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:
Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public http://t.co/QQZd3wFjQz via @LiveScience
— Dana Nuccitelli (@dana1981) December 4, 2013
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:
@RogerPielkeJr @dana1981 Roger's not referenced, just Muller. We never even thought about Roger's work in putting that together.
— Harold Brooks (@hebrooks87) December 4, 2013
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:
@dana1981, Let me know when you find that tornado expert that says @RogerPielkeJr is misleading the public.
— keith kloor (@keithkloor) December 4, 2013
I’ll let you know if I hear back.
In comments, the vitriol flowed as Dana dug his own hole even deeper. Some selections:
===============================================================
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.
===============================================================
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.
===============================================================
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.
===============================================================
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:
===============================================================
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…
===============================================================
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:
==============================================================
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.
William Connolley to Dana "Man up and stop making excuses" @TLITB1 @Bioreducer @RogerPielkeJr @wattsupwiththat https://t.co/PF3kYeUPt7
— BJW (@BarryJWoods) December 5, 2013
==============================================================
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
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.
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.
Richard says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:54 pm
====================
And that would be different, how ?
It drives the website.
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.
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’.
Thanks Scott Scarborough for putting it so clearly. Felix sounds like an AGW apologist.
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.
General Public Encounters Skeptical Science Forum Posting Guidelines.
Hilarity ensues!
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 ??
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.
We must encourage Dana …
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/used-intelligently-theyre-our-bitches-now/
Pointman
Be careful arguing with a fool, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
The fools law.
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.
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.
Big oil Dana is at it again!
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
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
… and I thought that twitter bullies were mostly young teenage girls jealous of their victim!
Sounds like on the ‘Man caused climate change’ Plantation these guys are now fighting over which field to be in.
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.
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.
that reminds me, i’m still waiting for “extreme weather of all kinds”
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