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
Couldn’t resist, tweeted him and was blocked. Childish but fun.
@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.
“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.”
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.
Perry
Oxford, Fowler, Gowers, Partridge all accept different to. It is more common in British English than American English but it is permissible.
***
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.
Richard Telford:
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.
Katabasis, DirkH – point taken.
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?
There is also a very good analysis of what happened prior to the Cook paper by Andrew over at Popular Technology, well worth the read .. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html
Still not been fired by tetra I see. guess their board and their customers have not yet hear enough complaints about their “manchurian” employee.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
“… 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.
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.