Dana Nuccitelli discovers the ‘Streisand effect’

This could be a Friday Funny, but oh well, humor waits for nobody. A few days ago I made this prediction in response to a tweet:

Dana_Stop_fishing

For those who don’t know, the Streisand effect is:

…the phenomenon whereby an attempt to hide, remove, or censor a piece of information has the unintended consequence of publicizing the information more widely, usually facilitated by the Internet.

After Andrew Neil’s excellent article at the BBC, my note, and Delingpole’s satire, today it came laughably full circle, and there might even be a new cycle in there:

Dana_Streisand_fx

I can read this because apparently Dana decided to unblock me from Twitter as he did earlier:

Dana_lalalalal

I’m sure he’ll appreciate your thanks on Twitter for doing that.

h/t to Tom Nelson

About these ads

70 thoughts on “Dana Nuccitelli discovers the ‘Streisand effect’

  1. Blocking people who may disagree with you is a really effective way of persuading them that you are right… /sarc

  2. A cunning ploy to recruit Dana in spreading the incriminating information about his financing which you uncovered. Well played!

  3. He’s a propagandist.
    You are the owner of the most viewed climatology blog.
    You made a blog article out of a thread of Gavin Schmidt’s tweets.

    Hmm.

    Why do you think he unblocked you?

  4. Critical phrase with legal consequences: “blogger on my own time.”

    I’ll buy some popcorn on my way home.

  5. For folk not to see someone’s tweets means they’ve gone totally private for
    their micro blog, for a period. Where as blocking means you can’t follow them.
    You can still send them send them @ tweets, they won’t see them,
    but everyone who uses search will see them.

  6. @Admad says: July 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    So THAT’s what a petard is…
    =========================
    Quite so. In a nutshell. Or should that be “in a Nuticelli”?

  7. “First and only warning – I’m Blocking anyone who continues with the ‘Dana is funded by Big Oil’ BS. Cut the crap. #DNFTT”

    First comment by Mr. 1981: Stop fishing ( you may find something fishy )

    Second comment: Anyone who talks about this will get banned ( you have found something fishy)

    Third comment ?? ” As God is my witness, I never had sex with that woman”.

  8. “and there might even be a new cycle in there”

    Heh heh heh

    …….. but will it have any measurable gravitational effects on the sun ?

  9. Twitter is best left to addle-pated teenagers. Very few people have both the insight and eloquence to express anything profound or memorable under pressure to be both immediate and brief.

  10. It is important to note (and quote) that Prof Mike Hulme (UEA and founder of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) has very harsh words for Cook’s, Nuticcelli’s 97% Consensus Paper.

    But who will tell Barack Obabma who cited?

    Professor MIke Hulme:

    “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.

    It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.

    It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’.

    It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse.
    Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?”

    ——————————–
    from this article:

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

    Dana was very upset about it on twitter

  11. Barry,

    It’s amazing how grateful I find myself to hear any honest scientist say words like these,

    …It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’…

    Talk about good PR. Suddenly I’m willing to listen carefully to whatever else Hulme might have to say. Maybe more scientists should forget the ‘Team’ thing and express their objective opinions.

  12. (missed out a bit)

    Barack Obama allows his twitter account to endorse John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli et al (Sjkeptical Science) 97% consensus survey (adding dangerous) here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/17/to-john-cook-it-isnt-hate-its-pity-pity-for-having-such-a-weak-argument-you-are-forced-to-fabricate-in-epic-proportions/

    Prof Mike Hulme (senior establishment climate scientists UEA,etc) utterly discredits it here:

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/#comment-182401

    “The “97% consensus” article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed.
    It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country that the energy minister should cite it.
    It offers a similar depiction of the world into categories of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to that adopted in Anderegg et al.’s 2010 equally poor study in PNAS: dividing publishing climate scientists into ‘believers’ and ‘non-believers’. It seems to me that these people are still living (or wishing to live) in the pre-2009 world of climate change discourse.
    Haven’t they noticed that public understanding of the climate issue has moved on?” -MIke Hulme

    So who will tell Obama this?

    The whole article is worth a read:

    http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2013/07/23/whats-behind-the-battle-of-received-wisdoms/

  13. Barry Woods says:
    July 25, 2013 at 2:09 pm
    “It is important to note (and quote) that Prof Mike Hulme (UEA and founder of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change) has very harsh words for Cook’s, Nuticcelli’s 97% Consensus Paper.”

    Hulme is an ardent social engineer and worked to get CO2AGW accepted as Post Normal science to evade Popperian criteria.

    I guess he’s jealous that Lewandowsky and Cook stole the limelight in manipulation.

  14. Mac the Knife says:
    July 25, 2013 at 1:24 pm

    Admad says:
    July 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm
    So THAT’s what a petard is…

    Perfect!
    MtK

    =====================================================================
    Indeed!

    <Etymology

    Petard comes from the Middle French peter, to break wind, from pet expulsion of intestinal gas, from the Latin peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind, akin to the Greek bdein, to break wind (Merriam-Webster). Petard is a modern French word, meaning a firecracker (in slang, it means a handgun, or a marijuana cigarette, and it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages).

    Petardiers were used during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The petard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, consisted of a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder fixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

    The word remains in modern usage in the phrase hoist with one's own petard, which means "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap," implying that one could be lifted up (hoist, or blown upward) by one's own bomb.

    Sounds like Tetra may also drill for gas?

  15. philincalifornia says:
    “and there might even be a new cycle in there”

    Doesn’t matter how many cycles he uses…

    he ain’t getting this laundry clean !! :-)

  16. Latimer Alder says: July 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm

    Blocking people who may disagree with you is a really effective way of persuading them that you are right… /sarc

    Indeed. The first one to block me was IPCC-nik, AR5 Lead Author and climate modeller, Andrew Weaver, resting on some unearned Nobel laurels – while he was a declared (and ultimately successful) BC Green Party candidate (and Deputy Leader) during the run-up to the May provincial election here. As I had noted at the time:

    Voters of Oak Bay Gordon Head, do take note. If Andrew Weaver becomes your MLA and you happen to disagree with him – or ask him some inconvenient questions – he just might slam the door in your face.

    Helpful hint from Hilary to Andrew Weaver: If you can’t stand the heat, I suggest you stay out of the political kitchen;-)

    IPCC’s Andrew Weaver can’t stand the heat in his tweet kitchen

    Unfortunately, neither Weaver nor the voters* of Oak Bay Gordon Head took my advice.

    * well, at least not the 9,602 (< 26%) of eligible voters who actually cast their ballots for Andrew <we are the vote> Weaver (to much oohing and aaahing of the CBC on the heels of his histrionic … sorry, in the immortal words of the CBC’s “superstar”-struck reporters, “historic” victory!)

    Not sure what I might have done to deserve a block from Mann, though; but his account is “protected” from my evil eyes, even though I’ve never even attempted to engage with any of his self-promoting hype!

  17. This is simply malicious. Shameful.

    Exactly what relevance does Nuccitelli’s job have?

    None. None whatsoever.

    His employment wasn’t secret – anybody who cared to look could find it out in minutes.

    His company doesn’t pay him to blog. He doesn’t profit from his writing. So why send folk to harass him?

  18. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981,

    It would be rather hypocritical of someone in a similar situation as yours to be even slightly offended by the growing public perception of very well done satirical suggestions that there are’Big Oil’ conflicts-of-interest involved.

    Your situation could be considered as similar to that of someone who has made his initial mark in his professional scientific career by systemically attacking the personal credibility and motivation of scientists / intellects with whom he has fundamental scientific disagreements.

    John

  19. Dana signed up at the IOP’s Vision Prize as

    Dana Nuccitelli
    Tetra Tech, Inc.; (United States); Other scientific or technical – commercial; Environmental Science, Physics; Industry – Environmental Services; climate science

    Three possibilities:

    1. He’s as sloppy as it gets regarding online profiles

    2. He’s paid by Tetra Tech to work about climate change – this would explain his prodigious online output in the field, including the running of SkS and the Guardian’s enviropages

    3. He’s abused his day job to get himself a place in the “nonpartisan” Vision Prize

  20. Remember Flannery buying waterfront property for $1 million AUS or so while fear mongering sea level rise…

  21. “Account is protected” doesn’t mean you specifically were blocked. It means the account was set to private.

  22. If He is a young Australian bla bla don’t worry. He will grow up someday as we all have LOL!

  23. Barry,

    The standard of the work in the 97% consensus paper was never important. Remember, Cook is versed in PR. What’s important is: (a) the 97% number; and (b) that it was published somewhere.

    Even if it is later ridiculed, the very fact of its published existence allows its use in the PR war.

  24. As we can see even Rudd has grown up and ditched all the C##p that Gillard did. What has really happened is that young people need a “theme” it was Socialism in my time and the Russians decided that it was C##p in the 80′s. Now its AGW for them, so don’t worry it will not last long. But we will need to find another theme for the younger generation probably something in other planets we hope LOL

  25. What the ‘Streisand effect’ did for me was I eventually found that Dana’s big oil paymasters are involved in shale oil. So Dana is a hypocrite. No point in people saying but he wants to help them out environmentally after the Guardian screamed in horror at shale oil. What a pack of jokers.

  26. The double role of Dana ‘Big Oil’ Nuccitelli. Does Dana oppose what Tetra Tech is doing in the shale oil market?

    [EXHIBIT 1]
    An Updated Look at What Keystone XL and Alberta Tar Sands Mean for the Climate
    Posted on 8 February 2013 by dana1981

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/updated-keystone-climate.html

    [EXHIBIT 2]
    6 June 2012
    Tetra Tech Expands Services to Shale Oil Market with Rooney Engineering Acquisition
    PASADENA, Calif.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Jun. 6, 2012– Tetra Tech, Inc. (NASDAQ:TTEK) announced today that it has acquired Rooney Engineering, Inc. (REI), an oil and gas pipeline planning and engineering firm based in Colorado. REI has worked on projects across the United States, including in Alaska and the Gulf Coast, but many of the firm’s current clients are strategically located in the Bakken and Niobrara shale oil regions.

    http://www.tetratech.com/press-releases/tetra-tech-expands-services-to-shale-oil-market-with-rooney-engineering-acquisition.html

  27. omnologos says:July 25, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Fascinating find!

    Hmmm …

    Vision Scores reward both “surprisingly common” answers and accurate prediction of the distribution of answers. The important thing to know is that answering carefully and honestly will tend to maximize the amount you win in charity gift cards.

    http://visionprize.com/faq/#method

    Well, we know that Dana doesn’t do “carefully or honestly” so perhaps he won his $40 worth doing “surprisingly common”. Trenberth has him beat though, at $110 and Karoly beats good ol’ Kev with a whopping $140

    http://visionprize.com/participants#leaderboard

  28. Anthony wrote:

    > After Andrew Neil’s excellent article at the BBC,

    Wow, Andrew Neil appears to get it. What’s he doing at the BBC?

  29. richard telford says:
    July 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    This is simply malicious. Shameful.

    Exactly what relevance does Nuccitelli’s job have?

    None. None whatsoever.

    His employment wasn’t secret – anybody who cared to look could find it out in minutes.

    His company doesn’t pay him to blog. He doesn’t profit from his writing. So why send folk to harass him?

    Seriously? After all the claims that our host, and so many others, are “funded by Big Oil” so everything they say must be lies?

    Apologies if you just forgot a “/sarc”, however, as it seems you may have….

  30. Argue the science, not the man – Anthony Watts when people were discussing Roy Spencer’s intelligent design beliefs. Snipped comments in that discussion. Likelihood of actually carrying out that instruction – nil.

    REPLY: Ah but that’s a special case, I get accused of being in the employ of big oil almost every day without a shred of evidence, so I’m allowed a little latitude. Turnabout is fair play. Feel free to be as upset as you wish. – Anthony

  31. People need to keep in mind just how much distortion Nuccitelli has added to the debate.

    He has been given “forums” to push these distortions because this is what the pro-warmers want to hear.

    People who push distortion need to be corrected. Adding facts to the debate hasn’t done anything to date except give him another “forum” to publicize even more incorrect/lack-of-context information.

    For example, anyone who has looked into his climate model versus actual observation posts. For example, the “90% of the warming has gone into the oceans” posts which have been spread far and wide around the internet and have even been expanded on in several published papers. His part in the “97% consensus” misdirection in which 66% of the papers were not even counted in the number but have become the latest wide-spread myth of climate science.

    Those defending him here are the ones who “like” their information distorted.

    Anyone who wants to dispute what I said above will be forced to see factual information and they probably won’t “like” it. Which is exactly the point. Facts are not supposed to liked or disliked. They are facts and they don’t carry emotion.

  32. richard telford says:
    July 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm

    This is simply malicious. Shameful.

    Exactly what relevance does Nuccitelli’s job have?

    None. None whatsoever.

    Richard,

    Have you protested thus when Dana Nuticelli has used this irrelevant attack on skeptics? I hope you have sir.
    Regardless, it is nothing less than poetic justice that Dana, who utilizes this malicious, shameful, irrelevant line of argument be subject to it.

    Spare us.

  33. @Eliza
    “As we can see even Rudd has grown up and ditched all the C##p that Gillard did. ”

    No, he is doing it BECAUSE he is childish.. That is how is egotistical mind works.

    Same as he refuses to go back to the Howard asylum seeker policy that worked….. childish SPITE !!

  34. Anthony

    Not upset. Your site, you do as you wish. Perhaps my standards are different to yours.

  35. Dana Nuccitelli, a.k.a. dana1981 is not only funded by Big Oil, he is acting in Big Oil’s eminent & foremost interests, that is, he earns his money. Burning hydrocarbons emits about half as much CO₂ for the same energy output as burning coal. With proper filters installed, there is no other difference, except coal is cheaper and its production is way more diversified, that is, competition is not easily suppressed by forming cartels.

    By imposing stringent limits on CO₂ emissions, coal is effectively killed, which leaves a few big hydrocarbon producers alone in the energy market. Especially having the same crowd already killed nuclear energy for them earlier.

    That means with no competition left they are free to raise prices at will, a dream scenario for any business.

    (Telling me so called “renewables” were competition ever, just kidding, are you?)

  36. Jer0me says:

    July 25, 2013 at 6:18 pm

    Telford is one of them along with Hardman. Another childish nom de plume.

  37. there might even be a new cycle in there:

    Surely a man with a scooter can understand cycles.

  38. Margaret Hardman says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:05 am

    “Perhaps my standards are different to yours.”

    “Different from”, Margaret, not “different to”. The clue to getting it right is, “this differs from that” & not “this differs to that”. Best you revise before “thou postest again”,

  39. @Dana Most of my co-workers don’t even know that I’m a climate blogger on my own time.

    You mean those tight-wads at the Guardian don’t pay him for his time when blogging there?
    Maybe once the editor realises that even Dana’s workmates aren’t interested in what he has to write, then he’ll find a more interesting blogger.

  40. “Talk about good PR. Suddenly I’m willing to listen carefully to whatever else Hulme might have to say.”

    - Listen carefully indeed. Hulme has his own reasons for doing this and the enemy of our enemy isn’t necessarily our friend. Remember, this is the “scientist” who stated in ‘Why we disagree about climate change’ –

    “The idea of climate change should be seen as an intellectual resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can form and take shape. We need to ask not what we can do for climate change, but to ask what climate change can do for us.”

  41. Imagine finding such a nice example of an AGW hypester projecting when he accuses skeptics of being in the pay of big oil.
    Yet there are so many examples of this from the AGW promotion industry.

  42. Perry

    Oxford, Fowler, Gowers, Partridge all accept different to. It is more common in British English than American English but it is permissible.

  43. ***
    Margaret Hardman says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:05 am

    Anthony

    Not upset. Your site, you do as you wish. Perhaps my standards are different to yours.
    ***

    Obviously. Anthony’s been subjected to false accusations for yrs and is tired of it. If you had been subjected similarly, your “standards” might not be so different.

  44. Richard Telford:

    His company doesn’t pay him to blog. He doesn’t profit from his writing. So why send folk to harass him?

    As to the first, they pay him. So he can afford to blog.

    As to the second, he should have the same standards applied to himself that he unfairly applies to others.

  45. Margaret Hardman says:

    July 26, 2013 at 1:05 am

    Anthony

    Not upset. Your site, you do as you wish. Perhaps my standards are different to yours.
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Nuccitelli’s behavior is indeed fair game, well, because of his behavior. Are there not standards of behavior, or do you mean to suggest that your standards differ there , too?

  46. Still not been fired by tetra I see. guess their board and their customers have not yet hear enough complaints about their “manchurian” employee.

  47. A: I’m sorry, but I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid!
    M: Oh, all right.
    (pays money)
    A: Thank you.
    short pause
    M: Well?
    A: Well what?
    M: That wasn’t really five minutes, just now.
    A: I told you, I’m not allowed to argue unless you’ve paid.
    M: I just paid!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: I DID!
    A: No you didn’t.
    M: Look, I don’t want to argue about that.
    A: Well, you didn’t pay.
    M: Aha. If I didn’t pay, why are you arguing? I Got you!
    A: No you haven’t.
    M: Yes I have. If you’re arguing, I must have paid.
    A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

  48. Bloke down the pub says:
    July 26, 2013 at 3:12 am
    @Dana Most of my co-workers don’t even know that I’m a climate blogger on my own time.
    ===========
    seems reasonable. most co-workers would know that climate blogging during company hours is on company time – at least until the boss finds out.

  49. Berényi Péter says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:15 am
    @Burning hydrocarbons emits about half as much CO₂ for the same energy output as burning coal.
    =========
    Are you suggesting that coal is not a hydrocarbon fuel? Interesting.

  50. Berényi Péter says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:15 am
    By imposing stringent limits on CO₂ emissions, coal is effectively killed, which leaves a few big hydrocarbon producers alone in the energy market. Especially having the same crowd already killed nuclear energy for them earlier.
    That means with no competition left they are free to raise prices at will, a dream scenario for any business.
    (Telling me so called “renewables” were competition ever, just kidding, are you?)

    Correct so called “renewables” “cover” about 10- 20% of energy production, however due to greater variability & lower the productivity of the “backup” infrastructure with about the same amount, the net effect being only making the final product: energy, more expensive.
    Looks like everybody starts to discover that wind is highly variable:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/india-threatens-wind-farms-with-fines-accurately-predict-the-wind-a-day-in-advance-or-else/

    but hey, who knew this before?

    Coal is here 2 fold under pressure, on one side due to higher CO2 output per energy unit, on the other side due to need to function as backup which is best done by low productivity gas or diesel generators.
    The result is a multitude of diesel generators spread all over the grid to work as “backup” for 85% of the time instead of one optimised coal or nuclear plant.
    CO2 output is the same or even higher as with coal optimised production, certainly higher then nuclear.
    Pollution may be also higher, as we have often seen with other so called green solutions, nobody really looks at pollution numbers. They look at fake pollution: CO2, but ignore real:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/sugar-cane-ethanol-biofuel-produces-10-times-the-pollution-of-gasoline-and-diesel/

    so I would not be surprised to learn that the “backup” diesel generators produce more pollution than does produce an optimised coal plant (and with optimised I do not mean anything with carbon dioxide capture, but filters for real pollution)

  51. Margaret Hardman

    The standard seems to be: Anybody who attacks Mr Watts personally outside or inside his blog may be personally attacked on his blog. All others can be judged on the merits of their arguments. It falls under the provision for self-defence, since a blog is not an abstract academic exercise.

  52. Richard Telford and Margaret Hardman:

    So will you agree to ignore or refuse to consider every single warmist blog post/msm article/scientific paper that accuses sceptics of being in the pay of ‘Big Oil’?

    For instance, do you agree with me that Greenpeace’s ridiculous ‘Exxonsecrets’ site is a load of old rubbish?

  53. “… today it came laughably full circle, and there might even be a new cycle in
    there:…”

    Warmists don’t believe in cyclic activity. The why they’re so neurotic.

  54. Perry says:
    July 26, 2013 at 2:24 am

    Margaret Hardman says:
    July 26, 2013 at 1:05 am

    “Perhaps my standards are different to yours.”

    “Different from”, Margaret, not “different to”. The clue to getting it right is, “this differs from that” & not “this differs to that”. Best you revise before “thou postest again”,

    As an ancient but well educated Englishman, I do not agree with all that Margaret Hardman writes, however her use of her and my language cannot be faulted. It may not be familiar to our colonial cousins who seem to believe that they have a right to usurp my language, however can we please focus on the argument, not the person.

Comments are closed.