An even bigger Climategate scandal?

Global warming advocates may have a scientific scandal on their hands that is even more serious than those leaked e-mails:

The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as it was originally presented. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data, where the three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still have not been released. Other data simply never seem to have existed or cannot be provided to other scientists.

But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.

In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that’s right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.

D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase.

via The Next Climate-gate?.

To download the paper, go here.

HT: Paul

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Carl Vehse

    And yet there continue to be Climategate (aka Global Warming-gate) deniers spinning away all of these revelations. Many of these irrational deniers are in the the scientific community and still editorialize their global warming mantra.

  • Carl Vehse

    And yet there continue to be Climategate (aka Global Warming-gate) deniers spinning away all of these revelations. Many of these irrational deniers are in the the scientific community and still editorialize their global warming mantra.

  • Joe

    This is very interesting. I wonder if it matters at this point. Aren’t we at the faith stage of global warming?

  • Joe

    This is very interesting. I wonder if it matters at this point. Aren’t we at the faith stage of global warming?

  • Orianna Laun

    But if we don’t believe in it, how can anyone take us seriously because our “thinking hasn’t evolved”?

  • Orianna Laun

    But if we don’t believe in it, how can anyone take us seriously because our “thinking hasn’t evolved”?

  • Jonathan

    Yes, it is the faith stage of global warming. Yesterday, while we were snowed in again, the kids watched a few cartoon network shows (yea for electricity and heat!) I was amazed at one cartoon that was loudly preaching fire and brimstone about the reality and dangers of global warming, and it incited the kids to castigate anyone who would dare to question the scientific truths.

  • Jonathan

    Yes, it is the faith stage of global warming. Yesterday, while we were snowed in again, the kids watched a few cartoon network shows (yea for electricity and heat!) I was amazed at one cartoon that was loudly preaching fire and brimstone about the reality and dangers of global warming, and it incited the kids to castigate anyone who would dare to question the scientific truths.

  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall
  • http://mesamike.org Mike Westfall
  • Tim

    Is there a source for there report about cutting the weatherstations? Thanks!

  • Tim

    Is there a source for there report about cutting the weatherstations? Thanks!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Tim @6: Right, Tim. I found the site that has the downloadable paper and posted it in an update.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Tim @6: Right, Tim. I found the site that has the downloadable paper and posted it in an update.

  • DonS

    Tim @ 6: The source is here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

    I have not heard of this allegation before, which is particularl egregious, if true. However, there are many journal articles out there regarding the unreliability of our historical temperature data because of the ever increasing heat island effect. Many of our temperature data stations are particularly poorly located mid-city, on asphalt parking lots, adjacent to air conditioning units, etc. Some of them were originally relatively rural, and cities sprung up around them. However, no corrections have been made for the obviously questionable data. Of course, you will never hear things like this in the popular media. Just scare stories.

  • DonS

    Tim @ 6: The source is here: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

    I have not heard of this allegation before, which is particularl egregious, if true. However, there are many journal articles out there regarding the unreliability of our historical temperature data because of the ever increasing heat island effect. Many of our temperature data stations are particularly poorly located mid-city, on asphalt parking lots, adjacent to air conditioning units, etc. Some of them were originally relatively rural, and cities sprung up around them. However, no corrections have been made for the obviously questionable data. Of course, you will never hear things like this in the popular media. Just scare stories.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’ll see your one link to an opinion article on Fox News and raise you four more links:

    skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html

    skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html

    skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

    skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

    Enjoy.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’ll see your one link to an opinion article on Fox News and raise you four more links:

    skepticalscience.com/On-the-reliability-of-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record.html

    skepticalscience.com/Is-the-US-Surface-Temperature-Record-Reliable.html

    skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html

    skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements.htm

    skepticalscience.com/urban-heat-island-effect.htm

    Enjoy.

  • Joe

    tODD – how can we trust you? You said 4links and their are 5. Clearly you are untrustworthy and everything you say is a big fat lie. :)

  • Joe

    tODD – how can we trust you? You said 4links and their are 5. Clearly you are untrustworthy and everything you say is a big fat lie. :)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@10), I take it you’re not a poker player (neither am I, but I’m pretty sure I counted right).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@10), I take it you’re not a poker player (neither am I, but I’m pretty sure I counted right).

  • Peter Leavitt

    Notice how Todd doesn’t answer the D’Aleo/Watt’s paper; he irrelevantly slurs Fox News and refers to four other papers, thus, as usual, being too clever by half. Skeptical Science.com, which published the four papers to which Todd refers, is managed by John Cook, who, unlike D’Aleo and Watt, is not a meteorologist or climate scientist. He studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia and has dubiously set himself up as a serious analyst of climate science. In truth he is a garden variety global warming ideologue.

    Question Todd, do you have any credible evidence that D’Aleo andWatts are wrong with their claim that the weather-station temperature evidence was manipulated?

  • Peter Leavitt

    Notice how Todd doesn’t answer the D’Aleo/Watt’s paper; he irrelevantly slurs Fox News and refers to four other papers, thus, as usual, being too clever by half. Skeptical Science.com, which published the four papers to which Todd refers, is managed by John Cook, who, unlike D’Aleo and Watt, is not a meteorologist or climate scientist. He studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia and has dubiously set himself up as a serious analyst of climate science. In truth he is a garden variety global warming ideologue.

    Question Todd, do you have any credible evidence that D’Aleo andWatts are wrong with their claim that the weather-station temperature evidence was manipulated?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@12), I didn’t slur Fox News — after all, they had the apparent sense to run this as a letter to the editor in the opinion section, and not present it as the product of journalism.

    And nice job with the ad hominem attack there. Why respond to the arguments made in the links I posted when you can merely smear the man who wrote them? Did they teach you that technique at Harvard?

    Also, the 40,000+ students at the University of Queensland (along with the alumni of UQ, which include a Nobel Laureate and Governors-General of Australia), will be surprised to hear that they are “some obscure university”. (I mean, if they were familiar with your comments here, they might not be surprised to hear you say it, but for those who actually know something about the university, I’m saying.)

    I (like most people here, I’d guess, except perhaps WebMonk and Kevin N) only know as much about the science behind all this as I can read online, if that. As such, my rebuttal consists in finding arguments made by others that seem to contradict the arguments being made here. The arguments on SkepticalScience.com seem well written, and well argued. If you would like to rebut them and tell me why they are not, in fact, based on good science or good logic, go ahead. Teach us all.

    Otherwise, my reply stands.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@12), I didn’t slur Fox News — after all, they had the apparent sense to run this as a letter to the editor in the opinion section, and not present it as the product of journalism.

    And nice job with the ad hominem attack there. Why respond to the arguments made in the links I posted when you can merely smear the man who wrote them? Did they teach you that technique at Harvard?

    Also, the 40,000+ students at the University of Queensland (along with the alumni of UQ, which include a Nobel Laureate and Governors-General of Australia), will be surprised to hear that they are “some obscure university”. (I mean, if they were familiar with your comments here, they might not be surprised to hear you say it, but for those who actually know something about the university, I’m saying.)

    I (like most people here, I’d guess, except perhaps WebMonk and Kevin N) only know as much about the science behind all this as I can read online, if that. As such, my rebuttal consists in finding arguments made by others that seem to contradict the arguments being made here. The arguments on SkepticalScience.com seem well written, and well argued. If you would like to rebut them and tell me why they are not, in fact, based on good science or good logic, go ahead. Teach us all.

    Otherwise, my reply stands.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops. I was wrong. It’s not so much a “letter to the editor” as I said (@13), as merely an opinion piece. One which, I should note, was written by “an economist and author of Freedomnomics.” Ah, yes, of course! An economist! I can see now, Peter, why you trust him over the content found at a site that says this about itself:

    Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oops. I was wrong. It’s not so much a “letter to the editor” as I said (@13), as merely an opinion piece. One which, I should note, was written by “an economist and author of Freedomnomics.” Ah, yes, of course! An economist! I can see now, Peter, why you trust him over the content found at a site that says this about itself:

    Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Apropos of nothing, here is a fascinating quote I found online: “One thing one learns at Harvard is to avoid ad hominem argument, something you would do well to reflect on.” Anyone wanna guess who wrote it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Apropos of nothing, here is a fascinating quote I found online: “One thing one learns at Harvard is to avoid ad hominem argument, something you would do well to reflect on.” Anyone wanna guess who wrote it?

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, you still haven’t answered the question as to whether there is credible evidence to refute D’Aleo andWatt’s claim. Referring us to Wood’s polemical links is beside the point. Veith did a fine job of summarizing D’Aleo and Watt; you might, gasp, put yourself on the line as opposed to hiding behind Wood’s skirt.

    As to “peer reviewed” science literature that Wood refers to, the ClimateGate e-Maails make it clear that at best the “peers” are suspect and more probably corrupt.

    Clive Crook, a liberal writing for Atlantic monthlu is about the only honest liberal one can find in this parlous Glaobal “Warming” debate. He writes:

    That did not work–too many of the emails speak for themselves–and the scandal refused to die down. The next line of response was to say that the emails involved just a few individuals, and implicate no more than a sliver of information about global warming. Even if you threw out everything the Climatic Research Unit had done, such is the weight of other research that nothing would change. (The newly empowered EPA administrator added a nice wrinkle last night on the PBS Newshour. The work in question was done abroad. Other research was done by Americans. So no cause for alarm. Well, no cause for lack of alarm, if you see what I mean.)

    This is a strange defence. Would deleting not just selected CRU data but its entire research effort really subtract nothing from what we thought we knew?If CRU’s work is as redundant as that, taxpayers might wonder if they have been getting value for money. At the very least, in fact, one layer of confirmation would be removed, which is not nothing. And of course CRU’s contribution was much more important than that. The emailers are among the world’s leading, and most influential, climate scientists; they are not just a few marginally significant individuals. It is far from clear how independent the supposedly corroborating research on the temperature record is. Networks of co-authors span these various efforts. A lot of the raw and parboiled data is shared. If the CRU work is impaired–that is the question the emails raise–the effects on the state of our knowledge are non-negligible.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, you still haven’t answered the question as to whether there is credible evidence to refute D’Aleo andWatt’s claim. Referring us to Wood’s polemical links is beside the point. Veith did a fine job of summarizing D’Aleo and Watt; you might, gasp, put yourself on the line as opposed to hiding behind Wood’s skirt.

    As to “peer reviewed” science literature that Wood refers to, the ClimateGate e-Maails make it clear that at best the “peers” are suspect and more probably corrupt.

    Clive Crook, a liberal writing for Atlantic monthlu is about the only honest liberal one can find in this parlous Glaobal “Warming” debate. He writes:

    That did not work–too many of the emails speak for themselves–and the scandal refused to die down. The next line of response was to say that the emails involved just a few individuals, and implicate no more than a sliver of information about global warming. Even if you threw out everything the Climatic Research Unit had done, such is the weight of other research that nothing would change. (The newly empowered EPA administrator added a nice wrinkle last night on the PBS Newshour. The work in question was done abroad. Other research was done by Americans. So no cause for alarm. Well, no cause for lack of alarm, if you see what I mean.)

    This is a strange defence. Would deleting not just selected CRU data but its entire research effort really subtract nothing from what we thought we knew?If CRU’s work is as redundant as that, taxpayers might wonder if they have been getting value for money. At the very least, in fact, one layer of confirmation would be removed, which is not nothing. And of course CRU’s contribution was much more important than that. The emailers are among the world’s leading, and most influential, climate scientists; they are not just a few marginally significant individuals. It is far from clear how independent the supposedly corroborating research on the temperature record is. Networks of co-authors span these various efforts. A lot of the raw and parboiled data is shared. If the CRU work is impaired–that is the question the emails raise–the effects on the state of our knowledge are non-negligible.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, Calling attention to your tendency to avoid tackling the central issue on on blog threads is hardly an argumentum ad hominem. In debate One can as a matter of personal privilege object to an opponent’s style of debate. I might, also, properly call attention to your risibly obsessive internet searches of my internet comments.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, Calling attention to your tendency to avoid tackling the central issue on on blog threads is hardly an argumentum ad hominem. In debate One can as a matter of personal privilege object to an opponent’s style of debate. I might, also, properly call attention to your risibly obsessive internet searches of my internet comments.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    I just love thi site that keeps me abreast of all the latest “global warming: developments:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    It’s a keeper!

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    I just love thi site that keeps me abreast of all the latest “global warming: developments:

    http://www.climatedepot.com/

    It’s a keeper!

  • John C

    As always, Fox is an impeccable source of information on almost any subject you care to mention.
    However if you expect to win an argument, do not quote Fox. One should regard it in the same way we use to regard Pravda in the Soviet Union.
    Remember the mission statement, We Deceive, You Decide.

  • John C

    As always, Fox is an impeccable source of information on almost any subject you care to mention.
    However if you expect to win an argument, do not quote Fox. One should regard it in the same way we use to regard Pravda in the Soviet Union.
    Remember the mission statement, We Deceive, You Decide.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Fox is about the only place besides talk radio and the net you can get decent reporting on what is going on.

    The others are so biased it is incredible. Fox is biased, but they do offer the other side ample opportunity to tell their side.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Fox is about the only place besides talk radio and the net you can get decent reporting on what is going on.

    The others are so biased it is incredible. Fox is biased, but they do offer the other side ample opportunity to tell their side.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I went to the trouble of posting a link to the actual scientific article. Why fixate on the reporter when one can read the actual article. Yes, it’s 100 pages, so perhaps no one wants to read it. But still, it’s silly to blame Fox for this report. Are any of you saying that the climatologists cited did NOT cut down the number of reporting stations from 6,000 to 1,500?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I went to the trouble of posting a link to the actual scientific article. Why fixate on the reporter when one can read the actual article. Yes, it’s 100 pages, so perhaps no one wants to read it. But still, it’s silly to blame Fox for this report. Are any of you saying that the climatologists cited did NOT cut down the number of reporting stations from 6,000 to 1,500?

  • gallopingcamel

    At first I was sceptical about what D’Aleo and Watts were saying and what John Coleman at KUSI reported. Fortunately. another blogger (KevinUK) was kind enough to point me in the right direction. Check out the comments at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/

  • gallopingcamel

    At first I was sceptical about what D’Aleo and Watts were saying and what John Coleman at KUSI reported. Fortunately. another blogger (KevinUK) was kind enough to point me in the right direction. Check out the comments at:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/26/new-paper-on-surface-temperature-records/

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@21), honestly, did you read the report? I’m downloading it right now, but I’ll be frank: I’m not reading all 100 pages. Even I have my limits. And of course it’s silly to “blame Fox” for this report — just as it’s ridiculous to blame SkepticalScience.com for the many, many scientific papers it points to. Again, I’m not “blaming Fox”, anyhow. I just think it’s funny that, apparently, even they aren’t reporting on this story, either. Just letting some economist summarize the writings of two meteorologists (who are not climate scientists) in their opinion section. I’d like to think that even Fox has their standards when it comes to this stuff.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Dr. Veith (@21), honestly, did you read the report? I’m downloading it right now, but I’ll be frank: I’m not reading all 100 pages. Even I have my limits. And of course it’s silly to “blame Fox” for this report — just as it’s ridiculous to blame SkepticalScience.com for the many, many scientific papers it points to. Again, I’m not “blaming Fox”, anyhow. I just think it’s funny that, apparently, even they aren’t reporting on this story, either. Just letting some economist summarize the writings of two meteorologists (who are not climate scientists) in their opinion section. I’d like to think that even Fox has their standards when it comes to this stuff.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, the question isn’t merely whether the number of reporting stations changed. Apparently, it has, though frankly, I’m having a hard time finding any easily usable data on the matter. I will say that the Fox News opinion piece appears to put a rather interesting spin on things when it says that “starting in 1990 … NOAA began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world.” Systematically! See, it’s all a conspiracy!

    See, that makes it sound like they’re either going around pulling the plug on active weather stations, leaving only the warmer ones. But that’s not how it works. The data (Global Historical Climatology Network version 1, or GHCN — this is at least one of the data sets) is itself compiled from many (15) distinct data sets. These smaller data sets do not all cover the same time periods, so depending on the time period you look at, there will be more or less stations reporting data.

    But hey, don’t trust me. Let’s take this excerpt from an actual NOAA paper (one of few) that D’Aleo and Watts refer to in their work:

    The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. [1]

    So if, say, one of your data sets ends in 1990, then it will appear as if some dastardly climatologist went and pulled the plug on it! In the case of the study I quoted above, it was published in 1997, and World Weather Records was a data series that appears to have been published between 1961 and 1990.

    At least, that’s what I got from that quote. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But it sounds less like a conspiracy to me, and more like a question of available data.

    [1] ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, the question isn’t merely whether the number of reporting stations changed. Apparently, it has, though frankly, I’m having a hard time finding any easily usable data on the matter. I will say that the Fox News opinion piece appears to put a rather interesting spin on things when it says that “starting in 1990 … NOAA began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world.” Systematically! See, it’s all a conspiracy!

    See, that makes it sound like they’re either going around pulling the plug on active weather stations, leaving only the warmer ones. But that’s not how it works. The data (Global Historical Climatology Network version 1, or GHCN — this is at least one of the data sets) is itself compiled from many (15) distinct data sets. These smaller data sets do not all cover the same time periods, so depending on the time period you look at, there will be more or less stations reporting data.

    But hey, don’t trust me. Let’s take this excerpt from an actual NOAA paper (one of few) that D’Aleo and Watts refer to in their work:

    The reasons why the number of stations in GHCN drop off in recent years are because some of GHCN’s source datasets are retroactive data compilations (e.g., World Weather Records) and other data sources were created or exchanged years ago. Only three data sources are available in near-real time. [1]

    So if, say, one of your data sets ends in 1990, then it will appear as if some dastardly climatologist went and pulled the plug on it! In the case of the study I quoted above, it was published in 1997, and World Weather Records was a data series that appears to have been published between 1961 and 1990.

    At least, that’s what I got from that quote. Maybe someone else can explain it better. But it sounds less like a conspiracy to me, and more like a question of available data.

    [1] ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m probably wasting my time here, because everyone has likely moved on. An opinion piece was published at Fox News (which I’m going to go ahead and claim was misleading), people read that, reinforced their existing opinions, likely no one read the actual 100-page work by D’Aleo and Watts (I skimmed it), and almost certainly nobody scrutinized the claims and references made in that paper (I gave it a go, but got tired).

    What’s that saying? “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” Something like that.

    Speaking of which, I think it’s hilarious Peter (@12) lambasted the author of the links I posted earlier as “not a meteorologist or climate scientist.” First of all, as I mentioned earlier, neither D’Aleo nor Watts are climate scientists, either. Perhaps being meteorologists gives them some understanding of the area, but any more than, say, a solar physics major?

    But more than that, why is so much of D’Aleo and Watts work sourced to economists? No, seriously. I’m not talking about the economist who wrote the Fox opinion piece. From pages 11-22 (their discussion of the number of weather stations), they have 13 footnotes, 9 of which refer to URLs of sites run by economists. One of the footnotes refers to a site at the University of Guelph [1] in which the author says that his graph — which D’Aleo and Watts publish — is actually based on data obtained by D’Aleo (hello, circular references!). And eight (8!) of them go to a blog [2] run by a guy with “an Bachlors in Economics from the U.C. system.” Good grief. D’Aleo’s and Watts’ paper is about the furthest thing from an academic, peer-reviewed paper you could find!

    By the way, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the figures on p. 10 of their report that “compare the number of global stations in 1900, the 1970s and 1997″ are being used to show something besides what they do. D’Aleo and Watts say the data come from “Peterson and Vose”, but I read the PDF they cited for that paper in their footnote [3], and it didn’t have data. It did have several charts that look exactly like the three that show up on p. 10, but D’Aleo and Watts make the charts appear to say something other than how Peterson and Vose described them.

    See the D’Aleo chart labeled “1976″? That appears to be chart 3a from Peterson p. 2843 (it’s a journal page number), which is labeled “all GHCN mean
    temperature stations” — that is, all stations that ever contributed to GHCN, certainly not just those in 1976. The chart labeled “1900″ in D’Aleo does appear to be chart 3b from Peterson’s p. 2843. So they got that one right. And D’Aleo’s chart supposedly showing station locations in 1997? That looks an awful lot like Fig. 5 from p. 2847, labeled “GHCN mean temperature stations that can be regularly updated”. So, at least, those charts seem fudged.

    Oh, and I was wrong earlier (@24). World Weather Records has apparently been published since 1923 [3]. But it is only published every decade, so in 1997, the most recent version that was out had data ending in 1990. Does that explain the drop-off in reporting stations in the data that they’re examining?

    [1] uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
    [2] chiefio.wordpress.com
    [3] ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m probably wasting my time here, because everyone has likely moved on. An opinion piece was published at Fox News (which I’m going to go ahead and claim was misleading), people read that, reinforced their existing opinions, likely no one read the actual 100-page work by D’Aleo and Watts (I skimmed it), and almost certainly nobody scrutinized the claims and references made in that paper (I gave it a go, but got tired).

    What’s that saying? “A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.” Something like that.

    Speaking of which, I think it’s hilarious Peter (@12) lambasted the author of the links I posted earlier as “not a meteorologist or climate scientist.” First of all, as I mentioned earlier, neither D’Aleo nor Watts are climate scientists, either. Perhaps being meteorologists gives them some understanding of the area, but any more than, say, a solar physics major?

    But more than that, why is so much of D’Aleo and Watts work sourced to economists? No, seriously. I’m not talking about the economist who wrote the Fox opinion piece. From pages 11-22 (their discussion of the number of weather stations), they have 13 footnotes, 9 of which refer to URLs of sites run by economists. One of the footnotes refers to a site at the University of Guelph [1] in which the author says that his graph — which D’Aleo and Watts publish — is actually based on data obtained by D’Aleo (hello, circular references!). And eight (8!) of them go to a blog [2] run by a guy with “an Bachlors in Economics from the U.C. system.” Good grief. D’Aleo’s and Watts’ paper is about the furthest thing from an academic, peer-reviewed paper you could find!

    By the way, I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the figures on p. 10 of their report that “compare the number of global stations in 1900, the 1970s and 1997″ are being used to show something besides what they do. D’Aleo and Watts say the data come from “Peterson and Vose”, but I read the PDF they cited for that paper in their footnote [3], and it didn’t have data. It did have several charts that look exactly like the three that show up on p. 10, but D’Aleo and Watts make the charts appear to say something other than how Peterson and Vose described them.

    See the D’Aleo chart labeled “1976″? That appears to be chart 3a from Peterson p. 2843 (it’s a journal page number), which is labeled “all GHCN mean
    temperature stations” — that is, all stations that ever contributed to GHCN, certainly not just those in 1976. The chart labeled “1900″ in D’Aleo does appear to be chart 3b from Peterson’s p. 2843. So they got that one right. And D’Aleo’s chart supposedly showing station locations in 1997? That looks an awful lot like Fig. 5 from p. 2847, labeled “GHCN mean temperature stations that can be regularly updated”. So, at least, those charts seem fudged.

    Oh, and I was wrong earlier (@24). World Weather Records has apparently been published since 1923 [3]. But it is only published every decade, so in 1997, the most recent version that was out had data ending in 1990. Does that explain the drop-off in reporting stations in the data that they’re examining?

    [1] uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/nvst.html
    [2] chiefio.wordpress.com
    [3] ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/ghcn-monthly/images/ghcn_temp_overview.pdf

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And let me just say for the record (to myself — no one’s going to reply to this) that, of course, there are some weather stations actually being shut down. I did some searching and found reports on that. [1] Of course, the report I just cited mentioned how Republicans in Congress “eliminated funding for a fledgling network of 110 observation stations intended to provide a definitive, long-term climate record for the United States.” Hey, I wonder why. And whoops! Sometimes right-wingers want more weather stations, sometimes they don’t! Oh well.

    [1] heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5060&Method=Full&Title=Congress Cuts Funds for Climate Research Stations

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    And let me just say for the record (to myself — no one’s going to reply to this) that, of course, there are some weather stations actually being shut down. I did some searching and found reports on that. [1] Of course, the report I just cited mentioned how Republicans in Congress “eliminated funding for a fledgling network of 110 observation stations intended to provide a definitive, long-term climate record for the United States.” Hey, I wonder why. And whoops! Sometimes right-wingers want more weather stations, sometimes they don’t! Oh well.

    [1] heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=5060&Method=Full&Title=Congress Cuts Funds for Climate Research Stations

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Now I’ll reply to Peter (@16). As to the claim that I “still haven’t answered the question as to whether there is credible evidence to refute D’Aleo and Watt’s claim”, I’m pretty sure you don’t even know what their claim is beyond the Fox News summary (which I’ve already discussed, in part). Did you read their paper? They make more than one claim.

    And if you’d bothered to read at least one of the links I posted earlier (@9), you’d know that I had answered that there is plenty of ammunition for refuting D’Aleo and Watt. Again, we can argue about the data if you want, but I see no evidence you’ve actually bothered learning about this topic yet. John Cook at SkepticalScience.com does, in fact, point to scientific literature, as I already noted, so you can skip his write-ups if you want to get to the real meat. But somehow I suspect you won’t be doing that.

    And yet you have the audacity to browbeat me for “hiding behind Wood’s skirt” (I assume you actually meant “Cook’s”, but perhaps the three times you referred to “Wood” instead are just more examples of facts you didn’t bother to check yourself). You’re not making any arguments yourself, Peter. You’re not doing any original thinking. You’re just posting quotes from other people and agreeing, as you often do. And that’s what I did, initially. But (likely foolishly), I went and actually read (some of) D’Aleo and Watt’s work, and now I’m responding to it. And you have a quote from Clive Crook. Will you come out from behind his skirt? I’m going to go ahead and claim: doubtful.

    Anyhow, I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply to a man who is intentionally burying his head in the sand in public, claiming in all seriousness that apparently every climate scientist is “suspect and more probably corrupt.” Yes, how convenient for your picture of reality that you can dismiss all the scientists in that field. Now all you have to do is listen to the economists as they misinterpret the data gathered by climate scientists and tell you what you want to hear.

    Oh, and you completely misunderstood my point about your “ad hominem” attacks. I wasn’t accusing you of using them against me! No, it was the way you waved your hand and deemed that you didn’t need to read the links I provided because the author “is not a meteorologist or climate scientist [and] … studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia.” Head remains in sand! Easy! Never mind that you appear to be relying on a summary written by someone who is not a meteorologist or climate scientist of a work that relies heavily, in part, on blogs written by those who are not meteorologists or climate scientists. And I do believe that the University of Guelph (where an economist cited by D’Aleo and Watt works) is more obscure than the University of Queensland.

    So again, let me explain this. When you dismiss an argument — not because of the content of the argument, but merely because of who wrote it and the fact that you’re ignorant of his rather large alma mater — then that is an ad hominem argument. That is what you did. In spite of what you supposedly learned at Harvard.

    Oh, and it wasn’t that hard to find that example of hypocrisy. I was actually googling to see how much “Peter Leavitt” talks about how he went to Harvard, and it popped up. You do mention it not infrequently. If only you could remember what you learned there!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Now I’ll reply to Peter (@16). As to the claim that I “still haven’t answered the question as to whether there is credible evidence to refute D’Aleo and Watt’s claim”, I’m pretty sure you don’t even know what their claim is beyond the Fox News summary (which I’ve already discussed, in part). Did you read their paper? They make more than one claim.

    And if you’d bothered to read at least one of the links I posted earlier (@9), you’d know that I had answered that there is plenty of ammunition for refuting D’Aleo and Watt. Again, we can argue about the data if you want, but I see no evidence you’ve actually bothered learning about this topic yet. John Cook at SkepticalScience.com does, in fact, point to scientific literature, as I already noted, so you can skip his write-ups if you want to get to the real meat. But somehow I suspect you won’t be doing that.

    And yet you have the audacity to browbeat me for “hiding behind Wood’s skirt” (I assume you actually meant “Cook’s”, but perhaps the three times you referred to “Wood” instead are just more examples of facts you didn’t bother to check yourself). You’re not making any arguments yourself, Peter. You’re not doing any original thinking. You’re just posting quotes from other people and agreeing, as you often do. And that’s what I did, initially. But (likely foolishly), I went and actually read (some of) D’Aleo and Watt’s work, and now I’m responding to it. And you have a quote from Clive Crook. Will you come out from behind his skirt? I’m going to go ahead and claim: doubtful.

    Anyhow, I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply to a man who is intentionally burying his head in the sand in public, claiming in all seriousness that apparently every climate scientist is “suspect and more probably corrupt.” Yes, how convenient for your picture of reality that you can dismiss all the scientists in that field. Now all you have to do is listen to the economists as they misinterpret the data gathered by climate scientists and tell you what you want to hear.

    Oh, and you completely misunderstood my point about your “ad hominem” attacks. I wasn’t accusing you of using them against me! No, it was the way you waved your hand and deemed that you didn’t need to read the links I provided because the author “is not a meteorologist or climate scientist [and] … studied some physics at some obscure university in Australia.” Head remains in sand! Easy! Never mind that you appear to be relying on a summary written by someone who is not a meteorologist or climate scientist of a work that relies heavily, in part, on blogs written by those who are not meteorologists or climate scientists. And I do believe that the University of Guelph (where an economist cited by D’Aleo and Watt works) is more obscure than the University of Queensland.

    So again, let me explain this. When you dismiss an argument — not because of the content of the argument, but merely because of who wrote it and the fact that you’re ignorant of his rather large alma mater — then that is an ad hominem argument. That is what you did. In spite of what you supposedly learned at Harvard.

    Oh, and it wasn’t that hard to find that example of hypocrisy. I was actually googling to see how much “Peter Leavitt” talks about how he went to Harvard, and it popped up. You do mention it not infrequently. If only you could remember what you learned there!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and the best reply (which, again, no one will read) to D’Aleo and Watt’s report is Menne’s “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record”, which, hilariously, even uses an anti-AGW site’s data, though not to the conclusion they had hoped.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, and the best reply (which, again, no one will read) to D’Aleo and Watt’s report is Menne’s “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record”, which, hilariously, even uses an anti-AGW site’s data, though not to the conclusion they had hoped.

  • Joe

    tODD said “Joe (@10), I take it you’re not a poker player (neither am I, but I’m pretty sure I counted right).”

    Yeah, you counted right. I realized it just as I was clicking submit. But I couldn’t stop it from posting.

  • Joe

    tODD said “Joe (@10), I take it you’re not a poker player (neither am I, but I’m pretty sure I counted right).”

    Yeah, you counted right. I realized it just as I was clicking submit. But I couldn’t stop it from posting.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, peer reviewed science is nice, but in light of the ClimateGate emails, I think that serious discussion of the topic need to go beyond “the usual suspects” who can get past the UEA stonewall of contradictory evidence.

    Moreover, Watts and D’Aleo have put together a lot of good data which clearly suggest that the locations of climate measurement stations are compromised; up to 70% or so. Now while we can try to “correct” those measurements, essentially that amounts to using the theory to collect the date to demonstrate the theory; a tautology.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com Bike Bubba

    tODD, peer reviewed science is nice, but in light of the ClimateGate emails, I think that serious discussion of the topic need to go beyond “the usual suspects” who can get past the UEA stonewall of contradictory evidence.

    Moreover, Watts and D’Aleo have put together a lot of good data which clearly suggest that the locations of climate measurement stations are compromised; up to 70% or so. Now while we can try to “correct” those measurements, essentially that amounts to using the theory to collect the date to demonstrate the theory; a tautology.

  • gallopingcamel

    tODD,
    Instead of writing rambling essays composed of supposition you could simply count the weather stations yourself and you will find that the station drop off noted by Peterson & Vose (1997) is real. D’Aleo & Watts have brought things up to date.

    The raw GHCN data can be found here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

    If you are too lazy to do your own checking take a look at:
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/01/station-drop-out-problem.html

  • gallopingcamel

    tODD,
    Instead of writing rambling essays composed of supposition you could simply count the weather stations yourself and you will find that the station drop off noted by Peterson & Vose (1997) is real. D’Aleo & Watts have brought things up to date.

    The raw GHCN data can be found here:
    ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2/

    If you are too lazy to do your own checking take a look at:
    http://diggingintheclay.blogspot.com/2010/01/station-drop-out-problem.html

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 ES as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?

    The ever sharp Bishop Hill blog writes:

    Dr. Andrew A. Lacis – NASA GISS
    While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

    Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

    Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

    I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

    Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

    Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin

    Hansen colleague rejected IPCC AR4 ES as having “no scientific merit”, but what does IPCC do?

    The ever sharp Bishop Hill blog writes:

    Dr. Andrew A. Lacis – NASA GISS
    While perusing some of the review comments to the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, I came across the contributions of Andrew Lacis, a colleague of James Hansen’s at GISS. Lacis’s is not a name I’ve come across before but some of what he has to say about Chapter 9 of the IPCC’s report is simply breathtaking.

    Chapter 9 is possibly the most important one in the whole IPCC report – it’s the one where they decide that global warming is manmade. This is the one where the headlines are made.

    Remember, this guy is mainstream, not a sceptic, and you may need to remind yourself of that fact several times as you read through his comment on the executive summary of the chapter:

    There is no scientific merit to be found in the Executive Summary. The presentation sounds like something put together by Greenpeace activists and their legal department. The points being made are made arbitrarily with legal sounding caveats without having established any foundation or basis in fact. The Executive Summary seems to be a political statement that is only designed to annoy greenhouse skeptics. Wasn’t the IPCC Assessment Report intended to be a scientific document that would merit solid backing from the climate science community – instead of forcing many climate scientists into having to agree with greenhouse skeptic criticisms that this is indeed a report with a clear and obvious political agenda. Attribution can not happen until understanding has been clearly demonstrated. Once the facts of climate change have been established and understood, attribution will become self-evident to all. The Executive Summary as it stands is beyond redemption and should simply be deleted.

    I’m speechless. The chapter authors, however weren’t. This was their reply (all of it):

    Rejected. [Executive Summary] summarizes Ch 9, which is based on the peer reviewed literature.

    Simply astonishing. This is a consensus?

  • DonS

    tODD @ 28: You did your usual thorough job in attempting to refute the temperature station issue raised in this thread. Of course, regarding Menne 2010, which you indicate is the “best evidence”, you neglect Watts’ response here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
    in which he claims that his early data that Menne used was not complete or at all publication ready, and that Menne’s conclusions based on it are thus in grave doubt.

    Of course, you know as well as anyone that climategate evidences what we already suspected — we cannot trust the underlying data (let alone attempts to “normalize” it) because many of the scientists key to the efforts were essentially bought off in their conclusions. Environmentalists are quick to dismiss evidence they don’t like as being generated by biased “industry” scientists, paid to reach a certain conclusion. Well, Climategate revealed what many of us already suspected — it’s a two way street. Pro-environmentalist scientists also are bought off, by government or environmentalist organization funding, and apparently allowed that funding to influence their investigations. So, the whole dataset is suspect. Not good when you already carry a huge burden of proof, as we discussed on another thread.

    The AGW movement has lost its momentum, for better or worse. It allowed political hacks more interested in power than the environment to hijack it, and now must start over. The only way it will regain its credibility is for scientists from both perspectives to work together to rebuild a credible dataset, open to inspection and peer reviewed by scientists of all political stripes and various disciplines. Then, open studies that fairly balance the potential outcomes, options, and costs will need to be developed that can be regarded as credible by both sides. In other words, we need to have an open discussion of an issue that is so vital to all of us. IF climate change is real at the present time, and IF it is at least partially man-caused, then can we stop it taking reasonable measures? If we can’t, then how best can we mitigate it? If AGW proponents want to move forward on this issue, they are going to have to stop labeling those who disagree as “deniers”, and respect them and their views. Simple as that.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 28: You did your usual thorough job in attempting to refute the temperature station issue raised in this thread. Of course, regarding Menne 2010, which you indicate is the “best evidence”, you neglect Watts’ response here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/rumours-of-my-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
    in which he claims that his early data that Menne used was not complete or at all publication ready, and that Menne’s conclusions based on it are thus in grave doubt.

    Of course, you know as well as anyone that climategate evidences what we already suspected — we cannot trust the underlying data (let alone attempts to “normalize” it) because many of the scientists key to the efforts were essentially bought off in their conclusions. Environmentalists are quick to dismiss evidence they don’t like as being generated by biased “industry” scientists, paid to reach a certain conclusion. Well, Climategate revealed what many of us already suspected — it’s a two way street. Pro-environmentalist scientists also are bought off, by government or environmentalist organization funding, and apparently allowed that funding to influence their investigations. So, the whole dataset is suspect. Not good when you already carry a huge burden of proof, as we discussed on another thread.

    The AGW movement has lost its momentum, for better or worse. It allowed political hacks more interested in power than the environment to hijack it, and now must start over. The only way it will regain its credibility is for scientists from both perspectives to work together to rebuild a credible dataset, open to inspection and peer reviewed by scientists of all political stripes and various disciplines. Then, open studies that fairly balance the potential outcomes, options, and costs will need to be developed that can be regarded as credible by both sides. In other words, we need to have an open discussion of an issue that is so vital to all of us. IF climate change is real at the present time, and IF it is at least partially man-caused, then can we stop it taking reasonable measures? If we can’t, then how best can we mitigate it? If AGW proponents want to move forward on this issue, they are going to have to stop labeling those who disagree as “deniers”, and respect them and their views. Simple as that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m beginning how much people are reading my (admittedly rambling — it was after midnight) comments or the things I’m linking to.

    Bubba (@30), honestly, read the Menne paper “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record” — it’s 20 double-spaced pages — which includes data from the Surface Stations project, to which you apparently allude. Or at least read the abstract, the conclusion, and the graphs. If you look at the graphs, you’ll realize they were also the same ones found in the Skeptical Science links I posted.

    Anyhow, as I understand it, the whole point of the Menne paper is that while, yes, many weather stations are not in ideal locations, the data from “poor” stations does not show a bias towards higher temperatures at all! In fact, they tend to register slightly lower temperatures than “good” stations. It’s one thing to look at a photograph and then assume a particular station will measure unnaturally warm temperatures. It’s another thing to look at the data.

    And even with all that, the poor stations and good stations both show a warming trend. And it is the trend (the “anomoly”) we’re talking about. Not a consistent bias in a given station due to poor siting.

    Camel (@31), who’s alleging that the “station drop off” isn’t real? No one. It’s more a question of what that means (e.g. understanding that this is more a question of the data sets being used and their timespans, rather than the intentional discarding of physical weather stations that seems implied in many anti-AGW arguments). And whether this drop off has an impact on the actual trend being observed.

    Steve (@32), until you master the <blockquote> tag, I have no idea what part of your comment is your quoting other people and what part is your replying to it.

    It’s truly disappointing to see people willing to discard pretty much the entirety of peer-reviewed climate science because of the so-called ClimateGate. “See, we can’t trust scientists now! Which, as it happens, was what I believed before ClimateGate! And, even though ClimateGate neither covers all climate scientists nor says what many people want it to say, I will nevertheless use it to claim that all climate science is henceforth untrustworthy. QED.”

    Look, you’re free to believe that, but don’t pretend it’s scientific, or even good logic. Because I could point to no end of erroneous or fraudulent activity on the part of anti-AGW actors. Would it be fair for me to assume, therefore, that all anti-AGW arguments are necessarily suspect or just pure junk? No. That would be burying my head in the sand and failing to consider the actual arguments being made.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    I’m beginning how much people are reading my (admittedly rambling — it was after midnight) comments or the things I’m linking to.

    Bubba (@30), honestly, read the Menne paper “On the reliability of the U.S. Surface Temperature Record” — it’s 20 double-spaced pages — which includes data from the Surface Stations project, to which you apparently allude. Or at least read the abstract, the conclusion, and the graphs. If you look at the graphs, you’ll realize they were also the same ones found in the Skeptical Science links I posted.

    Anyhow, as I understand it, the whole point of the Menne paper is that while, yes, many weather stations are not in ideal locations, the data from “poor” stations does not show a bias towards higher temperatures at all! In fact, they tend to register slightly lower temperatures than “good” stations. It’s one thing to look at a photograph and then assume a particular station will measure unnaturally warm temperatures. It’s another thing to look at the data.

    And even with all that, the poor stations and good stations both show a warming trend. And it is the trend (the “anomoly”) we’re talking about. Not a consistent bias in a given station due to poor siting.

    Camel (@31), who’s alleging that the “station drop off” isn’t real? No one. It’s more a question of what that means (e.g. understanding that this is more a question of the data sets being used and their timespans, rather than the intentional discarding of physical weather stations that seems implied in many anti-AGW arguments). And whether this drop off has an impact on the actual trend being observed.

    Steve (@32), until you master the <blockquote> tag, I have no idea what part of your comment is your quoting other people and what part is your replying to it.

    It’s truly disappointing to see people willing to discard pretty much the entirety of peer-reviewed climate science because of the so-called ClimateGate. “See, we can’t trust scientists now! Which, as it happens, was what I believed before ClimateGate! And, even though ClimateGate neither covers all climate scientists nor says what many people want it to say, I will nevertheless use it to claim that all climate science is henceforth untrustworthy. QED.”

    Look, you’re free to believe that, but don’t pretend it’s scientific, or even good logic. Because I could point to no end of erroneous or fraudulent activity on the part of anti-AGW actors. Would it be fair for me to assume, therefore, that all anti-AGW arguments are necessarily suspect or just pure junk? No. That would be burying my head in the sand and failing to consider the actual arguments being made.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Thanks, Don; it’s clear reading through Watt’s paper that Menne was using his data at 43% complete, which he had put out as an aid to the volunteers that were working with him. It’s, also, clear that Menne in collaboration with NOAA, though feigning an interest in Watt’s work, is basically interested in discrediting him .

    Empirical and theoretical science at its best rarely gets involved in public controversy. I’m satisfied that Watt is involved in an honest effort to understand the best way to collect data from surface stations and to cautiously interpret the data. After extensive research he has come to understand and question the drastic diminution in surface stations and to be dubious about the validity of the data from the remaining stations and its influence on IPCC.

    Richard Lindzen, the M.I.T, climate scientist, has argued for many years that the global warming ideology, has more to do with passionate faux science than real empirical science. He, also, is well aware that many scientists involved in multi $billion global warming “research” have rather large financial interests in the matter.

    It’s interesting to me that the two most controversial areas of science are evolution and climate change, both of which have become a central focus for secularists who often question orthodox religion and substitute for it a faith in “science” and materialism. Their faith is essentially that of pantheism that among other things idealizes or spiritualizes the planet or “environment.”

    Todd, who has no more understanding of the science involved than you, Veith, or me, is placing his bet on skeptical science.com, run by an obviously ideological global-warming acolyte. Just now after ClimateGate Todd is skating on thin ice, though in good liberal form blithely denying reality.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Thanks, Don; it’s clear reading through Watt’s paper that Menne was using his data at 43% complete, which he had put out as an aid to the volunteers that were working with him. It’s, also, clear that Menne in collaboration with NOAA, though feigning an interest in Watt’s work, is basically interested in discrediting him .

    Empirical and theoretical science at its best rarely gets involved in public controversy. I’m satisfied that Watt is involved in an honest effort to understand the best way to collect data from surface stations and to cautiously interpret the data. After extensive research he has come to understand and question the drastic diminution in surface stations and to be dubious about the validity of the data from the remaining stations and its influence on IPCC.

    Richard Lindzen, the M.I.T, climate scientist, has argued for many years that the global warming ideology, has more to do with passionate faux science than real empirical science. He, also, is well aware that many scientists involved in multi $billion global warming “research” have rather large financial interests in the matter.

    It’s interesting to me that the two most controversial areas of science are evolution and climate change, both of which have become a central focus for secularists who often question orthodox religion and substitute for it a faith in “science” and materialism. Their faith is essentially that of pantheism that among other things idealizes or spiritualizes the planet or “environment.”

    Todd, who has no more understanding of the science involved than you, Veith, or me, is placing his bet on skeptical science.com, run by an obviously ideological global-warming acolyte. Just now after ClimateGate Todd is skating on thin ice, though in good liberal form blithely denying reality.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@35), you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to. You haven’t. It’s a waste of time debating with you, and I was a fool for not thinking that earlier.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@35), you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to. You haven’t. It’s a waste of time debating with you, and I was a fool for not thinking that earlier.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I read all four of those articles that you linked to but didn’t analyze or report: it was rather clear that they distinctly and tendentiously favored the global warming side of the debate.

    As usual in this case, you are making a dubious assumption about the lack of someone else’s knowledge, though this is perhaps better than a risible effusion from your early-morning hazy perch after an obsessive search on the internet for your opponent’s previous posts.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I read all four of those articles that you linked to but didn’t analyze or report: it was rather clear that they distinctly and tendentiously favored the global warming side of the debate.

    As usual in this case, you are making a dubious assumption about the lack of someone else’s knowledge, though this is perhaps better than a risible effusion from your early-morning hazy perch after an obsessive search on the internet for your opponent’s previous posts.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@37), first of all, I linked to five articles (@9). I also wrote quite a number of replies (@24-28) to either you or the data in the report by D’Aleo and Watt, the last of which contains an extra link to the Menne paper. You did not reply to these. That is, in part, why I said you didn’t show the “slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to.”

    Well, now you have! You’ve told me that you read “all four of those articles that [I] linked to”. And what was your conclusion? “It was rather clear that they distinctly and tendentiously favored the global warming side of the debate.” Way to engage the debate, Peter. “Why, this argument appears to come to a different conclusion than the one I’d already arrived at!” And that’s the sum total of your response. Bravo. No hint that you actually understood that Skeptical Science’s entries are based on actual data, much less any hint that you looked at that data.

    So, again, I’ll repeat: you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to. You haven’t. That means actually considering what is said, not merely who said it or the fact that they appear to have arrived at a different conclusion than you. (They did teach this at Harvard, yes?) Perhaps rebut the data or the methodology. Point out factual consistencies. Anything.

    For instance, you did show (@35) some evidence of having read the link that Don posted (@33). Of course, it was a link to a site that agrees with your preconceived notions, so why not, right? See how you referred to a fact only found in that paper (the 43% number)? Well done! Now, if only you could give some sign of having actually read the Menne paper to which Don’s link was a(n admittedly partial) response. But you haven’t.

    And it’s really not that hard to use Google, Peter. Here, you try it!

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@37), first of all, I linked to five articles (@9). I also wrote quite a number of replies (@24-28) to either you or the data in the report by D’Aleo and Watt, the last of which contains an extra link to the Menne paper. You did not reply to these. That is, in part, why I said you didn’t show the “slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to.”

    Well, now you have! You’ve told me that you read “all four of those articles that [I] linked to”. And what was your conclusion? “It was rather clear that they distinctly and tendentiously favored the global warming side of the debate.” Way to engage the debate, Peter. “Why, this argument appears to come to a different conclusion than the one I’d already arrived at!” And that’s the sum total of your response. Bravo. No hint that you actually understood that Skeptical Science’s entries are based on actual data, much less any hint that you looked at that data.

    So, again, I’ll repeat: you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to. You haven’t. That means actually considering what is said, not merely who said it or the fact that they appear to have arrived at a different conclusion than you. (They did teach this at Harvard, yes?) Perhaps rebut the data or the methodology. Point out factual consistencies. Anything.

    For instance, you did show (@35) some evidence of having read the link that Don posted (@33). Of course, it was a link to a site that agrees with your preconceived notions, so why not, right? See how you referred to a fact only found in that paper (the 43% number)? Well done! Now, if only you could give some sign of having actually read the Menne paper to which Don’s link was a(n admittedly partial) response. But you haven’t.

    And it’s really not that hard to use Google, Peter. Here, you try it!

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, the last thing in the world that I would venture would be a Google search of your or anyone else’s blog posts. It is salutary that you’re now agreed on the number of links you posted from skeptical science.com, as that once one of your momentous issues on this thread.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, the last thing in the world that I would venture would be a Google search of your or anyone else’s blog posts. It is salutary that you’re now agreed on the number of links you posted from skeptical science.com, as that once one of your momentous issues on this thread.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@39), you’re clearly more interested to discussing Google searches and counting links than the actual issues at hand, including all the things I pointed to in my previous comment.

    Again, I’ll repeat: you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@39), you’re clearly more interested to discussing Google searches and counting links than the actual issues at hand, including all the things I pointed to in my previous comment.

    Again, I’ll repeat: you’d make a better case if you actually showed the slightest sign of evidence that you’d read what I wrote or pointed to.

  • gallopingcamel

    DonS (@33),
    As you point out, a comprehensive weather station database would bring people together; one that has not been adjusted in any way so researchers can start from the bedrock and decide for themselves what is good, bad or ugly.

    NOAA, NASA and UEA/CRU gave up any attempt to publish comprehensive records somewhere around 1970 and to date they have failed to provide a convincing explanation for what appears to be sloppy database management. Is it a conspiracy, lack of funding or incompetence? A congressional enquiry might get to the bottom of it.

    The above named institutions are behaving like an embattled and corrupt priesthood that just had the “Ninety-Five Theses” nailed to their doors.

    The sale of worthless carbon credits is the modern equivalent of the sale of indulgences that Luther opposed so passionately. (With apologies to Dr. Vieth)

    Far larger databases are available on line with free access. An excellent example would be the IGI database maintained by the Mormon church with ~700 million personal records. A comprehensive climate database is child’s play compared to that.

  • gallopingcamel

    DonS (@33),
    As you point out, a comprehensive weather station database would bring people together; one that has not been adjusted in any way so researchers can start from the bedrock and decide for themselves what is good, bad or ugly.

    NOAA, NASA and UEA/CRU gave up any attempt to publish comprehensive records somewhere around 1970 and to date they have failed to provide a convincing explanation for what appears to be sloppy database management. Is it a conspiracy, lack of funding or incompetence? A congressional enquiry might get to the bottom of it.

    The above named institutions are behaving like an embattled and corrupt priesthood that just had the “Ninety-Five Theses” nailed to their doors.

    The sale of worthless carbon credits is the modern equivalent of the sale of indulgences that Luther opposed so passionately. (With apologies to Dr. Vieth)

    Far larger databases are available on line with free access. An excellent example would be the IGI database maintained by the Mormon church with ~700 million personal records. A comprehensive climate database is child’s play compared to that.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, a close reading of the Watt/D’aleo paper this morning fully justifies its following summary for policymakers:

    “1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
    2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them
    useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
    3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
    4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-
    quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
    5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
    6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-
    calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
    7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
    8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make
    heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
    9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
    10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in
    compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly
    diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a
    warm bias in the surface temperature record.
    11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th- century “global warming”.
    12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be
    readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
    13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
    14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS
    and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a
    vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
    15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.”

    Should anyone wish to dispute these conclusion, have a go at it and do explain your points as opposed to finding opposing links.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Well, a close reading of the Watt/D’aleo paper this morning fully justifies its following summary for policymakers:

    “1. Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and unidirectionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant “global warming” in the 20th century.
    2. All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit very serious problems that render them
    useless for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.
    3. All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.
    4. Global terrestrial temperature data are gravely compromised because more than three-
    quarters of the 6,000 stations that once existed are no longer reporting.
    5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.
    6. Contamination by urbanization, changes in land use, improper siting, and inadequately-
    calibrated instrument upgrades further overstates warming.
    7. Numerous peer-reviewed papers in recent years have shown the overstatement of observed longer term warming is 30-50% from heat-island contamination alone.
    8. Cherry-picking of observing sites combined with interpolation to vacant data grids may make
    heat-island bias greater than 50% of 20th-century warming.
    9. In the oceans, data are missing and uncertainties are substantial. Comprehensive coverage has only been available since 2003, and shows no warming.
    10. Satellite temperature monitoring has provided an alternative to terrestrial stations in
    compiling the global lower-troposphere temperature record. Their findings are increasingly
    diverging from the station-based constructions in a manner consistent with evidence of a
    warm bias in the surface temperature record.
    11. NOAA and NASA, along with CRU, were the driving forces behind the systematic hyping of 20th- century “global warming”.
    12. Changes have been made to alter the historical record to mask cyclical changes that could be
    readily explained by natural factors like multidecadal ocean and solar changes.
    13. Global terrestrial data bases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends or VALIDATE model forecasts.
    14. An inclusive external assessment is essential of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS
    and NCDC “chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a
    vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.”
    15. Reliance on the global data by both the UNIPCC and the US GCRP/CCSP also requires a full investigation and audit.”

    Should anyone wish to dispute these conclusion, have a go at it and do explain your points as opposed to finding opposing links.

  • DonS

    Thank you for the thorough summary, Peter.

    You can “norm” the data all you want to explain away the change in numbers, locations, and conditions of the data recording stations, but when your conclusions inexplicably find that stations in locales that have become compromised over the years by urban conditions and the heat island effect actually bias the data in the cooling direction, something is amiss. Good science requires a consistent set of data taken under consistent conditions over a long period of time. Engaging in a norming process requires the introduction of assumptions into your data management, and thus error, especially if the assumptions are being made by an interested party. Conclusions 12-15 are particularly pertinent. The historical data has been compromised to further an agenda, and we are going to have to rebuild a historical database that those of both minds in this debate will be able to trust. This will entail an open, corroborative process entirely unlike the process that we have been afflicted with over the past two decades and which was finally brought to light through Climategate and the subsequent revelations we are still receiving.

  • DonS

    Thank you for the thorough summary, Peter.

    You can “norm” the data all you want to explain away the change in numbers, locations, and conditions of the data recording stations, but when your conclusions inexplicably find that stations in locales that have become compromised over the years by urban conditions and the heat island effect actually bias the data in the cooling direction, something is amiss. Good science requires a consistent set of data taken under consistent conditions over a long period of time. Engaging in a norming process requires the introduction of assumptions into your data management, and thus error, especially if the assumptions are being made by an interested party. Conclusions 12-15 are particularly pertinent. The historical data has been compromised to further an agenda, and we are going to have to rebuild a historical database that those of both minds in this debate will be able to trust. This will entail an open, corroborative process entirely unlike the process that we have been afflicted with over the past two decades and which was finally brought to light through Climategate and the subsequent revelations we are still receiving.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, I agree, the need at the moment is to develop a set of surface stations around the world that honestly gauge surface temperature. Climate scientists, including Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. , who are skeptical about global warming due to the limitations of the science and the rigged data and suppression of opposing viewpoints, are perfectly willing to revise their views given better data and developments of climate science.

    The trouble is that present climate science has been bent due to the politicization of the science and the financials interests at stake.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, I agree, the need at the moment is to develop a set of surface stations around the world that honestly gauge surface temperature. Climate scientists, including Richard Lindzen of M.I.T. , who are skeptical about global warming due to the limitations of the science and the rigged data and suppression of opposing viewpoints, are perfectly willing to revise their views given better data and developments of climate science.

    The trouble is that present climate science has been bent due to the politicization of the science and the financials interests at stake.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@43), Peter didn’t write that summary. He copied and pasted it from the first page of the report after the table of contents. Did you read the report either, Don?

    Peter, once again, you show no sign of having read, much less comprehended, what I wrote or pointed to earlier. And at this point, I don’t think you care to. You’ve got your mind made up. Why let anything disturb that.

    Like I said earlier, I was foolish for attempting to engage you in debate on this matter. Have a nice weekend.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Don (@43), Peter didn’t write that summary. He copied and pasted it from the first page of the report after the table of contents. Did you read the report either, Don?

    Peter, once again, you show no sign of having read, much less comprehended, what I wrote or pointed to earlier. And at this point, I don’t think you care to. You’ve got your mind made up. Why let anything disturb that.

    Like I said earlier, I was foolish for attempting to engage you in debate on this matter. Have a nice weekend.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I quoted that summary and didn’t pretend to write it. Also, your earlier post merely linked to posts by Menne and others that I did read.
    All of them were polemical against D’Aleo/Watt. In Menne’s case he used incomplete (43%) data of D’Aleo and Watt that I refereed to at #35.

    Do tell, what exactly of Menne’s points and the other writers you linked to refuted any one of the D’Aleo/Watt conclusions. Put your own arguments on the for a change.

    Your whine that you were foolish to debate me is typical Toddian codswallop. Spend another hazy and tedious night obsessively Googling internet posts to refute this.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I quoted that summary and didn’t pretend to write it. Also, your earlier post merely linked to posts by Menne and others that I did read.
    All of them were polemical against D’Aleo/Watt. In Menne’s case he used incomplete (43%) data of D’Aleo and Watt that I refereed to at #35.

    Do tell, what exactly of Menne’s points and the other writers you linked to refuted any one of the D’Aleo/Watt conclusions. Put your own arguments on the for a change.

    Your whine that you were foolish to debate me is typical Toddian codswallop. Spend another hazy and tedious night obsessively Googling internet posts to refute this.

  • gallopingcamel

    The real problem is that “Global Warming” has taken a break regardless of whether it is Mann made or due to Mother Nature. Even Phil Jones admits that temperatures have trended downwards for more than a decade.

    When reality is at variance with the science, trust reality and start asking what went wrong with the science.

  • gallopingcamel

    The real problem is that “Global Warming” has taken a break regardless of whether it is Mann made or due to Mother Nature. Even Phil Jones admits that temperatures have trended downwards for more than a decade.

    When reality is at variance with the science, trust reality and start asking what went wrong with the science.

  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin
  • http://theoldadam.wordpress.com/ Steve Martin
  • DonS

    Stunningly enough, Phil Jones now admits that the earth has not been warming for the past 15 years, may well have been much warmer 1,000 years ago, and went through a similar warming trend during 1910-40 as it did from 1975-98. Weirdly, though he admits the world has not warmed since 1995, he also admits that the warming during these two prior periods (1910-40 and 1975-98) could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not”. Huh? He just said there is no more recent warming! What the heck are we talking about here???

    The most stunning admission he makes is that his office is a mess, and he has no idea where the raw temperature data is. He didn’t think he would need it after he input it into computerized databases some 20 years ago.

    Unbelievable. It’s amazing, really. The charts tODD so proudly posted up in this thread are based on garbage raw data, which is actually, in its original form, apparently lost in a paperwork pile somewhere. And on the basis of, well, nothing really, our majority party and most of the rest of the developed world came within a whisker of shutting down the world economy.

    Here’s the whole article, which is probably similar to the one Steve Martin just posted:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    I sense that the dream is unraveling in a hurry for many lefties this year.

  • DonS

    Stunningly enough, Phil Jones now admits that the earth has not been warming for the past 15 years, may well have been much warmer 1,000 years ago, and went through a similar warming trend during 1910-40 as it did from 1975-98. Weirdly, though he admits the world has not warmed since 1995, he also admits that the warming during these two prior periods (1910-40 and 1975-98) could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not”. Huh? He just said there is no more recent warming! What the heck are we talking about here???

    The most stunning admission he makes is that his office is a mess, and he has no idea where the raw temperature data is. He didn’t think he would need it after he input it into computerized databases some 20 years ago.

    Unbelievable. It’s amazing, really. The charts tODD so proudly posted up in this thread are based on garbage raw data, which is actually, in its original form, apparently lost in a paperwork pile somewhere. And on the basis of, well, nothing really, our majority party and most of the rest of the developed world came within a whisker of shutting down the world economy.

    Here’s the whole article, which is probably similar to the one Steve Martin just posted:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    I sense that the dream is unraveling in a hurry for many lefties this year.

  • DonS

    Actually, now that I’ve had a chance to read Steve’s article, they are quite different. The Times article reports, essentially, the Watts study, coupled with confirmation from other scientific sources. The Daily Mail article is reports an interview with Dr. Phil Jones.

    The unraveling quickens.

  • DonS

    Actually, now that I’ve had a chance to read Steve’s article, they are quite different. The Times article reports, essentially, the Watts study, coupled with confirmation from other scientific sources. The Daily Mail article is reports an interview with Dr. Phil Jones.

    The unraveling quickens.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X