Tuesday, September 03, 2013

Richard Tol Calls Richard Tol's 122 Papers Irrelevant


As the bunnies may recall, Richard Tol was inconsolable that the Cook et al. survey only included ten of his 122 papers

Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral: 

Eli was very hard on Poor Richard, but the Rabett is happy to learn that Richard really didn't think that any of his papers should be included. Over at Joanne Nova's he says he was only kidding
Richard Tol  August 28, 2013 at 4:06 pm · Reply
You omit the commonest error. Most papers on climate change do not explicitly test the hypothesis of human-made climate change. Only a few hundred papers do that. Most papers are about impacts of climate change, or climate policy, or a particular feature of atmospheric physics, or … Many of these paper do contain some words on human-made climate change in the abstract, and were thus counted as endorsements.
Of course, that means that by picking up only a few of Mike Mann's papers, Cook et al. made a huge mistake.  Might have been 98%

BTW that is Richard's Twitter icon.  Hmm.

73 comments:

Rattus Norvegicus said...

I was going to comment on what his twitpic should be, but decided to leave it to someone else...

Sou said...

Poor Richard keeps falling lower and lower. Rejected by Lucia's denizens, not supported by Wattsonians, now seeking comfort from the crazy conspiracy mob at Jo Nova's.

One thing I might agree with Tol on is that he's stepping down in the right order - Lucia is a bit more coherent than Watts (most of the time), while Wattsonians are in a world of their own, it's not cloud cuckoo land like Nova's place.

Will he try Prison Planet next? Or maybe Canada Free Press? Or just ghost write pieces for the lord and his physical trainer.

Sou said...

Oleander is quite toxic.

http://www.treknature.com/gallery/Asia/India/photo144503.htm

Martin Vermeer said...

I'm just trying to imagine a supposedly serious scholar actually wanting to be associated with a blog like Jo Nova's...

Anonymous said...

I see,

Tol et al rightly point out that the Cooked paper

1. is based upon an incomplete, biased selection of the literature

2. finds a 0.3% consensus that explicitly endorses the consensus as defined by the IPCC

3. used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably

4. arbitrarily excluded about 8000 of the 12,000 papers in the sample on the unacceptable ground that they had expressed no opinion on the climate consensus; these artifices "allowed" Cook et al reach the unjustifiable conclusion that there was a 97.1% consensus when there was not

5. Cook et al still refuses to release all data for replication, in violation of IOP journal policies

Ergo, by your logic, Richard Tol is a troll

Sou said...

By anyone's logic anonymous is a troll, logic free and innumerate, too.

But we really shouldn't feed it I suppose.

Anonymous said...

Sou fails elementary logical analysis and has no valid response, thus resorts to ad homs against anonymous. Typical warmist.

Martin Vermeer said...

Troll rubbing in Sou's point, for anybody still in doubt...

K.a.r.S.t.e.N said...

Oleander is indeed quite toxic. Learned it when I naively and cluelessly fed my guinea pigs with some dropped down leaves (in an unobserved moment). Probably one of the saddest moments in my childhood. Cruel and sad ...

Anonymous said...

Sou, I expect the hounerable Prof. Dr. Tol to soon appear in one of the hounerable Lord Monckton's 50 to 1 video's.

That is, if he hasn't already. At least Tony Watts and Jo Nova did appear and the logical next step on the ladder would indeed be mr. Tol right after Curry but just before Fred Singer.

Oh, but Singer already appeared ... (silence) ... poor Richard, even behind Singer!

--cynicus

Sou said...

Richard didn't acknowledge the copyright owner either.

Russell Seitz said...

In Annon's view :
"Tol et al rightly point out that the Cooked paper

1. is based upon an incomplete, biased selection of the literature

2. finds a 0.3% consensus that explicitly endorses the consensus as defined by the IPCC "

If it takes X climate scientists to author one IPCC report, and .03 X to author 4,000 papers, thatsa one almighty productive discipline, or one seriously illiterate troll.

Anonymous said...

Remedial reading [i.e. if you can read] for the illiterate trolls Russell Seitz & Sou:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/consensus-what-consensus-2/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

Remedial reading: WUWT.

Oh sure, we'll get right on it. You sure are smart, I bet you get all the cute guys.

Anonymous said...

Schoolyard gay jokes is the best you have to offer. Go back to playing with your little bunnies boys & girls and leave all the intellectual stuff to the scientists and statisticians who have demolished Cook et al.

EliRabett said...

Well then, if you are going to be an Anonymous guy, please sign in as He-Guy Anonymous so the bunnies will know and the lady bunnies will chase you. #1 is temporarily taken. Sorry.

EliRabett said...

Web of Science (WoS to us in the know), is a hard science search engine. Scopus and Google Scholar cover more the social sciences and humanities as well as conference abstracts and proceedings.

So, as Eli recalls (you gotta remember that Eli is an old bunny), Dickie Tricky was in the pre-histrionic era, pointing to Scopus and GS as having more hits and thus claiming that Cook, et al. was incomplete.

Since now his plaint is that the search used by Cook, et al. was too broad, including people like him, when may Eli stop giggling.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

For anonytroll #2, might I suggest #2...for obvious reasons.

And fwiw, how was Thomas to know you were male...

EliRabett said...

Bunnies can always dream.

Tom Curtis said...

I was curious as to how Legates et al came up with a 0.3% consensus. It turns out that to do so they need to take the number of abstracts rated 1, and categorized as Methods or Paleoclimate as a percentage of the 11944 rated abstracts. They thereby endorse the curious notions that "endorse" means "is evidence of"; that studies of the climate impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (as distinct from the economic, health and social impacts of a changing climate) are irrelevant to the issue of whether humans have caused global warming; that not mentioning a theory in an abstract entails that you disagree with the theory; and the categories clearly defined in the paper mean not what they are defined to mean, but only what the critics want them to mean.

Well, what else can you expect from a paper that has Legates, Soon and Monckton among the co-authors.

What disturbs me is that that nonsense could get through peer review on a journal that purports to discuss science and education.

Russell Seitz said...


The Anononanowatt cites:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/consensus-what-consensus-2/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math-errors/

As it is a known fact that there is no censorship at WUWT, they must be removing our comments on them on account of our illiteracy.

Anonymous said...

The level of juvenile inanity of the bunnies never fails to disappoint

Chief bunny Eli & a_ray_in_dilbert_space think it's important what gender anonymous is, while missing the point that elifritz avoids any rebuttal of the points raised on Cook et al by using silly, juvenile jokes.

Tom Curtis thinks it's crazy that Legates et al say "that studies of the climate impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (as distinct from the economic, health and social impacts of a changing climate) are irrelevant to the issue of whether humans have caused global warming." They in fact do not contribute to attribution of climate change.

Tom falsely claims "that not mentioning a theory in an abstract entails that you disagree with the theory," while Legates makes no such claim.

Tom again falsely claims "the categories clearly defined in the paper mean not what they are defined to mean, but only what the critics want them to mean," while Legates et al clearly shows Cook et al used three distinct definitions of climate consensus interchangeably.

Proving they're bunnies, Tom ends with ad homs & Seitz makes another non-sequitur inane comment that contributes nothing.

Albatross said...

Not sure how a new paper showing major math errors is meant to disprove something ;) Moncktonian pseudo mathematics is known for having major mathematical errors.

Tom Curtis summarized the situation very well and is worth repeating,

"Well, what else can you expect from a paper that has Legates, Soon and Monckton among the co-authors.

What disturbs me is that that nonsense could get through peer review on a journal that purports to discuss science and education.

Sou said...

Some remedial reading for Anonymous, who's been patting Schrödinger's kitty.

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/09/two-bob-each-way-or-anthony-watts-pats.html

Anonymous said...

I like the new anonymous, a lot!

When they defend that stupid Cook paper you know it is just tribalism no intelligent person with an ounce of integrity would defend that horrific POS paper by Cook.

1

Anonymous said...

The Albatross says "Moncktonian pseudo mathematics is known for having major mathematical errors."

Name one specific example.

Tom Curtis said...

As anonymous appears to have difficulties thinking things through to put it mildly:

I said that, "[Legates et al] thereby endorse the curious notions that ... that studies of the climate impacts of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations (as distinct from the economic, health and social impacts of a changing climate) are irrelevant to the issue of whether humans have caused global warming". That is, it was not a quote of Legates et al.

A study of the climate impact of doubling CO2 might find, for example, that the Charney Climate Sensitivity of doubling CO2 is 3 degrees C, and the Transient Climate Response is 2 degrees. Such a finding would definitely be evidence relevant to whether human caused increased to CO2 concentration have caused increases to global mean temperature. Legates et al, however, by excluding "impacts" papers exclude all such studies from the sample, thereby implying that such studies are irrelevant.

That is a distinct error from confusing "endorse" with "provide evidence of". A paper about the proper care and nourishment of geraniums can endorse AGW by simply asserting "AGW, as described by the IPCC, is occurring". Such an assertion, regardless of the nature of the paper, is relevant to an assessment of what the authors believe(ie, do they, or do they not accept that AGW is true?) It is not relevant as evidence showing that AGW is true. Cook et al assess the former, not the later. (Frankly this distinction is as difficult to understand as single digit addition, but still seems beyond the capacity of the denier drones.) Of course, given that those drones fall over themselves to insist that "consensus is not evidence", it is evident that they understand the distinction when it is tactically useful - but apparently lose all comprehension of it when it is tactically useful to not understand it.

Cook et al assert that 97% of papers which take a position endorse AGW. You cannot show that is false by showing that a much smaller percentage of papers endorse AGW when you use papers that state no position in the denominator. As Legates et al include such papers in their denominator, they either assume that papers that state no position implicitly disendorse AGW, or they are knowingly and dishonestly inflating the denominator with irrelevant data. There is no logically coherent alternative to these two options (although I am sure that will not trouble anonymous).

Despite anonymous's pretense to the contrary, Legates et al cannot prove that Cook et al used three different definitions of AGW interchangabley. At most they can prove that they used three different terms to desribe the phenomenon interchangably. Given that fact, it is then incumbent on Cook et al to accept one common consistent definition of all three terms, and of interpreters to likewise accept one common consistent definition. Such a common consistent definition exists, ie, that humans have caused most (>50%) of recent global warming. In insisting on inconsistent definitions when a consistent definition is available, Legates et al show that they are (yet again) arguing a strawman.

Anonymous said...

Tom Curtis:

I quoted your interpretation of Legates et al, did not imply it was a quote from Legates, and stated why your claim is false because studies of climate impacts in fact do not contribute to attribution of climate change.

The central IPCC claim is that >50% of climate change is AGW. The fact is an astonishingly small fraction of the literature actually makes the claim that "most" or "more than 50%" or equivalent is due to AGW, and no matter how you try to Cook the data, that's a fact as demonstrated by Legates et al. Cook uses the trickery of conflating the IPCC definition of "consensus" as ">50% AGW" as including any paper that asserts any fraction of climate change is man-made. Even most skeptics think a trivial portion of climate change is due to land use changes, agriculture, CO2, etc. and are thus a part of one definition of Cook's meaningless "consensus," while not part of the IPCC definition of "consensus." Cook uses these definitions of consensus interchangeably to conflate terms and confuse the gullible. Read as well Andrew Montford's essay on this linked above.

Albatross said...

Flawed mathematics and flawed reasoning by notorious birther Monckton summarized here.

This mathematical blunder by Monckton in his contorted attempt at "forcing" a low climate sensitivity is especially amusing ;) Exposed by a fake skeptic sympathizer nonetheless.

And some more shameless deception by birther Monckton exposed here.

Willie Soon's stats and science skills are not too hot either ;)

Now this evidence of course won't satisfy the anon troll's appetite or sway them to see reason...one can but try.

But to get back on topic, I would try and feign concern or sympathy for Tol, but that would not be being honest.

Richard has made a fine mess for himself, pass the carrots and let us listen to what else Tom Curtis has to say :)

Anonymous said...

The alleged blunder by Monckton is thoroughly refuted here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/27/monckton-on-pulling-planck-out-of-a-hat/

Oh please, Mikey Mann's site lecturing us on proper statistical techniques. lol

Regardless, show the specific alleged mathematical blunders of Legates et al

Russell Seitz said...

As Monckton might say

Cave trollibus cumque relatus solo

Thomas Lee Elifritz said...

No, I think you will find O'Anonymouse It, that Tommy doesn't give a frack about the mathematical basis of social query and analysis techniques, although in this case I do find some of the results amusing. Certainly I don't care what the bunch of conspiracy theorists think of such over at WUWT, but I will admit that I did go over there once to peruse some of their crackpot Younger Dryas theories, which were both amusing and horrifying at the same time. I'm merely commenting that regurgitating WUWT links probably won't produce your desired result.

Albatross said...

Thomas,

You are quite right.

I also just recalled how Dr. Tim Lambert exposed a fundamental error when Monckton tried (again) to estimate a low climate sensitivity by mangling the results of Pinker et al. (that and Chris got Pinker's gender wrong).

The hideous flaws in Legates et al. have been exposed by Sou above @8:42.

As for Tol, one can hope that he does not stoop so low as defending Legates et al. or birther Monckton for that matter, but given that he has stepped down to Nova's basement level, one can't be so sure…

Richard S J Tol said...

@Eli
By Cook's criteria, 122 papers of mine should have been included.

I would rate 118 papers as neutral (4), and 4 as strong endorsements (1).

By my criteria, papers that are on impacts and mitigation (118 of my 122 papers that are on climate and listed in WoS) should be excluded from the analysis.

Richard S J Tol said...

Sou correctly identified the flower as Nerium Oleander, or Hiroshima's Flower.

EliRabett said...

Cook et al's, criteria was that the citations be returned by a WoS search using specific search strings.

Your criteria are your criteria.

While papers that assume the reality of global climate change do not prove that global climate change is happening they are strong evidence of the consensus that it is, which is what Cook, et al were investigating

Give it up, start respecting yourself again and stop whining.

EliRabett said...

Tom,

-----------
What disturbs me is that that nonsense could get through peer review on a journal that purports to discuss science and education.
-----------

It just shows Richard, that being reasonably calm and paying a bunch of money helps with peer review in some journals.

Anonymous said...

Curtis, as usual, with lots of words and little understanding.

Even within the 97% of papers, the vast majority of them do not take a position. Most of them 'implicitly' accept global warming, i.e., were given a position to take.

EliRabett said...

Yeah right, just like folks are given a position to take when they write a paper on the moon. Everyone knows it is made of green cheese and carrots.

Command and control ain't what it used to be.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, like the hundreds of climate mitigation papers that 'explicitly' quantified global warming.

Falling over one another to bow to the party line.

Richard S J Tol said...

@Anon
Mitigation papers implicitly support anthropogenic climate change. What's the point in cutting harmless emissions?

I think these papers should be disregarded, because the authors of these papers do not have the relevant expertise.

Cook & co think these papers should be included.

The strange thing is that about half of the mitigation papers are counted as endorsements, and about half as neutral.

Anonymous said...

Richard,
Total numbers of papers that explicitly support AGW without quantifying, that are mitigation papers? 418.

Richard S J Tol said...

@Anon

1:20
2:418
3:1474
4:1471
5:1
6:2
7:0

5 and 6 are the funniest. I don't believe that CO2 causes climate change, but I'm gonna cut CO2 nonetheless!

Anonymous said...

Wow, there are even about 20 '1's?

I mitigate CO2 and I hereby declare CO2 to causing >50% global warming.

Anonymous said...

Richard,

Look, please quit being the peanut gallery and whining, and publish your own bloody study. Your misguided musings on this subject long ago grew tiresome-- that is probably why you have been relegated to engaging the conspiracy theorists at WUWT,The Black Board and at Nova of late.

While you are here, could you please unequivocally state your take on Legates et al., nonsense (or some such) or a respectable/good and legitimate paper on the subject? What are its strengths (if any), its weaknesses? Thank you.

Best,
Albatross

Tom Curtis said...

Tol continues making a fool of himself, in this case by claiming that the three mitigation papers rated as not endorsing the consensus are (amusingly) incorrectly rated. The papers are:

Global Warming: a Cool View (Rated 5)

Abstract:
"The origins and operation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and some aspects of the greenhouse gas theory of global warming are examined. It is concluded that while it is extremely unlikely that any accurate prediction can be made now of the climate a century hence, and there is doubt that emissions of CO2 from man's activities are a major causative factor in global warming, government initiatives based on acceptance of the theory provide the spur for the steel industry to seek process routes with CO2 emissions much lower than they are today."
(Bolded section indicates the section that justifies the rating; italicized section the reason for its classification.)

Global Climate Change (Rated 6)

Abstract:
"This paper reviews the validity of the greenhouse warming theory, its possible impact on the automotive industry, and what could be done. Currently there is very limited evidence that man’s activity has caused global warming. Mathematical models of the earth’s heat balance predict warming and associated climate changes, but their predictions have not been validated. Concern over possible warming has led to several evaluations of feasible CO2 control measures. Although cars and trucks contribute only a small fraction of the CO2 buildup, the automotive industry may be expected to reduce its share of the atmospheric CO2 loading if controls become necessary. Methods to reduce automotive CO2 emissions, including alternative fuels such as methanol, natural gas, and electricity, are discussed. Also, control of the other greenhouse gases, which may currently contribute about 45 percent of the greenhouse warming, is considered."
(Emphasis as above)

Fallacies of concurrent Climate Policy Efforts (Rated 6)

"Climate policy has assumed an extreme degree of urgency in the international debate in recent years. This article begins by taking a critical look at the scientific underpinnings of the efforts to stabilize the climate. It points to several serious question marks on the purported relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming, and expresses distrust about claims of impending catastrophes related to rising sea levels, hurricanes, and spread of infectious disease. It then reviews the concurrent climate policy efforts and concludes that they are incoherent, misguided and unduly costly, and that they have so far had no perceptible impact on anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. The exceedingly ambitious policy plans currently under preparation suffer from similar fallacies. For these reasons, but also because of the remaining scientific doubts and the exorbitant costs that have to be incurred, skepticism is expressed about the preparedness to implement the climate policy plans currently on the table."
(Emphasis as above)

While it is possible to quibble about whether these articles should have been rated 5, or 6, there is not doubt that they reject or minimize AGW (ie, that >50% of recent warming has been caused by anthropogenic factors), nor that they discuss mitigation and hence are correctly classified. Tol's a priorism in dismissing Cook et al leaves egg on his face again.

Richard S J Tol said...

@Albatross
Legates et al. find that if you use a different definition of consensus, you will find a different result.

The interesting bit is Monckton re-rating some of the abstracts, but there is no detail and Monckton is about as reliable as Nuccitelli.

@Tom
My point exactly.

Wotts Up With That Blog said...

@Richard Surely there are some boundaries even you don't cross? Monckton is about as reliable as Nuccitelli? Surely even you can't really believe that? Can you?

It's one thing to dislike or disagree with someone, but comparing them to Monckton really is step too far.

Richard S J Tol said...

@Kevin
Both M and N happily ignore, magnify and twist whatever factoid to fit their political ends.

Albatross said...

Richard,

Again, please do your own bloody study and quit whining! You are sadly oblivious to the fact that, as Tom has noted, you are making an outright fool of yourself, keep digging yourself ever deeper into a hole and trashing your reputation. Is the attention really that important to you?

Yes, birther Monckton et al. have fanciful imaginations and they can define consensus to be whatever fits their ideology. That does not make it correct. Monckton would define pi to be exactly 3.0 if it meant he could twist the data and math to fit his ideology.

I did request and unequivocal answer, but you did not oblige, so I'll assume for now that you consider their paper to be a "respectable/good and legitimate paper on the subject".

You also avoided speaking to the strengths and weaknesses of Legates et al. as requested.

You outrageously claim, "...Monckton is about as reliable as Nuccitelli."

Oh my God, with all respect, I now know that you are deluded! Some had suggested that but I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, until now that is. Also, please do grow up.

Good luck, you are going to need it.

Albatross said...

Richard Tol,

You now make another claim "Both M and N happily ignore, magnify and twist whatever factoid to fit their political ends."

That definitely applies to Monckton, and most definitely not to Dana. That you cannot tell the difference is pretty scary. By saying that you appear to be projecting Richard.

Please don't expect anyone to take your laments or claims seriously anymore (and that would include journal editors), because you have just destroyed whatever credibility you may once have had. Well done-- we did warn you to stop, but you stubbornly and myopically insisted on forging ahead. Not smart.

Ari Jokimäki said...

Richard Tol: "5 and 6 are the funniest. I don't believe that CO2 causes climate change, but I'm gonna cut CO2 nonetheless!"

It doesn't occur to you, that such papers might be discussing against mitigating climate change (i.e. they are mitigation papers but are rejecting the whole issue)?

Sou said...

Don't feed the tol.

Albatross said...

Hi Sou,

Not to worry, after that last outburst by Richard he is persona non grata, probably even to journal editors.

Clearly trying to engage Tol is a complete waste of time.

willard said...

> I think these papers should be disregarded, because the authors of these papers do not have the relevant expertise.

To ENDORSE, Richard.

Please complete your sentences.

Anonymous said...

This anonyBunnie has asserted this for years, and feel free to steal it: ANYONE who uses Watts and His Flying Monkeys©--and I'm sure A. nony. Mous is one--as a source of support for *any* scientific assertion is akin to using Ben and Jerry's© "Chunky Monkey" as a weight loss aid. Both equally fallacious and a fail.

Anonymous said...

What's really irrelevant is this blog and it's obsession with irrelevant things like Richard Tol and Brian's nonsense*

Which is why it will never hold a candle to real science blogs like Real Climate or Open Mind.

Tom Curtis said...

Willard, nicely put.

Tol, by asserting the many authors who "do not have the relevant expertise" to endorse AGW, tacitly asserts that only a favoured few are competent to have an opinion as to whether the globe is indeed warming due to primarily anthropogenic factors. Not only are those authors declared not to have presented evidence on the matter, they are also declared unfit to determine whether or not those who have presented evidence have made their case.

Curiously, he hides his intellectual elitism from the GWPF, where he is quite happy for scientists from any field (and indeed non-scientists such as himself) to hold forth on the issue.

EliRabett said...

Of course there is always a Revellation

Anonymous said...

By Tol's own criteria he does not "have the relevant expertise" as an economist to endorse climate change.

One would thus have to conclude that all of his papers should be excluded from consideration of expert opinion on AGW, as should any blog comment that he makes.

Eli had it right at the top of the page.


Bernard J.

Richard S J Tol said...

@Tom C
Indeed. Science is elitist. Eli, for instance, knows more about nanowires that I do so you should ignore my writing about nanowires.

Anonymous said...

Eli has nanoknowledge?

Seems plausible enough based on what appears on this blog.

EliRabett said...

Eli is a tiny bunny

willard said...

Science might not care much about anyone's knowledge base except hers, Richard.

Susan Anderson said...

Oh dear, oh dear, I should be-have myself, but this is too priceless.

Tol could easily get himself a new hairdo:

http://www.treknature.com/gallery/Asia/India/photo144503.htm

takes you to this:
www.zwinky.com/dl/index.jhtml

EliRabett said...

Allow Eli to most respectfully disagree with Willard. What Cook, et al. were talking about is that the published literature and the scientists that publish accept human driven climate change as a fact, almost to a person (97%). Every survey since the year dot (In the beginning there was Oreskes) has shown this.

What RT and RP are doing is shifting the pea, trying to find some more complex formulation which decreases this overwhelming consensus slightly. What Monckton and Legates are trying is to falsify it, which given the supporting evidence is a fools errand (Eli repeats himself).

So, ask yourself why this assault on Mt. Cook?

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

Eli: "So, ask yourself why this assault on Mt. Cook?"

Why, Eli, every master debater know that if the facts are against you, you attack the messenger.

Ad hominem is all they have.

willard said...

Dear Eli,

I fear I must agree with you, since I already do.

My point was that some, not Eli for sure, do conflate Science and the set of scientists, especially when comes the time to justify the concerns they broker with all their honesty.

As an aside, when Richard tries a move to sounds a lot like "Science is all about authority", auditors may be wondering if he recalls his exchange with Michael Tobis on that subject a while ago:

http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2010/11/infra-digging-michael-tobis.html

Speaking in the name of Science might always be suboptimal.

***

To answer your question: your guess is as good as mine, and probably related. My hypothesis regarding Tol's particular quest is that his arm got stuck. He can't remove it until constructive criticism is being produced, which may take a while.

***

As to Legates & al, I have not read it. Since I appreciate Briggs' character, I guess I should pay due diligence to it. But quite frankly, I think I now agree with the conclusion of our exchange:

> Us oracles consult for carrots, silly Rabett.

http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2013/02/on-priors-bayesians-and-frequentists.html

Russell Seitz said...

If oracles work for carrots, the carotene may overtake the anthropocene , witness how badly the oraclesare faring in the America's Cup.

a_ray_in_dilbert_space said...

I notice that our latest troll mistakes mere unpleasantness for wit.

EliRabett said...

All you need to know about RT and Cook, et al


Richard Tol ‏@RichardTol 5 Sep
even online check-in is a pain at @AerLingus


Aer Lingus ‏@AerLingus 5 Sep
@RichardTol Hi Richard, we're sorry to hear you feel that way. Is there anything we can assist you with?


Richard Tol ‏@RichardTol 5 Sep
@AerLingus Why can I check in for my flight to Dublin, but not my flight from Dublin?


Aer Lingus ‏@AerLingus 5 Sep
@RichardTol Richard, we see you've managed to check in for both flights. If you need further assistance please let us know.


Richard Tol ‏@RichardTol 5 Sep
@AerLingus I got to a boarding pass through another screen, only to find I had checked in 3 weeks ago. So why was I reminded this morning?


Reply to @RichardTol @AerLingus
@RichardTol Richard, we send reminder emails to all our guests. We're sorry for any inconvenience caused.

Brian Dodge said...

In other news, the "Science Laureates of the United States Act of 2013” (H.R. 1891), co-sponsored by Reps. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX), was pulled from the House floor calendar at the last minute due to objections from conservative members of the chamber, who object to appointing a Science Laureate to raise public awareness of the importance of science, for example, climate change.

EWI said...

@ELi

Richard studiously ignores the elephant in the room - Ryanair, who have a website so unfriendly it has to be seen to be believed. But in RTol's world, Aer Lingus are state-owned... so.

Of course, Richard is also the Netherlander who has in the past professed not to understand why urban dwellers would want to use bicycles for transport.