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:
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:
I can read this because apparently Dana decided to unblock me from Twitter as he did earlier:
I’m sure he’ll appreciate your thanks on Twitter for doing that.
h/t to Tom Nelson
Blocking people who may disagree with you is a really effective way of persuading them that you are right… /sarc
A cunning ploy to recruit Dana in spreading the incriminating information about his financing which you uncovered. Well played!
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?
I made one tweet to Michael Mann and was blocked in 15 minutes.
Mann: http://postimg.org/image/f50dwspw1
Me: http://postimg.org/image/pgcqpghld
Result: http://postimg.org/image/doovenmz5/
What a glorious day!
So THAT’s what a petard is…
Critical phrase with legal consequences: “blogger on my own time.”
I’ll buy some popcorn on my way home.
Admad says:
July 25, 2013 at 1:17 pm
So THAT’s what a petard is…
Perfect!
MtK
Serious, guys! Stop MAKING FUN OF ME!!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!
I immediately left a tweet on @dana1981 very juvenile but a hell of a lot of fun.
One of the rare times I regret not having a twitter account. 😉
Is it Ok to call him “Drillbit Dana”? Just asking.
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 @ur momisugly tweets, they won’t see them,
but everyone who uses search will see them.
@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”?
“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”.
“and there might even be a new cycle in there”
Heh heh heh
…….. but will it have any measurable gravitational effects on the sun ?
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.
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
Barry,
It’s amazing how grateful I find myself to hear any honest scientist say words like these,
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.
(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/
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.
=====================================================================
Indeed!
Sounds like Tetra may also drill for gas?
anything written by Dana that might be of interest for Tetra?
They probably expect it to expand blogarithmically instead of exponentially.
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 !! 🙂
Latimer Alder says: July 25, 2013 at 1:06 pm
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:
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!
Someboy please take a screencap of this page – perhaps it qualifies for the Friday Funny?
http://www.peekyou.com/dana_nuccitelli/53187615