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.
I dont see the issue here?
Tol rates his own paper on the same scale, that blogreaders rated his abstract. It was his rating that went into the final 97% wasnt it?
This whole thing is such a sad charade and distraction from more important discussion.
Oflo says:
May 24, 2013 at 1:29 am
This whole thing is such a sad charade that discussion of the fraudulent and liars IS the only important discussion remaining.
So very sad (and inordinately expensive) that this is so. As partially evidenced by the likes of the rabbit posting instead of just lurking.
Eli writes “Tol is talking about his papers, Dana is talking about the abstracts.”
Tol is also talking about the selection criteria not finding the vast majority of his AGW related papers. The Cook paper is flawed in so many ways…
@ur momisugly DirkH says:
May 24, 2013 at 12:40 am
I don’t want to be responsible for inflating false hope, but could it be that there is movement at the station in Germany after all?!
“”We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
philjourdan says:
May 24, 2013 at 4:52 am
“”We are the Borg. Lower your shields and surrender your ships. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.”
——————–
🙂
But what Steven said makes sense to me. If this summary is basically true:
Cook plays a bait and switch game. Scientifically, the consensus is over a trivial point. In the PR effort, you take the sound bite ‘97% of scientists agree about AGW’ and use the brevity and ambiguity to justify any policy decision you want to.
Then it seems to me that he who defines the terms, runs the surveys, and controls the PR wins the policy issues. Personally, I’ve got no stomach for that sort of work, but that doesn’t invalidate the observation.
@Mark Bofill – Nor was I disagreeing with Steven’s observation. But the way he phrased it was eerily representative of that line from ST-TNG. Not that Steven is advocating a Borgian society. But apparently some are setting up the constructs for it.
The 97% argument is nothing but a bait and switch scheme, a technique used by con men. As already mentioned most skeptics accept that man has an impact on climate. That is also what most climate scientists believe. We all pretty much fall in the 97% number. However, the 97% number is used by the con men to imply man’s impact is dangerous if not catastrophic. That has never been part of the questioning to define the 97% number but it used by these con men to claim action must be take to avoid the dangers.
Cook et al and the other supporters of the 97% nonsense are behaving exactly like con men. They should be mocked and called out at every opportunity for their blatant dishonesty.
TimTheToolMan says:
“Tol is also talking about the selection criteria not finding the vast majority of his AGW related papers. The Cook paper is flawed in so many ways…”
I looked up the twitter fight to see what Tol was saying about the selection criteria, but he has not made it clear. Twitter seems like the worst place to do that. The tone of both writers is childish. If Tol means that he has many papers that meet the web of science key words criteria, and they were left out of the study, that would show a major flaw.
But if Tol means he thinks some other selection criteria should have been used, then he should state what his criteria is and explain why it is better. From an explanation we might get better studies instead of a twitter fight.
121 eligible papers from Dr Tol, 21 of which were included but misclassified
Makes one wonder how many papers from other authors were also misclassified
does it not?
Qualifications:
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli is an environmental scientist at a private environmental consulting firm in the Sacramento, California area. He has a Bachelor’s Degree in astrophysics from the University of California at Berkeley, and a Master’s Degree in physics from the University of California at Davis. He has been researching climate science, economics, and solutions as a hobby since 2006, and has contributed to Skeptical Science since September, 2010.
Richard Tol
Richard S.J. Tol is a Professor at the Department of Economics, University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Formerly, he was a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, the Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change at Hamburg University and an Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA. He has had visiting appointments at the Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, British Colombia, at the Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, and at the Princeton Environmental Institute and the Department of Economics, Princeton University. He received an M.Sc. in econometrics (1992) and a Ph.D. in economics (1997) from the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He is ranked among the top 200 economists in the world, and has 194 publications in learned journals (with 100+ co-authors), 3 books, 5 major reports, 37 book chapters, and many minor publications. He specialises in the economics of energy, environment, and climate, and is interested in integrated assessment modelling. He is an editor for Energy Economics, and an associate editor of economics the e-journal. He is advisor and referee of national and international policy and research. He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007; an author and editor of the UNEP Handbook on Methods for Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies; a GTAP Research Fellow; and a member of the Academia Europaea. He is actively involved in the European Climate Forum, the European Forum on Integrated Environmental Assessment, and the Energy Modeling Forum.
Socialist lie, deceive, cheat, and bully to get their way. Alarmist lie,deceive, cheat, and bully to get their way. Alarmists are socialist determined to make suffering equal for all. Of course, except for them, because someone has to govern or rule over the masses.
Mike jarosz says:
May 24, 2013 at 7:19 am
…
————–
I used to believe exactly that until I started posting here, and learned that there are socialists who post here who certainly don’t fit the totalitarian model that I’d always thought was an inherent part of socialism. I must confess I still don’t really understand some of the political perspectives here, but I’ve been bitten by the strong suspicion that I’ve been oversimplifying such matters.
Anyways, I hate to alienate people who agree with me that CAGW is a crock over political differences. I think Cook would like for us to believe it’s a U.S. liberal vrs conservative issue (see: http://www.skepticalscience.com/value-consensus-climate-communication.html) but that may well simply be another device like switch and bait. Call it divide and conquer. In my view, ~all~ reasonable people with the facts would reject the CAGW viewpoint, regardless of political persuasion.
Regards
Although I can’t endorse the approach, I do think the “Crap is Crap” argument does have some merit.
But the President liked it, so it must be a great paper.
/sarc off