It looks like Tol has joined the <cough> illustrious <cough> ranks of those who publish their review comments:
the commentary could be made substantially more balanced and contemplative – for example, as proof of “truth” the author cites himself and a series of mostly social media sources, with little reference to the academic literature and with little evidence of neutrality in his selection of “evidence”. There is a more unfortunate and confrontational aspect to the tone of this submission when the author makes his final unsubstantiated reflections... [not] original, nor to be of sufficient breadth or disinterested reflection to contribute to the literature, or to knowledge.
No, I haven't read it. Of course not, why would I?
[Update: at one point I added some witty cartoons to this post. Whilst the cartoons were indeed very witty - and if you insist, for transparency, are available at this archived version - I don't think they're appropriate for this post -W]
I'm a little surprised that Richard Tol hasn't come and defended himself here. It may happen anyway, but if you were wanting to increase that possibility (which maybe you don't) I have discovered that there's an easy way to do so. Simply suggest that someone else (Nicholas Stern is an obvious choice) happens to be a higher-profile climate economist than Richard Tol. That's almost guaranteed to draw Richard's attention, and will likely lead to him linking to some kind of league table showing that he is the nth (where n is a reasonably small number) most cited economist in the world, or something like that. Just thought you might find that useful.
[I've added a helpful cartoon. Lets see if that draws him out -W]
You can look him up:
Scholar most-cited by Stern Review. Top 15 most influentialest climate people. Top 100 most greenest Dutch. May contain sarcasm."
sarcasm requires being self aware
What? No Bloggie?
Your contributions to climate combat will be recorded in history, Do you wonder if may be the lack of focus on real business leads you to slip and slide into a lower level? On the other hand I write very intellectually challenged material, for example I wrote a proposal to build 60 nuclear plants in Africa, and have several papers discussing issues ranging from the global warming diet to Obama's feces at the UN, to how to comunicate climate information and induce a receptive mood in the target population.
"I write very intellectually challenged material"
Um, well then.
We'll have to take his word for it, I guess.
Imagine that one has the IQ of Newton x Einstein, that that person then wakes up, only to find out that they have fig crumbs in The Magic Bush, and that they are in fact promiscuous in the field of economics.
So apparently Dick Tol has yet more cable to lay before the mockery becomes unleavened?
"it is odd that the author does not reflect on other previously published studies... of climate scientists’ viewpoints on anthropogenic climate change. In fact it is remarkable... that the results of other studies published in peer reviewed journals in this field, conducted over different periods, and using a variety of methods (ranging from direct interviews of climate scientists to literature reviews of climate papers) all find the same narrow range of 94-98% scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change [6-9]. In this context, it is not clear why the author focuses so much time and energy on this one study..."
"ERL does not want you to read this"
What a Richard.
Over at the rabbits place, Tol claims that "Monckton is about as reliable as Nuccitelli."
Poor old Richard tried to get his 2 cents worth in (overvaluing himself again).
Then poor old Spencer got a serve.
No wonder they have their pet hates
Edward Elgar press, huh? If anybody has time on their hands, this might be amusing to them. It's only one opinion, but there were a couple of red flags there, in particular:
"there remains a great deal of high-priced reproduced content."