Bishop Hill Cue popcorn
Jan 14, 2014 Climate: Models Climate: Surface Greens 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.
This morning we find that the paper has published what looks as if it's going to be a spectacular own goal, with Dana Nuccitelli fabricating what he says is a Richard Lindzen prediction, misrepresenting another one by Hansen and generally making the whole publication look like something out of the darkest recesses of the internet. It's astonishing stuff.
Steve Goddard is on the case here, here, here, and here. Monckton's take is at WUWT.
Pull up a seat and enjoy the fun.
Reader Comments (43)
Diana NuttyJelly has never been over endowed with intelligence, just arrogance. But there again he seems to fit into the current Guardian journalism.
Pity 20 years ago the Guardian was a great newspaper and now it is a poor comic!
I'm afraid it doesn't matter what the truth is.
Nut-job-celli has his "truth" down in print in "The Guardian"- which informs the BBC and the left-wing liberal "elite" that govern in the UK.
Ergo it will be believed and has served its purpose.
The only way to counter it is for Professor Lindzen to sue for libel.
I wonder how many in the cli sci community will step forward and disassociate themselves from this drivel?
as per http://www.skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-7-the-anti-galileo.html the one and only source for Dana's psychotic trip is http://www.fortfreedom.org/s46.htm
all the details of the trip are here http://skepticalscience.com/lindzen-illusion-2-lindzen-vs-hansen-1980s.html
It is on the shoulders of men like Lindzen that others stand on to see the truth while you stand on the shoulders of men like Nuccitelli to stop them from surfacing.
Regards
Mailman
"I wonder how many in the cli sci community will step forward and disassociate themselves from this drivel?"
How many of them spoke out against Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" - only now do we get mutterings that it was just political but then not a murmur!
Sycophants just keep quiet and collect all that lovely grant money for saving the planet.
The problem with Skepticalscience is the same: in order to 'debunk' (imagined) opponents, it is necessary to have concrete, specific and substantial statements from them.
If these are not available, create them.
When you are in the business of fabricating your opponent's position, you would be tempted to make it as weak and pathetic as possible, would you not. This would make victory easy and as spectacular as possible.
In the long run however, the lack of integrity destroys the reputation of science.
In the graph in question, Dana manufactured a position for Hansen, manufactured a position for Lindzen and compared them. Hansen's predictions were made at the height of the greenhouse scare in 1989, a time in history where non-CO2 greenhouse gases looked set to destroy the planet. Lindzen's remarks were made about the veracity of the instrumental temperature record and its ability to show significant warming, and were not predictive in nature.
If necessary, a fair comparison would be between Hansen's graph and actual present-day temperatures. Everything else is a concoction. A fabrication. How justifiable, appropriate or equanimous such fabrications are, as I am sure Nuccitelli is telling himself, are immaterial.
This guy should not be allowed anywhere near science.
Richard Betts- do you/the Met office endorse what Nutticelli is saying in "The Guardian"?
If not will the Met Office issue a statement correcting Nuccitelli?
Your observations about the Guardian are quite correct, for some time now its looked like one of those school magazines that pupils contribute to. Why anyone would pay money to read the thing is beyond me, although I suppose there are some very insecure people out there who need a fix of lefty propaganda like some of us need a daily fix of caffeine.
Every article is another nail in the coffin for the Guardian.
Keep them coming. ;-)
Reading the comments at the guardian, it's amazing how many spittle flecked mentalists who have no grasp of reality are posting there!
This from an ABC (Australia) program with Richard Lindzen. It goes on to disucss Lindzen's views on smoking and cancer and it is clear that he does not believe that, in Nuccatelli's words, " a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen also denies cause cancer." That the Gruaniad would tolerate libel such as that is staggering.
Always have to laugh at Dana's guardian page - him and Abrahams look like a couple of thunderbird puppets, with Abrahams bearing a remarkable likeness to The Hood.
Checkout today'sTimes page 28, arctic routes through melted ice. The map with ' ice cap today' label.....really, in January? Not even in September. Complete rubbish.
Dear me, Dana is at it again; when in hole stop digging and all that. The Guardian really has fallen low recently but to the faithfull it is exactly the place where their world view is confirmed. Dana's inclusion confirms this direction of travel.
Nuccitelli has shown through his writing, arguments and petty feuds that he has the judgement of an excitable 9 year old that cannot ever admit he is wrong. Letting him loose on the Guardian has only given his ego a boost, as the mods continually cover his silliness. However that once respected paper might as well give a spoiled 2 year old a large carving knife and expect him to play safe with his more well rounded nursery school chums. He will be his own undoing.
Is it me or has the Grauniad got rather more homogeneously onanistic BTL over the past couple of months?
I feel like you used to be able to find a bit of a debate and a reasonable number of dissenters from the party line on the first page of comments, but the last few articles I've read (Dana's stuff and the Gove/Blackadder kerfuffle) have been followed by unremitting mindless spleen.
(or at least left, leftish and very left)
In the UK that would be (I suspect) Labour, Lib Dem, Maoist.
Missed this particular boat Bish, I'm afraid. It was posted a week ago and comments were closed yesterday.
Not to worry - there'll be another along in a while. Dana clearly enjoys the stage afforded him by the G. Let him have his 15 minutes and whatever we do let's not interrupt an enemy while he's making a mistake...
Don, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. Nutttsoff is a tosser. Even the Guardian will realise that at some point. There is no point in suing someone like that for libel. There are better occasions and better targets. I say give him some more rope.
@michaelhart- just how much rope?
We will all die of old age waiting...
Hardly a surprise the poor cartoonist lapdog has never had any issue with making stuff up to keep himself in the spot ;ight. for what option has he got but to go back to the nobody he always will be before the cause , 'made him'
The Guardian gives the odious Huhne a platform. Judge his fellow contributors by the company they keep.
Michael Hart
Sorry, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. Last year editor Rusbridger was boasting how his environment desk had eleven journalists, with several degrees each. None of the regulars now write on climate change, so they’ve brought in Nuccitelli and Abraham to do their journalism for them. What the eleven do now is anyone’s guess. Monbiot promised not to touch climate change if Jones and the CRU were exonerated. Vidal continues to write about the sufferings of Bolivian peasants, based on old Oxfam handouts. The compiler of their climate science factsheet has a degree in musicology. But all’s well in the bunker, because 97% of Britain’s journalists are on their side, and absolutely nobody is criticising them.Nuccitelli’s article has a photo of a smoker and the caption “The Weekly Standard's Lindzen article was puffier than a drag from a cigarette – which Lindzen also denies cause cancer.”
That alone looks libellous.
Fruits are still in Antarctica; Nuttifrutticelli is still blowing CO2 and methane out all vents.
Picking on Dr. Lindzen, because he is a true Gentleman and prefers to ignore childish insults and petty name calling, is a mark of serious desperation. Perhaps it is time for Dr. Lindzen to respond, as he always does, with the devastating truth.
Shriller and shriller screech the alarmists! Each fraudulent claim is more ridiculous, each falsehood is more outrageous, each false accusation is less believable.
It is kinda nice to watch the alarmers get stark raving nutti and perhaps even insane in their lemming like rush over cliff delirium.
EdL
You said;
"I feel like you used to be able to find a bit of a debate and a reasonable number of dissenters from the party line on the first page of comments, but the last few articles I've read (Dana's stuff and the Gove/Blackadder kerfuffle) have been followed by unremitting mindless spleen."
I am a polite commenter who likes nothing more than to post links to articles from 'safe' sources such as the Met Office and the IPCC and provide factual information, often with a historic bias..I get routinely blocked at the Guardian within minutes and my comments deleted. I have asked the editor why, but get no sane reply.
Presumably others like me have left the sinking ship and those that remain are the real die hards who will listen to nothing that affects their world view.
tonyb
I am a polite commenter who likes nothing more than to post links to articles from 'safe' sources such as the Met Office and the IPCC and provide factual information, often with a historic bias..I get routinely blocked at the Guardian within minutes and my comments deleted. I have asked the editor why, but get no sane reply.
@tonyb Jan 15, 2014 at 4:16 PM | Unregistered Commentertonyb
Tony - you (and I - I've been multiply banned from CiF) are suffering from that dreadful sickness of all those who do not subscribe to groupthink, "false consciousness". Hence, you must be excluded. Look at it as a badge of honour. I will say, I rarely visit CiF any more, and when I do I know why - it's like Bedlam, full of lunatics gibbering at each other. If you want a Leftie hatefest, it's the place to hang.
> Monckton's take is at WUWT.
M is waaaaayy out there maaaan on Galileo. Shame you didn't have space to mention that. Or perhaps you agree with him?
He's utterly wacko on CET, too. Sadly he never listens to anyone: http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/this-is-where-eli-came-in.html
W Con: I have to agree that Monckton stretches it a bit on Galileo.
The question at issue is his take on Nuccitelli.
"I feel like you used to be able to find a bit of a debate and a reasonable number of dissenters from the party line on the first page of comments, but the last few articles I've read (Dana's stuff and the Gove/Blackadder kerfuffle) have been followed by unremitting mindless spleen."
- That's because, for some reason the censorious Guardian moderators are even more ridiculously censorious on Dana's pieces. On his love-in over the Cowtan and Way paper, I posted the comment below. It was the second comment in, garnered a good 8 'recommends' in that time and lasted about just 20 minutes before being censored:
http://oi44.tinypic.com/2ebhjyv.jpg
The interesting thing about WikiWilly's comment is the uncharacteristic brevity.
If those were the only issues the assassin of over 5000 Wiki entries could scrape up - I think we can be reassured that Monckton was pretty well on target and NuttiCelli was …… well as NuttiCelli as usual.
Bish, Monckton chose to include the section on Galileo and later wrote this in the comments, I thought rather amusingly:
Good to know the Viscount has got his legal brain firing on all cylinders there.
He also says this (in the portion covered by the ellipsis):
This assumes that Christ was incapable of using language figuratively. I'd suggest a close reading of the parables might suggest otherwise. No ifs or buts. :)
Monckton is a devout Catholic whom I admire for his spunk in other areas but neither of these matters 'mentioned in passing' was wise or fair given the importance of debunking Nuccitelli.
Wow! The world famous Stoat! To what do we owe etc...?
Following your line of argument, which is entertaining in itself, can we assume you agree with Nuccitelli on Lindzen?
> To what do we owe
You got a mention at WUWT. Since they were censoring the comments I wanted to make, I thought I might try more free-thinking environment. Clearly, whinging about censorship is in-scope here.
> can we assume you agree with Nuccitelli on Lindzen?
No, you can't. Nor can you assume I disagree. I haven't read what DN says in any detail. If you want something for free, then I disagree with "Lindzen has made a career of being wrong about climate science". To the contrary, L was quite right about atmospheric tides many decades ago, and it made his name. He hasn't done anything nearly so good for decades; and none of the work he has done that is the reason he is so beloved of the "skeptics" is up to much.
While I'm here, can we agree that the idea that what DN said could be libellous is deeply silly? You may not agree with the science that DN presents, but its at best a scientific disagreement, not a legal one. And since (whether you agree with it or not) the consensus is clearly on DN's side, its pretty likely that any court finding itself obliged to decide on the science would find for DN (I'm leaving aside the smoking stuff).
> the assassin of over 5000 Wiki entries
You've been lied to. I can tell you the truth, if you want: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/ . But my guess would be that you don't want.
> The question at issue is his take on Nuccitelli.
That seems rather restrictive. Aren't you at all interested in M's errors re the CET? That seems well "in scope" for this blog.
>As to Galileo, the papers in the trial case are available.
From http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/condemnation.html in fact. Obviously M doesn't link to them, because they would destroy his case.
No, the thread is about Nuccitelli's post and the rebuttals to it. Anything else will be snipped. The discussion forum is yours if you want to talk about other subjects.
TonyB,
Yes, the Guardian boasts in its comment section that ‘Comment is Free’, but free speech obviously isn’t.
I think that anyone who tries to suggest something as simple as ‘the climate changed in the past’ finds themselves banned from further commenting. In this way the Guardian gives an illusion of consensus, which is easy to maintain when all dissenting views are prohibited.
Like you, I cannot comment there anymore. However, comment is free (for those who believe).
So he's actually thicker than he looks, that really is astonishing.
Connolley:
Well said. This remark made Nuccitelli seem not just less than generous but ignorant.
I won't try to hide the face that I do love Richard Lindzen but I would also partly agree with this, as long as one is talking about secure scientific achievement. Speaking for myself, I don't love Lindzen for that but for his courage. He has gone against the flow and made a major contribution to saving the world from some of the worst policy making and devious power seeking of my lifetime. For this, truth-telling was what was needed, not breakthroughs in the fundamental science. Would that others had the combination of scientific understanding and sense of responsibility never to make more of the existing data than it really warranted. That's all Lindzen has done. But given the zeitgeist it's a very big all.
Quark:
In the comments below the article, Dana accuses me—apparently at random—of having "ignorantly ranted" about an article which, by my own admission, I hadn't read.
I can only surmise that he'd badly misread an earlier remark, to the effect that in order to think it was credible, one had to avoid reading the article in question.
Still, how bereft of self-awareness would Dana have to be to attack someone on that basis?
It's almost as if he was begging me to mention his failed foray into psychic lit crit—his defamatory Hockey Stick Illusion pseudoreview, or as I like to call it, Dana's Amazongate.
As you can see (unless el Graun deletes it), I was happy to oblige.
It's remarkable that Nuccitelli started the fabricated Lindzen "forecast" half a degree below actual temperatures, presumably to give Hansen a head start. That sort of takes dumb to a whole new level.
What's also remarkable is that with dozens and dozens of scientific papers published by Hansen and Lindzen, Dana had to fabricate a graph all by himself in order to "compare" them.
It's like a full-blown confession that in truth there is no way to compare Hansen and Lindzen in order to make the latter look worse.
Lindzen is living proof of the decline of science in the post-modern age.
By insisting on objective truth he has been made a pariah by his fellows.
I'm sorry to be a Cassandra gentlemen, but, just quietly, we are f---ing well doomed.
Lindzen gets a graph he never attempted, and Hansen gets a graph he did attempt though with his mistakes corrected.
At SkS Dana explains that "Hansen's climate model had a rather high climate sensitivity parameter", in addition to "slightly overestimated[ing] how much the atmospheric greenhouse gases would increase".
In this Guardian article he says "Hansen's Scenario B projection has been adjusted to reflect the actual observed greenhouse gas concentrations since 1988".
Nothing about Hansen screwing up sensitivity in his original.