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
I have something to counter the presidential tweet but am holding off on it for a few days since Dr. Tol released these devastating blows.
“Dan Kammen, the editor in chief, featured in the press release.” … Dr Tol.
Maybe Mr Kammen should consider offering his resignation … merely publishing a non-warmist paper has been a good enough excuse for others in the past 😉
@richard Allcock
10 is a bounds estimate. WoS offers the 100 most productive researchers in the two samples. 11 papers is the cut-off from the smaller sample. The omitted ones therefore have AT MOST 10 papers in the smaller sample. So the 10 is me being generous to Cook et al.
Word is getting out:
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2013/06/oh-that-carbon-dioxide-global-warming.html
As has been stated here many times , the idea of a scientific consensus is meaningless. For hundreds of years the scientific consensus held that the earth was the centre of the universe, objects fell at a rate proportional to their weight, and there were four elements. and “blood letting” was a common cure.
This is Dana’s twitter. Some really weird stuff here, including comments from the leading black hatted guys in the Climate Change Industry.
Perhaps it should be retitled “Ecoloons United”
https://twitter.com/dana1981
On Friday the Daily Telegraph printed a much shortened/edited version of my email on this subject:
“It is not true that 97 per cent of academic papers supported the Anthropogenic Global (sic) Warming (AGW) theory. Around 32 per cent of papers endorsed AGW while around 66 per cent stated no position for or against AGW.
To add these two numbers together is fradulent.”
The editor mistakenly used the word Global, of course it should have been Greenhouse. Still, it was nice to see this printed. There were two other sceptical letters also.
Chris
Dana is clearly a nonagintaseptemist, a person practiced in the art of getting the answer 97% whatever the data or the question. However he doesn’t appear to be a very good one.
henrythethird says:
June 1, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“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
”
Oh come on. That the quality journalists at Thomson Reuters manage to get the sex of a guy called Dana wrong is the stuff of teenage giggles.
The Thomson Reuters article does its very best to spread the myth of CO2AGW and of the newly constructed 97% lie.
One of the directors on board the Thomson Reuters board of trustees is Ultra globalist Pascal Lamy.
The globalists are currently having their ICLEI / Agenda 21 love fest in Bonn. Everyone there says that the biggest problem their city faces is The Climate Change. Go figure.
For a planet that hasn’t warmed in 15 years they sure talk a lot about The Climate Change
http://www.iclei.org/en/our-activities/our-agendas/resilient-city/resilient-cities-2013-live-blog/day-2.html
They are obviously lying, and Thomson Reuters helps them to stick to their lie, and Dana Nuccitelli and cartoonist John Cook have fabricated the latest confirmation for the lie.
I’ve looked again at the Reuters propaganda piece, and it is about as false as it can get, even in marginal points like this:
“Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, hit 400 parts per million in the atmosphere last week, the highest in perhaps 3 million years.”
The main greenhouse gas is water vapor.
Reuters has given up any pretense of reporting and plunged 100% into agitprop.
@ur momisugly philincalifornia says: June 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Brilliant metaphor that sums up concisely the entire CAGW mind(feeling?)set. I give it an ’11’.
Thanks for the long belly laugh….I think – Now I have to convince my wife that sitting alone in a room while laughing hysterically does not necessarily mean I have gone entirely mad.
“It’s easy to call anyone a cheat. Of course, proving it to all is quite rare, but not finishing it of by calling them out as a cheat, is even rarer still. Classy stuff Dr. Tol
Pointman
I think it is actually worse than that. He is saying Cook is just plain stupid.
And that is some dumb.
Bring on the bag of hammers.
Dana “Denier” Nuccitelli.
dbstealey says:
June 1, 2013 at 1:51 pm
++++++++++++
Great posts sir… I love how you reason with CAGW ideologist folk!
@Reich.Eschhaus:
++++++++
with regard to your comments, you sounds like a young person who does not know how to make cogent thoughts. You fail to make any statements based on anything thoughtful. Yet you use words like “yawn, lame etc.” However, you’re helping to define yourself. And I don’t care if you are tired and want to go to bed… Is that not off topic?