Books Click images for more details
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
Not sure which direction Dana 'Scooter' Nuccitelli is going but I dont think it is too worrying.
H/t to Anthony for suggesting this cartoon.
Cartoons by Josh
View Printer Friendly Version
Great cartoon. Should have had him riding on the median. :)
That looks like a "mean" machine.
Trust Dana to use that "mode" of transport.
Does he enter Jeremy Clarkson lookalike contests? – 'twould be a hoot if he did!
he's an average guy
To quote Flanders and Swann, "a transport of delight". Although of course they were referring to another mode of transport.
Not sure whether Tallbloke would approve of this mode of transport. His machine is much more mean. Is that a whoopee cushion to give it some uphill oomph?
Still struggling with 'Dana' as a male name. It says Eurovision Song Contest to me. Twice. One definitely female, the other, well, look here for an explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dana_International.
Can I claim TM rights to the scooter nickname? I started some time ago referring to him by that name.
Eurovision Song Contest Song tittles...
Born To Be Wild Mild (suggested by Anthony) A Boy Named Sue Dana
According John Cook in the Tree Hut Files, Nuccitelli is a cyborg, which goes to prove how unskeptical SkS is about everything.
My fav SkS cartoon hasn't been drawn yet. It would look something like John Cook and his 300 astro-turfing Spartans holding back endless hordes of Persian WUWTians. No need to draw rippling abdominal muscles for that lot, of course.
Pink suits him.
Where's his partner?
John M and Steve McIntyre :)
Apr 22, 2013 at 7:31 PM | omnologos:
Yes, very average.
Nuccitelli - As seen on TV?
Slightly OT but related, Cook's partial masterpiece is featured on Climate Progress
Is it me or is this a 6 month old dead donkey someone is still flogging ?
Born to be a child
It should go without saying, but this kind of personal attack, however mild, is unnecessary and only devalues the debate on all sides. Nuccitelli's appearance and/or chosen mode of transport are of negligible interest compared to his words and actions, so this kind of thing is a distraction at best.
Chris sorry but why do you feel so aggrieved over a mild ribbing ?considering the other side regularly want us put on trial /hung /blown up /destroyed /blocked from free speech /media/politics /academia and shunned and treated as mentalists ! I hardly think another great cartoon by Josh will break poor little Dana's ego !Oh and if you think this is' bad'?? wait till you hear what real bikers think about scooter types !
@ Chris Long:
Don't worry about Dana - sensitivity is low.
Chris sorry but why do you feel so aggrieved over a mild ribbing ?considering the other side regularly want us put on trial /hung /blown up /destroyed /blocked from free speech /media/politics /academia and shunned and treated as mentalists ! I hardly think another great cartoon by Josh will break poor little Dana's ego !Oh and if you think this is' bad'?? wait till you hear what real bikers think about scooter types !Apr 23, 2013 at 9:31 AM Mat
I'm 100% with Chris Long. The cretinous behaviour of "the other side" in no way justifies ridiculing someone on the basis of their appearance and means of transport.
Several people have stated that they became convinced there was something wrong with climate science as a result of the atmosphere of nastiness they found at Realclimate etc and the contrasting air of tolerance and open discussion they found at sceptic blogs.
I just don't see that ridiculing people is helpful or desirable, whether it is done by cartoon or by written word.
I think you're all being mean to him. He's just an average guy.
(While Josh is a way up in the PDF!)
Well Martin if you think that we should all shut up and only speak when we have peer reviewed rebuttals and facts all delivered from a 'holier then thou ' style then I'm 100% behind Josh if those egos and abusive types cannot take comedy then to be honest tough !
I agree that a bit of ribbing or satirical [Jj]oshing should be harmless, in context, but this is an entire post dedicated to belittling an opponent because he rides a scooter. Obviously I support anyone's right to enter the debate in whatever way they choose, I'm just pointing out that a casual visitor to Bishop Hill yesterday would have found the top post to be somewhat puerile and (I hope we all agree) not representative of the standard of informative debate normally found here.
I can, and do, visit WUWT if I want to read some more 'robust' opinions on climate researchers, I was just a little disappointed to find this sort of thing at Bishop Hill.
"an entire post dedicated to belittling an opponent because he rides a scooter"
Uh oh. The internet might explode.
It has nothing to do with belittling Dana because he rides a scooter. At least that played no part in my reffering to him by that name some while back. Dana Nuccetelli is a nasty piece of work. He attacks and belittles people all the time. It is impossible to miss the fact he thinks rather highly of his own opinion and has little respect for any who don't agree with him. What I find most humorous is his dismissing critics as not being climate scientists, while he is no more qualified than I am to weigh in on the subject. In other words, "Scooter" behaves like a spoiled kid much of the time. His riding around on a scooter is simply the cherry on top of the farce that is Dana1981.
PS - there is also the fact that "Scooter" is more concise than what first came to mind seeing Nuccitelli's postings - i.e. John Cook's little attack puppy.
Martin if you think that we should all shut up and only speak when we have peer reviewed rebuttals and facts all delivered from a 'holier then thou ' style....
Mat - your words entirely. I said nothing remotely like that or implying that.
You obviously did not get the point I was making. I should evidently have explained more clearly why I think BH postings ridiculing people are undesirable.
"It has nothing to do with belittling Dana because he rides a scooter."
I take your point, but that's why I specified 'in context' above. This post, as it stands, is specifically, and only, a cartoon ridiculing an opponent in the climate debate because he rides a scooter. I know some of the context and you apparently know more, and you feel that such an attack is justified in context. My hypothetical visitor to Bishop Hill doesn't know the context and will just see some skeptics poking fun at a warmist because he doesn't have proper four-wheeled transportation; old-skool hippy-bashing.
The Bishop can run his house however he likes, I'm just voicing an opinion... for me, the key in this debate is focussing on the facts, uncertainties and fictions of the science, and avoiding the temptation to engage in lowest-common-denominator name-calling.
"poking fun at a warmist because he doesn't have proper four-wheeled transportation"
I thought we were poking fun at him because he doesn't have proper two-wheeled transportation, i.e. a motorcycle.
Why does showing him on a scooter make fun of him or the scooter? Are you by any chance an under-admired scooter-rider, Chris? As ever with Josh, the cartoon is a gentle ribbing, and in this case of someone who by some accounts is not a very gentle character - hence the fun of the drawing. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he has it on his wall already.
I think, myself, that taking the piss out of such people is good for everyone.
John Abraham and dana1891 are in the Guardian. They have a feature called "97% consensus".
John Abraham and Dana Nuccitelli are perpetrating a fraud.
In general I agree with you regarding name calling and focusing on stuff not relevant to the debate. I would say that Dana Nuccitelli is undeserving of any sympathy. If one expects to be treated with respect, they need to treat others in the same fashion. Scooter apparently hasn't matured to the point of recognizing this simple truism.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.