This is funny …. in a sad and pathetic manner. Nutty Nuccitelli and Richard Tol are continuing their piss fight. Nutty is responding to a paper Tol wrote.
With a shocking headline like that, you’d expect a Richard Mueller type of incident. ….. For those not aware, there was a warmist how vowed to look at the “global warming” debate and decided that the world was indeed warming. He received funding by criticizing other warmists for their process in fabricating data. He liked his method of fabricating data over theirs. When he let loose of his findings, which concluded the world was indeed warming, as he thought, the lunatics claimed victory over the skeptics ….. because a warmist confirmed their findings, even though they heavily criticized his methods.
As it turns out, this is exactly the same thing.
The problem is, Richard Tol isn’t as much as an alarmist as the rest of the lunatics, and he’s told them so. He’s an economist and understands the harm their lunacy will do to our economies. Still, he’s a warmist, and somewhat of an alarmist. He’s not a skeptic. He never was. But, look how Nutty presents this….. “climate contrarians”. Tol isn’t one. He simply doesn’t believe the 4 horsemen will appear because we have coal fired electricity generating plants.
What they’re arguing over is how many, or what percentage, of peer-reviewed papers support such idiocy.
The argument is beyond stupidity. Who’s going to write a paper which states “no worries, we’re all good”? Who’s going to publish it? Even if one were to try, you can’t disprove a negative. You can’t disprove imaginary harm to imaginary things.
Fortunately, the lunatics have to claim harm to actual things in order to stir an emotive response to human industriousness ….. as if that was ever a bad thing.
I have no idea what portion of those papers claimed harm to the polar bears, but, we now know they were all erroneous. I have no idea what portion of the papers claimed hurricanes would become more frequent and severe, but, we all now know they were erroneous. Same with wildfires, droughts, floods, and sea level rise. As it turns out, probably 97% of the papers they’re arguing over were wrong, anyway. Who gives a flying f*ck about what percentage was about anything. They were wrong about everything!
Oh, don’t try to comment over there with something of this nature. Pop Tech tells us they’re censoring honest contrarian comments.