Dana Nuccitelli tied himself up in knots on Twitter recently, and is still attempting to walk back from his own statements. His initial tweet, he says, was “a mistake”, “imprecise”, “poorly worded” and “wasn’t accurately worded”. He hasn’t been able to bring himself to say: ‘I was wrong. What I said was false.’
There are two threads discussing Nuccitelli’s tactics, devoted exclusively for this purpose. Between them, almost every possible excuse to overlook his behaviour has been offered up by the apologists. Excellent. Everyone’s forgotten about the tornadoes.
In order to protect their fragile arguments, alarmists like Nuccitelli resort to censorship and secrecy. In the resulting cloistered surroundings their egos swell and their reasoning acquires bizarre features. Nuccitelli imagines that false statements can be defended indefinitely, simply because they’re his. Nuccitelli also believes he can play fast and loose with proper attribution, grammar and other such basic elements of scholarly parlance, as long as he’s picking on the ‘right targets’. Nuccitelli heard Richard Muller being criticized by tornado scientists and decided to attack Roger Pielke Jr in, because Muller reminded him of Pielke Jr.
By this thuggish logic, you could hear of a bank robbery on the evening news and walk out and clock your neighbour in the face, because, at one point, your neighbour argued that those accused of robberies in court were to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.