The self induced implosion of Dana Nuccitelli

I’ve stayed out of this fracas and watched it all unfold from the sidelines on Twitter the last two days. My entry into it (with this post) was prompted by an unlikely catalyst: Keith Kloor, who I find myself agreeing with on this rare occasion. He writes in The Dirty Art of Character Assassination:

Meanwhile, the poisonous debate has grown worse, with self-appointed soldiers of the warring sides seeing enemies at every turn. Some of these climate soldiers are always on the lookout, like snipers, eager to take out (or at least undermine) a perceived foe. A case in point happened on Twitter today, when climate blogger Dana Nuccitelli fired this missive:

This was news to me, as I’m pretty familiar with Roger’s work. So I clicked on Dana’s supporting link. It’s to an op-ed by six leading tornado experts, including Harold Brooks, who responded:

At this point, I asked Dana to clarify which tornado experts claim Roger is “misleading the American public”? He didn’t respond. What he did do is move the goalposts. But even that was incorrect, as Brooks quickly pointed out.

What happened next was astonishing: Rather than apologize, Dana twisted himself into semantic knots in an effort to show that Roger was in the wrong. I tried asking several more times:

I’ll let you know if I hear back.

In comments, the vitriol flowed as Dana dug his own hole even deeper. Some selections:

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

Roger Pielke Jr.

Dana continues to embarrass himself and the community that he purports to represent.

I co-authored a 2013 peer-reviewed paper which indeed concluded that “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”

See it here: http://sciencepolicy.colorado….

Dana may not like those conclusions. He may disagree with them. That is fine, happens all the time in science. Rather than trying to accuse me of “misleading the public” by claiming falsely that other experts had made that accusation, he might instead try to explain where our analysis of tornado data is mistaken in its analysis or conclusions. I am happy to hear his arguments, were he to actually make any. The idea that a climate blogger can somehow dictate what an academic can and can’t say about their own research gives a window into some of the deep pathologies in the climate debate.

I did state in my Congressional testimony that “The inability to detect and attribute changes in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes and drought does not mean that human-caused climate change is not real or of concern.” Dana is picking the wrong fight — wrong topic and wrong person.

I will continue to discuss our published research, and will do so accurately and faithfully to what we conclude in the peer reviewed literature. I’d ask Dana to follow the same standards.

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

Dana Nuccitelli >> Roger Pielke Jr.

You’re shifting the goalposts again, Roger. I didn’t say anything about your research. I’m not in a position to say if it’s wrong or right. Your statements to Congress, which I quoted in my comment, are not consistent with your research. You left out the critical caveats that the data aren’t sound enough to make conclusive statements – instead you made those conclusive statements to our policymakers. That is exactly the type of behavior criticized by Markowski et al. in their Op-Ed, as I quoted in my comment.

And really, can’t you make your arguments without claiming I’m ’embarrasing myself’? Let others make that kind of judgment for themselves, if you believe your arguments are sound. I suspect your abusive comments are due to the fact you know you’re in the wrong, and are trying to distract from the fact that you refuse to admit your errors.

Why don’t you just admit your Congressional testimony was misleading in the manner criticized by Markowski et al.? We all make mistakes. I’m willing to admit my initial Tweet was imprecise, because while the Op-Ed criticized comments similar to yours, they didn’t name you specifically. That was my mistake.

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

Roger Pielke Jr. >> Dana Nuccitelli

Dana, this will be my last reply to you as you continue to lie and misrepresent.

The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”

Our paper (linked above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.”

You can argue that scientists have accused me of misleading the public and you can claim that my testimony is inconsistent with my research. In both cases the evidence shows you to be not simply wrong, by misleading and even lying.

I do appreciate your willingness to dig in your heels and continue this display. I agree with you that those paying attention will be fully empowered to reach fair conclusions.

Thanks again for the exchange. Very educational, and not just for me.

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

Dana Nuccitelli >> Roger Pielke Jr.

Markowski et al.:

“Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”

Pielke Congressional testimony:

“Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950”

Someone is wrong. If you want to argue Markowski et al. are wrong, then do it. But don’t try to hide behind what you said in your paper, because that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is the above quote from your Congressional testimony.

And I agree, this has been very educational. Though I didn’t learn much about you that I didn’t already know.

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

Tom Fuller jumped in with this:

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

Thomas Fuller >> Dana Nuccitelli

Nucitelli: (non-existent experts say) “Pielke is misleading the public.”

Nucitelli: “I didn’t say anything about your research. I’m not in a position to say if it’s wrong or right.”

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

and this…

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

Thomas Fuller>> Dana Nuccitelli

At the most macro of levels, the thrust of Pielke’s research findings are not being contested. If there is a climate change signal in the phenomena Pielke has studied, it is either or both too slight or too recent to discern.

At the general level of climate discussions Pielke’s findings clearly are an effective (if not conclusive) counter argument to those claiming that Xtreme Weather is already upon us. As even the IPCC does not claim this (but rather echoes the ‘too slight, too recent to discern’ position), Nuccitelli’s blasts (which are, as Keith points out) not unusual, can be taken as political agitprop against someone he perceives as an enemy.

At the specific level of Pielke’s findings, they have not been effectively disputed in the literature that I have seen. What has happened is that other research has focused on phenomena not covered by Pielke and saying ‘That’s where the Xtreme Weather is!’

As for Pielke’s comment on this thread, Pielke is clearly wrong. Nuccitelli and the community he purports to represent are impervious to embarrassment–witness the acceptance of slipshod science that favors their side, such as Lewandowsky, Prall, Anderegg et al, etc., and their blithe embrace of criminal behavior by Peter Gleick simply because he’s on the side of the angels.

Nuccitelli’s just a hitman and it’s important to recognize that in this dispute he has won despite being wrong on the facts and sleazy in his approach. Every published slam against Pielke (in this case–there are dozens of other targets) becomes a reference point that he can use himself to say (a la Joe Romm) that Pielke has been debunked.

These garbage tactics work, so they don’t stop. They trashed Pielke’s father–mercilessly, wrongly and just as sleazily. Why would they spare his son?

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

Maurizio points out:

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

Maurizio Morabito >>Dana Nuccitelli

Read what Dana wrote about Roger (and Lomborg) on Sep 18, including accusations of ineptitude, incompetence and lack of honesty:

>>>>

http://wottsupwiththatblog.wor…

Dana Nuccitelli says:

Thanks for posting this. I’m putting together a list of contrarians making this bogus argument to rub it in their faces in 10 days when the IPCC report comes out and proves them wrong (which it will). Pielke Jr. made a similarly inept argument today (only plotting the multi-model mean and ignoring the envelope of model runs and uncertainty range).

So much for these two being ‘honest brokers’ or, you know, competent at interpreting data.

<<<<<

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

And it gets even worse: Kloor himself takes on Dana here, saying “Stop playing the victim card. It’s unbecoming.”

Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behavior that I agreed with, and let me tell you, it is a unique day indeed when Mr. Connolley and I agree upon anything.

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

All of this could have been avoided by a simple admission of making a mistake, and offering an apology. Everybody would have been moving on.

Instead, we have a spectacle of unprecedented stubbornness, coupled with the sort of egotistical stonewalling we’d expect to see from a politician, something that people are going to remember for quite some time.

This quote might be an apt summary of what we’ve witnessed from Dana:

“There is one thing that has disappeared, not just from the U.S. but from the entire world, is the idea of ever being embarrassed by anything.”  ― Fran Lebowitz
###
Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)

I wonder how this is going over with his co-workers at the oil company?

lurker, passing through laughing

Dana is arguing about his revelations regarding the miracle of AGW. He is not discussing a rational process. Sadly for Dana, his revelation does not hold him to a high standard of ethical behavior. Also sadly for Dana, he is not bright enough to talk his way out of his errors. He can only hope to shout more loudly and arm wave as distractions from his failure.

kim

Dana Nucitelli, Joe Romm, Stefan Lewandowsky, and so many other stubborn and arrogant alarmists activists act like they’ve got all the money in the world backing them. Well, maybe they used to, but we’re about out of other people’s money.
================

Niff

Impervious to embarrassment. Righteousness trumps sanity.

PaulH

…PaulH throws up his hands and slowly walks backwards out of the room…

If you go to WOTTS and I’m not saying that I don’t have to wash after that but the snipping in comments is a site to see they be at one another s throats over this as Dana will not back down still .

Scott Basinger

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging…

Felix

Roger Pielke Jr. wrote: “The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Our paper (linked above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.” ”
No. The two quotes are different. The second says there is no evidence for X. The first says X is false. But just because the is no evidence that X is true does not mean we have evidence X is false. The status of X is simply unknown. That is, “Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy.

David in Cal

I agree with the criticisms of DN. From a purely technical point, I think he misinterpreted what RP said. RP said that actual tornadoes hadn’t increased. Of course, that’s a verifiable fact.
I think DN interpreted RP’s comment as meaning something like: “The underlying propensity for tornadoes hasn’t increased.” That’s not a verifiable fact. It’s not even clear that the underlying propensity for tornadoes is objectively definable. Anyhow, my impression is that DN was disagreeing with something like this incorrect interpretation of what RP said.

Rob Dawg

I wonder if this jumping the shark moment is actually prepositioning in order to secure a new postion should his currnt big energy employer get tired of the embarrassment.

Rick Bradford

Dana is a perfect example of what Evan Sayet called ‘the permanently infantilized’.

James Allison

Oh goodness me there are several other wot(t)supwiththat web sites. Well I never. WUWT is having babies.
Dana and his mates are Xtreme Activist Nutcases who will continue to distort the truth (lie) in order to push their particular religion down the throats of the increasingly skeptical public.

ColdinOz

@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
Anthony: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.

Bill from Ottawa

This is one of those moments when you’re driving past an accident and you can’t help but look.

P. Berkin

Just imagine if there were a picture of Dana in a German tank gaily heading off to Stalingrad – how apt that would be!

Alan Robertson

Niff says:
December 5, 2013 at 3:55 pm
Impervious to embarrassment. Righteousness trumps sanity.
________________________________________________
Self-Righteousness trumps sanity.”
Fixed… your use of the word “righteousness” is less than optimal. The proper etymology of the word “righteous” reveals its intent: ‘right use’, as in the right use of an aspect of consciousness.
Self- righteousness more aptly implies a self- justified misuse of an aspect of consciousness, which (I think,) is what you meant.

Konrad

“Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”
Even the Winston Smith of wikipedia is waking up to the reality. In the age of the Internet the shame of global warming advocacy burns forever. His record of over 5000 climate gate-keeping edits and the intentional smearing and vilification of sceptics is permanent.
For the fellow travellers in the AGW inanity there can be no safe landing. The is no hope of reaching the alternates, “bio-crisis” or “sustainability”. The Internet is tiger country. All the activists, pseudo scientists, journalists and politicians who sough to promote or profit by the global warming scam really only have 2 options left –
1. Bail out and attempt escape and evasion.
2. Ram the throttles past the afterburner indent to “full stupid” and auger in.
Romm, Mann, Flim Flammery, Gleick and now Scooter boy have chosen option 2.

DGH

Anthony,
It becomes clear that Dana’s obnoxious behavior arises from a) his predisposition to dislike Roger Pielke, Jr. and b) his misunderstanding of Pielke’s work. Dr. Pielke builds on the incidence of violent tornado data by also considering normalized damage. Since the incidence and damage data align he is able to express a level of confidence that there is a negative trend in incidence. Without considering damage, issues related to things like the introduction of Doppler radar make it difficult on climate scales to make such a conclusion with the same level of confidence. Dana is pitting one expert against another without understanding what either one is doing.
Further to that point a tweeter named @thingsbreak has now gotten Dr. Brooks to contradict some of Dr. Pielke’s conclusions regarding tornado incidence.

Q for @hebrooks87: Would you testify "Tornadoes have not increased in frequency [or] intensity…since 1950" before Congress?— Things Break (@thingsbreak) December 5, 2013

Dr. Brooks replies,

@thingsbreak No. I'd testify no evidence for incr./decr. tornado freq./intensity since '54. Likely incr variability in occurrence recently.— Harold Brooks (@hebrooks87) December 5, 2013

But of course Dr. Brooks wasn’t given any context for the question. He has no idea that he is responding to a statement made by Dr. Pielke in a 2 year old blog post. And without knowing the source he has no idea of the basis of the statement. He would of course answer the question on the basis of his own work even though he might also agree (or respectfully disagree) with Dr. Pielke. But shameless Dana can’t help but pronounce this as vindication in a post at the WOTTS trolling blog.

clipe

ColdinOz says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm

@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
Anthony: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html

pat

a similar tale:
from Australia’s “The Monthly”, which describes itself thus:
““The Monthly is one of Australia’s boldest voices, providing enlightening commentary and vigorous, at times controversial, debate on the issues that affect the nation. Home to our finest thinkers, journalists and critics, the magazine offers a mix of investigative reportage, critical essays and thoughtful reviews. The Monthly was named winner of the Current Affairs, Business and Finance category for the second consecutive year at the 2012 Australian Magazine Awards. The Monthly was also a finalist for Magazine of the Year”
we have this preview of what was called “The Searing Truth” on radio today & in TheMonthlyTwitter entries online. i’ve heard the rest of the interview on a radio station for the visually impaired, & it’s full of emotional, personal anecdotes connecting our Australian bushfires & “climate change”:
Dec: 2013: The Monthly: Robert Kenny: We don’t want to believe in climate change
Fire, Climate and denial
PREVIEW: We don’t cause climate change. Other people do. Many of us, perhaps most who believe in anthropogenic climate change, hold this sentiment to be true. Someone with a “Think Globally, Act Locally” sticker on her gas-guzzling wreck once explained to me that it didn’t matter what she drove since it was possible to create clean fuel from water but oil companies were suppressing the technology. They were to blame. This is an extreme case of what many of us do: our diligent recycling or bicycle-riding lets us absolve ourselves of blame even though we consume far more than we need, live in oversized houses and do not believe population growth in Australia contributes to global population growth, or indeed that population growth is in any way related to climate change or species extinction. Similarly, some of us believe Australia’s emissions are so inconsequential compared to those of great polluters like China and the United States that it would be ill-advised to endanger the Australian economy, and jobs, with environmental taxes…
http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2013/december/1385816400/robert-kenny/we-dont-want-believe-climate-change
in a New York, much-derided, Murdoch tabloid today, we have:
5 Dec: NY Post: Michael Fumento: Global-warming ‘proof’ is evaporating
The 2013 hurricane season just ended as one of the five quietest years since 1960. But don’t expect anyone who pointed to last year’s hurricanes as “proof” of the need to act against global warming to apologize; the warmists don’t work that way.
Back in 2005 I and others reviewed the entire hurricane record, which goes back over a century, and found no increase of any kind. Yes, we sometimes get bad storms — but no more frequently now than in the past. The advocates simply ignored that evidence — then repeated their false claims after Hurricane Sandy last year.
And the media play along…
For example, it somehow wasn’t front-page news that committed believers in man-made global warming recently admitted there’s been no surface global warming for well over a decade and maybe none for decades more…
That admission came in a new paper by prominent warmists in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics. They not only conceded that average global surface temperatures stopped warming a full 15 years ago, but that this “pause” could extend into the 2030s…
http://nypost.com/2013/12/05/global-warming-proof-is-evaporating/
surely the tabloid – on this occasion – is more fact-based than the pseudo-intellectual TheMonthly!

u.k.(us)

…”and their blithe embrace of criminal behavior by Peter Gleick simply because he’s on the side of the angels.”
=========
Best to be on their good side.
Even better to know which side that is.

clipe

ColdinOz says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:26 pm
@Otter I often wonder if they know how much company time he wastes on this stuff.
*: Does someone someone actually employ this guy.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/07/dana-nuccitellis-paycheck-funded-by.html

Richard

Lorne 50,
Oh yes over at wotts, I read open jawed, it’s a car crash of a thread , fighting like rats cornered in a trap.
I was almost rolling on the ground with laughter.

Alan Robertson

Konrad says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm
“Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”
For the fellow travellers in the AGW inanity there can be no safe landing.
__________________________
It has become difficult to regard any of “the travellers” statements as credible, so W.C.’s words are indeed a surprise.

DirkH

Konrad says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:36 pm
““Astonishingly, even William Connolley had things to say about Dana’s behaviour”
Even the Winston Smith of wikipedia is waking up to the reality.”
Connolley just wants to use the high-brow approach of the European intellectual socialist while Dana takes the whatever-works approach of the American Alinskyite. A difference over style not over substance.

u.k.(us)

Richard says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm
====================
And that would be different, how ?
It drives the website.

Scott Scarborough

To: Felix Dec 5th 4:09 pm
So when I tell my kid the there is no such thing as the bogey man I am actually incorrect? I should say that currently I have no information that would lead me to believe that the bogey man exists.
You do realize that the way you have characterized it, that no one, under any imagined circumstances could say: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Because every measurement ever made by man kind has error associated with it. And within that error there could always be a non detected trend. Most people know and understand this in there interpretation of statements such as the above quote.

Nuccitelli is acting like a child – unable to admit when he is wrong. But then his moderation at the Guardian represents his childish nature.

Tim Walker

Felix says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
Roger Pielke Jr. wrote: “The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our
peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not
increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Our paper (linked
above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple
methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized
tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.” ”
No. The two quotes are different. The second says there is no evidence for X. The first
says X is false. But just because the is no evidence that X is true does not mean we have
evidence X is false. The status of X is simply unknown. That is, “Tornado records are not
accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical
fallacy.
Tim says: Amazing use of logic Felix. A small problem. By your logic, if there is no evidence of an elephant in the room, the elephant still might be in the room. Maybe we better look under the chairs for the elephant. You are twisting a reasonable statement.
By your logic you would have Roger Pielke Jr. add some interesting qualifiers. I will list some for you. Roger would have to define the term tornadoes as defined in ‘the paper’. (Someone might have a different definition and thus the fact has to be established.) The frequency, intensity, and normalized damage he is referencing would have to be identified as having come from the only available facts (data available concerning such information) and not from any hairbrained dreams and or pontifications of idiots such as Gore and the other priests of AGW. Speaking of people that make up facts makes me realize Roger would also need to qualify he isn’t referring to any tornadoes in an alternate universe that hasn’t yet been disproven. Oh my goodness he also didn’t prove that Dana doesn’t live in an alternate universe where the paper is different. The list of things that are not proven to not exit could go on ‘ad infinitum’.

Tim Walker

Thanks Scott Scarborough for putting it so clearly. Felix sounds like an AGW apologist.

DaveA

General Public Encounters Skeptical Science Forum Posting Guidelines.
Hilarity ensues!

Tim

The real scientists do all the work. The hangers-on then try and politicise something that they can’t fully comprehend because they are charged with keeping the lie alive, whatever it takes.

The Engineer

I’m just surprised anyone would expect anything better from someone related to skepticalscience.
Their so called scientific paper on “concensus” (a rational phallacy) is quite simply absurd on so many levels.
The papers used include papers by biologists, geneticists, economists and traffic counters; are these really climate experts, cable of defining a generel scientific concensus about CO2 ??

Bill Illis

Dana Nuccitelli is the most “misleading” person I have run across in this debate. By a wide margin.
And that is really saying something because there is a whole host of characters doing all sorts of misleading.

C.M. Carmichael

Be careful arguing with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The fools law.

Felix

Scott and Tim,
If the data on tornadoes was of sufficient quality then we would be justified in concluding they have not increased up to some uncertainly estimate. But Pielke merely claimed the data do not provide evidence they have increased. This is a valid point against those who claim tornadoes have increased but does not justify the claim that tornadoes have not increased. (He may have reasons for this claim, I am only referring to the statements he quoted above.)
As for the elephant dilemma the data are clear. We can can examine the room and conclude there is no elephant in it. All elephants are easily visible at close range. So, not seeing one is evidence that no elephant is there. If, on the other hand, there was a big box in the room and we could not see in it, there is no evidence an elephant is in the room, but we cannot conclude that no elephants are in the room because we have not examined the entire room.
The bogeyman problem is different. The term “bogeyman” is not well defined. If we ask, are there evil people that break in to houses and harm children, the sad answer is yes, there are such people.

Louis Hooffstetter

Dana Nuccitelli says:
“… can’t you make your arguments without claiming I’m ‘embarrassing myself’? Let others make that kind of judgment for themselves…”
OK Dana, in my judgement, you’ve embarrassed yourself horribly. Roger Pielke Jr. challenged you to “Put up, or shut up” but instead, you blathered incoherently about nothing. The only thing you accomplished was to prove you’re both a liar and a moron. I just hope your boss is aware of the imbecilic vitriol you tweet and post.

Jon G

Big oil Dana is at it again!

Mike Maguire

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png
These are the stats/graph on strong to violent tornadoes that has warmists upset because of what they show. Here are some of the excuses for why we should not believe it.
1. Tornadoes in the 1950’s-1970’s were not really that powerful. They received higher ratings than they deserved from meteorology students that used old newspaper articles describing damage to rate them, which, they claim caused them to be inflated.
2. Considerable evidence uncovered in the last decade suggests that previous tornadoes actually were underrated compared to the 1980s and 1990s.
Read the details here:
http://www.livescience.com/41632-the-truth-about-tornadoes.html
As an operational meteorologist in the Midwest the last 32 years, I can say with certainty that unique conditions lead to F3+ tornadoes and an extreme meridional temperature gradient is very often a factor.
The Arctic/high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere warmed in the 1980’s, 1990’s and 2000’s, and DECREASED that temp contrast. Without knowing anything else but that and being asked what I thought happened to violent tornadoes during those years, I would immediately answer “they should have decreased”
Alarmists want their cake and to eat it too.
You can’t have warming higher latitudes and a decreasing temperature gradient without it causing LESS extreme weather of some events like violent tornadoes. This is meteorology 101.
Just like you can’t have big increases in atmospheric CO2 without it causing massive increases in plant productivity and crop yields. This is the known law of photosynthesis 101.
Lets get back to KNOWN laws and real science and the real world. It’s all right there.

Felix wrote:
Roger Pielke Jr. wrote: “The following statement is indeed 100% consistent with our peer-reviewed research, despite your claims to the contrary: “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.” Our paper (linked above) states, based on a careful examination of multiple datasets using multiple methods: “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.” ”
No. The two quotes are different. The second says there is no evidence for X. The first says X is false. But just because the is no evidence that X is true does not mean we have evidence X is false. The status of X is simply unknown. That is, “Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy.

Felix. I have a problem with this reasoning. It opens the door to a lot of psudo-science. If you switch the term “Tornados” with, say ghost sightings…
“””“Ghost sightings have not increased in frequency since 1950.””””
But “”“Ghost sighting records are not accurate enough to tell whether ghost sighting incidents has changed over time.””” give the believers in such things the out to say “See! They ARE there, and there are MORE! We just haven’t been able to detect them!!!”””.
See how easy it is to drag this into the mud. At some point, even with uncertainties, you have to be able to say whether the fingerprints are there and have been measured, or not. The data may not be the best in the world, but it’s the best we have to date, and it’s not currently showing an increase.
PS. I just read the article Nuccitelli is refering to and do agree this isn’t simple to flesh out. And the farther back in time you go, the more difficult, if not impossible, it is to find any type of proxy to show tornidic activity during any period between 1500 and 1950 on the American Continent that is now labeled as the United States. But it’s safe to say, at this time, there is no measurable effect that the tempurature increases from the 50’s to now have caused tornado activity to increase, or caused the recent F 5 .
http://www.ecoswarm.com/article/529f2fb2bcd159f76349d53f.html

Bill Illis

The methodology developed by Harold Brooks of the NOAA (listed in this Twitter-storm), says that 2013 tornado counts will be the LOWEST on record in the adjusted database which starts in 1954.
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/wcm/torgraph-big.png

noaaprogrammer

… and I thought that twitter bullies were mostly young teenage girls jealous of their victim!

DD More

Sounds like on the ‘Man caused climate change’ Plantation these guys are now fighting over which field to be in.

Cynical Scientst

Surely the onus is on those who claim that tornadoes have increased to provide evidence to support that claim. Dana [thinks] it is enough to make unsupported assertions and expect others to disprove them. When others look at the evidence and see no sign of increased tornadoes he has the gall to lecture them over the difference between lack of evidence and disproof, and accuse them of lying. His position is completely ridiculous. I can’t understand how he thinks he can get away with it.

Aphan

Dana is like a playground bully, not a scientist. I’m just stunned by his ineptitude and the degree of propaganda that he attempts to shove off on people as science. His blog is a riot. Someone there suggested the term “Sciencensus” for his type of work-I find it delightful! Let’s make it a popular term and mortify the crap out of them every time a real scientist uses it.

j smith

that reminds me, i’m still waiting for “extreme weather of all kinds”

Rob Ricket

Here is a link to Dana’s employer, including a history of contracts awarded. Judging from the information posted, the firm is in the environmental protection/clean up business. Dana’s contributions seem to be limited to creating FUD for potential company exploitation via climate extortion.
In short, the man’s job depends on pinning non-existent disasters on evil carbon consumers…a very short leash to be sure. Methinks, he’ll be on the streets within a couple of years. It’s no wonder he behaves like whimpering child.
http://www.tetratech.com/about/our-history.html