I’ve stayed out of this fracas and watched it all unfold from the sidelines on Twitter the last two days. My entry into it (with this post) was prompted by an unlikely catalyst: Keith Kloor, who I find myself agreeing with on this rare occasion. He writes in The Dirty Art of Character Assassination:
Meanwhile, the poisonous debate has grown worse, with self-appointed soldiers of the warring sides seeing enemies at every turn. Some of these climate soldiers are always on the lookout, like snipers, eager to take out (or at least undermine) a perceived foe. A case in point happened on Twitter today, when climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli fired this missive:
Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public http://t.co/QQZd3wFjQz via @LiveScience
— Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) December 4, 2013
This was news to me, as I’m pretty familiar with Roger’s work. So I clicked on Dana’s supporting link. It’s to an op-ed by six leading tornado experts, including Harold Brooks, who responded:
@RogerPielkeJr @dana1981 Roger's not referenced, just Muller. We never even thought about Roger's work in putting that together.
— Harold Brooks (@hebrooks87) December 4, 2013
At this point, I asked Dana to clarify which tornado experts claim Roger is “misleading the American public”? He didn’t respond. What he did do is move the goalposts. But even that was incorrect, as Brooks quickly pointed out.
What happened next was astonishing: Rather than apologize, Dana twisted himself into semantic knots in an effort to show that Roger was in the wrong. I tried asking several more times:
@dana1981, Let me know when you find that tornado expert that says @RogerPielkeJr is misleading the public.
— keith kloor (@keithkloor) December 4, 2013
I’ll let you know if I hear back.
In comments, the vitriol flowed as Dana dug his own hole even deeper. Some selections:
===============================================================
Dana continues to embarrass himself and the community that he purports to represent.
I co-authored a 2013 peer-reviewed paper which indeed concluded that “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”
See it here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado….
Dana may not like those conclusions. He may disagree with them. That is fine, happens all the time in science. Rather than trying to accuse me of “misleading the public” by claiming falsely that other experts had made that accusation, he might instead try to explain where our analysis of tornado data is mistaken in its analysis or conclusions. I am happy to hear his arguments, were he to actually make any. The idea that a climate blogger can somehow dictate what an academic can and can’t say about their own research gives a window into some of the deep pathologies in the climate debate.
I did state in my Congressional testimony that “The inability to detect and attribute changes in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and drought does not mean that human-caused climate change is not real or of concern.” Dana is picking the wrong fight — wrong topic and wrong person.
I will continue to discuss our published research, and will do so accurately and faithfully to what we conclude in the peer reviewed literature. I’d ask Dana to follow the same standards.
===============================================================
You’re shifting the goalposts again, Roger. I didn’t say anything about your research. I’m not in a position to say if it’s wrong or right. Your statements to Congress, which I quoted in my comment, are not consistent with your research. You left out the critical caveats that the data aren’t sound enough to make conclusive statements – instead you made those conclusive statements to our policymakers. That is exactly the type of behavior criticized by Markowski et al. in their Op-Ed, as I quoted in my comment.
And really, can’t you make your arguments without claiming I’m ’embarrasing myself’? Let others make that kind of judgment for themselves, if you believe your arguments are sound. I suspect your abusive comments are due to the fact you know you’re in the wrong, and are trying to distract from the fact that you refuse to admit your errors.
Why don’t you just admit your Congressional testimony was misleading in the manner criticized by Markowski et al.? We all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit my initial Tweet was imprecise, because while the Op-Ed criticized comments similar to yours, they didn’t name you specifically. That was my mistake.
===============================================================
Dana, this will be my last reply to you as you continue to lie and misrepresent.
The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”
Our paper (linked above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.”
You can argue that scientists have accused me of misleading the public and you can claim that my testimony is inconsistent with my research. In both cases the evidence shows you to be not simply wrong, by misleading and even lying.
I do appreciate your willingness to dig in your heels and continue this display. I agree with you that those paying attention will be fully empowered to reach fair conclusions.
Thanks again for the exchange. Very educational, and not just for me.
===============================================================
Markowski et al.:
“Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
Pielke Congressional testimony:
“Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950”
Someone is wrong. If you want to argue Markowski et al. are wrong, then do it. But don’t try to hide behind what you said in your paper, because that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is the above quote from your Congressional testimony.
And I agree, this has been very educational. Though I didn’t learn much about you that I didn’t already know.
===============================================================
Tom Fuller jumped in with this:
===============================================================
Nucitelli: (non-existent experts say) “Pielke is misleading the public.”
Nucitelli: “I didn’t say anything about your research. I’m not in a position to say if it’s wrong or right.”
===============================================================
and this…
===============================================================
At the most macro of levels, the thrust of Pielke’s research findings are not being contested. If there is a climate change signal in the phenomena Pielke has studied, it is either or both too slight or too recent to discern.
At the general level of climate discussions Pielke’s findings clearly are an effective (if not conclusive) counter argument to those claiming that Xtreme Weather is already upon us. As even the IPCC does not claim this (but rather echoes the ‘too slight, too recent to discern’ position), Nuccitelli’s blasts (which are, as Keith points out) not unusual, can be taken as political agitprop against someone he perceives as an enemy.
At the specific level of Pielke’s findings, they have not been effectively disputed in the literature that I have seen. What has happened is that other research has focused on phenomena not covered by Pielke and saying ‘That’s where the Xtreme Weather is!’
As for Pielke’s comment on this thread, Pielke is clearly wrong. Nuccitelli and the community he purports to represent are impervious to embarrassment–witness the acceptance of slipshod science that favors their side, such as Lewandowsky, Prall, Anderegg et al, etc., and their blithe embrace of criminal behavior by Peter Gleick simply because he’s on the side of the angels.
Nuccitelli’s just a hitman and it’s important to recognize that in this dispute he has won despite being wrong on the facts and sleazy in his approach. Every published slam against Pielke (in this case–there are dozens of other targets) becomes a reference point that he can use himself to say (a la Joe Romm) that Pielke has been debunked.
These garbage tactics work, so they don’t stop. They trashed Pielke’s father–mercilessly, wrongly and just as sleazily. Why would they spare his son?
==============================================================
Maurizio points out:
==============================================================
Read what Dana wrote about Roger (and Lomborg) on Sep 18, including accusations of ineptitude, incompetence and lack of honesty:
>>>>
http://wottsupwiththatblog.wor…
Dana Nuccitelli says:
Thanks for posting this. I’m putting together a list of contrarians making this bogus argument to rub it in their faces in 10 days when the IPCC report comes out and proves them wrong (which it will). Pielke Jr. made a similarly inept argument today (only plotting the multi-model mean and ignoring the envelope of model runs and uncertainty range).
So much for these two being ‘honest brokers’ or, you know, competent at interpreting data.
<<<<<
==============================================================
And it gets even worse: Kloor himself takes on Dana here, saying “Stop playing the victim card. It’s unbecoming.”
Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behavior that I agreed with, and let me tell you, it is a unique day indeed when Mr. Connolley and I agree upon anything.
William Connolley to Dana "Man up and stop making excuses" @TLITB1 @Bioreducer @RogerPielkeJr @wattsupwiththat https://t.co/PF3kYeUPt7
— BJW (@BarryJWoods) December 5, 2013
==============================================================
All of this could have been avoided by a simple admission of making a mistake, and offering an apology. Everybody would have been moving on.
Instead, we have a spectacle of unprecedented stubbornness, coupled with the sort of egotistical stonewalling we’d expect to see from a politician, something that people are going to remember for quite some time.
This quote might be an apt summary of what we’ve witnessed from Dana:
“There is one thing that has disappeared, not just from the U.S. but from the entire world, is the idea of ever being embarrassed by anything.” ― Fran Lebowitz
I wonder how this is going over with his co-workers at the oil company?
@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
Dana is arguing about his revelations regarding the miracle of AGW. He is not discussing a rational process. Sadly for Dana, his revelation does not hold him to a high standard of ethical behavior. Also sadly for Dana, he is not bright enough to talk his way out of his errors. He can only hope to shout more loudly and arm wave as distractions from his failure.
Dana Nucitelli, Joe Romm, Stefan Lewandowsky, and so many other stubborn and arrogant alarmists activists act like they’ve got all the money in the world backing them. Well, maybe they used to, but we’re about out of other people’s money.
================
Impervious to embarrassment. Righteousness trumps sanity.
One of Fuller’s other comments:
==================================
Thomas Fuller >> ConcernedScientist
There was a significant increase in tornado occurrence during two periods in the last 33 years – in the early 1980s when National Weather Service (NWS) warning verification began, and in 1990 when the WSR-88D became operational.
The increase in reported tornado frequency during the early 1990s corresponds to the operational implementation of Doppler weather radars. Other non meteorological factors that must be considered when looking at the increase in reported tornado frequency over the past 33 years are the advent of cellular telephones; the development of spotter networks by NWS offices, local emergency management officials, and local media; and population shifts. The growing “hobby” of tornado chasing has also contributed to the increasing number of reported tornadoes.
==================================
I outlined all of that here:
Why it seems that severe weather is “getting worse” when the data shows otherwise – a historical perspective
…PaulH throws up his hands and slowly walks backwards out of the room…
If you go to WOTTS and I’m not saying that I don’t have to wash after that but the snipping in comments is a site to see they be at one another s throats over this as Dana will not back down still .
When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging…
Roger Pielke Jr. wrote: “The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Our paper (linked above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.” ”
No. The two quotes are different. The second says there is no evidence for X. The first says X is false. But just because the is no evidence that X is true does not mean we have evidence X is false. The status of X is simply unknown. That is, “Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy.
I agree with the criticisms of DN. From a purely technical point, I think he misinterpreted what RP said. RP said that actual tornadoes hadn’t increased. Of course, that’s a verifiable fact.
I think DN interpreted RP’s comment as meaning something like: “The underlying propensity for tornadoes hasn’t increased.” That’s not a verifiable fact. It’s not even clear that the underlying propensity for tornadoes is objectively definable. Anyhow, my impression is that DN was disagreeing with something like this incorrect interpretation of what RP said.
I wonder if this jumping the shark moment is actually prepositioning in order to secure a new postion should his currnt big energy employer get tired of the embarrassment.
As Tallbloke says…Popcorn.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/12/04/more-missing-variable-shenanigans-from-the-ipcc/comment-page-1/#comment-64160
Dana is a perfect example of what Evan Sayet called ‘the permanently infantilized’.
Oh goodness me there are several other wot(t)supwiththat web sites. Well I never. WUWT is having babies.
Dana and his mates are Xtreme Activist Nutcases who will continue to distort the truth (lie) in order to push their particular religion down the throats of the increasingly skeptical public.
@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
Anthony: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.
This is one of those moments when you’re driving past an accident and you can’t help but look.
Just imagine if there were a picture of Dana in a German tank gaily heading off to Stalingrad – how apt that would be!
Niff says:
December 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Impervious to embarrassment. Righteousness trumps sanity.
________________________________________________
“Self-Righteousness trumps sanity.”
Fixed… your use of the word “righteousness” is less than optimal. The proper etymology of the word “righteous” reveals its intent: ‘right use’, as in the right use of an aspect of consciousness.
Self- righteousness more aptly implies a self- justified misuse of an aspect of consciousness, which (I think,) is what you meant.
“Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”
Even the Winston Smith of wikipedia is waking up to the reality. In the age of the Internet the shame of global warming advocacy burns forever. His record of over 5000 climate gate-keeping edits and the intentional smearing and vilification of sceptics is permanent.
For the fellow travellers in the AGW inanity there can be no safe landing. The is no hope of reaching the alternates, “bio-crisis” or “sustainability”. The Internet is tiger country. All the activists, pseudo scientists, journalists and politicians who sough to promote or profit by the global warming scam really only have 2 options left –
1. Bail out and attempt escape and evasion.
2. Ram the throttles past the afterburner indent to “full stupid” and auger in.
Romm, Mann, Flim Flammery, Gleick and now Scooter boy have chosen option 2.
Anthony,
It becomes clear that Dana’s obnoxious behavior arises from a) his predisposition to dislike Roger Pielke, Jr. and b) his misunderstanding of Pielke’s work. Dr. Pielke builds on the incidence of violent tornado data by also considering normalized damage. Since the incidence and damage data align he is able to express a level of confidence that there is a negative trend in incidence. Without considering damage, issues related to things like the introduction of Doppler radar make it difficult on climate scales to make such a conclusion with the same level of confidence. Dana is pitting one expert against another without understanding what either one is doing.
Further to that point a tweeter named @thingsbreak has now gotten Dr. Brooks to contradict some of Dr. Pielke’s conclusions regarding tornado incidence.
Dr. Brooks replies,
But of course Dr. Brooks wasn’t given any context for the question. He has no idea that he is responding to a statement made by Dr. Pielke in a 2 year old blog post. And without knowing the source he has no idea of the basis of the statement. He would of course answer the question on the basis of his own work even though he might also agree (or respectfully disagree) with Dr. Pielke. But shameless Dana can’t help but pronounce this as vindication in a post at the WOTTS trolling blog.
ColdinOz says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html
a similar tale:
from Australia’s “The Monthly”, which describes itself thus:
““The Monthly is one of Australia’s boldest voices, providing enlightening commentary and vigorous, at times controversial, debate on the issues that affect the nation. Home to our finest thinkers, journalists and critics, the magazine offers a mix of investigative reportage, critical essays and thoughtful reviews. The Monthly was named winner of the Current Affairs, Business and Finance category for the second consecutive year at the 2012 Australian Magazine Awards. The Monthly was also a finalist for Magazine of the Year”
we have this preview of what was called “The Searing Truth” on radio today & in TheMonthlyTwitter entries online. i’ve heard the rest of the interview on a radio station for the visually impaired, & it’s full of emotional, personal anecdotes connecting our Australian bushfires & “climate change”:
Dec: 2013: The Monthly: Robert Kenny: We don’t want to believe in climate change
Fire, Climate and denial
PREVIEW: We don’t cause climate change. Other people do. Many of us, perhaps most who believe in anthropogenic climate change, hold this sentiment to be true. Someone with a “Think Globally, Act Locally” sticker on her gas-guzzling wreck once explained to me that it didn’t matter what she drove since it was possible to create clean fuel from water but oil companies were suppressing the technology. They were to blame. This is an extreme case of what many of us do: our diligent recycling or bicycle-riding lets us absolve ourselves of blame even though we consume far more than we need, live in oversized houses and do not believe population growth in Australia contributes to global population growth, or indeed that population growth is in any way related to climate change or species extinction. Similarly, some of us believe Australia’s emissions are so inconsequential compared to those of great polluters like China and the United States that it would be ill-advised to endanger the Australian economy, and jobs, with environmental taxes…
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/december/1385816400/robert-kenny/we-dont-want-believe-climate-change
in a New York, much-derided, Murdoch tabloid today, we have:
5 Dec: NY Post: Michael Fumento: Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along…
For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more…
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s…
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
surely the tabloid – on this occasion – is more fact-based than the pseudo-intellectual TheMonthly!
…”and their blithe embrace of criminal behavior by Peter Gleick simply because he’s on the side of the angels.”
=========
Best to be on their good side.
Even better to know which side that is.
ColdinOz says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm
@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
*: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html
Lorne 50,
Oh yes over at wotts, I read open jawed, it’s a car crash of a thread , fighting like rats cornered in a trap.
I was almost rolling on the ground with laughter.