Quote of the week – cue popcorn


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


39 thoughts on “Quote of the week – cue popcorn

  1. 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.

  2. 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.”

  3. 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?

  4. From the article,

    Based on his comments in that 1989 talk, I pieced together what Lindzen’s global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one, and compared it to the prediction made by prominent NASA climate scientist James Hansen in a 1988 paper (like Lindzen, Hansen is now retired).

    I think this deserves special note. Maybe a frontrunning contender for The Golden Strawman award, for unabashedly admitting to refuting a made up position!

  5. Insanely enough, my search for the term ‘straw’ in the comments only turned up one match, and it wasn’t calling Dana out either.

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?!)

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

  14. 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

  15. Nutty would have made the wrong predictions if he used a timemachine to go back and make them. Such is his addiction to hubrilliance.

  16. .
    From popcorn-worthy to Nobel-worthy :

    Could Nuccitelli have produced ….. ‘ THE LIE THAT SAVED THE PLANET ‘…… ?

  17. Crispin in Waterloo says:
    January 15, 2014 at 10:41 am
    “London, the Guardian’s home city, seems to be the only place in the world where everyone drives on the Left. ”
    Ummm, Crispin, it used to be called “The Manchester Guardian”, and I am reliably informed that most of Japan drives on the correct side of the road.

  18. LOL
    “… I pieced together what Lindzen’s global temperature prediction might have looked like, had he made one,…”
    What a riot!
    People are actually coming to Dana’s defense accepting that after he made up something Lindzen did not say, they accept the idea that what Lindzen did not say proves how wrong Lindzen is!
    No wonder the alarmist belief system is so difficult to rationalize.

  19. JohnWho says:
    January 15, 2014 at 12:09 pm
    “People are actually coming to Dana’s defense accepting that after he made up something Lindzen did not say, they accept the idea that what Lindzen did not say proves how wrong Lindzen is! ”
    Dan Rather defense, Fake But Accurate. Like The Onion without the fun.

  20. There is an alarmist over at Joanne Nova’s site who is trashing Jones and Trenberth because they dared utter they could not explain the pause. He is calling them failed skeptics. In that he is kind of right.

  21. Dana said:

    Hansen used 3 different GHG emissions scenarios in his 1988 paper. I took the one that was closest to reality and adjusted it slightly to reflect actual GHG changes.

    Hansen’s scenarios were acceleration in CO2 emissions by 1.5% (a), constant increase in emissions (b) and stabilization of emissions (c). Dana must have adjusted scenario c downward.

  22. elmer says:
    January 15, 2014 at 9:20 am
    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

    That article is just a follow-up addendum by James Powell to his earlier article, which I critiqued then as follows:
    Here are my comments on a survey by James Powell, posted online in various sites last year (2011?), of 13,950 papers dealing with climate change. It analyzed their abstracts and “found” that only 24 rejected manmade global warming. I posted the following critical comments on the site below (not the main place it was posted). I suspect it was this survey that inspired what Cook is up to now (5/2013):
    The article states:

    “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming.”

    How many papers that “explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false” would get by peer review with that phrase intact? How many would even be submitted to peer review if they included that phrase? They therefore tend to be more circumspect and merely cite a discrepancy, some flaw (minor perhaps only in the author of this article’s opinion), etc.
    Here’s a link to 1100+ peer-reviewed papers supporting skeptical arguments critical of ACC/AGW alarmism:

    The article states:
    “Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, . . . .”

    Strawman. The claim is not that skeptics are 100% “prevented” from being published, but that that it is difficult (and hence rare) to get them published, or to get them published without being watered down, as I hinted above.

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”
    “A few deniers have become well known from newspaper interviews, Congressional hearings, conferences of climate change critics, books, lectures, websites and the like. Their names are conspicuously rare among the authors of the rejecting articles. Like those authors, the prominent deniers must have no evidence that falsifies global warming.”

    IOW, an article will be classified as skeptical only if it presents hard evidence. BUT an article will be counted accepting/endorsing even if it presents no hard evidence, but merely implicit opinion:

    “Articles about methods, paleoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

    Denial must be explicit, but acceptance may be implicit. This double standard biases the results of this article. By how much is unknown. For that, the author should have indicated how many fall into the “implicitly accepting” category.

    The article states:
    “If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.”

    But the weakness of the warmist case isn’t in the “hard evidence” so much as in the inferences drawn from that evidence, the selectivity applied in deciding which evidence is the most relevant, the inferences drawn from those relevant bits of evidence, the assumptions made, etc. It is at those matters where the main thrust of skepticism has been directed.
    But journals want to publish “findings.” This biases them against publishing wide-ranging, argumentative critiques. (To be fair, they rarely publish similar argumentative essays from the warmist side either.) They have a just-the-facts attitude. But the facts don’t speak for themselves. Argumentation has therefore moved to other venues.
    What’s needed is an online venue where viewpoints can be argued among credentialed scientists, with the peanut gallery roped off into a separate section where their comments won’t disrupt the discussion, but can be drawn upon by the participants if desired. (Seen but not heard, IOW.) This is what has finally gotten underway with the establishment this month of the Climate Dialogue site, at http://www.climatedialogue.org/

    The article concludes:
    “Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree.”

    So what? (Irrelevant thesis.) Skeptics don’t deny that. What they deny is that this warming will continue at its current pace; that it would be very harmful if it did so—or even harmful on balance at all; and that there are amplifying factors that will accelerate the current trend. The alarmists’ case rests on the assumptions of strong positive feedbacks and the absence or weakness of negative feedbacks. That’s where their case is weakest.

    The article states:
    “By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17 percent or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here.”
    [i.e., at http://jamespowell.org/styled/index.html ]

    Hmm . . . There’s nothing in that list by the following skeptical scientists, at least half of whom have presumably published papers properly classified as skeptical:
    Syun-Ichi Akasofu, Claude Allègre, John Christy, David Douglass, Don Easterbrook, William M. Gray, Richard Lindzen, Nils-Axel Mörner, Fred Singer, and Roy Spencer.
    I took their names from Wikipedia’s “List of [35] scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
    Here are four other names, half of whom I presume wrote articles that were missed: Zbigniew Jaworowski, Augusto Mangini, Nathan Paldor, and Richard Tol.

  23. From SkS circa 2011.

    3. dana1981 at 10:08 AM on 21 September, 2010
    Also while actual temps are in the range of Scenario C, greenhouse gas emissions have not followed those in that particular projection. It makes more sense to focus on Scenario B, which has been very close to actual emissions, and then determine why the actual temp change has been lower (mainly the climate sensitivity factor difference).

    I assume dana1981 is the right person. He does make a common sense argument. Use Hansen’s scenario B because it most closely follows actual emissions and then try and determine why Hansen is wrong [and Lindzen right]. Even though actual temps were in the range of scenario C two years ago and still no warming.

  24. A nomination for a Quote of the Week:
    On a taped delay of the Australian Open (tennis) on ESPN2, the announcer said it was the hottest it has ever been, for ten years.

  25. I find it incredibly distressing that the person most willing to distort reality and provide fake data is given such a prominent forum in order to push his agenda. It really bothers me but there seems to be nothing to do about it.
    On the other hand, this is the history of this movement. Those most willing to add to the distortion of the global warming movement seem to be given the most prominent roles.
    Its a movement. A movement that is willing push its principles at any cost, including (and actually actively suppressing) integrity.
    There is a long-run to keep in mind. Dana Nuccitelli is sacrificing momentary fame for a long-term negative reputation.

  26. Dana Nuccitelli are the type of people that have made the Guardian an absolutely trash paper and can only see sales getting worse. At least people are not forced to buy it like the BBC TV licence.

Comments are closed.