Saturday, 7 December 2013

Remind me Dana Nuccitelli, who are the Deniers?

Oh dear, Dana Nuccitelli seems to be coming apart more and more.

First of all, his paper with John Cook (link) was torn apart by successive reviewers  when actually it should have been shredded.

Some of the criticisms:“It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming”“The consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion latest paper apparently showing 97% endorsement of a consensus that more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic really shows only 0.3% endorsement of that now-dwindling consensus.
A few days ago Desperate Dana was trying to save his reputation. (Link)

 He tweeted:
Tornado Experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public

Roger queried it and one of the LiveScience paper's authors Harold Brooks replied

Keith Kloor, who writes in The Dirty Art of Character Assassination:
At this point, I asked Dana to clarify which tornado experts claim Roger is “misleading the American public”? He didn’t respond. What he did do is move the goalposts. But even that was incorrect, as Brooks quickly pointed out
What happened next was astonishing: Rather than apologize, Dana twisted himself into semantic knots in an effort to show that Roger was in the wrong. I tried asking several more times:

Read more at the link above. Meanwhile Dissembling Dana Digresses Distressingly:

So, remind me, Dana, who are the deniers?


  1. I think it is just so hard for people to understand consensual climate science. I just started doing it but already I was able to post about how great it is. Especially the 97% thing. I did it here
    Its like the second post at
    F.A.H. says:
    December 3, 2013 at 8:14 pm
    Its too hard to cut and paste so I just put in the link here.

    1. Is that the comment where you said: "Climate science is just so hard. Now I am just sure nobody understood a word I said?"

      And "consensual climate science?" Consensual science is an oxymoron. Consensus is a political or a legal term; it is not scientific.

    2. Um, is satire. Sorry for the lack of alert. The main essay is at 8:14 PM, second comment in the thread.

    3. OK - that comment wasn't coming up on my ipad....had to go to my laptop. Funny, now it has come up on this blog as a separate post!


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!