2011-01-26 05:04:06Success - Guardian picked up the 'Case Study' post
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

The Guardian has published the 'Case Study' post.

Thanks to everyone who gave input.  Now we can use this as an example of what the Guardian seems to be looking for in the future when we want to catch some mainstream media eyeballs.

2011-01-26 05:32:24
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.211.225
Well done mate!.
2011-01-26 05:59:10figures
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Thanks Rob.  By the way, note that the Guardian article excluded the "where is heat going" figure from our post.  So that's something to keep in mind - if you're going to include a figure in a post you want the Guardian to pick up, it's probably smart not to say anything specific about the figure in the text.  But do describe what the figure is illustrating in the text (like in this case, the fact that over 90% of the heat is going into the oceans) so that nothing is lost in translation.
2011-01-26 06:36:45
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.99.193

Hot dog!

I note that, in the first comments that went back to John from the editor, he specifically praised the tone and the pacing. I felt good about that, as those had been particular concerns of mine. There is a great danger that technically oriented writing can kind of drag down into the over-specific.

2011-01-26 06:46:06good comments
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
Yes, you, John, Riccardo, Mark, and malamuddy all had very good comments which significantly improved the article.  Definitely a team effort, and great to see the effort rewarded!  Hopefully SkS will get some new visitors via the Guardian as a result.
2011-01-26 07:07:46
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.78
Congrats Dana! And congrats to all of you in the team that spend your spare time helping each other in this highly stimulating place created by John.
2011-01-26 07:34:29To quote Futurama, kudos and back slaps all round!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

Congrats to Dana for the great article and to everyone for their feedback.

Yes, interesting that they didn't include the pic - I would suggest if you're writing an article targeting the Guardian, adhere to their format - no subheadings, no pics, non-technical text.

And I would encourage everyone, if you have ideas for blog posts, think of whether it's potentially Guardian material and if yes, write it with that in mind and on the forum, mention it when you post it so we can all post feedback with that in mind. And so I can email the Guardian editor when it goes live to bring it to his attention.

So onward and upward. I've been thinking we should look to get into other high traffic websites, to get our content in front of more eyeballs. Any thoughts on how we could get into Huff Post? Treehugger? Or even better, mainstream websites that aren't left leaning?

2011-01-26 07:41:37
MarkR
Mark Richardson
m.t.richardson2@gmail...
134.225.187.80

Congratulations dana! :)

 

I'm almost feeling a little jealous ;)

2011-01-26 08:07:42
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Thanks Mark.  You contributed too!

I would imagine this will give us credibility with other media sources.  Next time we have a mainstream media type of post, we could contact some other outlets, point them to the post, and note that we've previously been published by The Guardian.

You can contact the Huffington Post editors at scoop@huffingtonpost.com

For Treehugger you have to contact the correct section, which for us I presume is Science and Technology - scitech-tips@treehugger.com

Maybe just draft up an email with references to the new blog post we want circulated (Monckton Myths summary?), and to the Guardian article, a bit of background on SkS, and send it out to a bunch of media outlets like this and see who bites?

2011-01-26 09:55:29
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170
Attaboy!
2011-01-26 10:35:40
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

 

It's going to be interesting to watch the site stats on Alexa to see if this makes the numbers pop. 

2011-01-26 11:59:37pageviews
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252
I've been keeping an eye on the pageviews for the 'Case Study' post here.  Only about an extra 100 or so today.  The Guardian article linked both directly to the post and to the main SkS page.
2011-01-26 23:06:55Guardian comments
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
For future reference, next time we get in the Guardian, it would be a good idea if we all make an effort to support the author in the comments. Dana is doing a great job of defending his article from some rabid deniers, ably supported by Albatross. I've come in for late support but too late, I think, I wish I'd come in earlier. So next time, we should put the word out on the forum so all authors come and post strong support, rapidly responding to skeptic disinformation.
2011-01-27 03:28:35Reading the comments....
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.159.60

...I'm admiring Dana's patience with still writing calm responses after all the ad hominem attacks in many of the comments. Here is (as of right now) the latest one:

FredUptown

26 January 2011 4:08PM

Wait,

You all realize that Skeptical Science pays the Guardian to promote its stories don't you? I would have thought that was obvious. Dana is a staff writer for Skeptical Science, which he joined after leaving Scientology in 2002.

Does this FredUptown really mean what he states or is he making fun of other posters?
2011-01-27 04:05:44thanks
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Haha yes, it's been hard to keep up with all the denier comments and keep my cool.  Several of them have claimed I'm a Scientologist.  WTF?  I have no idea where that came from, but frankly it's very insulting.  Lots of personal attacks in the comments, which is to be expected, but makes it difficult to respond calmly.

I got lots of backup in the comments while I was asleep, which was very helpful.  I was afraid that I would check back in this morning and see a flood of denier attacks with no responses.  Quite the opposite, most of the comments were good.

Another great thing about The Guardian is that their moderation has been terrific.  Most of the personal attack comments (and other off-topic ones) are deleted within 5 minutes.  That's helped a lot - I'm very impressed with the quality of moderation there.

*edit* now that I think about it, I had somebody Google stalk me once, and if I recall correctly, he found a different Dana Nuccitelli (believe it or not, there are at least a couple other people in the USA that share my name) who was listed on some Scientology website.  That must be where it's coming from.  So another tip, if you're listed as the author on an article published by The Guardian, be prepared to be Google stalked and personally attacked!

2011-01-27 07:11:13Personal attacks
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
Dana, I saw that you'd responded to something about Scientology and apparently they'd attacked my Christianity also. But those comments were deleted. It did make me curious about what they said :-)

Dana, kudos for your efforts in the comments which are just as effective, I think, as your article, both in tone and content. I do believe what happens in the comments threads matters (and I hope to replace that 'belief' with knowledge based on empirical evidence later in the year after we've done experiments to test this theory).

The approach I always take when responding to comments is to always remind myself I'm not writing for the knucklehead I'm responding to but for the benefit of all the onlookers. So tone matters as much as content. Let the other guy get angry, post personal attacks, rant away. We have to be cool, calm, rational and show humor, not taking ourselves too seriously. Don't post as if you're trying to win a debate. Instead post like you're patiently trying to educate people.

On the other hand, this post has turned into a lecture. Be careful that you don't turn into a tiresome windbag like me :-)

2011-01-27 08:19:21agreed
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Thanks John.  That's what I've been trying to do in comments recently - treat them as though I'm writing them for a third party's benefit.  I got a little heated with the deniers over at NoTrickZone (bunch of dopes over there), and Rob H. gave me the good advice to treat comments that way.  On my most recent comment I had to stop and take a deep breath before responding.  Instead of pointing out that the Fred guy was being a lying prick, I managed to restrain myself and say his framing of the events in question were "borderline dishonest".

But since I don't have to worry about the third parties reading here, allow me to say that Fred is a lying prick.

The Scientology thing was just some idiot whose entire comment was basically to say I'm a Scientologist and you're a born-again Christian.  No doubt he read Motl's blog about you, and Google stalked me.  The Guardian mods deleted his comment (and pretty much all the rest of his comments, which all merited deletion) within a few minutes.  Like I said, they do a great job with their moderation.  But a couple other commenters again called me a Scientologist - no doubt doing the same Google stalking as the other guy.

2011-01-27 08:27:43Cool Bananas
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
121.219.54.146
Well done Dana.
2011-01-27 09:37:36
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

Dana, it might be worth pointing out that there are others with your same name in the world. Membership in the Church of Scientology doesn't enhance anyone's standing in my view, either.

With regard to Christianity: This could be considered somewhat relevant if the doctrines of the Evangelical Church could be seen to be influencing your views on practical matters. Example: During the Reagan era in the US, the secretary of the interior was James Watt, who was a big supporter of mountain-top mining, strip-mining, etc. On being questioned about how this kind of wholesale destruction squared with the idea of sustainability, his response was, "Look, the Second Coming and Resurrection will happen very soon, so why should we preserve this stuff? We've got all these resources locked up in the dirt; why shouldn't we get it out and use it?" In this case, one could argue that his religious views were giving him a non-mainstream set of priorities on how to relate to the planet. 

2011-01-27 09:50:06
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Thanks Glenn.

neal - fortunately the Guardian moderators have removed all accusations of Scientology, so I don't have to address them anymore.

2011-01-27 09:57:13End-times and environmentalism
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

My father-in-law has the same "hey, the world is about to end" mentality. When we remind him that every generation of Christians thought the world was going to end in their lifetime, he says "no, this time, *I'm* right!"

Did I mention arguing with him about climate change was the catalyst for me starting Skeptical Science? Still, the worse that happens when he gets on his irrational rants is the rest of us roll our eyes. But when the secretary of the interior has nutty views like that, the consequences are much more severe.

On another topic, got curious about you being a scientologist and googled it. #1 result:

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/d/dana-nuccitelli.html

Pretty convincing evidence, Dana. So... what's Tom Cruise really like? :-)

On the other hand, today, Michael Tobis tweeted this:

  • Now following three interesting people each called John Cook.
You think you have a problem - trying having a name as common as mine! Still, none of my name-sakes are members of a cult (that I know of).
2011-01-27 11:02:37
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.98.91

That reminds me of a public confusion concerning the analytical philosopher Bertrand Russell (the Earl Russell) and his cousin, Lord Russell (2nd Baron of Liverpool). Their politics were quite opposite, but both were prolific writers, so they often received letters intended for each other.

To remedy this situation, they submitted the following joint letter to The Times

Sir,

In order to discourage confusions which have been constantly occurring, we beg herewith to state that neither of us is the other.

Yours etc.

Russell (Bertrand, Earl)

Russell of Liverpool (Lord Russell of Liverpool)

25 February 1959

 

I am sure this cleared everything right up. John, you might give it a try.

2011-01-27 13:59:11hah
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

Haha funny letter, neal.

John, looks like the Scientologists got to you too!

2011-01-27 15:37:30Curses, my secret is out!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70

On the bright side, having such an common name would make it harder to cyberstalk me. There's nutty John Cook's all over the place apparently. We're infiltrating every part of society (a bit like the new Battlestar Galactica where copies of Cylons infiltrate humanity, except they're much hotter, of course).

Now are there any Neal King or Rob Honeycutt scientologists?

2011-01-27 16:05:52WTF?
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
24.213.39.18

Musta happened at that frat party in college; cute chick, roomie gone for the weekend, a "fresh" stash...

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/d/dan-bailey.html

Dan Bailey in Scientology's Published Service Completion Lists

The following 1 individual completions for Dan Bailey appear in official Scientology publications:

Dan BaileyHANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS BOOK COURSE Ability Magazine 3902010-05-01

Note: The dates listed above are the approximate publication dates of the magazines, which may be weeks or months later than the actual date the service was completed.


Dan Bailey in Scientology's Publications

The following 1 mentions of Dan Bailey appear in official Scientology publications:

Dan BaileyAll Clears in the United States From Clear to Eternity Newsletter 20062006-11-01

Note: The dates listed above are the approximate publication dates of the magazines, which may be weeks or months later than the actual date the service was completed.

 

HANDBOOK FOR PRECLEARS BOOK COURSE [  ]  

Dan Bailey
 

(She did talk to parking meters)

 

2011-01-27 18:02:46
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.245.191
Sheesh, now you guys tell me you're a bunch of scientologists!. To paraphrase the wedding singer; things you could have told me yesteryear!!!!.
2011-01-27 20:24:03
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.54.151

Sorry: as close as it gets is "Neal Levin".

No evil twin to blame everything on.

2011-01-28 02:40:37another jab at SkS in the comments
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.151.12
Here is another recent jab at Dana and SkS (and what we are supposedly up to):

tomtom007

27 January 2011 2:18PM

FYI... Skeptical Science - the source of this article - is a warmist website created by a group which sets out to "correct" any scientist who disagrees with the AGW theory. Talk about a double standard. Not only are none of the rebuttals, peer reviewed, but the authors fail to provide any information about their own scientific credentials. For example, who is Dana Nucatelli - the author of this article? Dana feigns scientific expertise by pointing to mistaken assumptions made by Dr. Lindzen. Lindzen is a PhD With MITs Sloan Institute. He has authored over 200 papers, articles and books. What are Dana's credentials? My suspicion is the answer to that question is ZERO! Dana is clearly a politically motivated "climate science wanabee", non scientist. Like all of the "bloggers" on the Skeptical Science web site, Dana knows how each story must end before he/she pens the first letter of an article. In the end the "blogs" written at this web site, must ultimately serve to promote the warmist mantras. Oh, and yes those visiting the cite are invited to "contribute financially" for the preservation of this wonderful effort to save the planet by "correcting" mistakes made by all of those silly scientists like Lindzen and Christie who make ridiculous arguments which do not support the AGW theory.

Just in case somebody wants to butt heads with this tomtom007 (who only recently showed up in the comments to the article - do these deniers take turns?)

Cheers
Baerbel
2011-01-28 03:47:33ad hom
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210

Gotta love it - Lindzen can't be wrong because he has a PhD.  But every other climate scientist with a PhD is wrong.  LOL!

No worries Baerbel, I suspect the Guardian moderators will remove that off-topic ad hom attack.  I'm surprised it's still there right now.

2011-01-28 04:13:17it's gone now
BaerbelW

baerbel-for-350@email...
93.231.151.12

Dana, your hunch was correct - the post I copied over is gone now.

Update: here is another one (scientology again)
CMGreenich

27 January 2011 5:09PM

@TomTom007

What are Dana's credentials?

He's a former Scientologist who is working with a Born Again Christian (owner of Skeptical Science), so they are both prone to being born again into new religions, this time Climate Change.

He lives in West Sacramento, received a non science degree from Michigan State University.

Intelligent Design is another "belief" they hold at Skeptical Science, so take the "skeptical" part with a warning.

Oh, I wasn't aware up until now that "we" are into ID (must have missed that somehow)

2011-01-28 05:22:34stalker
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Another Google Stalker.  Not a very effective one - in my Yahoo Answers profile, I specifically list my degrees (BS in astrophysics from UC Berkeley, MS in physics from UC Davis).  Another commenter (graham wayne, I think) found that and posted it in a subsequent comment.  No doubt another Dana Nuccitelli graduated from Michigan State.  He also found the Scientology Dana Nuccitelli.

I'm not sure where the Intelligent Design claim is coming from though.  That's a bizarre one.

CMGreenich comment was quickly removed by the Guardian moderators.  It seems the deniers have grown tired of trying to defend Lindzen, and are now almost exclusively on the attack against me, John, and SkS.  But the moderators are taking care of them quite nicely.

2011-01-28 08:09:08ID
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
60.231.100.70
Of course ID has never been mentioned at SkS but just like Lubos Motl associated me with a doomsday cult, people will use anything and make anything up to score cheap debating points. Sounds like a sign of desperation and a sign that you're prevailing at the Guardian. Reminds me of the interview Dawkins has with an intelligent designer who continually asks for evidence for evolution and Dawkins rattles off all the evidence and the ID woman responds with an ad hom and then says there's no evidence.

now I think about it, Lubos needn't have bothered associating me with a doomsday cult. He should've just posted the evidence that most of the SkS authors are apparently scientologists! :-)

2011-01-28 10:16:47
Rob Honeycutt

robhon@mac...
98.207.62.223

Don't know if you caught this but the other guy claims that Dana is a "paid propagandist" from Skeptical Science.

That one caused me to burst out laughing. 

2011-01-28 10:58:13Makin' stuff up
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
Just have to remember that when they start making stuff up, we've scored a moral victory - we can then dispassionately and calmly redirect them back to the evidence. Let their and our actions speak louder than words - onlookers can see that we're about evidence, they're about ad hominems, vicious attacks, lies and desperation.
2011-01-28 11:53:10?
Daniel Bailey
Daniel Bailey
yooper49855@hotmail...
68.188.192.170
Just so I'm clear on this...we're NOT getting paid?
2011-01-28 18:15:06Idiots
gpwayne
Graham Wayne
graham@gpwayne...
217.44.84.38

Yes Dana, that was me - but quoting your little 'bio' here, actually. You held up your end well, I thought, under some extreme (but sadly typical) provocation.

Still, it was fun to see how the denialist posts actually confirmed your argument, and nice to see stuff from SkS appearing in the Guardian. Let's hope there's more to come.

All the best,

Graham

2011-01-28 19:46:43Follow up post
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
123.211.149.21
What about a follow up blog post, using comments at the Guardian to further ram home the point (plus chance to show off getting into the Guardian). Just an idea :-)
2011-01-28 20:56:34
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53
That would have to be done rather carefully: Probably they will not want to post an article that appears to be attacking their readers, even their GW-denying readers.
2011-01-29 09:19:58on SkS
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.252

Thanks graham.  Forgot that I put that same bio information here.  It's in my public Yahoo Answers profile too.

I think John was suggesting we do a follow-up to be posted on SkS, neal.  Not a bad idea - basically highlighting that the comments on the article confirmed that the so-called "skeptics" refused to be skeptical of a fellow "skeptic" (plus trying desperately to link the FEU mistake to the IPCC).

Maybe I'll draft something up if I get a chance.  By the way, what's a good label for our "side" of the debate (us non-deniers)?  I tend to use 'AGW realists', but it's not a commonly-used phrase.  There's "proponents", but I'm not a big fan of that term (sounds like we're rooting for global warming).  Is there a better one?

2011-01-29 10:43:51
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.50.53

Definitely not "AGW proponents".

I kind of like calling the deniers "anti-anti-AGWers" (which makes our side the "anti-AGWers", because we're against anthropogenic global warming); but it's kind of an inside joke, would be too confusing for common use.

"AGW-concerned" is a possible.

2011-01-29 14:54:11Don't use "realists"
James Wight

jameswight@southernphone.com...
112.213.158.135
They sometimes call themselves "climate realists" as well.
2011-01-29 15:02:22
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
AGW convinced?  Persuaded?  The AGW camp?  We really need to come up with a better term.
2011-01-29 15:53:09Follow-up Case Study
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.0.210
I put together a Follow-Up Case Study.  I just went with "AGW camp" and "skeptic" camp.