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
Pielke’s big mistake was feeding a troll.
Felix reminds me of the judge on The Good Wife who insists that all lawyers end their statements with, “in my opinion”.
Can some do a study on the effects of Human induced global warming and degradation of human integrity?
John Stell (@JohnStell1)
December 6, 2013 at 7:09 am
Sir, I like your post, so well put. In particular:
“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.”
This has happened in the past and will do so again. In one paragraph you have summed up many of the 20th century’s tyrannies. Just swap “consensus” with the word fascism, communism or whatever evil. As you are no doubt aware there are those within the AGW “consensus” that want to dismantle democracy and reduce us to serfs.
Regards PL
“Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
If that’s the case then exactly what is accurate enough to make any statement about it?
Because it is pantomime season:
“The readings of the thermometer are not accurate enough to show that it has become colder.”
“My bank records are not accurate enough to tell whether I have become poorer or not”; I will use this when my wife queries the 500 quid I spent on the new camera.
@Adrian Clarkson O
I have also experienced this many times. I think I’m on my 7th or 8th account now at “free to comment” Guardian. Now I don’t bother much, I just report breaches of the Editors Codes and Practices to the Press Complaints Commission. Funny thing is though, after raising a complaint the offending article gets amended and I get a reply saying the breach is no longer there. The most recent was Adam Vaughn saying the Chinese lake was largely man made when it formed naturally. I also pointed out the wrong year too.
Man made lakes tend to be more permanent than natural ones so I would guess so he slipped that in for good measure since it was mainly used to supply water for mining. These people are so cunning and nasty they’d target children threatening no presents at Christmas. Erm, what did you say (in background), they’ve already done this?, Sorry, got interrupted. Nasty people indeed. Dana,Nukem, Peter Gleich and what is Stephan Lewandosky’s rant about here?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/dec/06/media-failure-iraq-war-climate-change
Very peculiar people indeed.
“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.”
Strikes me that so could the entire AGW movement…
Nik says:
December 6, 2013 at 8:47 am
I see Dana is right back to being is self ;>(
Interesting that the Op-Ed that Dana cites bases their conclusions on climate models:
“the latest climate-model experiments agree that further global warming is likely to increase the likelihood of conditions favorable to the severe thunderstorms that produce tornadoes in the spring and autumn. Although these climate models do not resolve tornadoes, they do predict an increase in the ingredients responsible for past tornadoes.”
Another quote from the OpEd:
“The honest “truth” is that no one knows what effect global warming is having on tornado intensity. Tornado records are not accurate enough to tell whether tornado intensity has changed over time.”
An honest Climate “reporter” would note the difference in the OpEd views and those like Heidi Cullen, Al Gore, etc. who continue to make the outrageous claims that Dana agrees with. But no one ever claimed that Dana was honest.
I see several logically fallacious attempts to invalidate Felix’s point, and even a couple calling him an agw apologist… Name calling, here?
No one has invalidated it yet, however blithely turns of phrase are used (tornado in a small box…)
Words mean, unfortunately, what they mean. I wholeheartedly disagree that tornados empirically are increasing, instead that our sensitivity to them (detection, communication, impression) has increased. Felix’s analysis of the semantics of the scientific statements given is still correct, as invalidating it seems to require assumptions ( that other things are omitted), ad hominem, snark… But I don’t see real logic.
My two cents
“These garbage tactics work, so they don’t stop.” That’s the one statement that rises above all others. Smear and confusticate, slime and misspeak. It works. It has always worked. I also love the reference to politicians because it is their bread and butter. One thing to keep in mind when such words hurt and false accusations sting: the one blustering the most, hating the most, is losing. I’ve seen it in debate a million times. It’s crazy how you can sit at a table with people you know are bright and intelligent, only to see them descend into the most bizarre and inept tactics possible. It’s because they’re losing, or see themselves in danger of losing. Just like the bureaucrat that is always seeking to retain his/her power, so do those who cling to the spotlight of their own vanity. No one wants to be wrong, least of all the narcissist.
Nuccitelli appears 3 times on the AGU’s Science Program listing for their Annual Fall Meeting in San Francisco next week. He is in one talk session and two poster sessions. All three of his appearances are with John Cook.
The talk session is titled ‘The Strategic Combination of Open-Access Peer-Review, Mainstream Media and Social Media to Improve Public Climate Literacy (invited [by AGU to present])’
The titles of their two poster sessions deal are:
1) ‘Taking Social Media Myth Debunking to a Presidential Level (invited [by AGU to talk])’
2) ‘It Ain’t the Heat, It’s the Humanity: Evidence and Implications of Knowledge-Based Consensus on Man-Made Global Warming’
Abstracts of each can be found via links on the AGU website and access to the abstracts is open to the public.
John
Felix says:
December 5, 2013 at 6:00 pm
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.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
Obviously Pielke has an uncertainty estimates for his measurements. All scientific measurements have uncertainty estimates, even ones that are not “of sufficient quality” whatever that means. Measurements of lower quality simply have larger uncertainty estimates. But there is no cut-off between sufficient quality and insufficient quality – the lower the quality the higher the uncertainty measurement. You are taking one quote from Pielke out of context and acting like that is the only thing he said. His research provides uncertainty estimates, he clearly stated in his testamony before Congress that there may be a human infulence that is not yet measurable in the data. But you claim that a one sentance quote had better say absolutly everything or he is being misleading. I have never seen any one sentence that explains everything about such a complex subject. As for the tornado “experts” that say the the data is insufficient to say if tornadoes are increasing or decreasing – they can always say that no matter how good the data is since no data is perfect, it always has an uncertainty band and there could always be a trend within that band. So you critisize Pielke for not stating everything in one sentance but withhold cririsizim for the tornado “experts” for stating a tautalogy.
Dana has apologized to Brooks, but not Pielke.
https://twitter.com/dana1981/status/408618235756417024
” David in Cal says:
December 5, 2013 at 4:09 pm
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.
”
Dana Nutticcelli said..
“Tornado experts say @RogerPielkeJr and Richard Muller are misleading the American public”
He was wrong.
Why do people assume only no increase or increase? Is it possible we have a decrease??? We may never know due to detection technology issues etc., but it wouldn’t surprise me if Dana Tetra Tech Nuttercelli never entertained the thought.
I read:
Dana obviously does not read the climate comments section of the Guardian.
Dana knocks none tornado experts. Dana did a BA, Astrophysics & MS, Physics. Therefore Dana is an expert on tornadoes.
Dana feeds himself from money paid to him by a fossil fuel services company. That company has now gone into windpower. Dana seems to have his fingers in all the pies. CAGW, fossil fuels and wind. What a Fking hypocrite.
Dana just characterized every assertion ever made about CAGW.
@Felix: But we *have* examined the whole room, better than we ever did before (thanks to the Doppler radars, spotter networks and everything but the kitchen sink)! It looks like we found only a lot of mice that may look from afar like teeny-tiny elephants to the intellectually challenged (who have promptly upped their elephant sighting reports!), while those who have the brains to understand are recognizing that if so many mice are detected, there is no place left where a real elephant could hide unseen. The profusion of “tornado” reports without consequences – no major shipwrecks nor damage at landfall – shows that our detectors are, if anything, over-sensitive. Would that your BS detectors emulate them!
Dana is a ‘Special’ person. No need to take that guy seriously………….Seriously!
Dana,
Imagine you live at a half-precession old extreme interglacial. Which you do….. http://www.clim-past.net/6/131/2010/cp-6-131-2010.pdf
One wonders what a Dana would deploy to extend or preclude onset of the next glacial if not CO2 or methane……..
Dana, at the half-precession old Holocene what is one to make of extreme weather events, tornados, whatever?
“The transition (MIS 5e/5d) from the Last Interglacial (Eemian, Mikulino) to the Early Last Glacial (Early Weichselian, Early Valdai) is marked by at least two warming events….
“…….indicate simultaneously a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last Glaciation.” http://eg.igras.ru/files/f.2010.04.14.12.53.54..5.pdf
Unless you know of some other counter to http://www.agu.org/books/gm/v137/137GM02/137GM02.pdf other than http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/docs/Lisiecki_Raymo_2005_Pal.pdf then you might want to give a thought as to when you and I and all of us live.
The climate is supposed to have “a strong increase of environmental oscillations during the very end of the (present) Last Interglacial and the beginning of the Last (next) Glaciation.” So even if you are right do you have any comprehension at all that extreme weather usually accompanies end extreme interglacials?
If you even faintly did, then it is simply child’s-play to establish that ‘background’ climate noise at the ends of extreme interglacials hilariously exceeds anything yet predicted from AGW;
http://business.uow.edu.au/sydney-bschool/content/groups/public/@web/@sci/@eesc/documents/doc/uow045009.pdf
and:
http://lin.irk.ru/pdf/6696.pdf
Otherwise, how am I going to tell it’s you, or me, or us, all of us, and/or the null hypothesis that Gore’s me?
Help me Obe-wan Nuccitelli….. You’re our only hope……….
P.S. Well, maybe not our only hope. Any advice on how to make out like a Madoff clmate change insurer? Off the record, of course. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/03/16/the-end-holocene-or-how-to-make-out-like-a-madoff-climate-change-insurer/
Christopher Hanley says:
December 5, 2013 at 9:06 pm
…”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).”
And exactly what has that got to do with the price of potatoes?
Dana is a Climate Snob and patronises everybody else. Simple truth!
A few people have already responded to this but I’m not sure if the key point has been made which is that Pielke statement was correct. For 2 statements to be consistent they don’t necessarily need to say the same thing it’s just necessary that they don’t contradict each other. The 2 statements broadly make the following points.
1. Insufficient evidence exists to draw any conclusions about increasing tornado activity.(Markowski)
2. Our research shows no increase in tornado activity (Pielke)
The 2 statements are not inconsistent.
Nobody followed up on the public panning of Muller (who apparently made the “mistake” of reading a graph showing that strong (3-5rating) tornadoes had in fact decreased over the past 5-6 decades, then mentioning it out loud — seemed rather reasonable to me) but not being part of the “tornado cognoscenti”, needed to be “informed” by Markowski et al that some of the early tornado data was not good; what followed appeared to be an argument that early- to mid-20th C tornado severity was over-estimated; thereafter an argument was made that severity had in fact been under-estimated… Hmmm.
Notwithstanding the fact that Markowski et al look to be friends of Mann (the latter had nothing but praise for the former’s “vindication” of the Hockey Stick), and notwithstanding the fact that Muller made Mann look like an absolute charlatan in his video reviewing the practice of splicing tree-ring reconstructions to thermometer averages a number of years ago, is it possible someone has it in for Muller?
Has Muller himself responded?
Kurt in Switzerland