Bishop Hill writes of our good friend and eco-entertainer, Dana Nuccitelli:
The Guardian is really turning into the most extraordinary publication. In its desperation to stay afloat financially it has ditched professional journalists left, right and centre (or at least left, leftish and very left), replacing them with a mixture of hippies and ecoactivists. The results are inevitable.
…
It’s astonishing stuff.
More here: http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/1/14/cue-popcorn.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So all that’s left is the right wing hippie journalists? Confused.
Link to Guardian article please?
elmer says:
January 15, 2014 at 8:14 am
So all that’s left is the right wing hippie journalists? Confused.
—
Sounds like it … your chance 😉
Here it is David. “The Weekly Standard’s Lindzen puff piece exemplifies the conservative media’s climate failures”
Anthony is being uncharacteristically low key here. Some of the data shown in this commentary appear to be invented. The comparison between data & Hansen is misleading to the level of outrageous lie.
Here’s your link (apologize if this gets duplicated, but it appears my first effort was eaten by the bit monster).
So all that’s left is the right wing hippie journalists?
There are a few of us around. But we don’t write for the Guardian. Libertarian and libertarian publications get our output. And technical journals.
Perhaps Nutty Celli just came back from Colorado?
The Lindzen “prediction” is a complete straw man fabrication. My most charitable interpretation of the actual temperature trace is that it was drawn by Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand.”
Links: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/
This? – http://www.webcitation.org/6MbyFNK4F
This! –> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism
I cannot comment over at the guardian anyway, I am “pre-moderated”
They are getting really desperate. I wonder if Richard himself might like to comment, surely they would not censor the subject of the article?
From the article,
I think this deserves special note. Maybe a frontrunning contender for The Golden Strawman award, for unabashedly admitting to refuting a made up position!
They closed comments, what a surprise
Insanely enough, my search for the term ‘straw’ in the comments only turned up one match, and it wasn’t calling Dana out either.
Elmer, thought the same thing, so re-read it. He says “left, right and centre” were ditched, then clarifies that there never was right or center at the Guardian…rather “left, leftish, and very left”. Hippies and ecoactivists tend to be against all political parties for various reasons, and for this reason don’t represent (or appeal to) the average person at all. Which makes choosing them to write for any publication a counterproductive idea…much less a struggling one.
This is also quite popcorn worthy:
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
You know, this is genius.
I’d like to refute Dana’s absurd prediction that Skeptical Science would by getting the message out, cause 27% more car buyers to go with hybrids since 2011. There’s a study from Experian referenced here (http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/sales-data-shows-hybrids-going-mainstream-as-a-choice-for-more-buyers/) that says only 3% of car buyers are buying hybrids. So there! :p
Anyone know of any other predictions Dana didn’t make but could’ve made if he’d only had made them that I can refute? :p
Dang. I should have looked at the names on some those links before I hit ’em. Now I feel the need to give my hard drive a bath and take one myself- yecchh.
Mark Bofill, there is no contradiction there – a 27% increase in the number of hybrid buyers since 2011 doesn’t mean that they are 27% of car buyers, so the 3% figure proves nothing either way.
steveta_uk,
You’re right. 🙁 I noticed that immediately after I posted.
But it matters not! For we can examine another prediction that Dana didn’t actually make, but that I’ve meticulously pieced together that he might have made, if only he’d made it.
There was that prediction about how we’d have 100 million climate refugees worldwide by now, how agriculture worldwide would collapse due to AGW. It hasn’t happened. There!
Or that one he didn’t make but could have about alien civilizations taking note of our careless and destructive stewardship of the planet and annihilating us by 2005. Hasn’t happened either!
In fact, now that I think about it, there are literally endless predictions Dana didn’t actually make but could’ve, if only he did, that turned out to be false! I don’t get how that guy can bear to show his face in public.
Be fair, Mark – there must be loads of predictions he didn’t make that came true as well.
Steveta_uk,
:>
Yes. But maybe if I combine B-E statistics with Lewandowski’s advanced new techniques, I can demonstrate that under the ‘many worlds’ quantum hypothesis that Dana’s wrong predictions outnumbered his correct predictions in all possible realities by a statistically significant margin!
Ok ok, I know. I’ll settle down and be good. (No nurse, I don’t need my meds right now! Can’t you see I’m commenting here?!)
So if it DIDN’T happen we can show that you didn’t make a prediction that it would happen, or on the other hand if it DID happen we can show that you didn’t make a prediction that it would not happen. I can definitely show that not making predictions is just plain wrong.
Is there some sort of trans-atlantic communication problem here? I’m confused as to how anyone could be confused about what the Bishop wrote. Is it the phrase “left, right and centre” that you are unfamiliar with?
London, the Guardian’s home city, seems to be the only place in the world where everyone drives on the Left. Those on the sword-hand side are driving on the Left. Those on the wedding ring finger side are driving on the Far Left. They can’t seem to get anything Right.
As the last vestiges of Marxism collapse and rot the Guardian will no doubt pick up neo-Darwinism with renewed vigour because it remains just about the last bastion of Western materialism that still attracts a significant following. That necessarily implies they will stop going after deniers and start going after believers. I am sure they will be comfortable with this, as long as the pot is stirred.
Comments closed?? What do proletarians know about anything anyway. We need to be led (and judged) by an elite, y’know. Success is about being more equal than others.
/sarc barely off