Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Ross McKitrick succeeds Henderson | Main | Celebrating Hurst »
Monday
Dec152014

BH endorsed by Skeptical Science

Barry Woods points me to this Skeptical Science thread (reproduced at Brandon's site), in which yours truly is discussed.

Dana: The Bishop Hill crowd is interesting. A few reasonably intelligent commenters. Several who attack John, SkS, and myself. Bishop Hill has now twice asked people to stay on topic.

John Cook: Thanks Dana for stepping in - deflected some of the hate :-)

I don't read the site (apart from posts where he criticises SkS) but my impression is he's a pretty reasonable, civil guy. His critiques of SkS were all civil and some of the criticisms were reasonable. What's his story?

Dana Nuccitelli: Don't know his story, other than he wrote The Hockey Stick Illusion, which I hear is quite inaccurate. That's all I know about him though. Compared to other 'skeptics' he seems okay.

I didn't so much deflect the hate as absorb it though :-)

This made me laugh, because a year earlier Dana had written a review of The Hockey Stick Illusion on Amazon.com. It has since been deleted, but the text was recorded for posterity by BH readers:

If you're looking for a work of science fiction detailing a vast conspiracy similar to Michael Crichton's 'State of Fear', this may be the book for you.

The only problem is that this book claims to be non-fiction. Montford weaves a crazy tale of data manipulation and vast conspiracies which have very little semblance to what actually happened with regards to the infamous 'hockey stick'. A good summary of fact vs. fiction can be found here:
[...]

As long as you don't take the book seriously it makes for an entertaining read. Just think of the book as another Crichton story, sit back, and enjoy a fun conspiracy theory. The only problem is that the story claims to be true, but is filled with misinformation, lies, and nonsense. And for that, I can only give it 1 star.

So twelve months after telling people in print that the book was "filled with misinformation, lies, and nonsense" he was glibly discussing with the rest of his Skeptical Science colleagues that he had "heard" it was "quite inaccurate".

And that, gentle readers, is why you should treat everything on Skeptical Science as being false until evidence emerges to the contrary.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (41)

Indeed it tells you all you need to know. These guys, Mann, Nuticelli, Cook etc, are all frauds .... rotten to the core.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM | Unregistered CommenterImranCan

The basic problem with the SKS crowd is that they just don't seem to be able to get their heads round the following notions:
1. EVERYTHING they write online is visible online FOREVER.
2. It can be compared against data and their own previous statements.
3. The internet (unlike academia and the MSM) cannot be coerced or schmoozed.
4. They're not as clever as they imagine they are.
5. They're not as 'moral' as they think they are.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterStuck-Record

Maybe someone read it to him.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:29 PM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

Nuticelli is simply unbelievable. Quite literally so beyond any sensible notion of what is reasonable and moral behaviour.

Noble cause corruption does not even come close.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

It's equally logical that Dana's admitted to submitting a 'Fake Review'.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterJoe Public

John Cook: What's his story? [ref montford]

2011-06-29 06:52:57
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli


"Don't know his story, other than he wrote The Hockey Stick Illusion, which I hear is quite inaccurate. That's all I know about him though. Compared to other 'skeptics' he seems okay.

I didn't so much deflect the hate as absorb it though :-)"

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Carter%20Confusion/2011-06-28-My%20response%20to%20Carter%20published%20in%20The%20Age%20this%20morning.html


But this is Dana 9 days earlier!!! (what to make of Dana' thinking?)

2011-06-20 00:56:19
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli


"Firstly, being criticized by Montford is a compliment. He's as biased and inaccurate as they come, so if he says you're inaccurate, odds are that means you're actually accurate!" - Dana

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/General%20Chat/2011-06-19-Bishop%20Hill%20impugns%20SkS%20reliability.html

---
but Dana says he knows nothing about you.
where is a climate psychologist when Skeptical Science need one..
seems like Dana can hold multiple conflicting ideas in his head at the same time....

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I won't be commenting on this thread.

Damn!

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterH2O: the miracle molecule

Oh! how true this is!

Well said!!!!

-------------------------------------------
The basic problem with the SKS crowd is that they just don't seem to be able to get their heads round the following notions:
1. EVERYTHING they write online is visible online FOREVER.
2. It can be compared against data and their own previous statements.
3. The internet (unlike academia and the MSM) cannot be coerced or schmoozed.
4. They're not as clever as they imagine they are.
5. They're not as 'moral' as they think they are.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:27 PM | Stuck-Record

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

The lack of self-awareness at SkS is frightening.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterbernie1815

BW - "seems like Dana can hold multiple conflicting ideas in his head at the same time"

when you're dishonest it's difficult to remember all the lies - so being a consistent liar requires tremendous memory and intellect - seems like Dana has neither.

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:38 PM | Unregistered Commenterjaffa

"What's his story?"

I think that means, 'what dirt have we got on him?'. Unfortunately, the Bish is squeaky clean, especially in comparison to the tree-hut gang, who love dressing up, deleting inconvenient comments, pretending to be scientists and posting reviews of books they've never read...

Dec 15, 2014 at 1:50 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Who would endorse Skeptical Science - tawdry political activist smear attacks on professional academics (a pres release that never came ou - But Lindzens Illusions, and Christy's Crocks were on the front page for years:

________________________________________________________________________________________

SkepticalScience MediaRelease

Christy Crocks Lindzen Illusions

http://sks.to/christy http://sks.to/lindzen

Because there are so few climate scientists who are skeptical that humans are causing dangerous climate change, the few climate scientist “skeptics” are very frequently referenced by those seeking to deny the dangers of and delay the solutions to global warming. Two of the most oft-cited climate scientist “skeptics” are Dr. Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH).

Skeptical Science has examined in detail the scientific arguments put forth by these two prominent “skeptic” scientists to determine if they present a coherent, consistent, and plausible alternative to the man-made global warming theory. We have found that although these two scientists have proposed a mostly consistent alternative hypothesis, it consists of little more than a flimsy house of cards, with each scientifically flawed claim built upon several other fundamentally flawed arguments. In fact, every single argument forming the basis of their alternative hypothesis is refuted by the body of empirical, observational climate science evidence.

Skeptical Science has created a comprehensive resource cataloguing and refuting the climate myths put forth by these two prominent “skeptic” scientists, entitled “Christy Crocks” and “Lindzen Illusions”.

Christy Crocks (150 x 53 pixels) Lindzen Illusions (150 x 53 pixels)

For more information, contact:

John Cook

Webmaster, Skeptical Science

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

Skeptical Science, where you can review books you haven't read....

Be an author of reports you haven't written?

Be a correspondent for the Grauniad on subjects you don't understand?

Limbo dance beneath the low bar, set for climate science by the IPCC?

And still get paid!!!

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:05 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

The Bishop Hill crowd is interesting. A few reasonably intelligent commenters.

How does he know some of us are reasonably intelligent? Of course what he doesn't know is that a lot of us are very intelligent!

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby

Skeptical Science where 9 out of 7 climate scientists report that 97% is a really, really big sounding number, so it must be important, and 200% of their readers agreed, so it must be right. Which proves it

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Philip Bratby

"reasonably intelligent.." how does he know?

Probably by normal climate science methods. Snide guesswork, based on confirmation bias?

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

THe Hockey Stick Illusion

And the inaccuracies are:
1)...err err err
And the lies are:
1) err err
And the missinformation content is:
1) err err err
And the nonsense is;
1)err err err

And that is why this book is a total work of fiction.
and why I have read it three times and then made the mistake of
lending it to a friend.

Pesadia

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:46 PM | Unregistered Commenterpesadia

John Cook:

"My vision is that we train each other to become a "crack team of kick arse climate communicators"

http://www.hi-izuru.org/forum/Authors/2011-07-01-SkS%20Mission%20Statement.html

anybody want to ask John, how he thinks Dana is doing, kicking arse wise...?

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:56 PM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

I have always found the commenters on this site reasonsble and knowledgable. This is in direct contrast to the AGW crowd on some commrnts site where the first tactic is to state that you are a moron or some other ad hominem attack.

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:57 PM | Unregistered Commentertrefjon

Dana's convenient and selective ignorance reminds me of all the "smartest folks in the room" who, on the one hand insisted there was nothing untoward in the ClimateGate e-mails, while on the other hand, smugly proclaimed that they hadn't read them since they were "stolen".

Dec 15, 2014 at 3:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn M

"Skeptical Science is winning the climate science war" said Skeptical Science, as Goebbels spun in his grave, and Bob Ward spun in his office chair, having nothing better to do

Dec 15, 2014 at 4:00 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

But Guys,


Hasn't Mann himself told the SkSc-crowd that:

a) All critique against him is unwarranted, unfounded, and simply wrong!
b) But it is coordinated by evil industry-funded deniers
c) His own book on the matter is excellent and accurate to every last detail
d) They should be ready with adulating 'reviews' as soon as it's available on Amazon, he'd even give a helping hand
e) That he is a famous scientist (even Nobel laureate at times), and scientists know their stuff, whereas
f) Deniers don't and cannot, and anyway only want to sow seeds of doubt or attack and denigrate 'the scientists'

Who are theses kids to question such 'authority'? Especially after having been graced by his attention and support!?

Dec 15, 2014 at 4:48 PM | Unregistered CommenterJonas N

With the SkS lot - if honesty and integrity were taxable - they would be due a rebate.

Dec 15, 2014 at 5:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterDoug UK

Barry Woods "...crack team of kick arse communicators". I expect they became very good at kicking each others arses and communicating about it. Shame they did not learn anything about climate science.

Dec 15, 2014 at 5:53 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

Hey, let us be fair, as well as "reasonably intelligent" The thread referenced is old, though recently archived by Brandon. The comment by Dana -- "I hear that..." was from June 2011. The Amazon review is from September, 2011. Presumably there was time between June and September for Dana to read and form opinions.

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterpouncer

Pouncer. I am sure that if he read it, it was only after he formed his own opinion, wrote his own opinion, and then read his own opinion, by way of seeking a second opinion, and to avoid accusations of confirmation bias.

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterGolf Charlie

SkS is garbage, but so is everything that comes from Lefty Scum.

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered Commenterptw

So Dana's 1-star review, apparently made without having read the book, has been "disappeared". I wonder why Amazon removed it.

He has some other book reviews which remain up on Amazon. Entirely predictable: 1 star for those doubting the fire*, 5 stars for those shouting "denier" *****.

* = Plimer, Levitt&Dubner (Super-Freakonomics)
***** = Mann, Washington&Cook (Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand), Monbiot, Romm

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:32 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

...And that, gentle readers, is why you should treat everything on Skeptical Science as being false until evidence emerges to the contrary...

"And that, gentle readers, is why you should treat everything on Skeptical Science as being false until evidence emerges. Then you will KNOW it is false..."

There. Fixed that for you...

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:32 PM | Unregistered Commenterdodgy geezer

pouncer (Dec 15, 2014 at 6:15 PM):
"[Dana's] Amazon review is from September, 2011"

No, Dana's review was date-stamped July 22, 2010.
[The BH thread was in Sept. 2011.]

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:37 PM | Registered CommenterHaroldW

Remember the SS kiddies set their site up as a fan zone for Real Climate , because it was clear that much was not actually 'Real' on Real Climate , so the idea was to create something 'independent'
Since then the poor cartoonist and his side kick have seen a massive rise in their profile , not because of any good they bring but because they found a line in BS which the faithful sallow without thought , while acting has useful front men to rubbish like Lew's paper .

In one sense they are to be congratulate , they gained a great deal for actual doing nothing worth while , in another sense they are to be condemn for lying propagandists seldom live anything worthwhile behind them . The day they go back to being the nothings they where , cannot come to soon .

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterKNR

HaroldW, thanks for the correction. I was wrong, and I appreciate being better informed.

Dec 15, 2014 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered Commenterpouncer

It's not really their fault. It was the Guardian that put the clowns in the spotlight because no one with any kind of reputation would defend AGW.

I don't believe in being polite or civil with liars.

Dec 15, 2014 at 8:09 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

Dec 15, 2014 at 2:07 PM | Phillip Bratby

How does he know some of us are reasonably intelligent? Of course what he doesn't know is that a lot of us are very intelligent!

I'd proffer that the numbers of post-grad degree readers at this site exceeds the numbers of 'school leaving certificate' 'readers' at the SS.

Dec 15, 2014 at 9:11 PM | Unregistered CommenterStreetcred

RE: John Cook's "My vision is that we train each other to become a "crack team of kick arse climate communicators"

I suspect the only part they managed was the crack part.

Personally, I wouldn't give much thought to either John Cook or Scooter Nuccitelli.

Dec 15, 2014 at 9:18 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

Putting the evident (self-)deception in their exchange aside, if Nuticelli and Cook are talking like this, they must be drowning. These are a couple of the ugliest and most ignorant guys in the "climate scene", a scene, btw, that thrives with ignorance and ugliness.

Here is a study for the Lew's out there. Tally up the number of times Nuticelli and Cook have used the word "denier". If they are not record breakers, they will be on the podium nonetheless.

Dec 16, 2014 at 12:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterBrute

I place the blame squarely on irresponsible academics for stoking these environmentalist versus industrialist wars. They ritually ignore or distort all natures data that is telling them they are wrong because there is no inducement in being honest: The more pessimistic they are, the higher they fly and the more grants they garner. All realism and reasonable doubts are cast aside and scorned.

Environmentalists are pre-programmed to presume all industrial emissions must be bad while the media are pre-programmed to turn potential molehills into doom-laden mountains. The nouveau faux-green politicians meanwhile are entirely ignorant about science and engineering and hence easily guided by doom-mongerers. They all place themselves on the moral high ground merely by ignoring the even more obvious evidence that the 'cure' is worse than the putative disease.

It's a runaway train of stupidity that can only be stopped by blackouts, cooling or a sudden outbreak of honesty among academics; the latter being least likely. I'm only hoping that the free-market really does work and that entrepreneurs will give us the means to produce our own electricity at home from the currently abundent natural gas which is, of course, required under all energy scenarios - green or otherwise.

Dec 16, 2014 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

I love you guys , I really do! But we waste a lot of time in mutual agreement with only a very few trolls from the SKS barging in now and then.
I fight my fights in their arena , the Guardian UK , which is where a plague of alarmistas hang, the likes of Nutteccelli , Abrahms and just general feral looking greens tripe. . I wish more like minded people would fight the good fight on their ground instead of on sites where we have mutual support.
I have been banned at least 10 times for "trolling" which equals- not agreeing with the general mindset.
Get online with the muppets , refute their "science" refute their snide comments and make reasoned comments,provide the rebuttals. You will of course be banned fairly quickly but it is an education process. The more of us that join and rejoin in the argument the more people will wonder WHY?
We are not paid , we are not revolutionaries ,we are just ordinary educated people who have taken an interest in a subject and found the science wanting.
My fight is with the Guardian , yours is probably with another national newspaper, get online and blast them out of their torpor , lazy journalists just love general agreement .
Che.

Dec 17, 2014 at 4:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterRogueElement451

Rogue.. My comments(on occasion) at the guardian have even wiped out if they never existed .. Not even a note left behind to show they were there.. And boreholed at RC just the other day. blocked and banned at aTTP, deleted at sciAm and even the APS

Dec 19, 2014 at 8:12 AM | Unregistered CommenterBarry Woods

You did not seriously expect Nuttercelli to actually read the book?

Dec 20, 2014 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterPaul Homewood

While having no objection to people spelling sceptic with a 'k' because that's just down to the divergence of British and American English, I do get the impression with the skeptical science lot that they use skeptical because they think it is more scientific. Though there's a subtle difference between the meanings of the Greek and Latin versions (one who doubts vs one who neither believes nor disbelieves) but at SkS they neither doubt nor question but cling to dogma and revere sacred cows.

Jan 3, 2015 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEd Butt

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>