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.
I was getting ready to ask the question, Do we know what his actual position in the company is? Until I saw the comment from:
Billy Liar says:
July 22, 2013 at 11:31 am
but what if he’s just someone’s adminitrative assistant?????? MOre like a PR person maybe, would seem to meld well with his blog career.
Just saying
Tetra Tech is a huge company. I worked for them 10 years ago. Our division primarily did environmental work for the EPA but also for other federal agencies, such as NOAA, & the USACOE. I personally did a lot of work in hazardous waste incineration – permitting, testing, & oversight. Incineration is a vital technology for waste disposal. I also happen to think it needs to be highly regulated d/t risks & dangers it presents. Anyway, as Anthony discovered, they appear to be into oil & gas, big time. Interesting but not surprising.
Sorry to be ungentlemanly, but Ed Davey is a complete arse…and even he knows it.
Billy Liar says:
I read somewhere that Dana is involved in environmental clean-up for TT. No bad thing, if true.
Greenwash more likely. Most big (and less big) companies have someone on the books to present the company’s pollution as an act of environment concern. At best the aim is to pollute as much as possible whilst staying a hair’s breadth within the law. Often it’s pure spin.
Didn’t we know this years ago? He even signs off science papers as Tetra Tech.
David Cameron has a new PR guru in Lynton Crosby and has changed tack on several issues to great popular effect. Could it be that Crosby suggested the “windmill hating” Conservative side of the governing coalition gave the BBC permission to cut the “windmill loving” Liberal side of the coalition off at the knees? Andrew Neil is a very clever man and high ranker at the BBC, I believe he makes politicians squirm for fun, a sort of hobby.
Nuccitelli decontaminates military sites – be interesting to find out if Tetra Tech builds military sites 😉
Maybe we need to start pointing out that Big Environment has just as much a monetary vested interest in the the results of their research too. How the hell else will they they be able to scare the bejuesus out of people and get them to send in their contributions. Without a crisis and a corporate villain to joust with, no one would send a dime. What also is not mentioned, is the political agenda of the environmental left. They are socialist with the goal of bringing down the capitalist free economy. In many cases these organizations receive large sums of money from countries like Russia and China. While the connection is not direct, usually looking a 5 or more pass through organizations. The money is there to support an economic war. I used to work in the nuclear power field and would volunteer my time to advocate. I saw reports that showed that the anti-nuclear groups were connected back to the soviets through a chain of organizations used to launder money to them. These groups started out as the anti-war groups, progressed to the anti-nuclear groups and are now the big environmental organizations who support the AGW position and other anti-growth positions.
It’s interesting that the Guardian causes so much excitement. Its paid for circulation is now below 200,000, it’s losing money at a huge rate and the online version is also. Hard to see how it can survive. Unfortunately, it still exerts influence as part of the BBC general left wing media bias prevalent in the UK.
Cheers
Paul
BBC back pedalling already. The plateau is completely okay. We are all going to die after all.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404
Poor Dana, king of the roost one minute,feather duster the next.
Never spar with Andrew Neil, BIg hitter… see the interview with Ed Davey
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”
Not necessarily – according to the Beeb, oil & mining are behind a reduction in de-forestation in the Congo: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23382526
I wonder how much of that “commercial agriculture” was growing crops to convert to fuel?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23409404
This is a good one back pedalling has really begun
“Professor Rowan Sutton, of Reading University, said computer simulations or models of possible future climate scenarios often show periods of ten years with no warming trend – some even show pauses of 20-25 years.”
And another….Ooops
And Professor Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, said observations and models showed that on average there were – or would be – two pauses in warming every century.
I asked why this had not come up in earlier presentations. No one really had an answer, except to say that this “message” about pauses had not been communicated widely.
I have to defend Dana here, its better to work with oil and gas to ensure its done the best way possible than simply standing around protesting its evil like Hansen! Its also possible he doesnt have much to do with it within his business, though management there may still see it as a coflict or interested or un-professional regardless. We dont like lies about us working for oil shills etc… so lets not do it to others
What!!?? a 2 faced hypocrite warmist alarmist? No, it can’t be true.
/sarc
He has to make a living, but he is honest enough to spout what he believes in, knowing, presumably, that his employers won’t like it. A brave man.
I take it desmogblog will be opening a file on him soon.
Clearly this is something that the public, investors in Tetra and their clients, should be writing to the chairman of Tetra to inquire about. Why should their clients trust a company which employees an individual who is actively working against them? Aside form the extremely bad decision making quality that this hiring decision reflects, who knows what subversive actions Dana engages in passively or actively to undermine his company’s client’s business. This would certainly give me pause for long thought about whether engaging their services is a good decision. As an investor I would have to question the leadership of the current chairman.
Man this is sweet! He has introduced his SkS style of moderation and had many long time commenting sceptics banned. I have found myself on pre mod for the first time, which makes it virtually impossible to engage in any meaningful discussion. This guy hates free speech and is an arrogant buffoon.
Cue another CiF blog defending his rank, fossil fuelled hypocrisy that has been exposed, and cue his SkS style moderation so only his and his sock puppets` voices will be heard.
I bet he wishes he never wrote this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/jul/19/climate-change-contrarian-wretched-week?INTCMP=SRCH
I hope this revelation will be the cure for this irksome tick.
l see they are already trying to use this heatwave we have been having in the UK as some sort of proof that the warming has not stalled. lf we have a spell of cool weather during August, l bet they won’t be so quick to try and claim that as proof that the warming has stalled. 🙂
Rabinsky says:
July 22, 2013 at 1:22 pm (Edit)
———————————————
That’s fine but the real point is that he uses the allegation that “deniers” receive money from big “fossil” to dispute what they say. He cannot say that and take their money at the same time. Best he just fesses up and admits that the money trail is irrelevant in this debate. That would at least remove a forest of undergrowth we need to hack through every time we make a point.
Nuccitelli is suffering from a clear cut case of conflicting interests.
He should resign from one or preferably both jobs.
The most important thing in all of this to me is that someone at the BBC, of all organisations, would actually write such a fair and objective assessment. I am almost too stunned to know which I am more impressed with: the analytical approach of the response or the someone having the balls to stand up to the howling of the usual green mafia.
Another irony is that most environmental consulting firms have spent the last 10 yrs promoting AGW and trying to drum-up business…whether it deals with rising water levels affecting bridge heights or wastewater treatment plant discharge elevations, changes in rainfall affecting water resources (we have an “impending war on water” in the coming decades, allegedly), increased intensity of storm events wreaking havoc on sewer systems, minimizing GHG emissions from municipal utilities, etc.
So Dana is qualified to be employed to blog about it and write papers on climate change, but he’s not qualified to do it in his own workplace – nor does his employer apparently promote his alleged capabilities when it comes to business development. Priceless.
I know Andrew Neil’s programme doesn’t exactly pull in the punters, but it does restore a little faith in the BBC that they are prepared to allow sceptic heresies to be spoken at all. Andrew Neil’s reply to criticisms is excellent (though why should he have had to make it?) This Dana bloke sounds like a prize specimen.