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

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)

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.

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

‘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.

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

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….

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

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.

“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!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

“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..

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.

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!

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.

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…

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

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.

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.

@ 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?!

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.