UPDATE: A chronicle has been added, see below.
Uh oh…them’s fighting words:
@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 23, 2013
Watch the fun here:
@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 23, 2013
This is all over the fact that Dr. Tol has said the Cook et al study has misrepresented his position:
One wonders if Dana’s employer knows how much time he’s wasting on Twitter during the day, among other things.
UPDATE: Kadaka has made a chronicle:
<b>Herd Straying</b>
by
Kevin D. Knoebel
<i>The assaulting of Richard Tol for daring to sidestep the new Dana Nuccitelli-John Cook cow patty</i>
1. Richard Tol @RichardTol
The Cook paper comes further apart http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html …
7:01 AM – 21 May 13
2. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.
10:22 PM – 22 May 13
3. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.
10:48 PM – 22 May 13
4. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.
11:04 PM – 22 May 13
5. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm
11:31 PM – 22 May 13
6. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.
11:40 PM – 22 May 13
7. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.
11:41 PM – 22 May 13
8. Richard Betts @richardabetts
@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2010/05/climate-change-impacts-on-global_04.html … and he’s an IPCC CLA
1:59 AM – 23 May 13
9. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@richardabetts @richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper.
6:37 AM – 23 May 13
10. Richard Tol @RichardTol
@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?
7:33 AM – 23 May 13
11. Richard Betts @richardabetts
@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?
8:12 AM – 23 May 13
12. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW)
8:14 AM – 23 May 13
13. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.
8:15 AM – 23 May 13
14. Richard Tol @RichardTol
@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?
8:29 AM – 23 May 13
15. Richard Betts @richardabetts
@dana1981 So basically this is politics then.
8:40 AM – 23 May 13
16. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.
8:47 AM – 23 May 13
17. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol You’ve said we misclassified your papers. We didn’t classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the papers
8:49 AM – 23 May 13
18. Richard Betts @richardabetts
@dana1981 I meant “denier” seems to be a political label – not talking specifically about Richard T’s views on your paper.
8:54 AM – 23 May 13
19. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?
9:46 AM – 23 May 13
20. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol It’s not semantics at all. You’re equating two different things which we evaluated separately.
10:06 AM – 23 May 13
21. Richard Tol @RichardTol
.@dana1981 Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie
10:17 AM – 23 May 13
22. Richard Tol @RichardTol
@dana1981 You accused me of lies and misrepresentation. Would you care to elaborate cq withdraw your accusations?
11:05 AM – 23 May 13
23. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981
@RichardTol I already elaborated twice. On top of the abstract/paper issue you suggested it was a fault our sample only included 10 of yours
12:14 PM – 23 May 13
24. Richard Tol @RichardTol
@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.
12:49 PM – 23 May 13
25. Richard Tol @RichardTol
@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?
12:50 PM – 23 May 13
Such incredible savagery, as the little Dana calf relentlessly tries to shove the Tol bull far away from the herd with all of his furious might. Such a tragedy, incited by Tol insensitively daring to decide to avoid the warm squishyness of a fresh Dana/Cook plop between his hooves. How dare Tol not take one for the herd!
On the plus side, massive kudos to Dana for his perfect channeling of Sheldon from <i>The Big Bang Theory</i>. His whiny petulance was spot-on excellent. Great acting, Dana.
===============================================================
Reference links:
1. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/336844141289930753
2. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337438314909011970
3. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337444845876555776
4. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337448817811132417
5. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337455725158744064
6. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337458036333490176
7. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337458277321416705
8. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337493095711113216
9. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337562992436736000
10. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337576949738266625
11. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337586801021693953
12. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337587313725022211
13. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337587672941993984
14. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337591140276649986
15. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337593908060106755
16. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337595705952722944
17. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337596193058222080
18. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337597392369090561
19. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337610467176488960
20. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337615597049352192
21. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337618249334280192
22. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337630454591139840
23. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337647766719320064
24. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656648841711616
25. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656856057106432
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Tol summed up the Cook et al. paper accurately and succinctly: ” A silly idea poorly implemented.”
Might be useful to remind people what kind of “denier” Richard Tol is (yes, that’s sarcasm – he says he was the first one to put the A in AGW)
I’m sure that Gavin Schmidt’s employer knows how much time he spends on his blog at work, & doesn’t care, in fact encourages this squandering of the taxpayers’ dollars.
So, this paragon study that earned an Obama (well, an Obama committee) tweet may have value after all.
Maybe it will separate the serious scientists from the propagandists.
Over at Lucia’s Blackboard, Brandon Shollenberger has dug an interesting revelation out of the material; Cook’s study is (or was apparently supposed to be) about the consensus that ‘humans are causing global warming.’ That’s it. No ‘most’, ‘much’, ‘all’, ‘rapid’, ‘catastrophic’ or anything. It’s not clear to me who’d disagree with this. Dr. Roy Spencer is part of the 97% consensus then?
Ironic.
A joke guy produces a joke study and they goes on to laughingly defend it .
What else is there to say , other than SS has a track record of changing peoples own words to support the view SS promotes and then when caught go about lying to try to BS their way out of it .
omnologos says: May 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm
“…Richard Tol …says he was the first one to put the A in AGW”
And Dana is the first one to put the A in @rsehole (OK, mods, snip away. 🙂 )
Tol says Cook misrepresented Tol. Case closed.
It seems as though it is academic as to whether the 97% is accurate or not. It served it’s purpose by providing a mechanism for the administration to misinform the sheeple who worship at the alter of global warming with false information. Dana may get an award or bonus for this distortion. The fact that it is inaccurate will never be exposed by the MSM. It is just like the nonsense story created after the Benghazi attacks with Candy C carrying water for the administration during the debates. The public will never be allowed to hear the truth or the complete story.
Oh great, I just compiled the Big List of these tweets, nicely sorted and ordered, and emailed it in for a submission. Includes one just after this went up.
But I didn’t know this was published, didn’t see it in “Recent Posts”.
Oh well, guess I did all that work for Anthony’s private amusement. Joy.
How do I “Watch the fun here:”? There doesn’t seem to be anything…
121 eligible papers from Dr Toll, 21 of which were included but misclassified, out of 11944 papers:
32.6% – the proportion of papers which endorse AGW
0.7% – Rejected AGW
0.3% – Uncertain
The rest – no position
32.6% x 11944 = 3894 papers which “support” AGW.
0.7% x 11944 = 83 papers which “reject” AGW
0.3% x 11944 = 36 papers which are “uncertain” about AGW
Subtract the 21 which were misclassified = 3873
Add the papers to the against: 83 + 121 = 204
“Consensus” percentage, using Cook methodology, just accounting for Dr. Toll’s misclassified papers =
3873 / (204 + 36 + 3873) = 94%
Just from correcting the misclassification of Dr. Toll’s papers, the “consensus” has dropped 3% points.
This is going to be fun.
smartest guys in the sewer. The transparency of this poor attempt leaves glass jobless.
milodonharlani says:
I’m sure that Gavin Schmidt’s employer knows how much time he spends on his blog at work, & doesn’t care, in fact encourages this squandering of the taxpayers’ dollars.
The Sequester disappoints – JJ
‘humans are causing global warming.’
I would like to see every claim have some sort of number attached. That is, how much warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, how much by natural CO2, how much by H2O, deforestation etc etc.
Many wild claims would then not be sustainable. At present, the data can be spun all ways. Having numbers would put the protagonists in a spot just like the current climate sensitivity discussions.
If not believing cAGW is a political, and not a scientific, act, does it not follow that believing cAGW is a political, and not a scientific belief?
Further evidence, Nuccitelli is not interested in real science.
As if further evidence was needed:
On 21 January 2013, dana1981, or Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science, published an open letter to London Mayor Boris Johnson titled : “Weather is not Climate.”
At issue for dana1981 was the fact that the Mayor had commented that it was snowing in London in winter, and that the sun was to blame for any global warming.
Said dana1981, “Quite simply, weather is not climate.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-mayor-boris-johnson.html
Just a few months later, the Australian BoM/climate commission/CSIRO released a “report” (I use that term very loosely) summarising Oz weather over 3 days in a SH summer, claiming WEATHER IS NOW CLIMATE.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html
Did Nuccitelli write an open letter alerting the Climate Commission, CSIRO or BoM they’re wrong?
OR
Did Nuccitelli write an apology to Mayor Johnson?
I don’t always agree with Richard Tol, but from his papers and blog posts, I believe he is intellectually honest. I don’t believe anyone at Septical Science is even remotely honest.
I still don’t “get” Twitter, there is no context.
Just saying.
Dana has a very bad case of Skeptical Science Syndrome. Does one even need to further contemplate the validity of the study in question?
In a sane world the likes of John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli would be shoe shine boys… Oh wait, that is the role they play for the CAGW crowd, polishing something other than shoes….
The funny part is, watching Europe these days, even dedicated ideologues like Nucitelli must feel it all slipping away from them. And yet they have nowhere to turn, no exit plans – they’ve over-committed themselves, and now all they can do is rage, rage, against the dying of the (AGW) light.
This is great,
“@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.” – Dana
“@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.” – Dana
“…interesting they apply the D word to me, one of the 1st to show the A in AGW, argued for carbon taxes for 20 yr …@dana1981” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2010/05/climate-change-impacts-on-global_04.html … and he’s an IPCC CLA” – Dr. Richard Betts
“@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Dr. Richard Tol
lmao. further into the absurd we venture.
As the cult collapses the flame wars of the righteous will increase.
He who is the most “Hole-e” will be the last defender of the cause.
Would it be wrong to say, that lacking context, the NSA will waste more money, on my abbreviations, than the code words.
I’d give them right up, if I knew them.
The “them” is the hard part to determine nowadays.