Update: Apparently Richard Tol can't even categorise the abstracts to his own papers correctly, so he has a bit of cheek jumping up and down trying to find fault with Cook13.
This one is funny peculiar. Anthony Watts of WUWT was so irate that yet another study showing the 97% consensus among scientists who work in the area that humans are causing global warming, that he told big fat lies about the study.
See here and here and here and here for previous studies that found there is an overwhelming scientific consensus on the human causes of global warming.
Now Anthony has reported that an economist, Richard Tol, who happens to agree that humans cause global warming and doesn't appear to dispute the 97% consensus, has had a comment on the Cook paper rejected.
How (not) to become rich and famous
Tol tweeted that he wanted to become "rich and famous" by courting deniers at WUWT (Curry-style) . Tol figured he'd write a formal comment to the journal that published the Cook et al study, Environmental Research Letters.
Maybe they got tired ....
One of Tol's 'arguments' against the Cook et al paper was his speculation that the researchers surely got tired assessing so many abstracts. I'm not kidding. This is from the rejection letter as published on WUWT:
The author offers much speculation (e.g. about raters perhaps getting tired) which has no place in the scientific literatureTol didn't make any rational argument that the method was unsound (which might have warranted a comment) or that he had come up with a different number using the same or different method (which might have warranted a comment or maybe a paper). No - he argued that the authors might have got a bit sleepy.
Oh my! What can I say. Perhaps he's projecting his experience onto others? Might be a new argument against all the hockey sticks that keep popping up in the literature - all the climate scientists are tired :)
It's a conspiracy!
As for Anthony Watts, he of Kenji fame decides it must be a conspiracy of one, writing:
Also, it appears the opinion of ONE board member is all it takes, so much for consensus.
Anthony doesn't know much about comments on scientific papers. He says he thinks Tol's paper might have got rejected because Dr Gleick is on the ERL Board, because Dr Gleick helped expose Heartland Institute's dirty linen. I wasn't aware of a relationship between Richard Tol and the Heartland Institute - maybe by way of the GWPF? (Richard Tol is a member of the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation - along with climate science deniers like David Whitehouse and Ian Plimer). Anyway, Anthony Watts implies there is a connection and he should know I suppose.
Dogwhistling the dwindling, raggedy, dispirited troop of deniers
While Anthony Watts conspiracy theorises, Richard Tol takes a guess at which Editorial Board member wrote the rejecting report. That's enough for Anthony Watts, who posts the credentials of the Editor In Chief (which are very impressive) and blows his dog whistle calling for WUWT readers to spam that Board member, posting a link to the editor's email address "for those that wish to query him" (most WUWT readers don't know how to use a search engine).
Unabashed and uncaring...
Unabashed and uncaring of his professional reputation, Richard Tol has published the rejection letter and his rejected comment on his blog for all the world to see. He really must want that "fame and riches" very badly. Seeking a career change perhaps? Maybe Richard Tol is tired of being a lead author of the IPCC AR5 report.
Time to take a nap.
Wake up to the 97% consensus
Okay, I'm awake again and have read a couple of the comments below, which brought to mind a tweet from a wise man who wrote that Anthony Watts at WUWT just "doesn't get it":
When is it time to stop digging the hole you've dug yourself into?
One side show is the three way fight among the denialati: poptech vs Shollenberger vs Tol, sort of.
Bad Hair Day: Eli points out that this silly episode was just one of three losses the deniosaurs had recently!