Not surprisingly Dana Nuccitelli of SkepticalScience.com obstinately refuses to see the facts, even when they are staring him right in the face. Richard Tol at Twitter has thrown the now notorious John Cook survey, of which Nuccitelli was a co-author, into the dustbin of history.
Here’s the exchange between the two:
Tol’s last comment pretty much sums up the quality Cook’s and Nuccitelli’s work. I could say every day last year in my hometown was over 25°C (if I ignore 320 of them and misclassify a quarter of the 45 I did count).
Dana Nuccitelli is becoming a real asset for the skeptics, one that we certainly don’t want to lose.
You can link to the Twitter exchange here: Richard Tol (@RichardTol) May 21, 2013
The Cook paper comes further apart populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-stu…
Another tweet for you from Prof Richard Betts (Met Office)
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
This is a fun article, (Andy Skuse, SkS and co-author shows up)
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2013/5/22/on-the-science-communication-value-of-communicating-scientif.html?lastPage=true&postSubmitted=true
Dan Kahan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Kahan
seems to be a wannebe social engineer.
So I’m not surprised he loves John Cook; and lying in general.
This is so typical of John Cook. I managed to get a comment posted, then it just disappeared within an hour with no reason given. Roy Spencer has also now joined the “blocker bloggers” like Anthony Watts, Jeff Condon and others. They do it because they have no valid response to make to the points raised.
How can they explain why the base of the troposphere of Uranus is hotter than Earth’s surface when there is virtually no radiation getting down there? The explanation is in the paper “Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures” easily found in the PROM menu at Principia Scientific International.
More twitter fun with Dana and Prof Richard Betts
Richard Betts
@richardabetts 50m
@dana1981 How is Denier defined? What is being denied? Can someone be in the 97% who accept AGW and still be a denier?
Dana Nuccitelli
@dana1981 48m
@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW)
Richard Betts
@richardabetts 22m
@dana1981 So basically this is politics then.
Dana Nuccitelli
@dana1981 15m
@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.
Richard Betts
@richardabetts 8m
@dana1981 I meant “denier” seems to be a political label – not talking specifically about Richard T’s views on your paper.
Barry Woods
@BarryJWoods 3m
by some peoples definition Richard is a ‘denier’ @richardabetts @dana1981 criticised Lewansowsky at Bishop Hill, ended up in ‘Fury’ paper !
Whatever you guys do, do not engage Mr. Cotton. He will attempt to beat you over the head with his views that there is no global warming from CO2. He is relentless.
Thanks I noticed, and I have no desire tolerating such a debate.
[…] Dana Nuccitelli Refuses Reality: Richard Tol Calls John Cook’s Survey “Silly Idea…… (notrickszone.com) […]