Descubierto lo que es un "negacionista". Un "facha" del clima.
Twitter es un pozo de sabiduría, que muchos no saben apreciar. Llevo años tratando de averiguar qué diablos es un “negacionista”. Término que, como todo el mundo sabe, solo existe en la discusión del “cambio climático” (redundancia). Un sin vivir. ¿Qué niegan los negacionistas? ¿Qué tiene de tan particular su negación que en ninguna otra discusión se llama negacionista a quien niega algo? Normal, puesto que en toda discusión todos niegan (y afirman) algo. Pero no había forma de enterarse. En cuanto les preguntas -¿y qué es lo que niego, si puede saberse?-, salen por peteneras.
Hace unos días se ha publicado una vergonzosa mascarada en forma de estudio pretendidamente científico. Un revival del 97% de “consenso” científico [–>]. Está a punto de salir el próximo gran informe del IPCC, y los activistas tienen que meter caña. Y uno de los coautores, Dana Nuccitelli, anda con la guerra en la red social.
Dana trabaja en una firma de consultoría medioambiental en California, y se dedica a lo del clima como hobby. Desde la web más activista -y pagada por ello- del alarmismo. He puesto en negrita el hallazgo de la definición de “negacionista”. Pero he dejado algunas cosas extra de interés. Como el que señala que la ciencia se ha manejado para avanzar, al menos desde Galileo, sin el uso del término cafre. O la tonta que necesita “mensajes claros”, y el académico que le explica que en un sistema muy complejo y con pocos datos, no puede haber mensajes claros y honradez al mismo tiempo.
En resumen, un negacionista es -para los cafres que usan el término-, alguien que no se pliega al al misticismo tribal de la mayoría. Nada que ver con argumentos, ni siquiera opiniones. Es una cuestión de ambiente. Como “facha”, vaya. El que se resiste a la avalancha del ganado desbocado. Exactamente, un héroe.
Twitter:
Richard Tol @RichardTol21 may
The Cook paper comes further apart http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html
.@dana1981 Don’t worry. I did read your paper. A silly idea poorly implemented.
@RichardTol Have to say I’m disappointed. Didn’t have you pegged as a denier before. Fine to dislike our paper, but don’t lie about it.
.@dana1981 I published 4 papers that show that humans are the main cause of global warming. You missed 1, and classified another as lukewarm
.@dana1981 I published 118 neutral (in your parlance) papers. You missed 111. Of the 7 you assessed, you misclassified 4.
.@dana1981 Most importantly, consensus is not an argument.
@Foxgoose interesting they apply the D word to me, one of the 1st to show the A in AGW, argued for carbon taxes for 20 yr @hro001 @dana1981
Foxgoose @RichardTol @hro001 @dana1981 Real scientists have managed to promote their ideas without the D word (at least since 17th c geocentricism)
Richard Betts @richardabetts7h
@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
Michelle Stafford @michstaff6h
@dana1981 @richardtol as an uneducated layperson I want to see clear messages. I’m finding R Tol’s recent tweets confusing.
@michstaff Happy to explain / clarify.
Michelle Stafford @michstaff6h
@RichardTol I can’t make out where u stand. Comments re Hansen etc, I know science must b accurate but the message is so confused.
@michstaff I’m an academic. I stand with appropriate methods, founded conclusions, reasoned & informed debate with public and policy makers.
Michelle Stafford @michstaff5h
@RichardTol I understand. As an academic, u debate. Will there ever be any clear answers? Genuinely curious, fascinated & concerned.
@michstaff Climate change is a problem where complexity meets poor data meets ethical choices. You can’t be clear and honest at same time.
@richardabetts @richardtol is behaving like one, RTing Marc Morano’s Climate Depot and misrepresenting our paper.
Richard Betts @richardabetts45min
@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 @dana198143min
@richardabetts Broadly speaking, one who encourages Morano, Watts, and Poptech behaves like a denier (not necessarily same as denying AGW.
Dana Nuccitelli @dana198141min
@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.
lucia liljegren @lucialiljegren31min
@richardabetts You’re mistaken. The consensus definition of “denier” is “one who disagrees with @dana1981 and his co-authors”. @RichardTol
lucia liljegren @lucialiljegren28min
Translation of @dana1981: " @RichardTol is no true Scotsman" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman … ) @richardabetts
@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?
@lucialiljegren I deny that I’m Scotsman. @dana1981 @richardabetts
@richardabetts No, it’s half misrepresenting our paper, half encouraging deniers to do the same.
Dana Nuccitelli @dana19817min
@RichardTol You’ve said we misclassified your papers. We didn’t classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the papers
Plazaeme @dana1981 @richardabetts Not a denier, but pegged as one because he behaves like one. So, how does your classification work? Like the paper?
lucia liljegren @lucialiljegren32s
@RichardTol Of course not. If you were Scots, you would think @dana1981 ’s paper well executed and not silly! @richardabetts
@RichardTol Abstract ratings and author self-ratings based on full papers are two distinct parts of our study, for one.
@dana1981 When did I say they are the same?
@RichardTol You've said we misclassified your papers. We didn't classify them at all, we rated the abstracts, invited you to rate the paper.
.@dana1981 Semantics. You misrated my papers. When did I lie, what did I misrepresent?
Dana Nuccitelli @dana198111min
@RichardTol It's not semantics at all. You're equating two different things which we evaluated separately.
@dana1981 You accused me of lies and misrepresentation. Would you care to elaborate cq withdraw your accusations?
Dana Nuccitelli @RichardTol I already elaborated twice. On top of the abstract/paper issue you suggested it was a fault our sample only included 10 of yours
Richard Tol @dana1981 I think your sampling strategy is a load of nonsense. How is that a misrepresentation? Did I falsely describe your sample?
@dana1981 I think your data are a load of crap. Why is that a lie? I really think so.