Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper

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:

Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them

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

About these ads
This entry was posted in 97% consensus. Bookmark the permalink.

65 Responses to Dana Nuccitelli’s Twitter war with Richard Tol over that 97% consensus paper

  1. HaroldW says:

    Tol summed up the Cook et al. paper accurately and succinctly: ” A silly idea poorly implemented.”

  2. omnologos says:

    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)

  3. 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.

  4. Mark Bofill says:

    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.

  5. KNR says:

    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 .

  6. Snotrocket says:

    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. :) )

  7. Rob Dawg says:

    Tol says Cook misrepresented Tol. Case closed.

  8. Catcracking says:

    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.

  9. kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:

    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.

  10. Dodgy Geezer says:

    How do I “Watch the fun here:”? There doesn’t seem to be anything…

  11. Eric Worrall says:

    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.

  12. normalnew says:

    smartest guys in the sewer. The transparency of this poor attempt leaves glass jobless.

  13. JJ says:

    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

  14. graphicconception says:

    ‘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.

  15. DocMartyn says:

    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?

  16. handjive says:

    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?

  17. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    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.

  18. u.k.(us) says:

    I still don’t “get” Twitter, there is no context.
    Just saying.

  19. Camburn says:

    Dana has a very bad case of Skeptical Science Syndrome. Does one even need to further contemplate the validity of the study in question?

  20. Skiphil says:

    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….

  21. wws says:

    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.

  22. populartechnology says:

    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

  23. pete says:

    lmao. further into the absurd we venture.

  24. john robertson says:

    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.

  25. u.k.(us) says:

    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.

  26. Marian says:

    “graphicconception says:
    May 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    ‘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.”

    And I’d like to know how many of those papers were ‘actual science papers’? And not grey literature AGW/CC papers being passed off as science papers.

    We’ve all heard the claims scientists say AGW/CC is real and worse than thought. Only to find the said science study, etc claiming it wasn’t well, err that scientific. Like the one claiming it was done by 25 scientists, but well, err. Only 1 of those 25 claimed scientists had a science degree!

  27. Peter Pearson says:

    Trying to have an intelligent discussion over Twitter must be like trying to thread a needle while riding a bicycle over cobblestones.

  28. Jimbo says:

    Over at the Guardian I have made about 4 comments on this page but none have been allowed. I was within their terms. No wonder the Guardian’s circulation is circulating down the toilet. It will soon be a thing of the past.

  29. populartechnology says:

    The fact that Dana is taking this to Twitter shows just how sensitive their so called “study” is to these criticisms.

  30. populartechnology says:

    Jimbo, Dana may have moderation control over those comments and will never allow them to be published there.

  31. philjourdan says:

    Ouch! There is no joy in “Who-is-Not”ville tonight!

  32. John West says:

    It’s unfathomable to me how anyone that’s even moderately scientifically literate could possibly look at the available evidence and not conclude that CAGW is unlikely (although still possible), AGW is likely trivially true (@ some proportion), and GW is hardly anything worrisome to date or into the foreseeable future; but most of all that we just don’t know enough to be doom-mongering.

  33. Steven Mosher says:

    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?

    #####################
    yup everyone is a part of the consensus. rather than fight the idea of consensus folks shuld just join it and change the definition to something that makes more sense

  34. Latimer Alder says:

    Good to see that Richard Betts from the UK Met Office is making good points in there too.

    He is one of the more realistic ones from that den of alarmism.

    And a nice guy.

  35. pat says:

    James Hansen allowing for “natural variability” but doesn’t like carbon prices to go up & down!

    23 May: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Scientist Hansen Turns Activist, Advocates ‘Fee’ on Carbon Pollution
    I caught up with Hansen in London last week. He was in Europe to lobby politicians to classify fuels from oil sands as more polluting than conventional fossil fuels…
    Q: Tell me your thoughts on the effectiveness of carbon pricing in Europe. The price has plummeted this year.
    A: Carbon markets are better than nothing. What’s really needed is a carbon fee, something that will go up monotonically.
    ***It should not go up and down and up and down. That’s good for traders and bankers; people who will make money from a fluctuating market. But that’s not the objective. We really don’t want big banks in the problem. They don’t add anything to the problem except cost.
    So what you want to have is a fee on carbon that you collect from the fossil fuel companies.
    Q: You’re reluctant to call it a tax?
    A: I would call it a fee if it’s revenue-neutral. If you give the money to the public, then it’s not a tax. It’s a fee collected from fossil fuel companies with the money distributed to the public. I would distribute it as an equal amount to every legal resident of the country…
    Q: The warmest temperatures since 1998, which were in 2005 and 2010, have all been pretty similar. How can we explain that we’ve not had a significantly warmer year than 1998 since then?
    A: When you look at a short period, it’s hard to have statistically significant warming. But the rate has been less in the past decade than the prior three decades.
    It’s normal. There’s no reason to believe that the temperature is going to be linear. There are a couple of reasons to believe it would be less. Since the 1970s we have been measuring the sun very precisely, and we know that this last solar cycle is the weakest of them all.
    But there are other factors involved, some of which are not measured very well, including human-made aerosols [which cause cooling].
    Then there’s just a natural variability. We’ve had in the last few years two strong La Ninas. That’s just a natural oscillation of tropical temperature. The 1998 El Nino was a record one, and that causes warming. The La Ninas cause a global cooling. When you have a big warming at the beginning and two La Ninas at the end, that tends to give you a negative trend…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/climate-scientist-hansen-turns-activist-advocates-fee-on-carbon-pollutioin.html

  36. markx says:

    Dana has truly lost his marbles.
    That twatter exchange truly shows what a righteous believer he is. Even expressing an opinion on the methodology behind his screed apparently makes one a blasphemer.

    Richard Tol comes over as decent and honest.

  37. AndyG55 says:

    The only way you could misrepresent Cook’s paper is to say that it is honest and truthful. !!

  38. AndyG55 says:

    “graphicconception says:
    May 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
    ‘humans are causing global warming.’

    Humans have definitely caused a rising trend in the calculated global average surface temperature, particularly in the pre-satellite era.
    By it from UHI effects, massive data manipulation (whoops, I meant, adjustment) loss of cold temp stations and an increasing bais toward urbanised thermometers.etc. etc.

    Has there been much real warming since 1900? Who knows.. and unfortunately the corruption of the surface temperature records means we may not ever know for sure, and certainly not how much.

    Most temperture records before 1979 should be treated as highly suspect, and basically IGNORED. They are meaningless..

  39. Eli Rabett says:

    Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts. Dana said so multiple times and Tol is trying to bluff his way through. In Brian’s prequel survey there were many papers where by looking at the authors you would have rated differently than by looking at the abstracts. Tol is trying to shift the argument but, it is why direct comparison between the author ratings and the abstract ratings can and does differ.

  40. populartechnology says:

    Joshy, Was the classification Cook et al. (2013) gave to an abstract implied to the entire paper?

    What is your argument – that you cannot properly rate papers by just looking at the abstract? How does that support the conclusions of Cook et al.?

    The fact that the direct comparison to self-ratings differs is simply more evidence that the abstract ratings are worthless and any conclusions drawn from them meaningless – thus the entire Cook et al. paper is meaningless.

  41. Talk about drinking the Green Kool-Aid…

  42. Espen says:

    I followed this on twitter yesterday and couldn’t help laughing to myself when he played the Denier Card against mr Tol. Who’s going to save “skeptical science” now? They’re the “skeptical” equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition – John Cleese edition!

  43. markx says:

    Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts.

    Hmm. So that gives different results? Perhaps a pointer that there are some problems with the methodology?

  44. markx, they think that is some sort of trump card allowing them to falsely classify papers. Effectively saying…

    “We did not read the whole paper so it is acceptable that we are misleading everyone when they read our study”. – Cook et al.

  45. Espen, Dana has spent too much time in the SS echo chamber to even know who’s side of a debate anyone else is on.

  46. intrepid_wanders says:

    Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    Tol is trying to shift the argument but, it is why direct comparison between the author ratings and the abstract ratings can and does differ.

    So, based on the reading comprehension of the Cook et al. 2013, they decide the consensus of AGW based on only the abstracts (not to mention the >50% metric that Dana ad hoc’d), and you are calling Richard Tol out for “shifting the argument” for saying “I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.” after Cook et al, 2013 sampled less than 10% of Tol’s works concerning AGW.

    I am sure there are quite a few of us that would like to know what Opus of a Pile of Crap was supposed to help clarify. Clearly, Dana’s ego of peer-ship among the “consensus” is misplaced, never mind the logic of arguing the absurd.

    Keep it up Eli, it will all be over soon…

  47. TheInquirer says:

    [snip - not interested in your rant about WUWT, if you don't like it don't read it - mod]

  48. Bruce says:

    Whoever said tweeting was blogging for morons got it about right.

  49. DirkH says:

    This fracturing of the CO2AGW movement makes me highly skeptical of CO2AGW. At the same time a similar thing is happening in Germany, the UBA’s Flasbarthists call the Lukewarmer and renewable energy proponent Vahrenholt a denier. The Flasbarthists have the advantage that they occupy the UBA, and that their leader has been installed there during the reign of the Greens in 2004; Vahrenholt has the advantage of being a member of the social democrat SPD, if that can count as an advantage…

  50. AndyG55 says:

    Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm

    “Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts. ”

    No, Dana is talking about Cook’s, and probably Dana’s , wonky, massively biased, interpretation of the extracts.

  51. Oflo says:

    I dont see the issue here?
    Tol rates his own paper on the same scale, that blogreaders rated his abstract. It was his rating that went into the final 97% wasnt it?
    This whole thing is such a sad charade and distraction from more important discussion.

  52. Henry Galt says:

    Oflo says:
    May 24, 2013 at 1:29 am

    This whole thing is such a sad charade that discussion of the fraudulent and liars IS the only important discussion remaining.

    So very sad (and inordinately expensive) that this is so. As partially evidenced by the likes of the rabbit posting instead of just lurking.

  53. TimTheToolMan says:

    Eli writes “Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts.”

    Tol is also talking about the selection criteria not finding the vast majority of his AGW related papers. The Cook paper is flawed in so many ways…

  54. jc says:

    @ DirkH says:
    May 24, 2013 at 12:40 am

    I don’t want to be responsible for inflating false hope, but could it be that there is movement at the station in Germany after all?!

  55. philjourdan says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 23, 2013 at 8:38 pm

    #####################
    yup everyone is a part of the consensus. rather than fight the idea of consensus folks shuld just join it and change the definition to something that makes more sense

    “”We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”

  56. Mark Bofill says:

    philjourdan says:
    May 24, 2013 at 4:52 am

    “”We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
    ——————–
    :)
    But what Steven said makes sense to me. If this summary is basically true:

    Cook plays a bait and switch game. Scientifically, the consensus is over a trivial point. In the PR effort, you take the sound bite ’97% of scientists agree about AGW’ and use the brevity and ambiguity to justify any policy decision you want to.

    Then it seems to me that he who defines the terms, runs the surveys, and controls the PR wins the policy issues. Personally, I’ve got no stomach for that sort of work, but that doesn’t invalidate the observation.

  57. philjourdan says:

    @Mark Bofill – Nor was I disagreeing with Steven’s observation. But the way he phrased it was eerily representative of that line from ST-TNG. Not that Steven is advocating a Borgian society. But apparently some are setting up the constructs for it.

  58. Richard M says:

    The 97% argument is nothing but a bait and switch scheme, a technique used by con men. As already mentioned most skeptics accept that man has an impact on climate. That is also what most climate scientists believe. We all pretty much fall in the 97% number. However, the 97% number is used by the con men to imply man’s impact is dangerous if not catastrophic. That has never been part of the questioning to define the 97% number but it used by these con men to claim action must be take to avoid the dangers.

    Cook et al and the other supporters of the 97% nonsense are behaving exactly like con men. They should be mocked and called out at every opportunity for their blatant dishonesty.

  59. fredd says:

    TimTheToolMan says:

    “Tol is also talking about the selection criteria not finding the vast majority of his AGW related papers. The Cook paper is flawed in so many ways…”

    I looked up the twitter fight to see what Tol was saying about the selection criteria, but he has not made it clear. Twitter seems like the worst place to do that. The tone of both writers is childish. If Tol means that he has many papers that meet the web of science key words criteria, and they were left out of the study, that would show a major flaw.

    But if Tol means he thinks some other selection criteria should have been used, then he should state what his criteria is and explain why it is better. From an explanation we might get better studies instead of a twitter fight.

  60. JohnWho says:


    121 eligible papers from Dr Tol, 21 of which were included but misclassified

    Makes one wonder how many papers from other authors were also misclassified

    does it not?

  61. Russ R. says:

    Qualifications:

    dana1981

    Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.

    Richard Tol

    Richard S.J. Tol is a Professor at the Department of Economics, University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Formerly, he was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University and an Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. He has had visiting appointments at the Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, British Colombia, at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, and at the Princeton Environmental Institute and the Department of Economics, Princeton University. He received an M.Sc. in econometrics (1992) and a Ph.D. in economics (1997) from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is ranked among the top 200 economists in the world, and has 194 publications in learned journals (with 100+ co-authors), 3 books, 5 major reports, 37 book chapters, and many minor publications. He specialises in the economics of energy, environment, and climate, and is interested in integrated assessment modelling. He is an editor for Energy Economics, and an associate editor of economics the e-journal. He is advisor and referee of national and international policy and research. He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007; an author and editor of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies; a GTAP Research Fellow; and a member of the Academia Europaea. He is actively involved in the European Climate Forum, the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment, and the Energy Modeling Forum.

  62. Mike jarosz says:

    Socialist lie, deceive, cheat, and bully to get their way. Alarmist lie,deceive, cheat, and bully to get their way. Alarmists are socialist determined to make suffering equal for all. Of course, except for them, because someone has to govern or rule over the masses.

  63. Mark Bofill says:

    Mike jarosz says:
    May 24, 2013 at 7:19 am

    ————–
    I used to believe exactly that until I started posting here, and learned that there are socialists who post here who certainly don’t fit the totalitarian model that I’d always thought was an inherent part of socialism. I must confess I still don’t really understand some of the political perspectives here, but I’ve been bitten by the strong suspicion that I’ve been oversimplifying such matters.

    Anyways, I hate to alienate people who agree with me that CAGW is a crock over political differences. I think Cook would like for us to believe it’s a U.S. liberal vrs conservative issue (see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/value-consensus-climate-communication.html) but that may well simply be another device like switch and bait. Call it divide and conquer. In my view, ~all~ reasonable people with the facts would reject the CAGW viewpoint, regardless of political persuasion.

    Regards

  64. Hot under the collar says:

    Although I can’t endorse the approach, I do think the “Crap is Crap” argument does have some merit.

  65. hunter says:

    But the President liked it, so it must be a great paper.
    /sarc off

Comments are closed.