Best Dana-dodge™, ever

You just have to laugh. After being taken to task yesterday on the removal of IPCC language that was done purely to bolster his own lame argument about how preventing global warming is the “cheap” option, Dana Nuccitelli responds to the challenge from Dr. Richard Tol in comments at the Guardian article with the patented Dana-dodge™. As Tol notes,

Here is how Dana handles Tol’s charge about removal of the IPCC language, it’s hilarious!

 

 

Dana_dodge

Heh.

 

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, IPCC. Bookmark the permalink.

52 Responses to Best Dana-dodge™, ever

  1. For the record, I am no fan of Anthony Watts.

    I like Stereolab much better.

  2. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    Well, someone is going to have to explain that as it went right over my head.

  3. Michael D says:

    Stereolab is … like .. a band, right ?

  4. hunter says:

    Maybe Dana is not simply cynical. Maybe this is the best analysis he can do.
    Perhaps we should pity him, trying to make sense of a world that is far more complex than his apparent ability to analyse.

  5. pottereaton says:

    Dana is limited by his ideology. Ideology is to science like war is to peace.

  6. Anthony Watts says:

    Richard, wasn’t Bob Ward part of the early Stereolab band?

  7. When I leave some of the numbers out I get an answer I like. I justify leaving the numbers out by claiming that “math is hard”. Let’s go shoe-shopping now, girls!

  8. Mark Bofill says:

    Dr. Tol,

    I believe I looked at a powerpoint presentation of yours some time back that suggested that minor reductions in CO2 emissions are relatively easy or cheap but that the cost becomes progressively steeper the further you take the reductions. Am I remembering this right, and/or understanding it properly? My ignorant layman’s view was always that it seemed obvious that adaptation would be the cheapest way to go, but I’m an ignorant layman in this area.

    BTW, thanks. I don’t care what Dr. Lewandowsky says about you, you’re all right. ;)

  9. No. Bob Ward drummed in Subway Sect and Dexy’s Midnight Runners. He left just before they recorded Geno, which would put anyone in a foul mood for the rest of their life.

  10. @Mark B
    That is correct. The first bit of emission reduction costs very little. It is rapid and deep emission reduction costs that should get you worried.

  11. AJB says:

    Geno …

    Bob on drums? (Dance Stance 1979) …

  12. Mark Bofill says:

    Thanks Dr. Tol.

  13. philjourdan says:

    “integrated assessment model”??? What is it with him and models? You need no model. It is called math. Math is used to CREATE models. Math is never wrong. But models easily are.

  14. Bob Kutz says:

    I’ve had exchanges with Nuticello (sic) before.

    He has three very real problems with regard to his understanding and communication on climate change issues;

    1) He actually isn’t very bright. Its not that he doesn’t try to understand. He simply isn’t capable. Some very complicated issues go right over his head. He isn’t capable of arguing the point because he doesn’t even understand it. Witness the above. He is clueless as to what you mean. Or, in the parlance common here; a liberal arts major.

    2) He has absolute certainty with regard to the truth of the matter. Or, as you and I would call it; blind faith. There is no question in his mind. So you, in arguing against him, are either evil or stupid. Which is it? Yes, this is how his brain works. He isn’t concerned with your argument and to the extent he engages you at all, he’s just trying to work out if you are just too stupid to get it or actually evil incarnate.

    3) He has no ethical concerns about lying, slandering, editing comments and stories on his website or just plain name calling when he is clearly in over his head. You see, he is in the right, so anything he does, which others may see as unethical or evil, is justified by his correct position on CAGW. Noble cause corruption as I’ve heard it referred to here.

    This makes him a proper candidate to ignore. On every level. Don’t visit his site, don’t comment on stories he is involved with and most of all stop posting any news of or stories about him.

    In short, if you ignore him he will go away.

    He will never admit he’s wrong and he will always resort to slander and lies when cornered. Eventually he may figure out that he’s in the wrong but he still won’t admit to it. Instead he will pretend like he never cared about the CAGW issue and figure out some other cause to assuage his ego and make himself feel less dense.

    I’ve dealt with his type before.

  15. jeremyp99 says:

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    April 23, 2014 at 10:59 am
    No. Bob Ward drummed in Subway Sect and Dexy’s Midnight Runners. He left just before they recorded Geno, which would put anyone in a foul mood for the rest of their life
    ===================================

    You,re kidding! Saw Dexy at the Oxford Playhouse a few months after Come On, Eileen, broke. They were kinda hammy but energetic enough to be fun. Now that’s a few years back. Saw Costello & The Attractions there as well, Oliver’s Army time. Shame he started to take himself seriously.

    But, I digress. The reproduced comment thread above is exquisite. Thanks. Silence is golden, eh, Dana?

  16. Bill Illis says:

    We are already spending 0.5% of GDP per year on green energy/climate change (which is a dead-weight loss) and it has not changed the CO2 emissions trajectory one iota.

    Zero impact –> -0.5% of GDP/year

    Do the math on what it takes to cut emissions by 50%. Sorry, there is no math here because we have no clue how much it will cost. $358 billion per year has got us nothing so far. 10 times Zero is still Zero.

  17. Bill Illis says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:32 am

    We are already spending 0.5% of GDP per year on green energy/climate change (which is a dead-weight loss) and it has not changed the CO2 emissions trajectory one iota.

    Zero impact –> -0.5% of GDP/year

    Do the math on what it takes to cut emissions by 50%. Sorry, there is no math here because we have no clue how much it will cost. $358 billion per year has got us nothing so far. 10 times Zero is still Zero.

    ‘Well, in OUR country,’ said Alice, still panting a little, ‘you’d generally get to somewhere else — if you ran very fast for a long time, as we’ve been doing.’
    ‘A slow sort of country!’ said the Queen. ‘Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at least twice as
    fast as that!’

  18. John Whitman says:

    Does anyone who has seen Dana Nuccitelli in person (as he speaks, behaves and interacts with others) think he is doing the Guardian and other media related stuff without full time mentoring assistance?

    I have seen him in person at the 2013 Dec AGU meeting in San Francisco. I have witnessed his intellectual capability and interactive functionality first hand. Based on my first hand observation of him, I think he is monitored and coached continuously in real time by his non-skeptical blog associates in all his Guardian communications and related media matters.

    Based on Tol’s comments/Tweets , I recommend to Dana Nuccitelli that he should fire any non-skeptical coaches and get some skeptical ones.

    John

  19. JJ says:

    Dana Nutticelli whines:

    “The quote you complain is cut out is directly above it in the previous quote.”

    That isn’t even true, let alone relevant. The cut out part is not in the previous quote. The two quotes aren’t even from the same report.

    Now, here is what I find more interesting about Nutticelli’s post. It contains this assertion:

    According to Hope’s model, the economically optimal peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 500 ppm, with a peak global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures (about 2°C warmer than present). In his book The Climate Casino, Yale economist William Nordhaus notes that he has arrived at a similar conclusion in his modeling research.

    So, 500 ppm and 3C above pre-industrial temps is economically optimal? That means that CO2 and ‘global warming’ will continue to make things better than they are now, for the lifetime of anyone reading this.

    For the catastrophy to unfold, we have to first get better, then fall back to where we are now, then fall back even further to the pre-industrial status, and only at that point will civilization start to see net negative effects of anthropogenic CO2? And at the demonstrated rate of temp increase, it will be another 200 years before we even reach the peak of goodness, the optimum?

    What were we worried about, again?

  20. Don says:

    C.S. Lewis prophesied Our Dana in his brilliant dystopia-in-infancy novel, That Hideous Strength. Of character Mark Studdock, who had just written two newspaper columns full of manipulative propaganda spin and deception, Lewis wrote:

    The more often he re-read the articles the better he liked them… It wasn’t as if he were taken in by the articles himself. He was writing with his tongue in his cheek—a phrase that somehow comforted him by making the whole thing appear like a practical joke. And anyway, if he didn’t do it, someone else would. And all the while the child inside him whispered how splendid and how triumphantly grown up it was to be sitting like this, so full of alcohol and yet not drunk, writing (with his tongue in his cheek) articles for great newspapers, against time, “with the printer’s devil at the door” and all the inner ring of the N.I.C.E. depending on him, and nobody ever again having the least right to consider him a nonentity or cipher.

  21. LewSkannen says:

    Well my take away from this is the revelation of why Bob Ward is such a miserable type.
    Fancy leaving (or being booted from) Dexys Midnight Runner before Eileen and Geno were released!!!
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!

  22. Mike says:

    Is anyone else curious as to where they get the money to pay for NUTicelli’s column?

    As I understand it their finances are a mess and their biggest revenue sources are labor union donations, government job ads, and the BBC purchasing >10K copies per day. Could he be working for free (and being overpaid at that) or is his work being subsidized by Big Green?

  23. Ed, Mr. Jones says:

    Bob Kutz says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:21 am

    “I’ve had exchanges with Nuticello (sic) before.

    He has three very real problems with regard to his understanding and communication on climate change issues; ….He will never admit he’s wrong and he will always resort to slander and lies when cornered.”

    Uhhh…. are you saying “Michael Mann Doppelganger?

  24. David, UK says:

    Michael D says:
    April 23, 2014 at 10:30 am

    Stereolab is … like .. a band, right ?

    I understand them to be a beat group, popular with the young and swinging generation. I’m not sure if they currently have a single in the hit parade but am told they are still considered to be a “happening” combo.

  25. psheraton says:

    Dana Nuccitelli TV Interview on Typhoon Haiyan

  26. David Ball says:

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
    April 23, 2014 at 10:24 am

    “For the record, I am no fan of Anthony Watts.”

    We differ on many things. I prefer Ozric Tentacles.

    Must make for a long day at the Uni going against the grain like you are. I know a little about personal attacks (most skeptics do). True academic freedom is showing what your research has revealed to you, and not being stoned in the courtyard for it.

  27. David Ball says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolab

    Very sad about Mary Hansen.

  28. Steve from Rockwood says:

    At least Dana is a climate scientist. He is, right?

  29. DirkH says:

    psheraton says:
    April 23, 2014 at 1:19 pm
    “Dana Nuccitelli TV Interview on Typhoon Haiyan”

    The VOICE! and… Al Jazeera! Hahaha!

  30. Mycroft says:

    Why people get so wound up about this “journalist” HAHAHAHAH! is beyond me?
    he’s like some walking around with big fake nose on and then asking why people are laughing at him…so much!! why do you the Guardian hired him? to be a factual journalist HAHAHAHA (sorry about that) or to be advocate for their beliefs?

  31. knr says:

    Dana can get put of his depth when standing on a pavement after a light rain shower .
    Best ignore and let him and his friends indulge in the circle w**k they so much enjoy.

  32. evanmjones says:

    We are already spending 0.5% of GDP per year on green energy/climate change (which is a dead-weight loss) and it has not changed the CO2 emissions trajectory one iota.

    Ah, but with it we have purchased a most invaluable commodity:

    The knowledge that it is a dead-weight loss.

    And that is a lesson (writ large) that may prove many times more valuable in the years to come — provided always that we choose to learn it. As Reagan once remarked, in a different context, “Don’t just do something. Stand there!”

    And I laughed to myself at the men and the ladies
    Who never conceived those billion-dollar babies

  33. Dave the Engineer says:

    Dana is part of the “Cult”, blinded by the “revelation”, fantasizing about “saving the world”

  34. Bill Illis says:

    The issue is 2.0% GDP growth per year is a nice sustainable rate which keeps unemployment steady/very slightly declining. Throw a -0.5% dead-weight loss into the mix and now you are going backwards. Unemployment is slightly rising, standard of living is slightly declining and social program spending is rising.

    Manageable perhaps, but not progress in the traditional sense. If you are one of the countries spending more than the average -0.5% of GDP, you are then sliding faster down the hole.

    If you are China, well, -0.5% on top of 8.0% GDP is not as much of a problem. But you are still not getting to First World status at the rate you wanted.

    Okay, now you have to bump up the dead-weight loss to 3.0% or 4.0% of GDP per year to reach the targets the global warming theory/the IPCC/the greens want you to get to. 0.5% did nothing, but 3.0% or 4.0% might be a good start.

    Now, the economy is permanently going backwards at a really bad rate. Your unemployment is reaching +50% for young people (as is now common in much of Europe). The last thing any country needs is a bunch of unemployed young men.

    In the long-long-run, the decline in standard of living and the resulting unrest and the extent of unemployed young men results in an implosion of the country’s economy. The Greens are happy that some stupid target was met, but the castle walls are falling down and there is limited cave space and firewood to keep warm.

    Sounds like a good strategy when the status-quo strategy was not resulting in any warming in any event. Shoot yourself in the chest first on the off chance that someone else will have shot you in the foot in some robbery or something. Can’t be in the convenience store when you are already in the hospital/intensive care.

  35. RobL says:

    The Grauniad is a trust fund kid. About a billion in endowments.
    http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/the_trust-fund_newspaper.php?page=all

    It could continue to lose money at the present rate for ever.

  36. lee says:

    Bob Kutz says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:21 am

    He has three very real problems with regard to his understanding and communication on climate change issues;

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    perhaps he needs more instruction from one John C(r)ook; Research fellow in climate communication at University of Queensland.

  37. It’s worth returning to the comments and read the rest of the exchange between Dana and me (most of which took place after Anthony’s post). Dana doesn’t know his arse from his elbow. I don’t think he knew he was (mis)citing my work against me.

  38. David A says:

    Bill Illis says:
    April 23, 2014 at 11:32 am
    We are already spending 0.5% of GDP per year on green energy/climate change (which is a dead-weight loss) and it has not changed the CO2 emissions trajectory one iota.
    =================================================================
    Bill, that is money spent from the budget. Europe is doing the same, or more so. Australia, ditto. Now comes the real hurt. These policies have cost jobs and dramatically increased the cost of ENERGY; the life blood of EVERY economy. This is far worse, and costs far more. (Trillions I venture.) Inexpensive energy is available, and the only real hope of pulling the economies of this world out of our self indulgent, expediency principle, ego driven power hungry deficits.

  39. David A says:

    The back of the envelope margin of error in such studies must be very large. If we were currently at 280 PPM CO2, we would likely have about 12 to 15% less food!. (Was that considered in the economic projections?

    To get to our current food supply (is we were in a 280 PPM world) we would likely need about15% more land, and more water. If we instantly dropped to 280 ppm , WWIII would break out within months. Is this in the economic calculations?.

  40. David A says:

    Can some share a summary of how the IPCC calculates the harm from CO2?

    I hope they do not take the ensemble model mean of all the models, which universally run way to warm compared to the observations, and from this wrong modeled basis, extrapolate more modeled what if scenarios, predicting more droughts, floods, hurricanes, extreme storms, sea level rise, ocean acidification, etc; all of which are observably not happening. I hope that is not what the IPCC did. If so, my back of the envelope calculations tells me their what if, models all they way down story, is not fit for human consumption.

  41. Doug UK says:

    Bob Kutz says:

    April 23, 2014 at 11:21 am
    I’ve had exchanges with Nuticello (sic) before.

    He has three very real problems with regard to his understanding and communication on climate change issues;

    1) He actually isn’t very bright. Its not that he doesn’t try to understand. He simply isn’t capable. Some very complicated issues go right over his head. He isn’t capable of arguing the point because he doesn’t even understand it. Witness the above. He is clueless as to what you mean. Or, in the parlance common here; a liberal arts major.

    2) He has absolute certainty with regard to the truth of the matter. Or, as you and I would call it; blind faith. There is no question in his mind. So you, in arguing against him, are either evil or stupid. Which is it? Yes, this is how his brain works. He isn’t concerned with your argument and to the extent he engages you at all, he’s just trying to work out if you are just too stupid to get it or actually evil incarnate.

    3) He has no ethical concerns about lying, slandering, editing comments and stories on his website or just plain name calling when he is clearly in over his head. You see, he is in the right, so anything he does, which others may see as unethical or evil, is justified by his correct position on CAGW. Noble cause corruption as I’ve heard it referred to here.

    This makes him a proper candidate to ignore. On every level. Don’t visit his site, don’t comment on stories he is involved with and most of all stop posting any news of or stories about him.

    In short, if you ignore him he will go away.

    He will never admit he’s wrong and he will always resort to slander and lies when cornered. Eventually he may figure out that he’s in the wrong but he still won’t admit to it. Instead he will pretend like he never cared about the CAGW issue and figure out some other cause to assuage his ego and make himself feel less dense.

    I’ve dealt with his type before.

    ……………………..

    Sadly Bob – in my own small way – so have I.

    Your analysis and description of those with blind faith in AGW is absolutely spot on.

    Dana Nuccitelli is now seen as a joke by pretty much everyone.

  42. I loved Bob Kutz description of 3 problems with Nuccitello (dim, blind faith and willing to lie for the cause). They apply perfected to many of his fellow travelers one of whom in particular comes to mind. Unfortunately I do not think they will go away just because you ignore them. So we can’t ignore them, can’t debate with them, and if we attack them we come across as angry and abusers of the intellectually meek. We must just keep putting the facts out there in a polite way.
    But why do they get so much media coverage?

  43. Clovis Marcus says:

    To cut to the chase, what was the reason for substituting the numbers with an ellipsis? There were no space constraints, this was a guardian opinion piece not a tweet.

  44. Pointman says:

    Don’t be too hard on Dana, he’s merely living up to his reputation of being a Prattie Laureate.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/20/climate-prat-of-2013-we-have-a-winnah/

    Pointman

  45. chris moffatt says:

    Nuccitelli states:
    “According to Hope’s model, the economically optimal peak atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is around 500 ppm, with a peak global surface warming of about 3°C above pre-industrial temperatures (about 2°C warmer than present). ”

    But as we see in the post above by Lord Monckton, according to St. Svante Arrhenius a doubling of CO2 produces a temperature increase of +1.6C. So an increase to 500ppm CO2 raises temperature by +2.0C but an increase to 800ppm only increases temperature by +1.6C.
    Interesting. This means that an increase from 500ppm to 800ppm means an decrease of temperature of -0.4C.

    Seems to me the sooner we get over the hump of 500ppm CO2 and get on the downslope the better.

  46. DirkH says:

    On the Guardian Nucci-Tol exchange:

    DanaNuccitelli RichardSJTol
    24 April 2014 3:32pm
    ” “Carbon dioxide is not pollution. Your lungs are full of it.”
    Oh come now, let’s not get into ridiculous non sequiturs. Carbon dioxide is pollution according to US law and the US Supreme Court, and hence it’s regulated as such.”

    Well; maybe show this to the leftist foot soldiers, the ex “Question Authority” crowd.

  47. dbstealey says:

    Bob Kutz says:

    He will never admit he’s wrong and he will always resort to slander and lies when cornered…

    I’ve dealt with his type before.

    We all have. The alarmist clique has lost the scientific argument decisively. But rather than man-up, they lash out with ad hominem slander.

    Nuccitelli doesn’t seem to understand what a really despicable person he is.

  48. Mark Bofill says:

    Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:

    April 23, 2014 at 9:42 pm

    It’s worth returning to the comments and read the rest of the exchange between Dana and me (most of which took place after Anthony’s post). Dana doesn’t know his arse from his elbow. I don’t think he knew he was (mis)citing my work against me.

    Nice work. I enjoyed reading it. :)

  49. _Jim says:

    re: Bob Kutz says April 23, 2014 at 11:21 am
    I’ve had exchanges with Nuticello (sic) before.

    He has three very real problems with regard to his understanding and communication on climate change issues;

    1) He actually isn’t very bright. Its not that he doesn’t try to understand. He simply isn’t capable.

    Looking at his picture, he may be have been afflicted congenitally by Microcephaly*; we should maybe cut his some slack? (IOW, he may actually be retarded, possessing reduced maental capacity owing to circumstances beyond his control.)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microcephaly

    .

    *Possibly caused by Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, Down Syndrome or PKU (Phenylketonuria) according to these guys http://www.healthline.com/symptom/microcephaly

  50. _Jim says:

    I should have added above: “… as an alternative to a full-fledged exhibition of the Dunning-Kruger effect.”

    .

  51. Andrew says:

    “To get to our current food supply (is we were in a 280 PPM world) we would likely need about15% more land, and more water. If we instantly dropped to 280 ppm , WWIII would break out within months. Is this in the economic calculations?.”

    This.

    I had a discussion with a “precautionary principle” warmy. I asked “if God handed you the magic CO2 button to return us to 280ppm for no charge, would you push it?” He said “yes, absolutely.” I said “congratulations – crop yields have now fallen 18% and a billion people just died.”

    Any possible externalities from temps rising to the level of he very nice places to my north during my grandkids’ lives are swamped by the elephant: crop yields. And if we stop emitting, once the oceans quickly absorb excess CO2 that will happen. 100 Holocausts.

  52. Neil Watson says:

    One pleasing aspect of this entertaining thread is that Richerd Tol has made a stand for the use of the Anglo-Saxon-Batavian ‘arse’, rather than the bestial ‘ass’ so beloved of the Cousins. Well done sir!

Comments are closed.