A Simple Question

John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli and others published a lengthy response to criticisms by Richard Tol. In it, they described their famous paper about a consensus on global warming as:

C13 classified abstracts of climate science papers based on the level of endorsement that most of the recent global warming is man-made (AGW, Categories 1–3)

But when discussing what the definition their paper would use, Dana Nuccitelli specifically said:

Category 2 is "Explicitly endorses but does not quantify (or minimize) AGW." Thus it doesn't require an assumption of >50%.

How can Category 2 not "require an assumption of >50%" human contribution if Categories 1-3 say "most of the recent global warming is man-made"?


  1. Climate change denying idiots like you are destroying the planet. I hope you're okay with the all that blood on your hands.

  2. Um, okay. What exactly am I supposed to be denying? Are you suggesting anyone who recognizes the obvious contradiction in Dana Nuccitelli's positions is denying climate changes? Would calling John Cook a liar somehow require saying global warming isn't real?

    And do you really mean people are "destroying the planet"? I get you may not like the idea of what global warming may cause, but the planet is a pretty big thing. I don't think humans can destroy it.

    I'd like to believe nothing John Cook or the other people at Skeptical Science have done is somehow necessary for the truth of global warming, but I suppose I could be wrong...?

  3. Frank, less people dying from harsh cold winters, trees growing bigger,growing season lengthened, increased crop yields, net economic growth, greening deserts, heathier and wealtier people, no sign of increasing hurricanes, tornadoes or extreme weather.

    The sky is not fallng chicken little.

  4. Richard S.J. Tol, indeed. What I find interesting is Dana Nuccitelli (and others) seem to make these false claims with absolute confidence. It makes me wonder if perhaps they actually believe what they say. It's hard for me to believe someone would go around spreading lies that are so easy to check. It makes me think they've deluded themselves into believing their own lies.

    But maybe I'm just too much of an optimist.

  5. I've been having this exact fight over at SkS. http://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=7&t=306&&n=1994#106658

    I raise two main issues:

    1. Their study did not review "climate science papers". It included a whole bunch of non-climate related papers.

    2. Abstracts rated as Level 2 or 3, did not attribute "the majority" of warming to humans. They just stated (or implicitly endorsed) that human activity causes warming, but without either quantifying or minimizing the amount.

    The responses (and the moderation) are most entertaining.

  6. Russ R., I took a look at that discussion. It's insane. It's trivially easy to provide dozens of examples contradicting their claims. It's trivially easy to find quotes from the raters themselves contradicting their claims. How in the world can they keep saying things so obviously false?

    I'd love to comment over there pointing out the contradictory evidence, but I was banned from their site some time back. Someone else should do it for me. (Hint, anyone?)

  7. I'm about to be banned from SkS myself. I just posted the following quote from Dana, and got hammered by the moderator.

    "We can't assume that just because a paper says "anthropogenic global warming" that they agree the human contribution is >50%, but they have explcitly endorsed that humans are contributing. Thus they go in category #2. The way I see the final paper is that we'll conclude 'There's an x% consensus supporting the AGW theory, and y% explicitly put the human contribution at >50%'.

    I said that x= 97.1% and y = 1.6%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *