Broadly Speaking Nuccitelli Narrowly Defines Deniers!!!!

image

I do love a good cat fight! 

I’m shamelessly swiping this from Anthony.  Nuccitielli and Richard Tol got in a Twitter cat fight tonight!  In my estimation they’re both warmists, but Tol took exception to how the Cook team …. Nuccitelli characterized his papers. 

It’s funny.  Nuccy is arguing with Tol about what Tol’s papers said.  Nuccy can’t accept that he was wrong, that his team was wrong, and let a person’s work stand on it’s own.  Kadaka provided the sequence.  I’ll bold some funny parts……

1. Richard Tol @RichardTol

The Cook paper comes further apart http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html …

7:01 AM – 21 May 13

2. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You might want to actually read our paper before claiming it’s ‘coming apart’ based on ignorant and wrong claims.

10:22 PM – 22 May 13

3. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.

10:48 PM – 22 May 13

4. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.

11:04 PM – 22 May 13

5. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm

11:31 PM – 22 May 13

6. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.

11:40 PM – 22 May 13

7. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.

11:41 PM – 22 May 13

8. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 Not that I approve of “Denier” but @RichardTol isn’t one anyway. We publish together http://www.economicsclimatechange.com/2010/05/climate-change-impacts-on-global_04.html … and he’s an IPCC CLA

1:59 AM – 23 May 13

9. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts @richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper.

6:37 AM – 23 May 13

10. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 In what way did I misrepresent your paper?

7:33 AM – 23 May 13

11. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?

8:12 AM – 23 May 13

12. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW)

Wait!!!!  What?  No Suyts?  Now I’m pissed!!!  Annoyed

8:14 AM – 23 May 13

13. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.

8:15 AM – 23 May 13

14. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?

8:29 AM – 23 May 13

15. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 So basically this is politics then.

8:40 AM – 23 May 13

16. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.

8:47 AM – 23 May 13

17. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol You’ve said we misclassified your papers. We didn’t classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the papers

Because rating and classifying are way, way, different!!!

8:49 AM – 23 May 13

18. Richard Betts ‏@richardabetts

@dana1981 I meant “denier” seems to be a political label – not talking specifically about Richard T’s views on your paper.

8:54 AM – 23 May 13

19. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?

9:46 AM – 23 May 13

20. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol It’s not semantics at all. You’re equating two different things which we evaluated separately.

10:06 AM – 23 May 13

21. Richard Tol @RichardTol

.@dana1981 Not at all. You generated data. The data that I understand are all wrong. The errors are not random. But now tell me about my lie

10:17 AM – 23 May 13

22. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 You accused me of lies and misrepresentation. Would you care to elaborate cq withdraw your accusations?

11:05 AM – 23 May 13

23. Dana Nuccitelli @dana1981

@RichardTol I already elaborated twice. On top of the abstract/paper issue you suggested it was a fault our sample only included 10 of yours

12:14 PM – 23 May 13

24. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.

12:49 PM – 23 May 13

25. Richard Tol @RichardTol

@dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?

12:50 PM – 23 May 13

For the record, I think Tol is right.  He never lied about the Cook/Nuccitelli  paper.  And he told the truth about the papers he wrote.  I don’t agree with Tol’s views on our climate, but, his views are his views.  For someone to co-opt them, then twist them then claim Tol is lying about what they did…..  well, we see that a lot. 

Nuccitelli was engaging in classic warmist behavior and Tol wants his work to stand or fall on their own.  Admirable.  The Cook/Nuccitelli paper has already been exposed as crap 15 ways from Sunday.  So Tol wants to distance himself from the garbage.  And, as Tol stated, consensus isn’t an argument.  Heck, last November it was a consensus that Zero be president, look where that left us! 

Anyway, it’s a good popcorn eating read!  Me?  I’m grabbing another beer….. I still have Zero’s crap running through my mind!!!

h/t Phil! 

This entry was posted in Climate, News and politics. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Broadly Speaking Nuccitelli Narrowly Defines Deniers!!!!

  1. copernicus34 says:

    Climate Quack on Quack crime?

  2. philjourdan says:

    I find it difficult to call them “Warmists”. Or at least Nuccy. he is arguing AGAINST a warmist on his own paper! And only using juvenile ad hominems as his supporting arguments.

    No, he is merely a climate bible thumper. Blind to any reasoning. Intensely devoted to his religion. EVERYTHING supports his warped view.

    Someone over at WUWT compared him to the Westboro Baptist Church. I think the comparison is accurate. I am sure he is going to call Tol some homophobic slur next.

    • dan says:

      Westboro church of warmatology…bwahahaaaa…now that’s funny 🙂
      You guys might have already caught this:
      http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/

      • squid2112 says:

        That is a very interesting article, on many levels. I particularly like this excerpt (emphasis mine):

        “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”

        Because CO2 is a coolant and cannot create a mystical, magical GHE….

    • DirkH says:

      Warmism has fractured into rabidly fighting sects; the Cookians, the Flasbarthians, the Vahrenholtians, the Lomborgists etc. Special honors to the followers of the blind accordeonist who thinks warming rises linearly with CO2. I keep forgetting his name.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s