. So Dana is paid by big oil. How comical!!!
The two mugshots they’ve chosen for Guardianenvironment make them look like a stand-up comedy doulbe act. Probably not far from the truth.
I have often wondered if the most overt climate shrillists were actually BIG OIL or BIG GAS or BIG COAL or BIG MINING covert agents, instructed to so badly mangle the arguments for carbon (sic) taxes that the public would eventually ignore the problem completely.
If you think about it, there are great advantages for ‘big oil’ and especially ‘big gas’ to make things difficult for ‘big coal’.
Already we have the World Bank refusing to fund new coal fired power stations.
And I think they can see, and we can all see, that demand for gas and oil is not going to vanish in the near future – their medium term prospects are still really very good.
Big Oil, in the personae of ExxonMobil, Shell and BP give a great deal of money to alarmist organizations – but none, so far as I know, to skeptics. Talk about lying, hypocrisy and effrontery, to claim that skeptics are in the pay of Big Oil. I’m certainly not, and I’d be very surprised if anyone else who posts here is.
From the BBC link:
“At the Sunday Politics we are also used to public figures who try to change the metric when the one they’ve put their faith in does not behave as expected. We try not to let that happen.”
This is why, to me, the BBC can still justify the licence fee. On serious shows they’re still capable of serious reporting. Sadly, with something like 50 channels of populist carp available even on Freeview, the audience for this part of their output is woefully small!
Hmmm – Benzene – CO2?, Benzene – CO2? does any body know an environmental scientist who can tell me which one is poisionous, i think we’re gonna regulate CO2, but what do I know I’m not an expert.
Maybe Dana is just infiltrating…sabotage from within, lol.
Just to add a little coal to the fire (bad pun intended), Tetra Tech is also a publicly-traded company. So they’re part of Wall Street as well.
Lots of villains as bedfellows for Dana.
It is good to see Andrew Neil is aware that the “heat is going into the deep oceans” argument is flimsy as it must be measured in “hundredth of a degree C”. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/
Too funny. I wouldn’t be too surprised if he’d be a full-time climate campaigner soon, what with conflict of interest with his employer’s business.
Tut, tut – very naughty!
When someone makes a big deal about the employment of an opponent, they have already lost the argument.
Whether or not CO2 is bad or good should be determined by the facts, not personalities.
By the way, benzene, when exposed to water, air, and sunlight breaks down rather quickly. It is not a long term contaminate. The question on benzene should be addressed to an Industrial Hygienist.
Dana is obviously schizophrenic. His Dr. Jekyll personality (Dana has no phd even though he thinks he is qualified to slander those that do), works in oil and gas. His self inflicted guilt concerning his sins working in O&G, brings out the delusional Mr. Hyde who works for SkS.
Dana, see your Doctor. He can prescribe Lithium for what ails you!
REPLY: I think that is way off base. I don’t see that at all, and you are wrong to suggest it. I nearly snipped this. I simply see Dana and others in his peer group as having a simple case of “noble cause corruption”. They feel they are doing a noble service to mankind, and that end justifies any means. That’s not a mental illness, but a self rationalized attitude. – Anthony
Imagine such a probing interview five years ago. Unthinkable.
This is an accolade to Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre and the rest of the skeptical community pushing to get this scandal exposed and to the likes of Judith Curry working for a return to truthful, objective science.
Big thanks to all investing their time and energy.
That’s the second time I’ve hit moderation in a short comment using our host’s name. Is his name on a black list here?
REPLY: No not a black list, a flag to hold it for moderation so somebody looks at it. Sometimes people address me directly in comments with requests, questions, or needs, and this help me see them. Previously, when all comments were moderated, other moderators would bring them to my attention. – Anthony
Anthony, certainly there are many with “noble cause corruption”. and they do certainly “feel they are doing a noble service to mankind”, but do they also work in O&G?
You know what? I actually respect Nucitelli a whole lot more than I used to after finding that out. You know why? It means that in the real world of real jobs, he knows – absolutely knows, on what side his bread is buttered.
It means that all his fru-fru writing in the Guardian and other places is just him milking some spending money out of the chumps willing to believe any fantasy gibberish he wants to spin, and thanks to his real job he knows how to throw enough jargon in to keep the fish biting.
And he knows it. Hey, if people were willing to pay you good money to write childish, badly plotted fairytales in your spare time, wouldn’t you take it while you could get it?
Read Andrew Neil’s response….
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23405202
“As a skeptic of AGW, I and many of my peers are often subjected to scrutiny and accusations of being in the employ of “big oil”. It’s a standard line used by warmists, almost as effective at denigration as playing the race card in an argument that has nothing to do with race.”
Or almost as effective as accusing every scientist who thinks AGW is a problem as being on the government’s payroll, or living off grants that require them to conform to the “consensus” view (of which there are many in the archives of this site).
Ad hominem (or ad funding’em) attacks are equally uncompelling from both sides.
O Oh… This gonna hurt!
It gets better…
“As pioneers in arctic engineering and other services in the North, Tetra Tech and its subsidiaries have a proven reputation for successful northern development. Tetra Tech provides world-class consulting and construction services to owners of infrastructure in transportation, mining, energy, and community infrastructure in the Circumpolar Region. – See more at:
http://www.tetratech.com/services/arctic-engineering.html#sthash.SHoqkpM2.dpuf
I assume that Nuccitelli wasn’t born working for these O&Gers. So he must have applied for a job there.
Wonder how he reconciled his high moral principles and sanctimonious stance on mere mortals with doing so? Did he face sleepless nights and a battle with his conscience? How great was his inner turmoil?
Perhaps you could offer him a guest piece to explain, Anthony? I’m sure we’d be delighted to know.