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!!!
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!!!