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
noaaprogrammer says:
December 5, 2013 at 6:39 pm
… and I thought that twitter bullies were mostly young teenage girls jealous of their victim!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The above seems to qualify.
Oh my! I have witnessed the creation of the first digital climate change victim!
There is a definitive cost here for certain………
Nucitelli is spoiled by the fact that the Brits have offered him a blog in The Guardian where his main activity appears to be to suppress anyone who posts any link to measured data.
Do it once and get from Nucitelli a “commenting has been disabled on this account” For good.
His blog is ominously called “Climate consensus: The 97%”
I wonder if the likes of Dana, John Cook, Lewy etc realise just how much damage they do to the CAGW cause ?
Mike Alexander wrote: “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.”
Yes. I agree. If Pielke has stated his case that way he would have avoided the logical fallacy.
The desperation of the AGW’s is quite apparent as they are slowly being engulfed by empirical data and a sceptical public with politicians who are looking for a way out which would leave the Dana’s of this world to face the music and carry the can. PM Cameron has already referred to “Green Crap” as he wishes to get re-elected and the energy companies can sense problems looming by offering to hold prices for two years….in the full knowledge that they may decrease through political pressure on profits and a reduction in the root cause…green taxes. A few weeks back on BBC’s Question Time they had the Climate Change Minister, an MP and a Union Leader talking about melting ice caps when in reality the opposite is taking place. Current global sea ice is the 7th highest in the last 35 years.
We are one bad winter away from real dissent and the Guardian, Independent and the BBC can continue to ignore and delete the dissent coming their way but they are on borrowed time.
Tornadoes and Teapots:
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.” (Bertrand Russell)
Brooks does his best to pander to the alarmist crowd while appearing to be intellectually honest about the lack of increase in Tornadoes due to global warming. When asking Brooks a question it is best to phrase it in a way he cannot spin his way out of.
Where and when has Brooks been misused by the “denial side” (no idea what that is) according to the Kloor piece?
Felix,
Of course, it is always be possible to claim that fairies, unicorns, or perpetual motion machines might exist as long as the standards adopted for proving they don’t exist are high enough. Likewise with elephants in a particular room.
Has it occurred to you that we are talking about tornados? We have tornados in the US all the time and for as long as people have been around to notice them (and make records of them). With all due respect to Mr. Brooks and others, records may not be perfect but surely even he would admit that a sufficiently large increase in frequency, intensity or damage would have been noticable even in the records we have. What Mr. Brooks and others are evidently asserting is that the possibility that a very small elephant is hiding behind the sofa cannot be entirely ruled out. This observation is surely true as far as it goes, but I wonder who is “misleading the public” when point is being made.
If, as everyone evidently concedes, there is no evidence that tornados have increased in frequency, intensity or damage it should be possible to state the conclusion that increase occurred without being accused of misleading the public.
Dana has this M/O. Despite my proving him wrong on every point of a posting Dana stuck it out with patent falsehoods, such is his commitment to the religion. There is no point doing anything except ignoring Dana [snip – uncalled for -mod]
Dana knows very little about climate, nothing about feedback, and either refuses to, or is unable to solve simple junior high school math I put to him in the past. He is just an activist – to be ignored by both sides as a scientific irrelevance.
Connolley accurately discerns which way is up?
A unique day indeed!
If I was Dr. Pielke I would not take what an Exxon-funded shill like Dana Nuccitelli has to say seriously.
Full of sound an fury! Yet signifying NOTHING. In short, a TEMPEST in a TEAPOT…
Apologies to William Shakespeare.
When you lie, cheat and steal for your cause, even if you genuinely believe the end justifies the means, pardon the rest of us for simply seeing you people as liars, cheats and thieves. Nuccitelle, Gleick, Mann – we’re looking your way.
Felix says:
December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm
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.)
———
Felix, you can’t have it both ways. If you claim the evidence does not support the idea that tornado activity has not increased, then, by reason, no one can claim tornado have increased either. I’ll cut to the chase: this means no one can claim CO2 has anything to do extreme weather events.
The burden of proof is on those who propose the theory, not those that question it.
Warmists everywhere, yes even you Dana.
Be aware that there is an established law of physics called the law of conservation of energy, be also aware that we are talking about a piddling 0.6W energy imbalance per square meter. That’s less than the light of a christmas led bulb spread over a 1/2 m circle, that’s it. With that piddling bit more energy you are wanting the temperature of the atmosphere to rise, the entire ocean to expand, more water to evaporate, storms to get bigger, storms to be more energetic, more wind, more evaporation, more rain, more lightning, deep oceans to warm up, gigatonnes upon gigatonnes of ice to melt, more algae to grow, rocks to erode faster… and only the good lord knows what else is claimed. Each effect however takes energy OUT, heat expressed as increased wind speed is no longer heat, heat absorbed by growing algae is no longer heat, it is matter, locked up in chemical bonds. Every effect you claim SUBTRACTS from the heating effect. All these effects and the warming too is supposedly powered by an extra led christmas light per square metre.
What you claim and support Dana and other warmists is energetically impossible, it’s preposterous. The wilder your claims, the more you embarass yourselves.
“I have no idea if Pielke was trying to be misleading or just fell into an all to common logical fallacy …” (Felix).
=======
There is a common logical fallacy namely banal objections ‘where irrelevant and sometimes frivolous objections are made to divert the attention away from the topic’ (Wiki).
AndyG55 says:
December 5, 2013 at 7:54 pm
But Andy–they ARE the “cause”.
That’s why CAGW will continue to roil and sputter in their minds–and only funerals will cleanse this earth of the meme.
AndyG55 says:
December 5, 2013 at 7:54 pm
I wonder if the likes of Dana, John Cook, Lewy etc realise just how much damage they do to the CAGW cause ?
No they don’t, for gods sake don’t tell them.
Much like the Australian blog that spends its whole time highlighting everything from this blog..
Its so embarrassing for the AGW mob. Its reeks of desperation.
But then again that’s all they have left.
Felix,
Nuccitelli is right is lawyer/philosopher terms, but has forgotten the original scientific context, which was the AGW claim regarding tornadoes. BOTH of Pielke’s statements are consistent with the fact that no trend is visible in the data. That the data are inconclusive is, actually, not relevant to the matter. Words can be parsed endlessly, but the claim that tornadoes have gotten worse is not supportable. General scientific usage and popular use of this phrase is equivalent to, “the claim (that tornado activity is more intense and/or frequent) is false, from a scientific point of view”.
Thus, Pielke gave the correct understanding, by two different statements. I don’t think that’s misleading, as all.
@ur momisugly Scott Bassinger: “when you find your self in a hole stop digging”
Sorry, some people…. you just hand them a shovel with a longer handle ( and no ladder).
Oops: last two words = “at all”
Mike Maguire;
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”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Repeated for effect. The warmists simply cannot have both arctic amplification AND increased extreme weather. The very science which they quote requires that cold things warm up more than warm things. So, the delta between night time lows and day time highs must decrease. The delta between winter and summer must decrease. The delta between low altitudes and high altitudes must decrease. The delta between low latitudes and high latitudes must decrease. And with all of these decreases, the end result is lower temperature gradients which result in less violent weather. A warmer world is simply a more tranquil world by all the physics and meteorology that we can apply to understanding the problem.
Dana’s problem is that he is not promoting science, but magic. His belief is that any sufficiently advanced magic will be indistinguishable from science.
Ah Dana’s Dill -Blurt moment….. again…… and again ….
Why anyone pays any attention to what anyone and especially Dana Dana writes in the Guardian re climate is beyond me. The CAGW party is all over bar the shouting – eventually the partygoers will have to call it a day.