“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.
Wott's Up With That? 
Off topic, but hypocrite and liar Anthony Watts has waded into a thread at McIntyre’s now largely irrelevant blog on the AGU’s ‘condoning’ Peter Gleick with a predictably ad hominem and nasty sneer at Gleck’s physical appearance and an attack on the AGU’s ‘professional ethics’.
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/#comment-391369
My comment in response is still visible, but I don’t know how longer that will remain the case, so here’s a copy …
[Anthony Watts is a classic example of a small mind trying to make an impression on a big stage. – Ben]
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!
And so a CA commenter accused me of protesting too much about anonymity on the interweb, and so I corrected him ….
Sadly, Mr. Persaud (Nigel to his friends) was having none of it …
Unsure of what ‘coatracking’ is, I posed a few simple questions in Nigel’s direction
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]
Pingback: Another Week of GW News, January 6, 2013 – A Few Things Ill Considered
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:
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:
The rest of my comment has been allowed to stand.