Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus

Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative.

In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol

Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.
Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.
Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers.
Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution.

As Dr. Tol so eloquently put it,

[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol

CV of Dr. Richard Tol:

M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-Present); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)

Thanks to Populartechnology.net

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

90 Responses to Tol statistically deconstructs the 97% Consensus

  1. oMan says:

    Thanks. In lay terms, Cook cooked his books. Nice debunking by Tol.

  2. arthur4563 says:

    Of course, the main failing of Cook’s study is that it is so brainless. If you want to know
    what a climatologist’s current beliefs are, you ASK them, you don’t start riffling thru published works, many not even remotely current, trying to read between the lines to divine what its author’s
    beliefs are, or were. Almost two decades of no warming has changed many minds, an effect that
    Cook’s study implicitly claims is impossible. Asking questions about “current” consensus using
    evidence that is in no way current is an oxymoron.

  3. JohnWho says:

    “[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.”

    Nonsense with a purpose as well as purposely selected nonsense.

  4. Pamela Gray says:

    But if this had been his “Climate Science” Ph.D. dissertation, it would have passed with flying colors and put him in the running for a Nobel Prize, complete with on-line down-loadable certificate with a fill-in-th-blank space for his name and an invitation from the IPCC to have this stellar piece of sh…work…included in the next report.

  5. Barry Woods says:

    ouch!

  6. steven mosher says:

    that’ll leave a mark

  7. Pointman says:

    It’s easy to call anyone a cheat. Of course, proving it to all is quite rare, but not finishing it of by calling them out as a cheat, is even rarer still. Classy stuff Dr. Tol

    Pointman

  8. rogerknights says:

    This paper of Cook’s is a great opportunity to counterpunch the 97% meme with an accurate survey of a representative sample. It should count only (or separately) “attribution” papers, it should poll authors about the degree of their alarmism (i.e., AGW or CAGW), and it should ask them if their degree of alarm has mitigated in recent years, as new less alarmist papers have come out.

    George Mason U. should also be given a grant to conduct a new survey of members of the AGU and AMU. It’s been about six years since the last one.

  9. Ric Werme says:

    Pretty impressive that Dr. Tol can shoot down the paper over Twitter. It took McIntyre et al many pages, papers, and even books to deal with the hockey stick.

  10. Jack Savage says:

    I think if you are going to print out Dr.Tol’s qualifications and CV it is only fair that you should do the same with Dana’s….

  11. Steven R. Vada says:

    People selling climate alarm

    want you to believe

    that 97% of people reflecting upon the following question would give answer “B”

    Question: You are heating a mass. Through direct physical contact, you thermally couple a second mass, you are not heating. The temperature of mass A will subsequently go

    (A) down

    (B) up

    ===

    Maybe I’m misrepresenting the 97%

    Let me rephrase it:
    ===

    You are heating a mass.

    You have submerged that mass in a frigid, fluid gas bath, pulling the frigid fluid bath against the you heat, via gravity. Direct-contact thermal transfer is further enhanced by spinning the mass inside the frigid fluid gas bath.
    1% of the frigid gas bath, is comprised of phase-change refrigerant. The refrigerant lifts heat faster through convection than the rest of the frigid, fluid, gas bath, dumping heat to space: makes ice – falls to the ground, to repeat the cycle.

    Question: about the paragraphs above: The frigid, refrigeration-cycle augmented, gas bath,

    (A) cools the mass submerged in the frigid, refrigeration-cycle augmented, gas bath

    (B) warms the mass submerged in the frigid, refrigeration-cycle augmented, gas bath

    In the 97%
    the answer is *B*

    Question 2 about the paragraph above:

    The preferred analogy to the mass and it’s relationship to the frigid, refrigeration-augmented, gas bath, is:

    (A) The frigid gas bath cools the mass, similarly to blowing a computer chip with a fan

    (B)The frigid gas bath warms the mass, like a big, warm, blankie.

    ====
    In magic gas country

    the correct answer is *B*.

    In the REST of the world

    well –

    - you figure it out.

  12. Note that the above is only about the representativeness of the sample, which is poor.

    I’m now looking at data quality. This is made difficult because crucial data were held back by the authors, or perhaps not collected or stored. (sic). Even with the little data available, there is convincing (to me) evidence of bias.

    Oh, and there are some arithmetic errors too.

  13. Dodgy Geezer says:

    ““[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol”

    That’s a very polite way to say ‘propaganda’…

  14. cirby says:

    The thing about the “study” in question is how it uses key words – not substance.

    For example, if someone wrote a paper about endangered frogs being run over while crossing a highway, and included the phrase “…and we expect an increase in frog mortality in future decades due to an increase in traffic to the local ‘global climate change’ laboratory,” it would still count.

  15. klem says:

    Wow, I wish I had a CV that looked like that.

  16. Jim G says:

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:

    June 1, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Note that the above is only about the representativeness of the sample, which is poor.

    “I’m now looking at data quality”.

    A difficult task, no doubt, given that one must interpret the writer’s opinion where it may not be directly expressed as well as the time lag noted between the papers and present. The 97% study is patently garbage and irrelevent, in any event, given the built in bias caused by grant dollars, peer pressure and desire for survival within one’s organizational politics.

  17. Latitude says:

    climate abstracts from 1991–2011….
    ===
    this is a joke, right?

    You mean back when temps were going your way……before they flat lined

  18. Skiphil says:

    Poor, poor li’l Dana, he can’t argue the merits so now he’ s reduced to telling Richard Tol to “get some class”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/RichardTol/status/340830029741187073

    Sure, Dana, after you sneer and smear at everyone you are one of the last people on earth who should pontificate about who has “class”

  19. FAH says:

    The approach to Cook, et. al. is hindered by considering it to be an evaluation of either the “scientific record” or the views of “climate scientists.” It is much more understandable and justifiable as an evaluation of the strength of belief of those who maintain the anthropogenic, strongly C02 driven global warming belief (call them believers for now, but there are issues about the degree of belief). If the hypothesis were stated as “Do those who believe feel that the scientific evidence (or climate scientists as individuals) support the belief and at what level?” then one could say that it was a fairly good look at that hypothesis. The study as done clearly only measured how the “reviewers” used in Cook, et. al. view the scientific record. Thus the analytical path of the study simply reflected the process by which believers view the scientific record and come the their conclusion of a degree of certainty.

    I fear analysis of how well or poorly the study measured something other than the belief strength of the performers is akin to the punishment of King Sisyphus. An evaluation of the strength of support in the record for even a well stated scientific hypothesis would be difficult and necessarily involve in depth analysis of the detailed content and precedence order of the work. One possible approach might be to do a trend analysis of some sort on paper subject matter to see what subjects were trending.

    A more comparative study might be to design a study to survey the strength of belief of “climate scientists” themselves. But that would have to be done by interacting with the investigators and eliciting their views directly, constructing an adequate belief scale, developing a reliable elicitation process, and careful consideration of the population.

    In any event, technical aspects in the Cook study that lead to significantly different measures say much more about the strength of belief of “believers” than anything else.

  20. @FAH
    That is exactly right. 3167 abstracts (out of 11944) were demonstrably misclassified. 99.4% of those were rated as endorsements.

  21. Anthony Watts says:

    Dr. Tol, I suggest that you should ask for equal space in the Guardian to publish a rebuttal on this paper, since it’s clearly hosed now.

  22. Michael Jankowski says:

    “In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol

    That’s a pretty poor “defense.” Dana had every opportunity to involve someone who knew stats inside-and-out, right? Seems like we’ve seen this sort of issue before (repeatedly) with publications related to climate science.

  23. thingodonta says:

    Cook and Dana deep down believe they only need to include papers they agree with anyway, since they already know what is true. An extreme case of confirmation bias if ever there was one, just choose the papers that suit, the others are all wrong anyway.

  24. Poptech says:

    “If your sample is not representative (which it isn’t) your conclusions are worthless.” – Richard Tol

    What is Dana going to rename his blog at The Guardian when this is over?

  25. Ken Gregory says:

    We have issued two news releases on the Cook study via PRWeb:
    “Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change”
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=657 and,
    “Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change”
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=655

    The IPCC and climate alarmists claim that 90% to 100% of the recent warming (since 1975) was caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

    Only 0.54% (65 of the 12,000 abstracts rated) suggest that humans are responsible for more than 50% of the global warming up to 2001, contrary to the alleged 97% consensus amongst scientists in the Cook et al study.

    The Cook et al study data base has seven categories of rated abstracts.
    1. 65 explicit endorse, >50% warming caused by man (See link in first news release)
    2. 934 explicit endorse
    3. 2933 implicit endorse
    4. 8261 no position
    5. 53 implicit reject
    6. 15 explicit reject
    7. 10 explicit reject, <50% warming caused by man

    We can't even say that 65 abstracts in the "explicit endorse" category, or 0.54% of 12,000 abstracts, supports the IPCC consensus as many climate skeptics believe the humans (via black soot, UHI, GHG) may cause 50 to 80% of the warming, but strongly disagree that man-made greenhouse gases have caused more that 90% of the 20th century warming. There has been no warming for 16 years, a fact that strongly supports the skeptics case.

  26. dbstealey says:

    I would like to have those ‘scientists’ view this chart, and then answer the questions.

  27. NikFromNYC says:

    The self-destruction of climatology now has momentum, first Mann supporting a truly defective hockey stick that has no hockey stick in the input data as if it validated his complex black boxes, and now the original 97% claim is being officially propped up by fraud of such grade school level of basic fibbing that it suddenly no longer requires trusted statisticians to fully explain it all to casual readers, and the next cycle of popular books and documentaries promise to inspire an utterly massive backlash not just against rogue science but the whole Left Wing, all because they dug their own graves this fine season.

  28. Scarface says:

    Jack Savage says: June 1, 2013 at 7:56 am
    “I think if you are going to print out Dr.Tol’s qualifications and CV it is only fair that you should do the same with Dana’s….”

    There is a 97% consensus that the dog ate his resume.

  29. Stephen Richards says:

    “In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni”

    I bet That left a mark !!

  30. No CV online, but there is a bio:
    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.

    Scopus lists 1 paper: Comment on Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts, Physics Letters A, 2012

  31. JJ says:

    Richard Tol (‏@RichardTol )

    @dana1981 Indeed you are. If your sample is not representative (which it isn’t) your conclusions are worthless.

    In his defense, even if [Dana's] sample is representative (which it isn’t), his conclusions are worthless.

  32. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Should Cook et al have searched for “Warming” instead of “Global Warming” as well? ;)

  33. Rud Istvan says:

    Dr. Tol, I wonder whether you (perhaps together with others) will dig up enough information to attempt to get the paper retracted? That would be more globally helpful than the debate with Nucitelli, since could be used, for example, to counter the presidential tweet.
    Appreciate your work on this.
    Regards

  34. @Rud
    Dan Kammen, the editor in chief, featured in the press release.

  35. James Smyth says:

    :dbstealy said

    Why not just use the full MSU data set?

  36. Steven R. Vada says:

    It’s gross incompetence to have not searched all three. With modern word processing it’s just more evidence of a stunt by a liberal to lie since he perceives all life as a lie since there are inequities intrinsic to existence.

    That’s half the point : in many senses it EPITOMIZES the eco-waco/rebellion-as-yardstick ‘siyunts’
    Standard physics believes in conservation of energy.
    The word conservative is nearly in that, so eco-wackos are against it: and sure enough there’s Trenberth with his “More light out, than went in” energy budget – that he’s got his idiot friends in Academia endorsing.

    It’s past pathetic; it’s crime really.
    Teaching a generation that because there’s no policeman to imprison one for lying to get funds
    it’s crime.

    ====
    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    June 1, 2013 at 12:17 pm

    Should Cook et al have searched for “Warming” instead of “Global Warming” as well? ;)

  37. Steven R. Vada says:

    Even if it’s not a fracture of statute; which – it is and always was.

  38. Gary Hladik says:

    “[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol

    We should give Dana some credit here: He may have worked very hard to find the search phrase that gave him exactly what he was looking for. :-)

  39. Rich Horton says:

    Forgive my ignorance, but is ERL a peer reviewed journal? If so, does the word “peer” now mean “another person who does not know statistics”?

  40. dbstealey says:

    James Smyth says:

    “Why not just use the full MSU data set?”

    There is no established “full data set”. Your chart is arbitrary. I used the chart that I posted to show that the warming trend has been broken, beginning around 16 years ago. Since then, the planet has been cooling, even as CO2 continues to rise.

    But we can go farther back if you like, to the beginning of consistent and unbroken thermometer records. The ‘full data set’ for the CET is shown here.

    Note that there has been NO acceleration in [natural] global warming. The recent ≈40% rise in CO2 has NOT resulted in ANY accelertation in global warming. What is being observed now has happened before — when CO2 was much lower.

    Conclusion: CO2 does not cause any measurable global warming. Therefore, the entire “carbon” scare is deconstructed. The conjecture claiming that CO2 = AGW has no scientific evidence to support it.

    This is not to say that CO2 has no effect on temperature. It only points out that if there is any effect, it is so minuscule that it cannot be measured. Therefore, no additional public funds should be expended on something that is too small to measure.

  41. philjourdan says:

    But Dr. Tol is a denier! Nuccy told us so!

    I guess there is still some integrity in the AGW camp. When it came time to promote the talking points or stick to science, some manage to maintain their integrity and stuck with science.

  42. Max Hugoson says:

    When one considers that Dr. Tol is saying that Cook, et. al. DO NOT UNDERSTAND the bell shaped curve of a “normal distribution” we then can come to a classic conclusion.

    So it’s obvious that we need to say to Cook:

    “Ask not for whom the TOL “bells”, the TOL BELLS FOR THEE!” (Apologies to John Donne)

  43. Jimbo says:

    To settle this matter I think sceptics need to produce a study then a paper based on a survey of say 200 climate scientists. It seems to me you can’t just ask one question as there will be shades of view. For example.

    Q1) Has man-made co2 been responsible for most of the recent warming?
    Q2) Has man-made co2 been responsible for all of the recent warming?
    Q3) Has man-made co2 been responsible for less than half of the recent warming?
    Q4) Has man-made co2 not had any effect at all on the recent warming?
    Q5) Don’t know?

    Is this suggestion sensible? Anyway, it certainly would not be 97%

    See the
    The Paradox of Consensus [wUWT]
    “Theories that can be easily tested should have a high degree of consensus among researchers. Those involving chaotic and less testable questions – climate change or economic growth, physiology or financial markets – ought to have a greater level of scientific disagreement. Yet this is hardly the case for climate science. In the Paradox of Consensus, we illustrate that the greater the level of consensus for certain classes of hypotheses (those that are difficult to test) the less truth we should assign to them.”

  44. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?

  45. Jimbo says:

    Would some published papers use “temperature rise” / “rise in global mean temperature” instead of “climate change” or “global warming”?

  46. RACookPE1978 says:

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    June 1, 2013 at 8:31 am

    Note that the above is only about the representativeness of the sample, which is poor.

    I’m now looking at data quality. This is made difficult because crucial data were held back by the authors, or perhaps not collected or stored. (sic). Even with the little data available, there is convincing (to me) evidence of bias.

    Oh, and there are some arithmetic errors too.

    Thank you for the honor of your time, and the effort of your responses here.

  47. dbstealey says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?”

    You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.

  48. Carrick says:

    Jimbo:

    Would some published papers use “temperature rise” / “rise in global mean temperature” instead of “climate change” or “global warming”?

    Probably there will be some that are missed, but that’s why it’s important to do some data quality control. For example, use authors like James Hansen who have listed all of their climate-change related pubs for validation of your search protocol. See how many you are missing and tune your search accordingly.

    You shouldn’t be just getting 25% of all of Hansen’s papers or miss 33 of the 50 most cited papers for example.

  49. tolo4zero says:

    If you look at the abstracts Cook used, some of them actually counter skeptical sciences claim that 97% of scientists feel CO2 is causing global climate changes and the consequences could be catatstrophic.
    “Atmospheric Methane – Its Contribution To Global Warming,Applied Energy,Badr| O; Probert| Sd; Ocallaghan| Pw,2,2″
    Used as proof of AGW, but counters the CO2 theory, as methane is the problem.

    “1991,Buying Environmental Insurance – Prospects For Trading Of Global Climate-protection Services,Climatic Change,Swisher| Jn; Masters| Gm,3,2″
    “1991,Buying Greenhouse Insurance,Energy Policy,Manne| As; Richels| Rg,3,3″
    Two on buying insurance ( biased maybe)

    “Global Warming And The Growth Of Ice Sheets,Climate Dynamics,Ledley| Ts; Chu| Sp,2,3″
    Ice sheets growing, counters the catatastrophic consequences claim.

    “Varying Boreal Forest Response To Arctic Environmental Change At The Firth River| Alaska,Environmental Research Letters,Andreu-hayles| L; D’arrigo| R; Anchukaitis| Kj; Beck| Psa; Frank| D; Goetz| S,2,”
    Evergreen trees at the edge of Alaska’s tundra are growing faster, suggesting that at least some forests may be adapting to a rapidly warming climate, says a new study, counters the catastrophic theory.

    This is just a random look…

  50. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @dbstealey

    Yawn…

    As if it were not clear that I gave Jimbo an extra option for his list. I could think of others still.

    “You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”

    Lame… Really lame…

  51. Pointman says:

    It’s like watching yet another particularly bad piece of homework, brimming with elementary errors, which is being corrected by a tired and increasingly exasperated teacher. Another score of F minus, I’m afraid. Time for a concerned word with young Jimmy’s parents.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/la-la-la-i-cant-hear-you-im-not-listening/

    Pointman

  52. philincalifornia says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    June 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    @dbstealey
    “You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”

    Lame… Really lame…
    ============================
    Don’t duck the question. Present it.

    I would be particularly interested in the tested empirical evidence at 400 ppm CO2 vs. 280 ppm CO2.

  53. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @philincalifornia

    I would be particularly interested in why dbstealey asked me the question in the first place.

    Further for you a big ‘Yawn…’ as well. Can’t one present an extra option to Jimbo’s list without being pressed in answering some non relevant question? So phil (in CA), why don’t you tell me what you think what could be added to Jimbo’s list? I hate to repeat myself, but there you go: Lame…

  54. philincalifornia says:

    I’m asking you to not repeat yourself. dbstealey asked you a question. Duck it or answer it. If you can’t answer it, that’s fine. Don’t say it’s lame though.

    Jimbo’s post is not a part of this interchange, so don’t use it as a diversionary tactic.

  55. James Smyth says:

    There is no established “full data set”. Your chart is arbitrary.
    Nonsense, with respect to RSS MSU … It. Is. All. Of. The. Data.

  56. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @philincalifornia

    “I’m asking you to not repeat yourself.”

    Nobody says you did.

    “dbstealey asked you a question.”

    Yeah. But why?

    “Duck it or answer it.”

    Wasn’t I clear enough?

    “If you can’t answer it, that’s fine.”

    Now, that’s really lame!

    “Don’t say it’s lame though.”

    I won’t say it again, I promise!

    “Jimbo’s post is not a part of this interchange, so don’t use it as a diversionary tactic.”

    I present Jimbo with an additional option: “Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?” So far so good. Then dbstealey storms in with “You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.” And you are saying I use diversionary tactics? I am sorry, but that is actually quite demure.

  57. philincalifornia says:

    OK, so you can’t.

    See ya

  58. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @philincalifornia

    Yawn…

  59. Colorado Wellington says:

    In their defense, Milli Vanilli have had limited exposure to singing before their lip-syncing debacle.

  60. philincalifornia says:

    Sweet dreams

  61. It wasn’t just Tol that slammed Dana, so did one of the media outlets:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516

    “…Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”…”

    Somehow, the writer got Dana’s sex wrong. Maybe if he grew a set, they might believe him.

  62. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Sleep well!

    But suppose I had said:

    “Q7) Has man-made co2 been responsible for preventing much of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have warmed more)?”

    and dbstealey would pick on me by saying:

    “You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global cooling. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”

    Then what you have said? Just saying. Enjoy a good night’s sleep.

  63. philincalifornia says:

  64. dbstealey says:

    Reich.Eschhaus,

    Wrong as usual. You are trying to put skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative — a common tactic among the alarmist crowd.

    In fact, it is your conjecture that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, you must provide strong scientific evidence that this is so. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. That is how the scientific method works. You just have it backward.

    You can believe that CO2 causes global warming. But you have no corroborating evidence. All you have is your assertion, which in this case only amounts to hand-waving.

    Wake me when you can produce testable, empirical, verifiable, and reproducible scientific evidence to support your belief. Until then, this tells the story.

  65. Richard Allcock says:

    In the second of the Tol graphics (“Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.) there seems to be a large number of those researchers who have EXACTLY 10 papers with the words “Global climate change”, regardless of the total number of papers……How odd that it would be exactly 10 – What’s up with that?

  66. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @dbstealey

    Sleep tight!

    “In fact, it is your conjecture that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, you must provide strong scientific evidence that this is so. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. That is how the scientific method works. You just have it backward.”

    Where did I do that? I gave Jimbo another option, nothing more, nothing less.

    Keep Dreaming!

  67. RACookPE1978 says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:
    June 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm

    … Odd. You have said many words, often in quite a demaning and irritating manner, but you have yet to communicate anything.

    Let us phrase dbs’s question as an observation:

    While CO2 has been steady, global temperatures and temperature proxies have risen, fallen, and been steady for 15 to 25 year-long periods.
    While CO2 has risen 30%, global temperatures and temperature proxies have risen, fallen, and been steady for 15 to 25 year long periods.

    The earth has conducted a 140 year experiment and CO2 =>CAGW has been proven false.

  68. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    @ RACookPE1978

    Plain bullshit! I only added another option to Jimbo’s list. Everything else is not my responsibility. Why should I care about dbstealeys question/observation?

    “… Odd. You have said many words, often in quite a demaning and irritating manner, but you have yet to communicate anything.”

    Learn to write and to understand.

  69. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    Thanks dbstealey for turning this in a total off topic discussion. I am off to bed now. Things are crazy here…

  70. dbstealey says:

    Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “Where did I do that?”

    You did that when you tried to push scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative [that CO2 causes 'global cooling']. Skeptics have never asserted that conjecture, and it is only desperation on your part to try and force skeptics into that corner.

    Skeptics have debated much smarter folks than you, and come out on top. So you should probably trot on back to your ‘Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science’ blog. They lap up the kind of nonsense that you’re posting here.

    And you ask: “Why should I care about dbstealeys question/observation?”

    Well, obviously you do care, since you keep digging your hole deeper.

  71. Reich.Eschhaus says:

    “You did that when you tried to push scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative [that CO2 causes 'global cooling']. Skeptics have never asserted that conjecture, and it is only desperation on your part to try and force skeptics into that corner.”

    What? I see only batshit crazy comments on my

    Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?

    option presented to Jimbo.

    You crazy?

  72. dbstealey says:

    Reich.Eschhaus,

    You keep saying it’s past your bedtime. Better take your own advice, because your comments are making less and less sense. Best lay off the MD 20/20, too.☺

  73. johanna says:

    Cook made a big mistake in mischaracterising Dr Richard Tol. Not only is Dr Tol a distinguished person in the field, he is a Dutchman. As with the Scots (with whom we have a lot of affinity), it is well to note the motto of the Scottish regiments of the British Army:

    “Nemo me impune lacessit”

    It is often translated as No one attacks me with impunity, or rendered in Scots as Wha daur meddle wi me?[2] (“Cha togar m’ fhearg gun dìoladh” in Scottish Gaelic). It is also alternatively translated into English as No one can harm me unpunished or Who dares meddle with me?

    I have followed Dr Tol’s work for some years (mostly via Bishop Hill) and can attest that he is moderate, polite, and careful about what he says.

    But, like that tenacious old Scottish Canadian Steve McIntyre, if he gets annoyed, look out. Once he makes up his mind to go after you, you are in for a world of pain.

  74. Poptech says:

    “Reich.Eschhaus” who is “not” a member Skeptical Science and does “not” use proxies is back to defend Skeptical Science.

  75. Poptech says:

    Rud Istvan says: “since could be used, for example, to counter the presidential tweet.”

    I have something to counter the presidential tweet but am holding off on it for a few days since Dr. Tol released these devastating blows.

  76. Streetcred says:

    “Dan Kammen, the editor in chief, featured in the press release.” … Dr Tol.

    Maybe Mr Kammen should consider offering his resignation … merely publishing a non-warmist paper has been a good enough excuse for others in the past ;)

  77. @Richard Allcock
    10 is a bounds estimate. WoS offers the 100 most productive researchers in the two samples. 11 papers is the cut-off from the smaller sample. The omitted ones therefore have AT MOST 10 papers in the smaller sample. So the 10 is me being generous to Cook et al.

  78. David L. says:

    As has been stated here many times , the idea of a scientific consensus is meaningless. For hundreds of years the scientific consensus held that the earth was the centre of the universe, objects fell at a rate proportional to their weight, and there were four elements. and “blood letting” was a common cure.

  79. Peter Miller says:

    This is Dana’s twitter. Some really weird stuff here, including comments from the leading black hatted guys in the Climate Change Industry.

    Perhaps it should be retitled “Ecoloons United”

    https://twitter.com/dana1981

  80. Chris Wright says:

    On Friday the Daily Telegraph printed a much shortened/edited version of my email on this subject:

    “It is not true that 97 per cent of academic papers supported the Anthropogenic Global (sic) Warming (AGW) theory. Around 32 per cent of papers endorsed AGW while around 66 per cent stated no position for or against AGW.
    To add these two numbers together is fradulent.”

    The editor mistakenly used the word Global, of course it should have been Greenhouse. Still, it was nice to see this printed. There were two other sceptical letters also.
    Chris

  81. Ian H says:

    Dana is clearly a nonagintaseptemist, a person practiced in the art of getting the answer 97% whatever the data or the question. However he doesn’t appear to be a very good one.

  82. DirkH says:

    henrythethird says:
    June 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm
    “It wasn’t just Tol that slammed Dana, so did one of the media outlets:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516

    Oh come on. That the quality journalists at Thomson Reuters manage to get the sex of a guy called Dana wrong is the stuff of teenage giggles.
    The Thomson Reuters article does its very best to spread the myth of CO2AGW and of the newly constructed 97% lie.
    One of the directors on board the Thomson Reuters board of trustees is Ultra globalist Pascal Lamy.
    The globalists are currently having their ICLEI / Agenda 21 love fest in Bonn. Everyone there says that the biggest problem their city faces is The Climate Change. Go figure.
    For a planet that hasn’t warmed in 15 years they sure talk a lot about The Climate Change
    http://www.iclei.org/en/our-activities/our-agendas/resilient-city/resilient-cities-2013-live-blog/day-2.html

    They are obviously lying, and Thomson Reuters helps them to stick to their lie, and Dana Nuccitelli and cartoonist John Cook have fabricated the latest confirmation for the lie.

  83. DirkH says:

    I’ve looked again at the Reuters propaganda piece, and it is about as false as it can get, even in marginal points like this:
    “Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, hit 400 parts per million in the atmosphere last week, the highest in perhaps 3 million years.”

    The main greenhouse gas is water vapor.
    Reuters has given up any pretense of reporting and plunged 100% into agitprop.

  84. Hugh K says:

    @ philincalifornia says: June 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm

    Brilliant metaphor that sums up concisely the entire CAGW mind(feeling?)set. I give it an ’11′.

    Thanks for the long belly laugh….I think – Now I have to convince my wife that sitting alone in a room while laughing hysterically does not necessarily mean I have gone entirely mad.

  85. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    “It’s easy to call anyone a cheat. Of course, proving it to all is quite rare, but not finishing it of by calling them out as a cheat, is even rarer still. Classy stuff Dr. Tol

    Pointman

    I think it is actually worse than that. He is saying Cook is just plain stupid.

    And that is some dumb.

    Bring on the bag of hammers.

  86. Poptech says:

    Dana “Denier” Nuccitelli.

  87. Mario Lento says:

    dbstealey says:
    June 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm
    ++++++++++++
    Great posts sir… I love how you reason with CAGW ideologist folk!

  88. Mario Lento says:

    @Reich.Eschhaus:
    ++++++++
    with regard to your comments, you sounds like a young person who does not know how to make cogent thoughts. You fail to make any statements based on anything thoughtful. Yet you use words like “yawn, lame etc.” However, you’re helping to define yourself. And I don’t care if you are tired and want to go to bed… Is that not off topic?

Comments are closed.