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

UPDATE: A chronicle has been added, see below.

Uh oh…them’s fighting words:

Watch the fun here:

This is all over the fact that Dr. Tol has said the Cook et al study has misrepresented his position:

Cook’s 97% consensus study falsely classifies scientists’ papers according to the scientists that published them

One wonders if Dana’s employer knows how much time he’s wasting on Twitter during the day, among other things.

UPDATE: Kadaka has made a chronicle:

<b>Herd Straying</b>

by

Kevin D. Knoebel

<i>The assaulting of Richard Tol for daring to sidestep the new Dana Nuccitelli-John Cook cow patty</i>

 

1. Richard Tol @RichardTol

The Cook paper comes further apart http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html …

7:01 AM – 21 May 13

2. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.

10:22 PM – 22 May 13

3. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.

10:48 PM – 22 May 13

4. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.

11:04 PM – 22 May 13

5. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm

11:31 PM – 22 May 13

6. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.

11:40 PM – 22 May 13

7. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

11:41 PM – 22 May 13

8. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2010/05/climate-change-impacts-on-global_04.html … and he’s an IPCC CLA

1:59 AM – 23 May 13

9. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts @richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper.

6:37 AM – 23 May 13

10. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?

7:33 AM – 23 May 13

11. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?

8:12 AM – 23 May 13

12. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW)

8:14 AM – 23 May 13

13. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.

8:15 AM – 23 May 13

14. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?

8:29 AM – 23 May 13

15. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 So basically this is politics then.

8:40 AM – 23 May 13

16. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.

8:47 AM – 23 May 13

17. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You’ve said we misclassified your papers. We didn’t classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the papers

8:49 AM – 23 May 13

18. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 I meant “denier” seems to be a political label – not talking specifically about Richard T’s views on your paper.

8:54 AM – 23 May 13

19. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?

9:46 AM – 23 May 13

20. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol It’s not semantics at all. You’re equating two different things which we evaluated separately.

10:06 AM – 23 May 13

21. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie

10:17 AM – 23 May 13

22. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 You accused me of lies and misrepresentation. Would you care to elaborate cq withdraw your accusations?

11:05 AM – 23 May 13

23. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol I already elaborated twice. On top of the abstract/paper issue you suggested it was a fault our sample only included 10 of yours

12:14 PM – 23 May 13

24. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.

12:49 PM – 23 May 13

25. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?

12:50 PM – 23 May 13

Such incredible savagery, as the little Dana calf relentlessly tries to shove the Tol bull far away from the herd with all of his furious might. Such a tragedy, incited by Tol insensitively daring to decide to avoid the warm squishyness of a fresh Dana/Cook plop between his hooves. How dare Tol not take one for the herd!

On the plus side, massive kudos to Dana for his perfect channeling of Sheldon from <i>The Big Bang Theory</i>. His whiny petulance was spot-on excellent. Great acting, Dana.

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

Reference links:

1. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/336844141289930753

2. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337438314909011970

3. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337444845876555776

4. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337448817811132417

5. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337455725158744064

6. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337458036333490176

7. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337458277321416705

8. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337493095711113216

9. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337562992436736000

10. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337576949738266625

11. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337586801021693953

12. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337587313725022211

13. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337587672941993984

14. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337591140276649986

15. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337593908060106755

16. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337595705952722944

17. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337596193058222080

18. https://twitter.com/richardabetts/status/337597392369090561

19. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337610467176488960

20. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337615597049352192

21. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337618249334280192

22. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337630454591139840

23. https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/337647766719320064

24. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656648841711616

25. https://twitter.com/RichardTol/status/337656856057106432

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
HaroldW

Tol summed up the Cook et al. paper accurately and succinctly: ” A silly idea poorly implemented.”

Might be useful to remind people what kind of “denier” Richard Tol is (yes, that’s sarcasm – he says he was the first one to put the A in AGW)

milodonharlani

I’m sure that Gavin Schmidt’s employer knows how much time he spends on his blog at work, & doesn’t care, in fact encourages this squandering of the taxpayers’ dollars.

Mark Bofill

So, this paragon study that earned an Obama (well, an Obama committee) tweet may have value after all.
Maybe it will separate the serious scientists from the propagandists.
Over at Lucia’s Blackboard, Brandon Shollenberger has dug an interesting revelation out of the material; Cook’s study is (or was apparently supposed to be) about the consensus that ‘humans are causing global warming.’ That’s it. No ‘most’, ‘much’, ‘all’, ‘rapid’, ‘catastrophic’ or anything. It’s not clear to me who’d disagree with this. Dr. Roy Spencer is part of the 97% consensus then?
Ironic.

KNR

A joke guy produces a joke study and they goes on to laughingly defend it .
What else is there to say , other than SS has a track record of changing peoples own words to support the view SS promotes and then when caught go about lying to try to BS their way out of it .

Snotrocket

omnologos says: May 23, 2013 at 1:45 pm
“…Richard Tol …says he was the first one to put the A in AGW”
And Dana is the first one to put the A in @rsehole (OK, mods, snip away. 🙂 )

Rob Dawg

Tol says Cook misrepresented Tol. Case closed.

Catcracking

It seems as though it is academic as to whether the 97% is accurate or not. It served it’s purpose by providing a mechanism for the administration to misinform the sheeple who worship at the alter of global warming with false information. Dana may get an award or bonus for this distortion. The fact that it is inaccurate will never be exposed by the MSM. It is just like the nonsense story created after the Benghazi attacks with Candy C carrying water for the administration during the debates. The public will never be allowed to hear the truth or the complete story.

kadaka (KD Knoebel)

Oh great, I just compiled the Big List of these tweets, nicely sorted and ordered, and emailed it in for a submission. Includes one just after this went up.
But I didn’t know this was published, didn’t see it in “Recent Posts”.
Oh well, guess I did all that work for Anthony’s private amusement. Joy.

Dodgy Geezer

How do I “Watch the fun here:”? There doesn’t seem to be anything…

121 eligible papers from Dr Toll, 21 of which were included but misclassified, out of 11944 papers:
32.6% – the proportion of papers which endorse AGW
0.7% – Rejected AGW
0.3% – Uncertain
The rest – no position
32.6% x 11944 = 3894 papers which “support” AGW.
0.7% x 11944 = 83 papers which “reject” AGW
0.3% x 11944 = 36 papers which are “uncertain” about AGW
Subtract the 21 which were misclassified = 3873
Add the papers to the against: 83 + 121 = 204
“Consensus” percentage, using Cook methodology, just accounting for Dr. Toll’s misclassified papers =
3873 / (204 + 36 + 3873) = 94%
Just from correcting the misclassification of Dr. Toll’s papers, the “consensus” has dropped 3% points.
This is going to be fun.

normalnew

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

JJ

milodonharlani says:
I’m sure that Gavin Schmidt’s employer knows how much time he spends on his blog at work, & doesn’t care, in fact encourages this squandering of the taxpayers’ dollars.

The Sequester disappoints – JJ

graphicconception

‘humans are causing global warming.’
I would like to see every claim have some sort of number attached. That is, how much warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, how much by natural CO2, how much by H2O, deforestation etc etc.
Many wild claims would then not be sustainable. At present, the data can be spun all ways. Having numbers would put the protagonists in a spot just like the current climate sensitivity discussions.

DocMartyn

If not believing cAGW is a political, and not a scientific, act, does it not follow that believing cAGW is a political, and not a scientific belief?

handjive

Further evidence, Nuccitelli is not interested in real science.
As if further evidence was needed:
On 21 January 2013, dana1981, or Dana Nuccitelli, of Skeptical Science, published an open letter to London Mayor Boris Johnson titled : “Weather is not Climate.”
At issue for dana1981 was the fact that the Mayor had commented that it was snowing in London in winter, and that the sun was to blame for any global warming.
Said dana1981, “Quite simply, weather is not climate.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/open-letter-mayor-boris-johnson.html
Just a few months later, the Australian BoM/climate commission/CSIRO released a “report” (I use that term very loosely) summarising Oz weather over 3 days in a SH summer, claiming WEATHER IS NOW CLIMATE.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/climate-change-a-key-factor-in-extreme-weather-experts-say-20130303-2fefv.html
Did Nuccitelli write an open letter alerting the Climate Commission, CSIRO or BoM they’re wrong?
OR
Did Nuccitelli write an apology to Mayor Johnson?

Louis Hooffstetter

I don’t always agree with Richard Tol, but from his papers and blog posts, I believe he is intellectually honest. I don’t believe anyone at Septical Science is even remotely honest.

u.k.(us)

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

Camburn

Dana has a very bad case of Skeptical Science Syndrome. Does one even need to further contemplate the validity of the study in question?

Skiphil

In a sane world the likes of John Cook and Dana Nuccitelli would be shoe shine boys… Oh wait, that is the role they play for the CAGW crowd, polishing something other than shoes….

The funny part is, watching Europe these days, even dedicated ideologues like Nucitelli must feel it all slipping away from them. And yet they have nowhere to turn, no exit plans – they’ve over-committed themselves, and now all they can do is rage, rage, against the dying of the (AGW) light.

populartechnology

This is great,
“@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.” – Dana
“@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.” – Dana
“…interesting they apply the D word to me, one of the 1st to show the A in AGW, argued for carbon taxes for 20 yr …@dana1981” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2010/05/climate-change-impacts-on-global_04.html … and he’s an IPCC CLA” – Dr. Richard Betts
“@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap.” – Dr. Richard Tol
“@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Dr. Richard Tol

pete

lmao. further into the absurd we venture.

john robertson

As the cult collapses the flame wars of the righteous will increase.
He who is the most “Hole-e” will be the last defender of the cause.

u.k.(us)

Would it be wrong to say, that lacking context, the NSA will waste more money, on my abbreviations, than the code words.
I’d give them right up, if I knew them.
The “them” is the hard part to determine nowadays.

Marian

“graphicconception says:
May 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
‘humans are causing global warming.’
I would like to see every claim have some sort of number attached. That is, how much warming is caused by anthropogenic CO2, how much by natural CO2, how much by H2O, deforestation etc etc.”
And I’d like to know how many of those papers were ‘actual science papers’? And not grey literature AGW/CC papers being passed off as science papers.
We’ve all heard the claims scientists say AGW/CC is real and worse than thought. Only to find the said science study, etc claiming it wasn’t well, err that scientific. Like the one claiming it was done by 25 scientists, but well, err. Only 1 of those 25 claimed scientists had a science degree!

Peter Pearson

Trying to have an intelligent discussion over Twitter must be like trying to thread a needle while riding a bicycle over cobblestones.

Jimbo

Over at the Guardian I have made about 4 comments on this page but none have been allowed. I was within their terms. No wonder the Guardian’s circulation is circulating down the toilet. It will soon be a thing of the past.

populartechnology

The fact that Dana is taking this to Twitter shows just how sensitive their so called “study” is to these criticisms.

populartechnology

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

Ouch! There is no joy in “Who-is-Not”ville tonight!

John West

It’s unfathomable to me how anyone that’s even moderately scientifically literate could possibly look at the available evidence and not conclude that CAGW is unlikely (although still possible), AGW is likely trivially true (@ some proportion), and GW is hardly anything worrisome to date or into the foreseeable future; but most of all that we just don’t know enough to be doom-mongering.

Over at Lucia’s Blackboard, Brandon Shollenberger has dug an interesting revelation out of the material; Cook’s study is (or was apparently supposed to be) about the consensus that ‘humans are causing global warming.’ That’s it. No ‘most’, ‘much’, ‘all’, ‘rapid’, ‘catastrophic’ or anything. It’s not clear to me who’d disagree with this. Dr. Roy Spencer is part of the 97% consensus then?
#####################
yup everyone is a part of the consensus. rather than fight the idea of consensus folks shuld just join it and change the definition to something that makes more sense

Latimer Alder

Good to see that Richard Betts from the UK Met Office is making good points in there too.
He is one of the more realistic ones from that den of alarmism.
And a nice guy.

pat

James Hansen allowing for “natural variability” but doesn’t like carbon prices to go up & down!
23 May: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Scientist Hansen Turns Activist, Advocates ‘Fee’ on Carbon Pollution
I caught up with Hansen in London last week. He was in Europe to lobby politicians to classify fuels from oil sands as more polluting than conventional fossil fuels…
Q: Tell me your thoughts on the effectiveness of carbon pricing in Europe. The price has plummeted this year.
A: Carbon markets are better than nothing. What’s really needed is a carbon fee, something that will go up monotonically.
***It should not go up and down and up and down. That’s good for traders and bankers; people who will make money from a fluctuating market. But that’s not the objective. We really don’t want big banks in the problem. They don’t add anything to the problem except cost.
So what you want to have is a fee on carbon that you collect from the fossil fuel companies.
Q: You’re reluctant to call it a tax?
A: I would call it a fee if it’s revenue-neutral. If you give the money to the public, then it’s not a tax. It’s a fee collected from fossil fuel companies with the money distributed to the public. I would distribute it as an equal amount to every legal resident of the country…
Q: The warmest temperatures since 1998, which were in 2005 and 2010, have all been pretty similar. How can we explain that we’ve not had a significantly warmer year than 1998 since then?
A: When you look at a short period, it’s hard to have statistically significant warming. But the rate has been less in the past decade than the prior three decades.
It’s normal. There’s no reason to believe that the temperature is going to be linear. There are a couple of reasons to believe it would be less. Since the 1970s we have been measuring the sun very precisely, and we know that this last solar cycle is the weakest of them all.
But there are other factors involved, some of which are not measured very well, including human-made aerosols [which cause cooling].
Then there’s just a natural variability. We’ve had in the last few years two strong La Ninas. That’s just a natural oscillation of tropical temperature. The 1998 El Nino was a record one, and that causes warming. The La Ninas cause a global cooling. When you have a big warming at the beginning and two La Ninas at the end, that tends to give you a negative trend…
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/climate-scientist-hansen-turns-activist-advocates-fee-on-carbon-pollutioin.html

markx

Dana has truly lost his marbles.
That twatter exchange truly shows what a righteous believer he is. Even expressing an opinion on the methodology behind his screed apparently makes one a blasphemer.
Richard Tol comes over as decent and honest.

AndyG55

The only way you could misrepresent Cook’s paper is to say that it is honest and truthful. !!

AndyG55

“graphicconception says:
May 23, 2013 at 3:17 pm
‘humans are causing global warming.’
Humans have definitely caused a rising trend in the calculated global average surface temperature, particularly in the pre-satellite era.
By it from UHI effects, massive data manipulation (whoops, I meant, adjustment) loss of cold temp stations and an increasing bais toward urbanised thermometers.etc. etc.
Has there been much real warming since 1900? Who knows.. and unfortunately the corruption of the surface temperature records means we may not ever know for sure, and certainly not how much.
Most temperture records before 1979 should be treated as highly suspect, and basically IGNORED. They are meaningless..

Eli Rabett

Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts. Dana said so multiple times and Tol is trying to bluff his way through. In Brian’s prequel survey there were many papers where by looking at the authors you would have rated differently than by looking at the abstracts. Tol is trying to shift the argument but, it is why direct comparison between the author ratings and the abstract ratings can and does differ.

populartechnology

Joshy, Was the classification Cook et al. (2013) gave to an abstract implied to the entire paper?
What is your argument – that you cannot properly rate papers by just looking at the abstract? How does that support the conclusions of Cook et al.?
The fact that the direct comparison to self-ratings differs is simply more evidence that the abstract ratings are worthless and any conclusions drawn from them meaningless – thus the entire Cook et al. paper is meaningless.

Talk about drinking the Green Kool-Aid…

Espen

I followed this on twitter yesterday and couldn’t help laughing to myself when he played the Denier Card against mr Tol. Who’s going to save “skeptical science” now? They’re the “skeptical” equivalent of the Spanish Inquisition – John Cleese edition!

markx

Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts.
Hmm. So that gives different results? Perhaps a pointer that there are some problems with the methodology?

markx, they think that is some sort of trump card allowing them to falsely classify papers. Effectively saying…
“We did not read the whole paper so it is acceptable that we are misleading everyone when they read our study”. – Cook et al.

Espen, Dana has spent too much time in the SS echo chamber to even know who’s side of a debate anyone else is on.

intrepid_wanders

Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm

Tol is trying to shift the argument but, it is why direct comparison between the author ratings and the abstract ratings can and does differ.

So, based on the reading comprehension of the Cook et al. 2013, they decide the consensus of AGW based on only the abstracts (not to mention the >50% metric that Dana ad hoc’d), and you are calling Richard Tol out for “shifting the argument” for saying “I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.” after Cook et al, 2013 sampled less than 10% of Tol’s works concerning AGW.
I am sure there are quite a few of us that would like to know what Opus of a Pile of Crap was supposed to help clarify. Clearly, Dana’s ego of peer-ship among the “consensus” is misplaced, never mind the logic of arguing the absurd.
Keep it up Eli, it will all be over soon…

TheInquirer

[snip – not interested in your rant about WUWT, if you don’t like it don’t read it – mod]

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

DirkH

This fracturing of the CO2AGW movement makes me highly skeptical of CO2AGW. At the same time a similar thing is happening in Germany, the UBA’s Flasbarthists call the Lukewarmer and renewable energy proponent Vahrenholt a denier. The Flasbarthists have the advantage that they occupy the UBA, and that their leader has been installed there during the reign of the Greens in 2004; Vahrenholt has the advantage of being a member of the social democrat SPD, if that can count as an advantage…

AndyG55

Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm
“Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts. ”
No, Dana is talking about Cook’s, and probably Dana’s , wonky, massively biased, interpretation of the extracts.