I owe you guys another post on the new Gergis et al paper, but I'm afraid I have to put that off for a bit longer. My power went out a few days ago, and I lost all the code I had written because I foolishly did not prepare for a drunk driver hitting a pole. I know, I should save my work regularly.
Anyway, I came across a recent post at Watts Up With That, and it is... not good. It criticizes the "fact checking" organization Politifact, saying they're biased and dishonest. I'm a critic of modern "fact checking," so that naturally caught my eye. Then I saw it relies upon and heavily promotes work and comments by Richard Tol.
I find it disappointing people continue to embrace Tol, and I wrote a comment saying so. It hasn't appeared yet. I have no idea if or when it will, and rather than worry about it, I thought I'd copy it here. I know I should probably right a fleshed out blog post explaining all the details of what I refer to in the comment, but I feel like if I do, it'll run 10,000+ words. I really don't feel like making this the subject of my next eBook.
It is disappointing this post continues this site's trend of promoting Richard Tol's dishonest work on the economic effects of global warming> It has been long established the only way he has been able to "show" global warming will have net benefits is to cherry-pick the models he uses and their parameters in order to select only the ones which show the results he wants.
On top of this, it's been long established Tol changes every aspect of his methodology, and even the data itself, as it suits him. This is what has allowed him to keep claiming global warming will be beneficial despite having to correct a multitude of errors that drastically alter his conclusions.
Moreover, it's been clearly established Tol secretly alters the text of things to better suit his purposes. Not only did he insert a new section into the latest IPCC report that wasn't subject to any external review (as well as rewriting another section to make it more favorabole to his work), but he goes so far as to secretly edit papers after publishing them to cover up errors people point out. Interestingly, this paper he secretly edited is the one he links readers to in a comment above. (This one is less well-known, so here's a link for some background information.)
There is much more which could be said about Richard Tol, his work and this post, but the sad reality is I doubt it could possibly matter. Anyone on the other "side" who does the things Tol does would be crucified on this site. Yet with Tol, this site treats him as a hero.