Friday Funny – the walk of shame

Josh writes:

Dana said in a tweet that I don’t ‘put any intelligent thought’ in my cartoons, see screen shot below. I guess that means he thinks they are clever! I will take that as a compliment.

josh-dana-tweet

josh-walk_of_shame

Worth repeating from this post.

The prominent climatologist Mike Hulme has slammed the Cook et al 97% “nonsensus” paper in a comment at the Nottingham University Making Science Public blog.

The blog post at Nottingham University and the subsequent comments are well worth reading.

Josh
www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

About these ads
This entry was posted in 97% consensus, Humor, Satire and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Friday Funny – the walk of shame

  1. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    What with both Mike Hulme and our Gav starting to “deny” CAGW soon it will only be the pathetic camp followers who believe in the bullshit. Those who earn their living out of the scam will be long gone before the last of the tail enders leave the crease. (Sorry – cricket analogy..)

  2. Joe Public says:

    I wonder if he works with a conscience, or, has a conscience spending his pay-cheque?

  3. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    I’ve just had the thought that maybe Mike (Hulme – not the other (self snipped ad hom…)) and our Gav would deny that they deny CAGW. Denial squared? Is that a double negative?

  4. Dermot O'Logical says:

    It’s not just the “Oil & Gas” division that TetraTech has – from their 2012 Annual Report comes this proud declaration of the work done by the “Engineering and Consulting Services (“ECS”)” division:

    “Arctic Engineering: We provide consulting and construction services to owners of transportation, mining, energy and community infrastructure in the circumpolar region, which includes the Arctic and areas of permafrost around the globe. In this extreme environment where temperatures can drop below -50C (-58F), we provide adaptive engineering and scientific services that reach beyond traditional approaches. We are one of the few firms that are capable of providing full life cycle services for northern development. We offer these arctic engineering services during all project phases: exploration and project planning; feasibility studies, design and permitting; engineering, procurement and construction management (“EPCM”), and construction; and operation, decommissioning and reclamation.”

    So this environmentalist works for a company that actively enables others to perform Arctic exploration and exploitation?

    Payday over principles, methinks.

  5. Glenn says:

    “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.”

    http://www.tetratech.com/markets/oil-a-gas.html#sthash.xqXPc8ah.dpuf

    Simple fact is that he gets his check from this company.

  6. JaceF says:

    O/T contender for Friday funny has to be man made, climate change creates cannibal lobsters http://io9.com/off-the-coast-of-maine-lobsters-are-becoming-cannibals-916343979

  7. Let’s face it, Cook et al is such a load of horsefeathers that any scientist with the remotest sense of self-preservation would distance themselves from it. As for Dana, he is indulging in arm’s length exploitation of natural resources to pay the bills, justified in much the same way as Gore’s carbon footprint.

  8. Barry Woods says:

    If you (Cook) are planning the media blitz and marketing of the 97% consensus project – WHILST you are analysing the papers. Just a tiny chance a bit of confirmation bias might slip in for the end result….(/sarc off)

    “To achieve this goal, we mustn’t fall into the trap of spending too much time on analysis and too little time on promotion. As we do the analysis, would be good to have the marketing plan percolating along as well.” – John Cook

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

    Ari Jokimaki responded to Cook,

    “I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).” – Ari Jokimäki

  9. Josualdo says:

    Lol. The fact that you dont find a thought in something doesn’t mean it’s dumb. Around here we call that “watching the movie backwards”.

  10. Margaret Hardman says:

    Diana’s right. It isn’t funny.

  11. mikegeo says:

    Margaret, now that ‘s funny!

  12. Mark Bofill says:

    Margaret Hardman says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:22 am

    Diana’s right. It isn’t funny.

    —————-
    Who’s Diana?
    ..
    Are you ripping on the gender ambiguity of Dana’s name while complaining about another joke to make your joke more subtle and ironic, or am I finding deep meaning in random tea leaves again? ‘Cause I do that sometimes…

  13. Margaret Hardman says:

    Predictive texting I’m afraid. But it shows a machine can make a funnier comment than I can.

  14. Mark Bofill says:

    Margaret Hardman says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:55 am
    ——–
    :) My phone has caused me to accidentally text some real doozies too.

  15. Ric Werme says:

    I thought lobsters were cannibals before climate change made the news.

    Dana has stronger ties to big oil than Anthony does. He shouldn’t expect those catcalls to go away anytime soon.

  16. Janice Moore says:

    The TREEHUT BOYS, lol, excellent cartoon, as usual, Josh. Love how little Purple Boy (with pink shoes, lol, that’s the Nut for sure) and Green Shirt Lad have mismatched their socks in exactly the same way and are trudging in lock step for the door, comrades to the end… .

    LOL, dolts like Dana Diana, fo-fanna banana —- Daaay-naaah! wouldn’t recognize an “intelligent thought” if it walked up and handed them a check for $2,000 (half the big D’s likely monthly pay). They’d say dreamily, “Thanks, whoever you are, from a faraway land, I’ll take it!”

  17. Bruce Cobb says:

    Yes, Josh, get your facts straight, will you? He works for a company a BRANCH of which works in oil and gas, with which he has nothing to do with. Because that makes all the difference in the world. Lol. Methinks he doth protesteth too much.

  18. Bill says:

    Considering how “they” go out of their way to tar anyone who ever made a phone call to, or got a small grant from a corporation as in the pay of big oil, it is certainly fair to say he works in that industry.

  19. DirkH says:

    Hulme not happy with the 97% propaganda.

    Wants propaganda that is better constructed.

  20. Janice Moore says:

    “[Josh's] eye begets occasion for his wit,
    For every object that the one doth catch
    The other turns to a mirth-moving jest.”

    [William Shakespeare, Rosaline, in Love's Labor's Lost, act 2, sc. 1, l. 69-71]

    “We should take care not to make the [bare] intellect our god; it has, of course, powerful muscles, but no personality.”

    Albert Einstein [Out of My Later Life, chapter 51 (1950)]

    And, of course, it takes wit to appreciate wit.

  21. M Courtney says:

    DirkH says at July 26, 2013 at 12:07 pm

    Hulme not happy with the 97% propaganda.
    Wants propaganda that is better constructed.

    Just highlighting a very pertinent observation.

    Kudos. Spot on.

  22. john piccirilli says:

    I was waiting for the hiker to see a wind farm..vermont and maine have gone nuts.sad but true. Go to maine wind site and sign a partition against this…..15% capacity, nuts…

  23. Roger Sowell says:

    Great, Josh!!

    I Noticed the knuckles of the one on the left. “Knuckledragger” comes to mind.

  24. Brian R says:

    For Dana to say they only have a branch that’s involved in gas & oil is well……some might say it’s a stretch of the truth. I, on the other hand, would call it a bald face lie.

    Let’s take a look at what Tetra themselves say they do.

    http://www.tetratec.com/
    “Since 1981, TETRA Technologies, Inc. has been supplying high quality products and services to the oil and gas industry. We offer a comprehensive range of products and services that span the life of a well—from drilling and completion related offerings, through workovers and well ehnancement services, to plugging and abandoning wells and decommissioning platforms.

    TETRA is a leading worldwide supplier of calcium chloride, not only to the oil and gas industry, but to other markets for applications in agriculture, deicing, dust control, food production, manufacturing, redi-mix concrete, road stabilization and water purification. Because we manufacture the base components—calcium chloride, as well as calcium bromide, sodium bromide, and zinc bromide—we have extensive product knowledge about these clear brine fluids and their wide variety of applications.”

    In case you believe that second paragraph is Dana’s way out, you should look at how Tetra defines their Fluids & Filtration business segment.

    “Fluids and Filtration
    TETRA Technologies, Inc. was a pioneer in the use of clear brine fluids for well completions, workovers, and drilling operations, and the Company has continued to be an innovator in the industry. Since 1981, TETRA has worked to develop new and more technically advanced products to meet the ever changing needs of our customers. All segments of our fluids operation—from manufacturing the base products to technical planning and support—work in concert to provide an integrated solution for our energy industry customers.”

    It goes on from there. I find nothing in Tetra’s description of it’s products and services that make it look like they are anything but a company that supports the pretrochemical industry as their mainstay.

  25. MangoChutney says:

    Dana has now taken to censoring my comments, which on topic, non-inflammatory, but disagreed with dana’s latest article http://tinyurl.com/peu3r9s i have a screen cap

  26. MangoChutney says:

    Apparently i’m being pre-moderated at the guardian

    Q: When I post a comment, it says that my comments are being pre-moderated – what does that mean? Does that apply to everyone in the conversation?
    A: There is a further exception to the overall reactive-moderation approach adopted by the Guardian website: in isolated situations, a particular user may be identified as a risk, based on a pattern of behaviour (e.g. spam, trolling, repeated/frequent borderline abuse), so a temporary filter can be applied to anything they post, which means that their comments will need to be pre-moderated before appearing on the site.

    This is a temporary measure applied by moderators to a very small handful of people based entirely on patterns of actual behaviour, and should result relatively quickly in either their posting ability being suspended completely if no improvement is shown, or the filter being removed. The decision to do either of these things would, again, be based on that user’s behaviour and activity during the pre-moderation period.

    My sin? Disagreeing with dana

    I predict a ban from his twitter feed

  27. clipe says:

    Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.

    Groucho (Dana) Marx

  28. John Endicott says:

    if he can’t be honest about how the company he works for makes it’s money, why should anyone believe he can be honest about anything else?

  29. eo says:

    Proponents of AGW should look back to the initial international global warming conferences. Those conference were chaired and headed by a person who is strongly connected with the oil and gas industry almost to the day when he moved out of public view. There is no need to hide, just be open and frank. Oil and gas industry just like any big business are considered in politics open targets for making profits by taking advantage of the public or the voters. In any political rhetoric the cheapest and simplest way of labeling an opponent as dirty, greedy and other expletives without being libelous is to associate them with one of the big businesses like banking, gas and oil, tobacco, chemical ( for creating the chemical environment–the environment is really made of chemicals and energy in its purest state), etc depending on the current scandals. However, in private and among themselves politicians understand the role of big businesses in their political careers as well as the economies they are governing. They support and play with big businesses. Global warming or rather climate change debate is almost a simple political debate now that the computer models are starting to diverge from the data in spite of data manipulation. It does not matter if the facts on AGW espoused by politicians are wrong a million times as long as politicians believes supporting AGW will keep them in office. Politicians could just as easily dump, modify and even move to the other side once they feel espousing the AGW mantra does not translate to votes or keep them in power. The proponents AGW should just change their roles to being politicians rather than hide behind the smokescreen of “science”.

  30. David says:

    Per their 2012 Annual Report, Tetra Tech’s list of representative clients includes:
    · Chevron Corp.
    · ConocoPhillips Co.
    · Exxon Mobil Corp.
    · Kinder Morgan Energy Partners
    · Kuwait Oil Co.
    · Saudi Arabian Oil Company
    · Shell Canada Ltd.
    · Southern California Gas
    · Suncor Energy
    · Texas Energy Group LLC

    Regardless of what part of the corporation he may work in, Mr. Nuccitelli can not deny that he accepts money from a company which accepts money from the Oil and Gas industry.

  31. Mark Bofill says:

    (Cross posted from Lucia’s)
    I’m starting to think about running a Consensus project. I’m wondering if I couldn’t get a %97 percent consensus that Cook’s 97% consensus is a load of worthless hooey. I don’t know anything about proper methodology for this, but that’s OK, neither did Cook. Of course, if I could address some of the problems in the original study, maybe I could get it published as a response.
    Just a thought.

  32. Janice Moore says:

    “… wondering if I couldn’t get a 97 percent consensus that Cook’s 97% consensus is a load of worthless hooey.” [Mark Bofill at 5:23PM]

    The Global Warming Petition Project may be a good place to start. 31,487 scientists, 9,029 with Ph. D.’s, signed an anti-CAGW petition.

    For details see: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php

    Your work is cut out for you:

    1) There are some names missing (I found two in the S’s whom I was surprised had not signed) — perhaps, they just don’t know about the petition and would be happy to sign — inform them.

    2) PUBLICITY needed for this list of REAL scientists.

  33. Gary Pearse says:

    If DN is an environmental specialist with Tetra, then the team he is on is tasked with doing baseline studies and impact studies essential for the permitting of a production well or pipeline. He obviously has to approve of the raison d’etre of the industry or he wouldn’t be working for Tetra. His “don’t go fishing” admonition arises from guilt over the duplicity of working secretly for the industry and trashing it in public. When Tetra finds out about all this, Dana may be looking for other employment. Would it be mean to direct Tetra to Dana’s other life?

  34. johanna says:

    I have just one thing to say to Dana/Diana – please, keep digging. :)

    And congratulations Josh – you seem to have hit the target right on the bullseye with this one.

  35. jcspe says:

    I don’t blame anyone for rubbing his face in it because he does deserve it. However, it truly saddens me is that anyone anywhere would think that being identified as someone who helps provide energy to people is a smear.

    Pathetic.

  36. Dave the Engineer says:

    So for Dana it is a case of “don’t do as I do, do as I say”. So we can pretty much substitute the word “Dana” for “hypocrite” in our lexicon. Bit harsh perhaps. But you reap what you sow.

  37. Gunga Din says:

    Josh writes:

    Dana said in a tweet that I don’t ‘put any intelligent thought’ in my cartoons,

    ==========================================================================
    Hmmm….A drawing and a caption that in one pane effectively communicates the point of an often complex idea. And in a humorous way.
    Nah! That doesn’t take any intelligent thought.

  38. Chuck Nolan says:

    cspe says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:30 am
    I don’t blame anyone for rubbing his face in it because he does deserve it. However, it truly saddens me is that anyone anywhere would think that being identified as someone who helps provide energy to people is a smear.

    Pathetic.
    ———————————————–
    I agree!
    I congratulate Dana for his employer choice.
    Althoiugh, I believe it’s wrong of him to not support his employer on moral grounds.
    Either get behind Tetra or get out.
    Personally, I like what the company does.
    For Dana to deny Tetra’s contribution to mankind is wrong.
    What Dana and his company provide is life itself.
    I’d fire an employee that didn’t actively promote our company and our work.
    If there’s a demonstration I know which side of the line he better be on.
    cn

  39. Stephen Richards says:

    Glenn says:

    July 26, 2013 at 9:51 am
    “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.”

    http://www.tetratech.com/markets/oil-a-gas.html#sthash.xqXPc8ah.dpuf

    Simple fact is that he gets his check from this company

    As we say “he who pays the piper calls the tune”. He works for an OIL COMPANY.

  40. Mac the Knife says:

    Dana’s response shows that, in the battle of wits Josh has engaged Dana in, Josh is battling a half-armed man.

  41. MangoChutney says:

    picked up my ban from @dana1981 for pointing out censorship without explanation in a national newspaper is unacceptable

  42. hunter says:

    Dana, and so many other AGW extremists, are perfectly content to use alleged ties to what they claim is part of a vast conspiracy in order to silence and de-legitimize skeptics. He seems much less open to the idea that he should be judged by the standard with which he judges others.
    Like most extremists, he is at heart a shallow hypocrite.

Comments are closed.