UPDATE: A chronicle has been added, see below.
Uh oh…them’s fighting words:
Watch the fun here:
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:
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.