Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog

“Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog” (2012-12-28). Funny how a post on Anthony Watts’ “uncensored” website attacking Dana Nuccitelli doesn’t have any responses from Dana Nuccitelli. Just sayin’.

So Anthony’s denialist buddy Alec Rawls, a self-appointed whistle-blowing IPCC expert, posted this bunk to lash out at Dana Nuccitelli. Dana had the temerity to ridicule Alec’s idea that there is a lag of secret duration and unknown cause in our climate’s response to “solar variation” (which… doesn’t). Thus proving that it really is all because of the sun and we can go back to our coal-powered land yachts free from communist oppression.

After-all, your level of inebriation can rise even after you stop drinking! And a wacky biological analogy is even better than a physical science proof. To be blunt, you’d know more about solar physics and climate from staring straight into the sun for a minute than Alec could figure out in a lifetime.

If you have the patience the 400+ comments are a comedy goldmine, especially when actual solar scientist Leif Svalgaard pops in for a serious round of whack-a-mole. Paul Vaughan’s wounded howl “Do not ever address me again” seems to capture the flavor of the reactions. Poor Alec must have anticipated an unopposed playing field, because he swaggers and sneers hilariously:

I have to feel bad for Dana on this point. It isn’t his fault. He has been systematically duped by this parade of so-called scientists all telling him that a persistent high level of forcing can’t cause continued warming. Makes me want to put him on a milk carton. The poor guy isn’t just lost, he was kidnapped. Want a piece of candy little boy? Credulous Science indeed.

Leif Svalgaard finally calls a spade a spade:

lsvalgaard says:December 29, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Alec Rawls says:
December 29, 2012 at 2:39 pm
UV-shift effects is one obvious candidate, so the NewScientist actually belittles TWO of the main candidates for this unidentified solar amplification mechanism
The Steinhilber et al. paper you cite, ends with “The UV irradiance may not be the viable solution because its observational data do not show a similar distinct decreasing trend as TSI [Frohlich ¨ , 2009], implying that its level during the MM was similar as in present solar cycle minima.
So you will quote selectively and omit what you don’t like.

6 thoughts on “Dana Nuccitelli’s holiday trick for sobering up quick: put a little less rum in your egg nog

  1. Fascinating to read how ‘one of the worlds leading solar physicists and WUWT’s resident solar expert’ (Watts on Svalgaard in Sept 2012) teaches other WUWT regulars about (solar) science, particularly their childish reactions when Svalgaard’s science tells them what they usually deny.

    While the exchange between Svalgaard and Alec Rawls is interesting, the one between the first and regular WUWT commentors is no less entertaining. Here’s what user vukcevic says about halfway through the exchange: “It appears that many other readers too, don’t take you your statements any more with full confidence, you once enjoyed” to which Svalgaard replies “Unlike you, I’m not fishing for approval.” Classic!

    Or how about user Paul Vaughan (B.Sc., M.Sc.)? He writes regarding Svalgaard “My tolerance of this man’s dark ignorance &/or deception has completely expired. I recommend that either he be banned from commenting on climate or that strong restrictions be placed on his insufferable behavior” to which Svalgaard replies “I thought that expired a long time ago. And I feel how deeply inconvenient truths affect you.”

    An ‘Inconvenient Truth’ at WUWT?! From WUWT’s own (and perhaps former) ‘resident solar expert’. Now who would have though that!?

    There’s lots more nuggets like the ones above so I do recommend everyone to read all of it. It is most entertaining!

  2. And so a CA commenter accused me of protesting too much about anonymity on the interweb, and so I corrected him ….

    “Not quite. Anthony Watts, who runs the flagship ‘sceptic’ blog, claims to believe in ‘open discussion’, he deplores ‘sockpuppetry’, his stated policy is that ‘Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here’. He tells us that ‘I try to give everyone a fair shake on this blog’, he insists that ‘Guest authors and moderators are expected to adhere to this policy’

    And yet his moderators are free to assume false names and post as ordinary commenters. When ‘Smokey’ was posting, moderated by erm, himself, unsurprisingly, he or she always seemed to get more than a fair crack of the moderator whip- with opposing posts edited, snipped for no good reason, or held up while ‘Smokey’ formulated an answer. I’m not sure this contributes much to the debate.

    It’s just a blog, and clearly no crime has been committed, however the charges of dishonesty and hypocrisy seem pretty much proven. If Watts is unable to own up to this petty subterfuge, what else is he happy to mislead his readers about? How many of the posts there are actually by staff?

    Sadly, Mr. Persaud (Nigel to his friends) was having none of it …

    “there are very large differences between Gleick’s impersonation of a Heartland document in order to obtain documents and the use of pseudonyms on blogs. Gleick’s conduct was illegal, while there is nothing illegal about the use of pseudonyms on blogs. Blog policies here discourage coatracking topics and it seems to me that your complaints about moderation at WUWT are coatracking in a discussion of AGU.”

    Unsure of what ‘coatracking’ is, I posed a few simple questions in Nigel’s direction

    “Fair enough. Mr McIntyre, however given that Mr Watts posts here, and the two of you seem to have something of an association, and given your very public and admirable commitment to the principles of transparency and freedom of information, perhaps you could pass the following questions to Anthony?

    1. Is it the case that ‘Smokey’ and moderator ‘dbs’ (Dave Stealey) are in fact the same individual?
    2. Is the poster ‘D Boehm’ also Dave Stealey? ( a simple ‘Yes’, ‘No’ or ‘Unknown’ will be fine)
    3. Approximately how many posts at WUWT are actually by moderators (a percentage or an absolute number is acceptable)
    4. Does Mr Watts have any comment on the the fairly clear breach of his own blog policy by his own staff?

    If you don’t wish to publish this, a response to my supplied email address would be equally appreciated.

    yours, in the spirit of climate auditing,

    Phil Clarke

    I’ll let you know if and when I receive a response to my polite and utterly reasonable questions.

    [Expect truculent silence. – Ben]

    • Phil, “Nigel Persaud” is a sock puppet used by Steve McIntyre. See here:

      http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2005/08/26/sockpuppets/

      Just hilarious but to be expected from two people who are as dishonest as Watts and McIntyre.

      [Perhaps “McIntyre” is really a concern troll created by “Nigel Persaud”! :-) Seems McIntyre is just as unethical and partisan as the scrabbling denialists he pretends to keep at arms-length.- Ben]

  3. Pingback: Another Week of GW News, January 6, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered

  4. On the subject of the dbs/Smokey connection, dbs is now commenting as D Boehm Stealey on a thread by Alec Rawls. I poked at him once by quoting him as D Boehm Smokely, which did not get a direct reaction. However, in my next comment I included the following:

    D Böehm Smokely sez:

    January 11, 2013 at 3:19 pm
    dvunkannon,

    Converting data into chart form does not make that data wrong. You just don’t like the fact that Phil Jones’ data deconstructs your belief that CO2 causes any measurable warming.

    Misattribution is misattribution. I mean, if I said that the mod D Boehm Stealey said something, but it was really said by the ordinary commenter Smokey, or vice versa, that would be misattribution, right? Oh, wait…

    The Smokely line and misattribution paragraph are down the memory hole, replaced by this:

    (If that is your idea of debate you can take it elsewhere. Next off-topic attempt gets future comments deleted. ~mod)

    The rest of my comment has been allowed to stand.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s