UPDATE: A chronicle has been added, see below.
Uh oh…them’s fighting words:
@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 23, 2013
Watch the fun here:
@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?
— Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 23, 2013
This is all over the fact that Dr. Tol has said the Cook et al study has misrepresented his position:
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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!
Trying to have an intelligent discussion over Twitter must be like trying to thread a needle while riding a bicycle over cobblestones.
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.
The fact that Dana is taking this to Twitter shows just how sensitive their so called “study” is to these criticisms.
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!
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 (@ur momisugly 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
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.
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
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.
The only way you could misrepresent Cook’s paper is to say that it is honest and truthful. !!
“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..
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.
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…
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!
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.
Eli Rabett says: May 23, 2013 at 10:14 pm
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…
[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.
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…
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.