Dr. Richard Tol has been tweeting a statistical destruction of the “97% consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) by educating co-author Dana Nuccitelli as to why his “sample” is not representative.
“In his defense, [Dana] has had limited exposure to stats at uni” – Richard Tol
 |
| Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 75% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution. |
 |
| Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers. |
 |
| Including “global” before “climate change”, Cook et al. dropped 33 of the 50 most cited papers. |
 |
| Choosing exclusive WoS over inclusive Scopus, Cook et al. dropped 35% of papers and changed disciplinary distribution. |
As Dr. Tol so eloquently put it,
“[Dana] I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense.” – Richard Tol
CV of Dr. Richard Tol:
M.Sc. Econometrics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992); Ph.D. Economics (Thesis: “A decision-analytic treatise of the enhanced greenhouse effect“), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1997); Researcher, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (1992-2008); Visiting Researcher, Canadian Centre for Climate Research, University of Victoria, Canada (1994); Visiting researcher, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University College London, United Kingdom (1995); Acting Programme Manager Quantitative Environmental Economics, Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands (1998-1999); Visiting Associate Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (1998-2000); Board Member, Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University (2000-2006); Lead Author, IPCC (2001); Contributing Author and Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001, 2007); Associate Editor, Environmental and Resource Economics Journal (2001-2006); Adjunct Professor, Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University (2000-2008); Michael Otto Professor of Sustainability and Global Change, Department of Geosciences and Department of Economics, Hamburg University, Germany (2000-2006); Editor, Energy Economics Journal (2003-Present); Visiting Research Scholar, Princeton Environmental Institute and Visiting Professor, Department of Economics, Princeton University (2005-2006); Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Ireland (2006-Present); Research Fellow, Global Trade Analysis Project (GTAP), Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University (2007-2010); Associate Editor, Economics E-Journal (2007-Present); Adjunct Professor, Department of Economics, Trinity College, Ireland (2010-2011); Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Netherlands (2008-Present); Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, University of Sussex, Falmer, United Kingdom (2012-Present)
Thanks to Populartechnology.net
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
@dbstealey
Yawn…
As if it were not clear that I gave Jimbo an extra option for his list. I could think of others still.
“You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”
Lame… Really lame…
It’s like watching yet another particularly bad piece of homework, brimming with elementary errors, which is being corrected by a tired and increasingly exasperated teacher. Another score of F minus, I’m afraid. Time for a concerned word with young Jimmy’s parents.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/la-la-la-i-cant-hear-you-im-not-listening/
Pointman
Reich.Eschhaus says:
June 1, 2013 at 4:09 pm
@dbstealey
“You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”
Lame… Really lame…
============================
Don’t duck the question. Present it.
I would be particularly interested in the tested empirical evidence at 400 ppm CO2 vs. 280 ppm CO2.
@philincalifornia
I would be particularly interested in why dbstealey asked me the question in the first place.
Further for you a big ‘Yawn…’ as well. Can’t one present an extra option to Jimbo’s list without being pressed in answering some non relevant question? So phil (in CA), why don’t you tell me what you think what could be added to Jimbo’s list? I hate to repeat myself, but there you go: Lame…
I’m asking you to not repeat yourself. dbstealey asked you a question. Duck it or answer it. If you can’t answer it, that’s fine. Don’t say it’s lame though.
Jimbo’s post is not a part of this interchange, so don’t use it as a diversionary tactic.
There is no established “full data set”. Your chart is arbitrary.
Nonsense, with respect to RSS MSU … It. Is. All. Of. The. Data.
@philincalifornia
“I’m asking you to not repeat yourself.”
Nobody says you did.
“dbstealey asked you a question.”
Yeah. But why?
“Duck it or answer it.”
Wasn’t I clear enough?
“If you can’t answer it, that’s fine.”
Now, that’s really lame!
“Don’t say it’s lame though.”
I won’t say it again, I promise!
“Jimbo’s post is not a part of this interchange, so don’t use it as a diversionary tactic.”
I present Jimbo with an additional option: “Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?” So far so good. Then dbstealey storms in with “You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global warming. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.” And you are saying I use diversionary tactics? I am sorry, but that is actually quite demure.
OK, so you can’t.
See ya
@philincalifornia
Yawn…
In their defense, Milli Vanilli have had limited exposure to singing before their lip-syncing debacle.
Sweet dreams
It wasn’t just Tol that slammed Dana, so did one of the media outlets:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/16/us-climate-scientists-idUSBRE94F00020130516
“…Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said she was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus “at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews”…”
Somehow, the writer got Dana’s sex wrong. Maybe if he grew a set, they might believe him.
Sleep well!
But suppose I had said:
“Q7) Has man-made co2 been responsible for preventing much of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have warmed more)?”
and dbstealey would pick on me by saying:
“You need to be reminded that there is no measurable evidence showing that CO2 causes any global cooling. If you believe that is wrong, present your testable, empirical evidence.”
Then what you have said? Just saying. Enjoy a good night’s sleep.
Reich.Eschhaus,
Wrong as usual. You are trying to put skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative — a common tactic among the alarmist crowd.
In fact, it is your conjecture that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, you must provide strong scientific evidence that this is so. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. That is how the scientific method works. You just have it backward.
You can believe that CO2 causes global warming. But you have no corroborating evidence. All you have is your assertion, which in this case only amounts to hand-waving.
Wake me when you can produce testable, empirical, verifiable, and reproducible scientific evidence to support your belief. Until then, this tells the story.
In the second of the Tol graphics (“Cook et al. dropped many papers by eminent climate researchers.) there seems to be a large number of those researchers who have EXACTLY 10 papers with the words “Global climate change”, regardless of the total number of papers……How odd that it would be exactly 10 – What’s up with that?
@dbstealey
Sleep tight!
“In fact, it is your conjecture that CO2 causes global warming. Therefore, you must provide strong scientific evidence that this is so. Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. That is how the scientific method works. You just have it backward.”
Where did I do that? I gave Jimbo another option, nothing more, nothing less.
Keep Dreaming!
Reich.Eschhaus says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm
… Odd. You have said many words, often in quite a demaning and irritating manner, but you have yet to communicate anything.
Let us phrase dbs’s question as an observation:
While CO2 has been steady, global temperatures and temperature proxies have risen, fallen, and been steady for 15 to 25 year-long periods.
While CO2 has risen 30%, global temperatures and temperature proxies have risen, fallen, and been steady for 15 to 25 year long periods.
The earth has conducted a 140 year experiment and CO2 =>CAGW has been proven false.
@ur momisugly RACookPE1978
Plain bullshit! I only added another option to Jimbo’s list. Everything else is not my responsibility. Why should I care about dbstealeys question/observation?
“… Odd. You have said many words, often in quite a demaning and irritating manner, but you have yet to communicate anything.”
Learn to write and to understand.
Thanks dbstealey for turning this in a total off topic discussion. I am off to bed now. Things are crazy here…
Reich.Eschhaus says:
“Where did I do that?”
You did that when you tried to push scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative [that CO2 causes ‘global cooling’]. Skeptics have never asserted that conjecture, and it is only desperation on your part to try and force skeptics into that corner.
Skeptics have debated much smarter folks than you, and come out on top. So you should probably trot on back to your ‘Pseudo-skeptical Pseudo-science’ blog. They lap up the kind of nonsense that you’re posting here.
And you ask: “Why should I care about dbstealeys question/observation?”
Well, obviously you do care, since you keep digging your hole deeper.
“You did that when you tried to push scientific skeptics into the position of having to prove a negative [that CO2 causes ‘global cooling’]. Skeptics have never asserted that conjecture, and it is only desperation on your part to try and force skeptics into that corner.”
What? I see only batshit crazy comments on my
Q6) Has man-made co2 been responsible for more than all of the recent warming (because otherwise it would have cooled down)?
option presented to Jimbo.
You crazy?
Reich.Eschhaus,
You keep saying it’s past your bedtime. Better take your own advice, because your comments are making less and less sense. Best lay off the MD 20/20, too.☺
Cook made a big mistake in mischaracterising Dr Richard Tol. Not only is Dr Tol a distinguished person in the field, he is a Dutchman. As with the Scots (with whom we have a lot of affinity), it is well to note the motto of the Scottish regiments of the British Army:
“Nemo me impune lacessit”
It is often translated as No one attacks me with impunity, or rendered in Scots as Wha daur meddle wi me?[2] (“Cha togar m’ fhearg gun dìoladh” in Scottish Gaelic). It is also alternatively translated into English as No one can harm me unpunished or Who dares meddle with me?
I have followed Dr Tol’s work for some years (mostly via Bishop Hill) and can attest that he is moderate, polite, and careful about what he says.
But, like that tenacious old Scottish Canadian Steve McIntyre, if he gets annoyed, look out. Once he makes up his mind to go after you, you are in for a world of pain.
“Reich.Eschhaus” who is “not” a member Skeptical Science and does “not” use proxies is back to defend Skeptical Science.