The self induced implosion of Dana Nuccitelli

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:

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:

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:

I’ll let you know if I hear back.

In comments, the vitriol flowed as Dana dug his own hole even deeper. Some selections:

===============================================================

Roger Pielke Jr.

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.

===============================================================

Dana Nuccitelli >> Roger Pielke Jr.

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.

===============================================================

Roger Pielke Jr. >> Dana Nuccitelli

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.

===============================================================

Dana Nuccitelli >> Roger Pielke Jr.

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:

===============================================================

Thomas Fuller >> Dana Nuccitelli

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…

===============================================================

Thomas Fuller>> Dana Nuccitelli

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:

==============================================================

Maurizio Morabito >>Dana Nuccitelli
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.

==============================================================

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
###
About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness. Bookmark the permalink.

127 Responses to The self induced implosion of Dana Nuccitelli

  1. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    I wonder how this is going over with his co-workers at the oil company?

  2. Anthony Watts says:

    @Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.

  3. lurker, passing through laughing says:

    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.

  4. kim says:

    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.
    ================

  5. Niff says:

    Impervious to embarrassment. Righteousness trumps sanity.

  6. PaulH says:

    …PaulH throws up his hands and slowly walks backwards out of the room…

  7. lorne50 says:

    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 .

  8. Anthony Watts says:

    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

  9. Scott Basinger says:

    When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging…

  10. Felix says:

    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.

  11. David in Cal says:

    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.

  12. Rob Dawg says:

    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.

  13. Rick Bradford says:

    Dana is a perfect example of what Evan Sayet called ‘the permanently infantilized’.

  14. James Allison says:

    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.

  15. ColdinOz says:

    @Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
    Anthony: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.

  16. Bill from Ottawa says:

    This is one of those moments when you’re driving past an accident and you can’t help but look.

  17. P. Berkin says:

    Just imagine if there were a picture of Dana in a German tank gaily heading off to Stalingrad – how apt that would be!

  18. Alan Robertson says:

    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.

  19. Konrad says:

    “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.

  20. DGH says:

    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.

    Q for @hebrooks87: Would you testify "Tornadoes have not increased in frequency [or] intensity…since 1950" before Congress?— Things Break (@thingsbreak) December 5, 2013

    Dr. Brooks replies,

    @thingsbreak No. I'd testify no evidence for incr./decr. tornado freq./intensity since '54. Likely incr variability in occurrence recently.— Harold Brooks (@hebrooks87) December 5, 2013

    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.

  21. clipe says:

    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.
    Anthony: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.

    http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html

  22. pat says:

    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!

  23. u.k.(us) says:

    …”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.

  24. clipe says:

    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

  25. Richard says:

    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.

  26. Alan Robertson says:

    Konrad says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm

    “Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”

    For the fellow travellers in the AGW inanity there can be no safe landing.
    __________________________
    It has become difficult to regard any of “the travellers” statements as credible, so W.C.’s words are indeed a surprise.

  27. DirkH says:

    Konrad says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm
    ““Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”
    Even the Winston Smith of wikipedia is waking up to the reality.”

    Connolley just wants to use the high-brow approach of the European intellectual socialist while Dana takes the whatever-works approach of the American Alinskyite. A difference over style not over substance.

  28. u.k.(us) says:

    Richard says:

    December 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm
    ====================
    And that would be different, how ?
    It drives the website.

  29. Scott Scarborough says:

    To: Felix Dec 5th 4:09 pm

    So when I tell my kid the there is no such thing as the bogey man I am actually incorrect? I should say that currently I have no information that would lead me to believe that the bogey man exists.

    You do realize that the way you have characterized it, that no one, under any imagined circumstances could say: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Because every measurement ever made by man kind has error associated with it. And within that error there could always be a non detected trend. Most people know and understand this in there interpretation of statements such as the above quote.

  30. philjourdan says:

    Nuccitelli is acting like a child – unable to admit when he is wrong. But then his moderation at the Guardian represents his childish nature.

  31. Tim Walker says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
    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.

    Tim says: Amazing use of logic Felix. A small problem. By your logic, if there is no evidence of an elephant in the room, the elephant still might be in the room. Maybe we better look under the chairs for the elephant. You are twisting a reasonable statement.

    By your logic you would have Roger Pielke Jr. add some interesting qualifiers. I will list some for you. Roger would have to define the term tornadoes as defined in ‘the paper’. (Someone might have a different definition and thus the fact has to be established.) The frequency, intensity, and normalized damage he is referencing would have to be identified as having come from the only available facts (data available concerning such information) and not from any hairbrained dreams and or pontifications of idiots such as Gore and the other priests of AGW. Speaking of people that make up facts makes me realize Roger would also need to qualify he isn’t referring to any tornadoes in an alternate universe that hasn’t yet been disproven. Oh my goodness he also didn’t prove that Dana doesn’t live in an alternate universe where the paper is different. The list of things that are not proven to not exit could go on ‘ad infinitum’.

  32. Tim Walker says:

    Thanks Scott Scarborough for putting it so clearly. Felix sounds like an AGW apologist.

  33. Tim says:

    The real scientists do all the work. The hangers-on then try and politicise something that they can’t fully comprehend because they are charged with keeping the lie alive, whatever it takes.

  34. DaveA says:

    General Public Encounters Skeptical Science Forum Posting Guidelines.

    Hilarity ensues!

  35. The Engineer says:

    I’m just surprised anyone would expect anything better from someone related to skepticalscience.
    Their so called scientific paper on “concensus” (a rational phallacy) is quite simply absurd on so many levels.
    The papers used include papers by biologists, geneticists, economists and traffic counters; are these really climate experts, cable of defining a generel scientific concensus about CO2 ??

  36. Bill Illis says:

    Dana Nuccitelli is the most “misleading” person I have run across in this debate. By a wide margin.

    And that is really saying something because there is a whole host of characters doing all sorts of misleading.

  37. C.M. Carmichael says:

    Be careful arguing with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
    The fools law.

  38. Felix says:

    Scott and Tim,

    If the data on tornadoes was of sufficient quality then we would be justified in concluding they have not increased up to some uncertainly estimate. But Pielke merely claimed the data do not provide evidence they have increased. This is a valid point against those who claim tornadoes have increased but does not justify the claim that tornadoes have not increased. (He may have reasons for this claim, I am only referring to the statements he quoted above.)

    As for the elephant dilemma the data are clear. We can can examine the room and conclude there is no elephant in it. All elephants are easily visible at close range. So, not seeing one is evidence that no elephant is there. If, on the other hand, there was a big box in the room and we could not see in it, there is no evidence an elephant is in the room, but we cannot conclude that no elephants are in the room because we have not examined the entire room.

    The bogeyman problem is different. The term “bogeyman” is not well defined. If we ask, are there evil people that break in to houses and harm children, the sad answer is yes, there are such people.

  39. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    Dana Nuccitelli says:
    “… can’t you make your arguments without claiming I’m ‘embarrassing myself’? Let others make that kind of judgment for themselves…”

    OK Dana, in my judgement, you’ve embarrassed yourself horribly. Roger Pielke Jr. challenged you to “Put up, or shut up” but instead, you blathered incoherently about nothing. The only thing you accomplished was to prove you’re both a liar and a moron. I just hope your boss is aware of the imbecilic vitriol you tweet and post.

  40. Jon G says:

    Big oil Dana is at it again!

  41. Mike Maguire says:

    http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png

    These are the stats/graph on strong to violent tornadoes that has warmists upset because of what they show. Here are some of the excuses for why we should not believe it.

    1. Tornadoes in the 1950′s-1970′s were not really that powerful. They received higher ratings than they deserved from meteorology students that used old newspaper articles describing damage to rate them, which, they claim caused them to be inflated.
    2. Considerable evidence uncovered in the last decade suggests that previous tornadoes actually were underrated compared to the 1980s and 1990s.

    Read the details here:
    http://www.livescience.com/41632-the-truth-about-tornadoes.html

    As an operational meteorologist in the Midwest the last 32 years, I can say with certainty that unique conditions lead to F3+ tornadoes and an extreme meridional temperature gradient is very often a factor.

    The Arctic/high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere warmed in the 1980′s, 1990′s and 2000′s, and DECREASED that temp contrast. Without knowing anything else but that and being asked what I thought happened to violent tornadoes during those years, I would immediately answer “they should have decreased”

    Alarmists want their cake and to eat it too.
    You can’t have warming higher latitudes and a decreasing temperature gradient without it causing LESS extreme weather of some events like violent tornadoes. This is meteorology 101.

    Just like you can’t have big increases in atmospheric CO2 without it causing massive increases in plant productivity and crop yields. This is the known law of photosynthesis 101.

    Lets get back to KNOWN laws and real science and the real world. It’s all right there.

  42. Felix wrote:

    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.

    Felix. I have a problem with this reasoning. It opens the door to a lot of psudo-science. If you switch the term “Tornados” with, say ghost sightings…

    “””“Ghost sightings have not increased in frequency since 1950.””””

    But “”“Ghost sighting records are not accurate enough to tell whether ghost sighting incidents has changed over time.””” give the believers in such things the out to say “See! They ARE there, and there are MORE! We just haven’t been able to detect them!!!”””.

    See how easy it is to drag this into the mud. At some point, even with uncertainties, you have to be able to say whether the fingerprints are there and have been measured, or not. The data may not be the best in the world, but it’s the best we have to date, and it’s not currently showing an increase.

    PS. I just read the article Nuccitelli is refering to and do agree this isn’t simple to flesh out. And the farther back in time you go, the more difficult, if not impossible, it is to find any type of proxy to show tornidic activity during any period between 1500 and 1950 on the American Continent that is now labeled as the United States. But it’s safe to say, at this time, there is no measurable effect that the tempurature increases from the 50′s to now have caused tornado activity to increase, or caused the recent F 5 .

    http://www.ecoswarm.com/article/529f2fb2bcd159f76349d53f.html

  43. Bill Illis says:

    The methodology developed by Harold Brooks of the NOAA (listed in this Twitter-storm), says that 2013 tornado counts will be the LOWEST on record in the adjusted database which starts in 1954.

    http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torgraph-big.png

  44. noaaprogrammer says:

    … and I thought that twitter bullies were mostly young teenage girls jealous of their victim!

  45. DD More says:

    Sounds like on the ‘Man caused climate change’ Plantation these guys are now fighting over which field to be in.

  46. Cynical Scientst says:

    Surely the onus is on those who claim that tornadoes have increased to provide evidence to support that claim. Dana [thinks] it is enough to make unsupported assertions and expect others to disprove them. When others look at the evidence and see no sign of increased tornadoes he has the gall to lecture them over the difference between lack of evidence and disproof, and accuse them of lying. His position is completely ridiculous. I can’t understand how he thinks he can get away with it.

  47. Aphan says:

    Dana is like a playground bully, not a scientist. I’m just stunned by his ineptitude and the degree of propaganda that he attempts to shove off on people as science. His blog is a riot. Someone there suggested the term “Sciencensus” for his type of work-I find it delightful! Let’s make it a popular term and mortify the crap out of them every time a real scientist uses it.

  48. j smith says:

    that reminds me, i’m still waiting for “extreme weather of all kinds”

  49. Rob Ricket says:

    Here is a link to Dana’s employer, including a history of contracts awarded. Judging from the information posted, the firm is in the environmental protection/clean up business. Dana’s contributions seem to be limited to creating FUD for potential company exploitation via climate extortion.

    In short, the man’s job depends on pinning non-existent disasters on evil carbon consumers…a very short leash to be sure. Methinks, he’ll be on the streets within a couple of years. It’s no wonder he behaves like whimpering child.

    http://www.tetratech.com/about/our-history.html

  50. lee says:

    noaaprogrammer says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:39 pm

    … and I thought that twitter bullies were mostly young teenage girls jealous of their victim!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    The above seems to qualify.

  51. OssQss says:

    Oh my! I have witnessed the creation of the first digital climate change victim!

    There is a definitive cost here for certain………

  52. Adrian O says:

    Nucitelli is spoiled by the fact that the Brits have offered him a blog in The Guardian where his main activity appears to be to suppress anyone who posts any link to measured data.

    Do it once and get from Nucitelli a “commenting has been disabled on this account” For good.

    His blog is ominously called “Climate consensus: The 97%”

  53. AndyG55 says:

    I wonder if the likes of Dana, John Cook, Lewy etc realise just how much damage they do to the CAGW cause ?

  54. Felix says:

    Mike Alexander wrote: “But it’s safe to say, at this time, there is no measurable effect that the tempurature increases from the 50′s to now have caused tornado activity to increase, or caused the recent F 5.”

    Yes. I agree. If Pielke has stated his case that way he would have avoided the logical fallacy.

  55. james griffin says:

    The desperation of the AGW’s is quite apparent as they are slowly being engulfed by empirical data and a sceptical public with politicians who are looking for a way out which would leave the Dana’s of this world to face the music and carry the can. PM Cameron has already referred to “Green Crap” as he wishes to get re-elected and the energy companies can sense problems looming by offering to hold prices for two years….in the full knowledge that they may decrease through political pressure on profits and a reduction in the root cause…green taxes. A few weeks back on BBC’s Question Time they had the Climate Change Minister, an MP and a Union Leader talking about melting ice caps when in reality the opposite is taking place. Current global sea ice is the 7th highest in the last 35 years.
    We are one bad winter away from real dissent and the Guardian, Independent and the BBC can continue to ignore and delete the dissent coming their way but they are on borrowed time.

  56. Tornadoes and Teapots:

    “Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.” (Bertrand Russell)

  57. Poptech says:

    Brooks does his best to pander to the alarmist crowd while appearing to be intellectually honest about the lack of increase in Tornadoes due to global warming. When asking Brooks a question it is best to phrase it in a way he cannot spin his way out of.

    Where and when has Brooks been misused by the “denial side” (no idea what that is) according to the Kloor piece?

  58. bmcburney says:

    Felix,

    Of course, it is always be possible to claim that fairies, unicorns, or perpetual motion machines might exist as long as the standards adopted for proving they don’t exist are high enough. Likewise with elephants in a particular room.

    Has it occurred to you that we are talking about tornados? We have tornados in the US all the time and for as long as people have been around to notice them (and make records of them). With all due respect to Mr. Brooks and others, records may not be perfect but surely even he would admit that a sufficiently large increase in frequency, intensity or damage would have been noticable even in the records we have. What Mr. Brooks and others are evidently asserting is that the possibility that a very small elephant is hiding behind the sofa cannot be entirely ruled out. This observation is surely true as far as it goes, but I wonder who is “misleading the public” when point is being made.

    If, as everyone evidently concedes, there is no evidence that tornados have increased in frequency, intensity or damage it should be possible to state the conclusion that increase occurred without being accused of misleading the public.

  59. bobl says:

    Dana has this M/O. Despite my proving him wrong on every point of a posting Dana stuck it out with patent falsehoods, such is his commitment to the religion. There is no point doing anything except ignoring Dana [snip - uncalled for -mod]

    Dana knows very little about climate, nothing about feedback, and either refuses to, or is unable to solve simple junior high school math I put to him in the past. He is just an activist – to be ignored by both sides as a scientific irrelevance.

  60. Jarrett Jones says:

    Connolley accurately discerns which way is up?

    A unique day indeed!

  61. Poptech says:

    If I was Dr. Pielke I would not take what an Exxon-funded shill like Dana Nuccitelli has to say seriously.

  62. Max Hugoson says:

    Full of sound an fury! Yet signifying NOTHING. In short, a TEMPEST in a TEAPOT…

    Apologies to William Shakespeare.

  63. John Greenfraud says:

    When you lie, cheat and steal for your cause, even if you genuinely believe the end justifies the means, pardon the rest of us for simply seeing you people as liars, cheats and thieves. Nuccitelle, Gleick, Mann – we’re looking your way.

  64. Reg Nelson says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    If the data on tornadoes was of sufficient quality then we would be justified in concluding they have not increased up to some uncertainly estimate. But Pielke merely claimed the data do not provide evidence they have increased. This is a valid point against those who claim tornadoes have increased but does not justify the claim that tornadoes have not increased. (He may have reasons for this claim, I am only referring to the statements he quoted above.)
    ———

    Felix, you can’t have it both ways. If you claim the evidence does not support the idea that tornado activity has not increased, then, by reason, no one can claim tornado have increased either. I’ll cut to the chase: this means no one can claim CO2 has anything to do extreme weather events.

    The burden of proof is on those who propose the theory, not those that question it.

  65. bobl says:

    Warmists everywhere, yes even you Dana.

    Be aware that there is an established law of physics called the law of conservation of energy, be also aware that we are talking about a piddling 0.6W energy imbalance per square meter. That’s less than the light of a christmas led bulb spread over a 1/2 m circle, that’s it. With that piddling bit more energy you are wanting the temperature of the atmosphere to rise, the entire ocean to expand, more water to evaporate, storms to get bigger, storms to be more energetic, more wind, more evaporation, more rain, more lightning, deep oceans to warm up, gigatonnes upon gigatonnes of ice to melt, more algae to grow, rocks to erode faster… and only the good lord knows what else is claimed. Each effect however takes energy OUT, heat expressed as increased wind speed is no longer heat, heat absorbed by growing algae is no longer heat, it is matter, locked up in chemical bonds. Every effect you claim SUBTRACTS from the heating effect. All these effects and the warming too is supposedly powered by an extra led christmas light per square metre.

    What you claim and support Dana and other warmists is energetically impossible, it’s preposterous. The wilder your claims, the more you embarass yourselves.

  66. Christopher Hanley says:

    “I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy …” (Felix).
    =======
    There is a common logical fallacy namely banal objections ‘where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic’ (Wiki).

  67. RockyRoad says:

    AndyG55 says:
    December 5, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    I wonder if the likes of Dana, John Cook, Lewy etc realise just how much damage they do to the CAGW cause ?

    But Andy–they ARE the “cause”.

    That’s why CAGW will continue to roil and sputter in their minds–and only funerals will cleanse this earth of the meme.

  68. anthonyvioli says:

    AndyG55 says:

    December 5, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    I wonder if the likes of Dana, John Cook, Lewy etc realise just how much damage they do to the CAGW cause ?

    No they don’t, for gods sake don’t tell them.

    Much like the Australian blog that spends its whole time highlighting everything from this blog..

    Its so embarrassing for the AGW mob. Its reeks of desperation.

    But then again that’s all they have left.

  69. wrecktafire says:

    Felix,
    Nuccitelli is right is lawyer/philosopher terms, but has forgotten the original scientific context, which was the AGW claim regarding tornadoes. BOTH of Pielke’s statements are consistent with the fact that no trend is visible in the data. That the data are inconclusive is, actually, not relevant to the matter. Words can be parsed endlessly, but the claim that tornadoes have gotten worse is not supportable. General scientific usage and popular use of this phrase is equivalent to, “the claim (that tornado activity is more intense and/or frequent) is false, from a scientific point of view”.
    Thus, Pielke gave the correct understanding, by two different statements. I don’t think that’s misleading, as all.

  70. tobias says:

    @ Scott Bassinger: “when you find your self in a hole stop digging”
    Sorry, some people…. you just hand them a shovel with a longer handle ( and no ladder).

  71. wrecktafire says:

    Oops: last two words = “at all”

  72. davidmhoffer says:

    Mike Maguire;
    As an operational meteorologist in the Midwest the last 32 years, I can say with certainty that unique conditions lead to F3+ tornadoes and an extreme meridional temperature gradient is very often a factor.

    The Arctic/high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere warmed in the 1980′s, 1990′s and 2000′s, and DECREASED that temp contrast. Without knowing anything else but that and being asked what I thought happened to violent tornadoes during those years, I would immediately answer “they should have decreased”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Repeated for effect. The warmists simply cannot have both arctic amplification AND increased extreme weather. The very science which they quote requires that cold things warm up more than warm things. So, the delta between night time lows and day time highs must decrease. The delta between winter and summer must decrease. The delta between low altitudes and high altitudes must decrease. The delta between low latitudes and high latitudes must decrease. And with all of these decreases, the end result is lower temperature gradients which result in less violent weather. A warmer world is simply a more tranquil world by all the physics and meteorology that we can apply to understanding the problem.

    Dana’s problem is that he is not promoting science, but magic. His belief is that any sufficiently advanced magic will be indistinguishable from science.

  73. KenB says:

    Ah Dana’s Dill -Blurt moment….. again…… and again ….

  74. Why anyone pays any attention to what anyone and especially Dana Dana writes in the Guardian re climate is beyond me. The CAGW party is all over bar the shouting – eventually the partygoers will have to call it a day.

  75. scarletmacaw says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    The two statements:

    1. “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”

    2. “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.”

    Statement 1 refers to a particular time frame, 1950 – 2013.
    Statement 2 refers to a vague time frame of climatic time scales, which is presumably longer.

    These two statements are not inconsistent. Statement 1 is a measurement. Statement 2 is a weaker claim based on that measurement.

  76. Colorado Wellington says:

    DirkH says:
    December 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm.

    Connolley just wants to use the high-brow approach of the European intellectual socialist while Dana takes the whatever-works approach of the American Alinskyite. A difference over style not over substance.

    What he said.

  77. Allan MacRae says:

    There are lots of Nutticelli’s out there – Wild people who believe in wild weather. Inciters of the Warmist Brown Shirts.

    Over a decade ago, I wrote an article in the National Post, saying that Canada should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

    I soon received an angry, threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of the Prague.

    I replied:

    Dear Sir, you are entirely correct.
    I am the One fully responsible for the flooding of Prague.
    Now “run along”, or I’ll do it again.

    I feel like, y’know, under-appreciated, like TOTALLY! I mean, like, y’know, some of my friends have received like, numerous threats. And all I got was one lousy Nutticelli? Am I not worthy of like, multiple threats? Like, I mean, y’know: Have I not tried like, hard enough?

  78. bullocky says:

    Dana ain’t no Nick Stokes!

  79. RB says:

    For those of us not scientists who may have studied, for example, the philosophy of religion, where else do we see the argument that if something is not discernible that dose not mean it does not exist? – that’s right – the existence of god.

    Its a religious argument.

  80. Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:

    bullocky says:

    December 6, 2013 at 12:34 am
    Dana ain’t no Nick Stokes!

    —-

    And for that he is likely thankful!

  81. Jack C says:

    Dana is an embarassment. I think he should be consigned to the ignore list as he offers nothing in the way of substance. That is what makes him a perfext fit for Sceptical Science website.

    Laughable.

  82. Bob Ryan says:

    No Felix. Dr Peilke is not trying to mislead nor has he fallen into any logical trap. He is making two statements based upon his research which he claims are true based upon the evidence he has collected. They are not inconsistent with one another, given the array of true statements of varying generality he could make on the basis of his research and evidence, nor are they logically equivalent. Your point about incompleteness of the evidence has more force but is a weak one. A reasonable prior, given the improvements of measuring and recording events over climatic timescales is that measures of frequency would show an increase (but not necessarily in intensity). The lack of any evidence of an increase is therefore strong evidence that, in fact, there has not been one.

  83. I think the self satisfied grin gives him away.

  84. Joe says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm

    [...] All elephants are easily visible at close range[...]
    —————————————————————————————————————

    That statement is a logical falacy by your own rules, Felix. You should have said something like “The available data suggests that all elephants are easily visible…” but the data only applies to the elephants we’ve observed.

    That’s exactly the same situation as you’re complaining about in Dr Pielke’s statement – the data on the tornados we’ve observed fully support that they haven’t increased, just as the data on the elephants we’ve observed support that they’re all visible at close range.

    In fact, logically, your statement is less defensible than his. We may have missed some tornado data which counters Dr Pielke’s claim but we’ve [i]definitely, by definition,[/i] missed all data on any unobservable elephants.

  85. B.C. says:

    Nutticelli is a perfect example of the old saying: “You can read an ass on Twitter, but you can’t make him apologize.”

  86. jeremyp99 says:

    “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)”

    A truly fatuous statement from a truly fatuous man.

    Dana, when have the IPCC ever been right about ANYTHING?

    You really need to get off your high horse kid. You might just hurt ourself badly when you fall off it.

  87. Latimer Alder says:

    Re SkS and Dana, this is fun

  88. knr says:

    A classic case of a little man made big by circumatances , but in fact being little all along .
    His got nowhere to go but back to WHO? when ‘the cause ‘ falls , but more than that , His a classic intellectual light no mistakes noise and bluster for quality . So you can see how he fits into climate ‘science’

  89. knr says:

    A classic case of a little man made big by circumstances , but in fact being little all along .
    His got nowhere to go but back to WHO? when ‘the cause ‘ falls , but more than that , His a classic intellectual light weight who mistakes noise and bluster for quality . So you can see how he fits into climate ‘science’

  90. Black Dog says:

    Adrian O
    at
    December 5, 2013 at 7:30 pm
    “Nucitelli is spoiled by the fact that the Brits have offered him a blog in The Guardian where his main activity appears to be to suppress anyone who posts any link to measured data.
    Do it once and get from Nucitelli a “commenting has been disabled on this account” For good.”

    I concur! I had the nerve to link to some peer reviewed papers and Guardian articles which clearly contradicted his claims that no scientist had ever predicted that Artic Ice would be gone by 2013 and I found myself removed. Since then none of my comments ever make it past moderation. I like you have become one of the disappeared. Perhaps they would have us on a train to Siberia.
    Regardless of whether his propaganda articles are remotely believable or not, Nuccitelli’s true nature is revealed when you spend some time watching new comments and how they are “moderated”. He is just making an idiot of himself over at the Guardian and it also becomes obvious that he refuses to recognise or address the facts. I suppose Nuccitelli and the Guardian are an appropriate match.

  91. Steve in SC says:

    Permit me a small Southernism:

    Dana, Bless your heart.

  92. Ron C. says:

    bobl says:
    December 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    Thanks bobl, that’s the best elevator speech I have seen in awhile.
    “Conservation of Energy contradicts Climate Alarmism”

  93. ferd berple says:

    Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:
    December 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm
    I wonder how this is going over with his co-workers at the oil company?
    =========
    by demonizing coal (produces 2x as much CO2 as oil per unit of energy) oil companies hope to gain a monopoly on energy production, knowing full well that renewables are not a replacement for 7×24 reliability.

    by promoting CCS oil companies hope to get paid to inject CO2 into the earth for enhanced oil recovery. a process that currently costs them money.

    oil companies how very much profit from the AGW alarm. that is why you them promoting green ideas so heavily. not because they believe in green, but because they hope to kill coal as competition, leaving them a monopoly. once coal is eliminated, they know full well that green cannot compete against them.

  94. G. Karst says:

    Latimer Alder says:
    December 6, 2013 at 5:11 am

    Thanks, It’s been awhile since I laughed so hard! GK

  95. Lars P. says:

    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.

    Yes and yes, and I think it bears repeating

  96. The list of those who are treated like this goes far beyond AGW. Intelligent Design Scientists, the Tea Party, those who dare question the medical ‘Elites’ science, those who think homosexuality is not natural or normal, et al.

    There is no reasoning, no vanquishing your foe through logic and data or skillful debate. Ad hominem is mightier than the sword. Rather, it is the precursor to the sword. First the mocking of being outside the ‘consensus’, then character assassination, then the ‘dangerous’ label(aka ‘misleading the public’), then recant or lose your job and family and life.

    Our magnanimous leader sums it up; ‘I don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.’
    Our current trajectory will lead to Stalinistic witch burnings in a generation or two. You guys are all on the list already, courtesty of the NSA.

  97. gnomish says:

    oh my..
    Felix – there is a small box in my living room. Do you suppose there is a tornado inside?
    They are so much smaller than elephants and easier to hide.

  98. The photos of this early winter ice storm will be on line for all to see soon from the west coast to the east coast , all this week , freezing rain, sleet , snow ,, deep south in Texas ect.
    More to come, massive tree limb fall all over Texas today. Huge ins. loss, power lines down from the limbs and ice.

    Mean old real facts come to cover over the lies and fraud. It will not take a study to know now, and more facts of ice to come.

  99. Chris B says:

    Pielke’s big mistake was feeding a troll.

  100. philjourdan says:

    @Steve in SC – OUCH! Going for the jugular! ;-)

  101. eddie willers says:

    Felix reminds me of the judge on The Good Wife who insists that all lawyers end their statements with, “in my opinion”.

  102. Brian Cooper says:

    Can some do a study on the effects of Human induced global warming and degradation of human integrity?

  103. Black Dog says:

    John Stell (@JohnStell1)
    December 6, 2013 at 7:09 am

    Sir, I like your post, so well put. In particular:
    “There is no reasoning, no vanquishing your foe through logic and data or skillful debate. Ad hominem is mightier than the sword. Rather, it is the precursor to the sword. First the mocking of being outside the ‘consensus’, then character assassination, then the ‘dangerous’ label(aka ‘misleading the public’), then recant or lose your job and family and life.”

    This has happened in the past and will do so again. In one paragraph you have summed up many of the 20th century’s tyrannies. Just swap “consensus” with the word fascism, communism or whatever evil. As you are no doubt aware there are those within the AGW “consensus” that want to dismantle democracy and reduce us to serfs.

    Regards PL

  104. Ed Zuiderwijk says:

    “Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”

    If that’s the case then exactly what is accurate enough to make any statement about it?

    Because it is pantomime season:

    “The readings of the thermometer are not accurate enough to show that it has become colder.”

    “My bank records are not accurate enough to tell whether I have become poorer or not”; I will use this when my wife queries the 500 quid I spent on the new camera.

  105. Nik says:

    @Adrian O

    I have also experienced this many times. I think I’m on my 7th or 8th account now at “free to comment” Guardian. Now I don’t bother much, I just report breaches of the Editors Codes and Practices to the Press Complaints Commission. Funny thing is though, after raising a complaint the offending article gets amended and I get a reply saying the breach is no longer there. The most recent was Adam Vaughn saying the Chinese lake was largely man made when it formed naturally. I also pointed out the wrong year too.

    Man made lakes tend to be more permanent than natural ones so I would guess so he slipped that in for good measure since it was mainly used to supply water for mining. These people are so cunning and nasty they’d target children threatening no presents at Christmas. Erm, what did you say (in background), they’ve already done this?, Sorry, got interrupted. Nasty people indeed. Dana,Nukem, Peter Gleich and what is Stephan Lewandosky’s rant about here?

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/06/media-failure-iraq-war-climate-change

    Very peculiar people indeed.

  106. Bob L. says:

    “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.”

    Strikes me that so could the entire AGW movement…

  107. lorne50 says:

    Nik says:
    December 6, 2013 at 8:47 am

    I see Dana is right back to being is self ;>(

  108. ColdinTN says:

    Interesting that the Op-Ed that Dana cites bases their conclusions on climate models:

    “the latest climate-model experiments agree that further global warming is likely to increase the likelihood of conditions favorable to the severe thunderstorms that produce tornadoes in the spring and autumn. Although these climate models do not resolve tornadoes, they do predict an increase in the ingredients responsible for past tornadoes.”

    Another quote from the OpEd:
    “The honest “truth” is that no one knows what effect global warming is having on tornado intensity. Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”

    An honest Climate “reporter” would note the difference in the OpEd views and those like Heidi Cullen, Al Gore, etc. who continue to make the outrageous claims that Dana agrees with. But no one ever claimed that Dana was honest.

  109. Buffoon says:

    I see several logically fallacious attempts to invalidate Felix’s point, and even a couple calling him an agw apologist… Name calling, here?
    No one has invalidated it yet, however blithely turns of phrase are used (tornado in a small box…)
    Words mean, unfortunately, what they mean. I wholeheartedly disagree that tornados empirically are increasing, instead that our sensitivity to them (detection, communication, impression) has increased. Felix’s analysis of the semantics of the scientific statements given is still correct, as invalidating it seems to require assumptions ( that other things are omitted), ad hominem, snark… But I don’t see real logic.
    My two cents

  110. Gary says:

    “These garbage tactics work, so they don’t stop.” That’s the one statement that rises above all others. Smear and confusticate, slime and misspeak. It works. It has always worked. I also love the reference to politicians because it is their bread and butter. One thing to keep in mind when such words hurt and false accusations sting: the one blustering the most, hating the most, is losing. I’ve seen it in debate a million times. It’s crazy how you can sit at a table with people you know are bright and intelligent, only to see them descend into the most bizarre and inept tactics possible. It’s because they’re losing, or see themselves in danger of losing. Just like the bureaucrat that is always seeking to retain his/her power, so do those who cling to the spotlight of their own vanity. No one wants to be wrong, least of all the narcissist.

  111. John Whitman says:

    Nuccitelli appears 3 times on the AGU’s Science Program listing for their Annual Fall Meeting in San Francisco next week. He is in one talk session and two poster sessions. All three of his appearances are with John Cook.

    The talk session is titled ‘The Strategic Combination of Open-Access Peer-Review, Mainstream Media and Social Media to Improve Public Climate Literacy (invited [by AGU to present])’

    The titles of their two poster sessions deal are:

    1) ‘Taking Social Media Myth Debunking to a Presidential Level (invited [by AGU to talk])’

    2) ‘It Ain’t the Heat, It’s the Humanity: Evidence and Implications of Knowledge-Based Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming’

    Abstracts of each can be found via links on the AGU website and access to the abstracts is open to the public.

    John

  112. Scott Scarborough says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm
    Scott and Tim,

    If the data on tornadoes was of sufficient quality then we would be justified in concluding they have not increased up to some uncertainly estimate. But Pielke merely claimed the data do not provide evidence they have increased. This is a valid point against those who claim tornadoes have increased but does not justify the claim that tornadoes have not increased. (He may have reasons for this claim, I am only referring to the statements he quoted above.)
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    Obviously Pielke has an uncertainty estimates for his measurements. All scientific measurements have uncertainty estimates, even ones that are not “of sufficient quality” whatever that means. Measurements of lower quality simply have larger uncertainty estimates. But there is no cut-off between sufficient quality and insufficient quality – the lower the quality the higher the uncertainty measurement. You are taking one quote from Pielke out of context and acting like that is the only thing he said. His research provides uncertainty estimates, he clearly stated in his testamony before Congress that there may be a human infulence that is not yet measurable in the data. But you claim that a one sentance quote had better say absolutly everything or he is being misleading. I have never seen any one sentence that explains everything about such a complex subject. As for the tornado “experts” that say the the data is insufficient to say if tornadoes are increasing or decreasing – they can always say that no matter how good the data is since no data is perfect, it always has an uncertainty band and there could always be a trend within that band. So you critisize Pielke for not stating everything in one sentance but withhold cririsizim for the tornado “experts” for stating a tautalogy.

  113. Man Bearpig says:

    Dana has apologized to Brooks, but not Pielke.

  114. Man Bearpig says:

    ” David in Cal says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    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.

    Dana Nutticcelli said..
    “Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public”

    He was wrong.

  115. Jimbo says:

    Dana Nuccitelli >> Roger Pielke Jr.

    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″

    Why do people assume only no increase or increase? Is it possible we have a decrease??? We may never know due to detection technology issues etc., but it wouldn’t surprise me if Dana Tetra Tech Nuttercelli never entertained the thought.

  116. Jimbo says:

    I read:

    Dana Nuccitelli Maurizio Morabito
    • 2 days ago

    Just curious, are insulting and abusive comments like this allowed?
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/collideascape/2013/12/04/dirty-art-character-assassination/#.UqJZkpzm5hc

    Dana obviously does not read the climate comments section of the Guardian.

    Dana knocks none tornado experts. Dana did a BA, Astrophysics & MS, Physics. Therefore Dana is an expert on tornadoes.

    Dana feeds himself from money paid to him by a fossil fuel services company. That company has now gone into windpower. Dana seems to have his fingers in all the pies. CAGW, fossil fuels and wind. What a Fking hypocrite.

  117. wobble says:

    Dana Nuccitelli ‏@dana1981 4 Dec
    …convenient omission of critical caveats, hence conveying confidence not supported by the data.

    Dana just characterized every assertion ever made about CAGW.

  118. Thorsten says:

    @Felix: But we *have* examined the whole room, better than we ever did before (thanks to the Doppler radars, spotter networks and everything but the kitchen sink)! It looks like we found only a lot of mice that may look from afar like teeny-tiny elephants to the intellectually challenged (who have promptly upped their elephant sighting reports!), while those who have the brains to understand are recognizing that if so many mice are detected, there is no place left where a real elephant could hide unseen. The profusion of “tornado” reports without consequences – no major shipwrecks nor damage at landfall – shows that our detectors are, if anything, over-sensitive. Would that your BS detectors emulate them!

  119. Topeka Guy says:

    Dana is a ‘Special’ person. No need to take that guy seriously………….Seriously!

  120. William McClenney says:

    Dana,

    Imagine you live at a half-precession old extreme interglacial. Which you do….. http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf

    One wonders what a Dana would deploy to extend or preclude onset of the next glacial if not CO2 or methane……..

    Dana, at the half-precession old Holocene what is one to make of extreme weather events, tornados, whatever?

    “The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events….

    “…….indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation.” http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf

    Unless you know of some other counter to http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v137/137GM02/137GM02.pdf other than http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf then you might want to give a thought as to when you and I and all of us live.

    The climate is supposed to have “a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the (present) Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last (next) Glaciation.” So even if you are right do you have any comprehension at all that extreme weather usually accompanies end extreme interglacials?

    If you even faintly did, then it is simply child’s-play to establish that ‘background’ climate noise at the ends of extreme interglacials hilariously exceeds anything yet predicted from AGW;

    http://business.uow.edu.au/sydney-bschool/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf

    and:

    http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf

    Otherwise, how am I going to tell it’s you, or me, or us, all of us, and/or the null hypothesis that Gore’s me?

    Help me Obe-wan Nuccitelli….. You’re our only hope……….

    P.S. Well, maybe not our only hope. Any advice on how to make out like a Madoff clmate change insurer? Off the record, of course. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/

  121. tom0mason says:

    Christopher Hanley says:
    December 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm

    …”There is a common logical fallacy namely banal objections ‘where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic’ (Wiki).”

    And exactly what has that got to do with the price of potatoes?

  122. Nik Marshall-Blank says:

    Dana is a Climate Snob and patronises everybody else. Simple truth!

  123. John Finn says:

    Felix says:
    December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm

    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.”

    I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy.

    A few people have already responded to this but I’m not sure if the key point has been made which is that Pielke statement was correct. For 2 statements to be consistent they don’t necessarily need to say the same thing it’s just necessary that they don’t contradict each other. The 2 statements broadly make the following points.

    1. Insufficient evidence exists to draw any conclusions about increasing tornado activity.(Markowski)
    2. Our research shows no increase in tornado activity (Pielke)

    The 2 statements are not inconsistent.

  124. Kurt in Switzerland says:

    Nobody followed up on the public panning of Muller (who apparently made the “mistake” of reading a graph showing that strong (3-5rating) tornadoes had in fact decreased over the past 5-6 decades, then mentioning it out loud — seemed rather reasonable to me) but not being part of the “tornado cognoscenti”, needed to be “informed” by Markowski et al that some of the early tornado data was not good; what followed appeared to be an argument that early- to mid-20th C tornado severity was over-estimated; thereafter an argument was made that severity had in fact been under-estimated… Hmmm.

    Notwithstanding the fact that Markowski et al look to be friends of Mann (the latter had nothing but praise for the former’s “vindication” of the Hockey Stick), and notwithstanding the fact that Muller made Mann look like an absolute charlatan in his video reviewing the practice of splicing tree-ring reconstructions to thermometer averages a number of years ago, is it possible someone has it in for Muller?

    Has Muller himself responded?

    Kurt in Switzerland

Comments are closed.