Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

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

Powered by Squarespace
« McKibben's mindpoop | Main | It's the greens, stupid »

Story time at the Guardian a week after Nic Lewis pubished his rather devastating critique of the Marvel et al paper, Dana Nuccitelli has decided it's time to tell the Graun readers about...the Marvel et al paper. Readers might be interested to compare excerpts from Dana's piece and Nic Lewis's one.

...even had Marvel et al.’s efficacy estimates and calculations been valid, they would have had no material implications for the Otto et al 2013 TCR and ECR estimates. That is because the underlying forcing estimates used in that study already reflect efficacies, contrary to what Marvel et al. imply.

Nic Lewis, in his article about the Marvel et al paper, 8 January 2016

Let's be fair, Otto et al. didn't account for forcing efficacies either, and most of the co-authors on that paper were top notch scientists.

Dana Nuccitelli today.

It's remarkable that Lewis has managed to refute Nuccitelli even before Nuccitelli started to write. I imagine this happens to Dana quite a lot though.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (25)

So Dana writes a Green Blob damage limitation piece at the Grauniad.

He is not a climate scientist, so he must have had help.

Having got Peer Review sewn up pretty tight, journalists need help, and blogs not entirely convinced by Green Blob Diktats have to be subverted too.

Paid collaboration theories anyone?

Jan 13, 2016 at 2:27 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

What's the efficacy of climate scientists who are demonstrably wrong all the time?

Jan 13, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

To be fair Dana is writing for the faithful and nothing more so that they can't point to his article as evidence of...well... something or another?!?!


Jan 13, 2016 at 3:19 PM | Unregistered CommenterMailman

JamesG climate scientists who are wrong all the time are deemed 'world experts', and get positions as authors, at the IPCC. They also ghost write at the Guardian.

Jan 13, 2016 at 4:30 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Ventilation is what's needed there. And antiseptic. I recommend sunlight and a peashooter should be of sufficient wieght and calibre to puncture this ... 'journalism'ish ... stuff.

Jan 13, 2016 at 4:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterHenry Galt

Currently I am not banned form commenting at the Guardian.
However, when I comment on Dana's "work" I am often banned. So I daren't comment.

In his defence, being proven to be wrong and a liar by my quoting the IPCC is clearly detrimental to his career.
Desperate men act in fear.

Jan 13, 2016 at 4:47 PM | Registered CommenterM Courtney

Green Sand writes:

Interesting especially as Dana comments:-

...... Worth noting that Gavin Schmidt reviewed my post, so the content is accurate.

H/T frankclimate at Climate Audit

Yep! And in a nutshell, this is the problem with peer review in climate science being manifestly "pal review."

Jan 13, 2016 at 5:45 PM | Registered CommenterSimon Hopkinson

Poor Scooter. He achieves his (apparently) dream goal of "being somebody", even if he still can't pass himself off as a climate scientist, yet is still saddled with his inadequacies.

In other words, his incompetence gets exposed to a larger audience.

Jan 13, 2016 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered Commentertimg56

Interesting especially as Dana comments:-

...... Worth noting that Gavin Schmidt reviewed my post, so the content is accurate.

H/T frankclimate at Climate Audit

Jan 13, 2016 at 2:33 PM | Registered CommenterGreen Sand

Yes, he appears touchingly naive about peer review[*]. Peer review is not only no guarantee of something being correct, it is often no more than a very cursory scan, possibly by an underling. It can also be a lot less than that, i.e. a lie that someone has read a document, when they haven't.

[*I'm sure Gavin would balk at the very idea of considering Dana a peer.]

Jan 13, 2016 at 9:09 PM | Unregistered Commentermichael hart

I think peer review in climate science exists to make sure reports are Politically Correct. The alleged science is recyclable, and necer gets thrown away.

Jan 13, 2016 at 9:57 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Sometimes realists need to look at this from another angle.

We are dealing with a bunch of freaksideologues, who promote evident falsehoods as the reality. The idea of a new existential problem [man made alarmism] and framed solely in political terms through the transport of bogus statistics and with widespread manipulation of historical data. Mankind and scare stories from time immemorial is what we do of course but stories are just stories - urban modern myths?

How to turn a myth into a existential scare story and liars never change, the basic elements remain the same. But science has been usurped, duped and turned. Albeit it is bogus science but its use is so very clever to advocate and promote a political myth - we know how, more importantly should be the necessary requisite - we should endeavour to seeks answers and to delve deep to find out why and who.

Indeed then, there is another agenda going on here - is there not and the likes of Nuticelli should know, he's one of them.

Jan 13, 2016 at 10:35 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Whenever I hear Athelstan linking to a Cultural Marxism video, I reach for my kazoo- the real problem of the culture wars is that materialism is much too important to be left to the Marxists.

Same goes for those unable to deal with the climate data reviews they ask for :

Jan 13, 2016 at 11:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterrussell

"Worth noting that Gavin Schmidt reviewed my post, so the content is accurate."

Non-sequitur of the year (so far)..!

Jan 13, 2016 at 11:29 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

Either way, we’re more than half way to the 2 deg.C limit some call “courting disaster.” Major disasters. Personally, I think that’s too optimistic. I think 1.5 deg.C hotter than pre-industrial is courting major disasters.

Tamino, a handsome ponce pursued by a serpent, begs the gods to rescue him, oh Lord do lets hope they didn't.

A fantasist, idling under a big illusion and building strawmen, so that he can for all the world to see bravely punch them down - some wunderbar ponce he is.

I know we’re in a very difficult economic situation. I know we’re hard hit by gas prices, that jobs are hard to come by, that a lot of you are struggling just to keep your heads above water. It’s very hard to think of something as abstract as global warming as a crisis, when real problems are staring you right in the face. But think about this: if you were tired, and hungry, and desperate for work, and then you saw your own child playing on the railroad track while a locomotive sped toward him — what would you do? Would you think, “That’ll wait while I deal with these other problems”? Or would you move heaven and earth to get your own kid to safety?

Oh God! NO! its that ponce again! riding on his heigh ho silver, only for to sacrifice himself (next week, month, year - sometime maybe - a blue moon?) - in order to save the world's children.............

And what a bombastic, pious tw*t he is.

Jan 13, 2016 at 11:47 PM | Unregistered CommenterAthelstan.

Oh what fun it is to see Athelstan drive off the road to avoid a collision with reality in the form of the recent climate record, as rigorously updated by BEST

The graphs at

are from Richard Muller not Tamino.

Jan 14, 2016 at 3:02 AM | Unregistered Commenterrussell

Envy, nothing but envy.

Nuccitelli has been blessed with an uncommon intellect.

Most importantly, his capacity for discernment entitles him to pass judgment on the work of the greatest scientific minds in the world as they labor to save us from what DiCaprio tell us is "the most fundamental and existential threat to our species".

Jan 14, 2016 at 7:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterAila

"most of the co-authors on that paper were top notch scientists"

Well that settles it then.

Jan 14, 2016 at 7:58 AM | Unregistered CommenterPunksta

I guess Muller as well as Russel likes to ignore the coldest year on record set in 2010. But then the alarmists always prefer to ignore the entire Antarctic - or pretend it's really warming if you smear the peninsular warming across it in a 're-analysis', or that the cooling is caused by the warming, or now by the CO2. Indeed any crap ad-hoc excuse to avoid facing the reality that the current trivial warming is demonstrably not driven by CO2 and so must be natural.

In fact even using an el nino year as a propaganda stunt in the first place handily separates the honest scientists from the abject charlatans because they all know it is disconnected from any putative manmade effect on the climate.

Jan 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Alia @ 7.08am: Alia, you need to change your tactics. You have done the Ecclesiasticus 44.1 line to death.

Also, you have the art of "switch-hitting" completely wrong. Take a tip from the master;

You should be trying to embarrass sceptics like me but your contributions no longer.
cause a change of underpants. You remind me of Bob Monkhouse;
"when I said I wanted to be a comedian they laughed at me - well they're not laughing now! "

Jan 14, 2016 at 6:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenese2

Yes, Alla, big bears with sharp claws have posed an existential threat to performing artists ever since the Lascaux Cave Painter Massacre 17,000 years ago.

Climate change, not so much.

Jan 14, 2016 at 7:01 PM | Unregistered Commenterrussell

Ah! 15000 BC, I remember it well, CO2 at 250ppm & permanent ski slopes on Hampstead Heath.
Russell, the past is the only thing you have to look forward to.

Jan 14, 2016 at 8:08 PM | Unregistered CommenterDiogenese2

Turning from cave paintings , the ever counterfactual Jame's G's other news source, The Telegraph , dares contradict him.

Rather than being his " coldest year on record" , its Environment Correspondent Louise Grey wrote:
t7:00AM GMT 21 Jan 2011
Last year was the coldest in Britain since 1986, according to the Met Office, although the rest of the world experienced one of the hottest years on record.

The new statistics show that the mean temperature in 2010 was 7.96C (46.4F), the twelfth coldest on record. The coldest year in the 100 year record is 1919 and 1963, when temperatures plunged to 7.45 (45.4F) and the next coldest is 1986 when it was 7.69C (45.8F).

However the rest of the world was warmer than ever. The Met Office said that as a whole the world was 0.50 (0.9F) hotter than the long term average of 14C (57.2F), making it the second hottest on record after 1998

... at the same time the rest of the world was having heatwaves. In particular it was a warm winter in Canada and Siberia and eastern mediterraean.

Greenland lost more ice than any other year while the capital of Greenland, Nuuk, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873."

Jan 14, 2016 at 8:33 PM | Unregistered Commenterrussell

I was referring to this record:

What this tells us is that satellites are, after all, the best way to detect temperature anomalies. Well who'd have thought it? Well everyone actually - except some motivated scientists desperate to spread a misleading message for the purposes of forcing bad policy on us all. But sure when satellites seem to show worse data then they are on it like a rat up a drainpipe - as with sea level data - but are usually equally clueless as to the why and wherefore.

The world may very well be warmer than ever but we know that in the US, Australia and New Zealand, that graphical warming comes entirely from adjustments - whether correct or not that 'fact' alone should engender scepticism. As for the sea temperature data - the fools mistake an obvious calibration mismatch between XBT and Argo floats as an actual temperature rise.

But of course the satellites, with by far the greater coverage and not subject to ever-upwards adjustments of the land record and the sheer guesswork of the sea record says that 1998 is still the warmest year and even that is demonstrably due to an el nino which will inevitably be followed by a very cooling la nina.

I'd be interested to know what else you have mistakenly said was counter-factual since I am a stickler for facts. If you want links to the various contradictory excuses for the cooling in the Antarctic then you surely know I can provide them. I even recall the names of the dunces involved. What is your own preferred excuse for this Antarctic cooling which is one of many lines of evidence that disproves the manmade warming meme?

What fascinates me is that for past warming we must use Antarctic as a guide and ignore the contradictory Arctic data while for present warming it is vice versa because the Arctic is only as warm now as in the '30's - as even reported in the IPCC reports that you likely never read.

So cherry-picking is rife in this field as in the other social sciences. Ok scientists who prefer to pick the data that suits their worldview or funding bias may just be demonstrating only confirmation bias because humans tend to do that. But scientists who obviously know better, such as yourself, yet still support such press-release science are rather worse because stupidity is not an excuse.

Jan 15, 2016 at 11:34 AM | Unregistered CommenterJamesG

Russell, Louise Gray was & is a joke.
The Telegraph gave her the shove a year or two ago.

Jan 16, 2016 at 8:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterAdam Gallon

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):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>