The scandal of fiddled global warming data

[speling bee]

Look, I would really advise against citing somebody when he's been thrown under the bus ('wronger than wrong') by the sceptic's hero, Anthony Watts ...

http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014...comment-130003

Goodness me, pj, it's worth a quotation.

Anthony Watts (Comment #130003)
June 6th, 2014 at 8:00 am
I took Goddard to task over this as well in a private email, saying he was very wrong and needed to do better. I also pointed out to him that his initial claim was wronger than wrong, as he was claiming that 40% of USCHN STATIONS were missing.
Predictably, he swept that under the rug, and then proceeded to tell me in email that I don’t know what I’m talking about. Fortunately I saved screen caps from his original post and the edit he made afterwards.
See:
Before: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w.....before.png
After: http://wattsupwiththat.files.w....._after.png
Note the change in wording in the highlighted last sentence.
In case you didn’t know, “Steve Goddard” is a made up name. Supposedly at Heartland ICCC9 he’s going to “out” himself and start using his real name. That should be interesting to watch, I won’t be anywhere near that moment of his.
This, combined with his inability to openly admit to and correct mistakes, is why I booted him from WUWT some years ago, after he refused to admit that his claim about CO2 freezing on the surface of Antarctica couldn’t be possible due to partial pressure of CO2.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....a-at-113f/
And then when we had an experiment done, he still wouldn’t admit to it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/200.....-possible/
And when I pointed out his recent stubborness over the USHCN issues was just like that…he posts this:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.....reeze-co2/
He’s hopelessly stubborn, worse than Mann at being able to admit mistakes IMHO.
So, I’m off on vacation for a couple of weeks starting today, posting at WUWT will be light. Maybe I’ll pick up this story again when I return.

[EternalOptimist]

So why don't you tell me why you think a journalist with a degree in history is so well qualified to cast judgement on the scientific accuracy of a blog, to the extent that we should consider it scientific evidence?

People asking Why ?
People breaking down a graph into components and asking Why ?


Has it got to the point where asking why is enough to get you villified? It's only in climate science where you need to get peer reviewed to ask why two components of a graph diverge

[pjclarke]

So why don't you tell me why you think a journalist with a degree in history is so well qualified to cast judgement on the scientific accuracy of a blog

Faute de mieux?



Source: Methodology

[speling bee]

People asking Why ?
People breaking down a graph into components and asking Why ?


Has it got to the point where asking why is enough to get you villified? It's only in climate science where you need to get peer reviewed to ask why two components of a graph diverge

The blog says:

All US warming since 1990 is due to data fabrication.

That is not 'asking why'. That is making an assertion. Is it enough for an assertion to be put on a blog and validated by a journalist with a history degree? Does that constitute robust scientific evidence?

As it happens, I don't have a problem with any blogger publishing anything. I do have a problem with these publications given undue weight by the media. Publish them in a peer reviewed scientific journal and then we can take it seriously.

[EternalOptimist]

The blog says:



That is not 'asking why'. That is making an assertion. Is it enough for an assertion to be put on a blog and validated by a journalist with a history degree? Does that constitute robust scientific evidence?

As it happens, I don't have a problem with any blogger publishing anything. I do have a problem with these publications given undue weight by the media. Publish them in a peer reviewed scientific journal and then we can take it seriously.

But its not just coming from that one source, that just happens to be one I selected when you pressed me.

Watts reckons half the temperature rise is due to adjustments, but doesnt like 'fabrication' as the reason. He does use the word deception a lot though, in this paper
Ronan Connolly and Jennifer Marohasy, Homewood

Lots of people asking why?

[EternalOptimist]

Personally. I think Goddard is on to something

[speling bee]

But its not just coming from that one source, that just happens to be one I selected when you pressed me.

Watts reckons half the temperature rise is due to adjustments, but doesnt like 'fabrication' as the reason. He does use the word deception a lot though, in this paper

Much better. Thank you. Is that paper peer reviewed and published in a learned journal?

[pjclarke]

As it happens, I don't have a problem with any blogger publishing anything. I do have a problem with these publications given undue weight by the media. Publish them in a peer reviewed scientific journal and then we can take it seriously.

To his credit, after a few wholly laughable 'reports' for the likes of the Heartland Institute (as linked above), Watts and a few co-authors did knock the data from his project on the siting of US weather stations, which at the outset he hoped would show some spurious warming, into publishable form. Sadly for his hypothesis, the data showed no difference in the mean trend between well and poorly-sited stations.

Analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends - Fall - 2011 - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) - Wiley Online Library

He also promised to to accept the findings of the Berkeley re-analysis, only to back-pedal when they announced

Berkeley Earth also has carefully studied issues raised by skeptics, such as possible biases from urban heating, data selection, poor station quality, and data adjustment. We have demonstrated that these do not unduly bias the results.

and that CO2 was the most likely culprit

Oh yes, here's the journal ref: Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States

[pjclarke]

Much better. Thank you. Is that paper peer reviewed and published in a learned journal?

Here's the opening bullet... from the 2010 'paper'

Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.

And here's Watts after Berkeley published their conclusions the following year, which he promised to accept (my bold) ...

1.The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention - it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.

Watts accuses Watts of a Straw Man argument. Nothing wrong with changing your view as the fatcs changed, but bona fide scientists are usually at pains to correct their previous wrong conclusions, Watts just leaves his in print, to be cited by planet-hating zealots on Contractor forums ...

and if Watts was wrong, and he describes Goddard as 'wronger than wrong' who is wrongest?

[BrilloPad]

One day I might get round to read some of the posts in the AGW threads I start.....