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
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?
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
Dana signed up at the IOP’s Vision Prize as
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
Remember Flannery buying waterfront property for $1 million AUS or so while fear mongering sea level rise…
Considering how much comedy Dana Nutcase writes, it is entirely possible his day job is actually working on the Howard Stern Show. He is a doppelganger for Dell’Abate …
http://cdn.c.photoshelter.com/img-get/I0000o1_6mPDjt.w/s/750/750/7466-Howard-Gary.jpg
http://rocknrollghost.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/garyhowardbeth.jpg
http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/0a/e2/0ae27bd076f8e4ace0eff8cb3d38f53d.jpg?itok=UhEtWxCH
It would explain a lot.
“Account is protected” doesn’t mean you specifically were blocked. It means the account was set to private.
If He is a young Australian bla bla don’t worry. He will grow up someday as we all have LOL!
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.
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
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.
Goose and ganders, meet the black swan.
A ruckus may ensue.
The double role of Dana ‘Big Oil’ Nuccitelli. Does Dana oppose what Tetra Tech is doing in the shale oil market?
omnologos says:July 25, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Fascinating find!
Hmmm …
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
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?
richard telford says:
July 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm
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….
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
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.
richard telford says:
July 25, 2013 at 3:26 pm
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.
@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 !!
Anthony
Not upset. Your site, you do as you wish. Perhaps my standards are different to yours.
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?)
Jer0me says:
July 25, 2013 at 6:18 pm
Telford is one of them along with Hardman. Another childish nom de plume.
there might even be a new cycle in there:
Surely a man with a scooter can understand cycles.
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”,
Completion of previous post.
….the link is here. http://www.oed.com/