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?
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:
And who is Tetra Tech?
“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:
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!