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
The two statements:
1. “Tornadoes have not increased in frequency, intensity or normalized damage since 1950.”
2. “we can definitively state that there is no evidence of increasing normalized tornado damage or incidence on climatic time scales.”
Statement 1 refers to a particular time frame, 1950 – 2013.
Statement 2 refers to a vague time frame of climatic time scales, which is presumably longer.
These two statements are not inconsistent. Statement 1 is a measurement. Statement 2 is a weaker claim based on that measurement.
DirkH says:
December 5, 2013 at 5:00 pm.
What he said.
There are lots of Nutticelli’s out there – Wild people who believe in wild weather. Inciters of the Warmist Brown Shirts.
Over a decade ago, I wrote an article in the National Post, saying that Canada should not ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
I soon received an angry, threatening email from someone who held me personally responsible for the flooding of the Prague.
I replied:
Dear Sir, you are entirely correct.
I am the One fully responsible for the flooding of Prague.
Now “run along”, or I’ll do it again.
I feel like, y’know, under-appreciated, like TOTALLY! I mean, like, y’know, some of my friends have received like, numerous threats. And all I got was one lousy Nutticelli? Am I not worthy of like, multiple threats? Like, I mean, y’know: Have I not tried like, hard enough?
Dana ain’t no Nick Stokes!
For those of us not scientists who may have studied, for example, the philosophy of religion, where else do we see the argument that if something is not discernible that dose not mean it does not exist? – that’s right – the existence of god.
Its a religious argument.
bullocky says:
December 6, 2013 at 12:34 am
Dana ain’t no Nick Stokes!
—-
And for that he is likely thankful!
Dana is an embarassment. I think he should be consigned to the ignore list as he offers nothing in the way of substance. That is what makes him a perfext fit for Sceptical Science website.
Laughable.
No Felix. Dr Peilke is not trying to mislead nor has he fallen into any logical trap. He is making two statements based upon his research which he claims are true based upon the evidence he has collected. They are not inconsistent with one another, given the array of true statements of varying generality he could make on the basis of his research and evidence, nor are they logically equivalent. Your point about incompleteness of the evidence has more force but is a weak one. A reasonable prior, given the improvements of measuring and recording events over climatic timescales is that measures of frequency would show an increase (but not necessarily in intensity). The lack of any evidence of an increase is therefore strong evidence that, in fact, there has not been one.
I think the self satisfied grin gives him away.
Felix says:
December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm
[…] All elephants are easily visible at close range[…]
—————————————————————————————————————
That statement is a logical falacy by your own rules, Felix. You should have said something like “The available data suggests that all elephants are easily visible…” but the data only applies to the elephants we’ve observed.
That’s exactly the same situation as you’re complaining about in Dr Pielke’s statement – the data on the tornados we’ve observed fully support that they haven’t increased, just as the data on the elephants we’ve observed support that they’re all visible at close range.
In fact, logically, your statement is less defensible than his. We may have missed some tornado data which counters Dr Pielke’s claim but we’ve [i]definitely, by definition,[/i] missed all data on any unobservable elephants.
Nutticelli is a perfect example of the old saying: “You can read an ass on Twitter, but you can’t make him apologize.”
“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)”
A truly fatuous statement from a truly fatuous man.
Dana, when have the IPCC ever been right about ANYTHING?
You really need to get off your high horse kid. You might just hurt ourself badly when you fall off it.
Re SkS and Dana, this is fun
A classic case of a little man made big by circumatances , but in fact being little all along .
His got nowhere to go but back to WHO? when ‘the cause ‘ falls , but more than that , His a classic intellectual light no mistakes noise and bluster for quality . So you can see how he fits into climate ‘science’
A classic case of a little man made big by circumstances , but in fact being little all along .
His got nowhere to go but back to WHO? when ‘the cause ‘ falls , but more than that , His a classic intellectual light weight who mistakes noise and bluster for quality . So you can see how he fits into climate ‘science’
Adrian O
at
December 5, 2013 at 7:30 pm
“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.”
I concur! I had the nerve to link to some peer reviewed papers and Guardian articles which clearly contradicted his claims that no scientist had ever predicted that Artic Ice would be gone by 2013 and I found myself removed. Since then none of my comments ever make it past moderation. I like you have become one of the disappeared. Perhaps they would have us on a train to Siberia.
Regardless of whether his propaganda articles are remotely believable or not, Nuccitelli’s true nature is revealed when you spend some time watching new comments and how they are “moderated”. He is just making an idiot of himself over at the Guardian and it also becomes obvious that he refuses to recognise or address the facts. I suppose Nuccitelli and the Guardian are an appropriate match.
Permit me a small Southernism:
Dana, Bless your heart.
@Steve in SC – OUCH! Going for the jugular! 😉
bobl says:
December 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm
Thanks bobl, that’s the best elevator speech I have seen in awhile.
“Conservation of Energy contradicts Climate Alarmism”
Josh has noticed the trend towards stronger storms here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/06/friday-funny-agw-increases-intensities-of-twitter-storms/
Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter) says:
December 5, 2013 at 3:45 pm
I wonder how this is going over with his co-workers at the oil company?
=========
by demonizing coal (produces 2x as much CO2 as oil per unit of energy) oil companies hope to gain a monopoly on energy production, knowing full well that renewables are not a replacement for 7×24 reliability.
by promoting CCS oil companies hope to get paid to inject CO2 into the earth for enhanced oil recovery. a process that currently costs them money.
oil companies how very much profit from the AGW alarm. that is why you them promoting green ideas so heavily. not because they believe in green, but because they hope to kill coal as competition, leaving them a monopoly. once coal is eliminated, they know full well that green cannot compete against them.
Thanks, It’s been awhile since I laughed so hard! GK
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.
Yes and yes, and I think it bears repeating
The list of those who are treated like this goes far beyond AGW. Intelligent Design Scientists, the Tea Party, those who dare question the medical ‘Elites’ science, those who think homosexuality is not natural or normal, et al.
There is no reasoning, no vanquishing your foe through logic and data or skillful debate. Ad hominem is mightier than the sword. Rather, it is the precursor to the sword. First the mocking of being outside the ‘consensus’, then character assassination, then the ‘dangerous’ label(aka ‘misleading the public’), then recant or lose your job and family and life.
Our magnanimous leader sums it up; ‘I don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society.’
Our current trajectory will lead to Stalinistic witch burnings in a generation or two. You guys are all on the list already, courtesty of the NSA.
oh my..
Felix – there is a small box in my living room. Do you suppose there is a tornado inside?
They are so much smaller than elephants and easier to hide.
The photos of this early winter ice storm will be on line for all to see soon from the west coast to the east coast , all this week , freezing rain, sleet , snow ,, deep south in Texas ect.
More to come, massive tree limb fall all over Texas today. Huge ins. loss, power lines down from the limbs and ice.
Mean old real facts come to cover over the lies and fraud. It will not take a study to know now, and more facts of ice to come.