Anthony Watts wrote over on his site that I said
Goddard initially claimed 40% of the STATIONS were missing
This is the line Anthony is referring to, from his original E-mail
This claim: “More than 40% of USHCN final station data is now generated from stations which have no thermometer data.”
Is utterly bogus.
I didn’t say the stations were missing. I said they had no thermometer data, which is exactly what is happening. Every month in 2014, about 40% of the stations have no thermometer data. Basic grammar tells us that you can’t “have” something if you don’t exist. And I had actually altered the text to make it less ambiguous before Anthony sent over the E-mail. Then Anthony went on a rampage attacking me all over the Internet, over something which there was never any question I was correct about.
Anthony frequently thinks I am “making mistakes”, because he reads into my words concepts which I didn’t say (confirmation bias.) It is important to read people’s words carefully, rather than shooting from the hip. Anthony finished that E-Mail with the words.
YOU NEED TO DO BETTER.
I couldn’t have said it better. I do very much appreciate Anthony’s post from yesterday to clarify the situation. It shows that he is an honorable man.
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2f-MZ2HRHQ]
Love the clip.
I hope Anthony will not hijack your story(got that feeling from his post yesterday), and the two of you can work together and not keep bickering like politicians.
You both have great minds and together make even better one.
Sorry, Post from you about him is childish and pot stirring in my book.
I hope everyone works as a team.
Anthony has admitted you were right. He’s eating a lilte crow:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
It takes an honest man to do that.
After he fed Steven to the climate lunatics on a platter. That’s warped.
Are you stating redundancies (something we all know, as it is a couple of steps back in a sequence of events that have unfolded over the past week), or is this a new perspective you just gained?
What’s a lilte crow look, taste, and sound like? Is it Scottish?
When I saw a comment of AW’s on Paul Homewood’s site, it made me wonder whether he had read only your headline, because the content of the articles were quite explicit that they were referring to unobserved data.
He is apparently normally pretty detail oriented, so it has me thinking he was either having a really bad day, or he has some kind of thing against you. That he is now claiming your “initial” statement was different, is leaning me towards the latter.
Depending on one’s state of mind at the time one reads another’s correspondence, several different responses ranging from positive to negative can be generated. Sometimes its best to delay or defer, until later, sending back an answer until an alternate ‘state of mind’ is achieved, especially when one is prone to include criticism.
Harsh words are difficult to take back. In a technical field it is best to check the ‘perceived facts’ twice before passing judgement, because, walking back that ‘judgement’ can be a difficult thing too.
.
The Moving Finger writes: and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
Omar Khayyám (1048–1131),
… the first line and a half of which I recite to myself on occasion …
Both Watts and Curry continue to say that Goddard was correct on a part of this story. Watts said that Goddard is wrong so often that he missed him being right one time. I hardly find that gracious. The simple fact of the matter is that I have never seen Goddard wrong and Watts right. I have seen Watts claim he is right and Goddard wrong but that is another thing entirely. It took Paul Homewood doing one station to get Watts and Curry to admit something was going on.
I also think that they are missing the big story here. The big story is that almost all of the warming since 1900 is due to data manipulation rather than honest temperatures going up. It is also probable that the flat temps of the last 18 or so years is really a reduction in temps that is hidden by data tampering.
The entire CAGW saga is kept going by hiding the decline in temperatures. The federal goons are doing just that. Watts and Curry see “mistakes were made” and the “system needs improvement”. What next? Will they cry “don’t toss out the baby with the bathwater”?
Much easier to go for ad homs than actually win a debate.
How long before they decouple CO2 from warming and jump right to severe weather?
Good points but the federal ‘goons’ don’t control global data. Nor the satellites.
The federal goons do control the data sets in many ways. Those who pay the piper get to call the tune (or in this case “toon”). Grants, incentives, jobs, and much more is paid out by the minions of the Empire to insure that the myth of CAGW soldiers on.
From the “Lest we should all forget” department:
– – – – – –
Why You Should Celebrate Your Mistakes
http://zenhabits.net/why-you-should-celebrate-your-mistakes/
When you make a mistake, big or small, cherish it like it’s the most precious thing in the world. Because in some ways, it is.
Most of us feel bad when we make mistakes, beat ourselves up about it, feel like failures, get mad at ourselves.
And that’s only natural: most of us have been taught from a young age that mistakes are bad, that we should try to avoid mistakes. We’ve been scolded when we make mistakes — at home, school and work. Maybe not always, but probably enough times to make feeling bad about mistakes an unconscious reaction.
Yet without mistakes, we could not learn or grow.
If you think about it that way, mistakes should be cherished and celebrated for being one of the most amazing things in the world: they make learning possible, they make growth and improvement possible.
By trial and error — trying things, making mistakes, and learning from those mistakes — we have figured out how to make electric light, to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, to fly.
Mistakes make walking possible for the smallest toddler, make speech possible, make works of genius possible.
Think about how we learn: we don’t just consume information about something and instantly know it or know how to do it. You don’t just read about painting, or writing, or computer programming, or baking, or playing the piano, and know how to do them right away.
Instead, you get information about something, from reading or from another person or from observing usually … then you construct a model in your mind … then you test it out by trying it in the real world … then you make mistakes … then you revise the model based on the results of your real-world experimentation … and repeat, making mistakes, learning from those mistakes, until you’ve pretty much learned how to do something.
That’s how we learn as babies and toddlers, and how we learn as adults. Trial and error, learning something new from each error.
Mistakes are how we learn to do something new — because if you succeed at something, it’s probably something you already knew how to do. You haven’t really grown much from that success — at most it’s the last step on your journey, not the whole journey. Most of the journey was made up of mistakes, if it’s a good journey.
So if you value learning, if you value growing and improving, then you should value mistakes. They are amazing things that make a world of brilliance possible.
Celebrate your mistakes. Cherish them. Smile.
– – – – – – –
Number 2 of the Five Pearls of Scottish Wisdom Applies:
“Forgive your enemy, but remember the bastard’s name.”
TED talk: On being wrong
“Most of us will do anything to avoid being wrong. But what if we’re wrong about that? “Wrongologist” Kathryn Schulz makes a compelling case for not just admitting but embracing our fallibility.”
http://www.ted.com/talks/kathryn_schulz_on_being_wrong
.
Looks like WUWT is holding comments to pass scrutiny! They are running scared now. The increasingly elaborate ‘apologies’ don’t hit the real nail on the head: they were used as fools by the warmists who now firmly believe that all the data tampering can continue without halt thanks to Watts and his buddies backing this destruction of the scientific method.
He still doesn’t understand how he was played for a fool. He can’t afford to understand this because this means looking in the mirror.
” They are running scared now. ”
The way to succeed in life is never making mistakes.
‘Failure is a prerequisite for great success. If you want to succeed faster, double your rate of failure.’
– unk
‘An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a very narrow field.’
– Niels Bohr
‘Every tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better.’
– Samuel Beckett
‘Success is never found. Failure is never fatal. Courage is the only thing.’
– Winston Churchill
Are you sure he was played for a fool or has he been the buffer all these years to keep the attack on the fraud contained?!?! Note that he, Mosher, and others are old friends and how they push the propaganda. I would remind those who haven’t followed the sites that long that at one point Steven McIntyre told us if HE were the Gubmint HE WOULD TAKE THE ADVICE OF THE IPCC!!! That while he was deconstructing the Hockeystick and suffering through attacks from the Hockey Team!!
This mess is far from understandable on a superficial level and we may never know who was and wasn’t pushing what agenda!!
What distinguishes them is their belief in the greenhouse effect, that that “science is settled”, that it’s just a matter of how much it matters, not whether it exists. And it doesn’t exist. In the end, that will be the bottom line: The consensus is not just wrong, it is incompetent, and the “lukewarm” sceptics (I’m tired of that “k”) are just as pig-headedly incompetent, closed-minded, and suppressive of the greenhouse “deniers” as are the alarmists.
Harry, you have always dodged issues regarding the radiative properties of so-called greenhouse gases …
Jim: No, I have merely demanded, over and over, that everyone (especially people like you, who want to follow the lukewarmers) focus upon the definitive fact: That the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, at points of equal pressure in the two atmospheres and over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, is PRECISELY explained (for points above and below the Venus cloud layer) SOLELY by the ratio of the two planets’ distances from the Sun. The huge differences between the two planets and their atmospheres, in CO2 concentration (.04% vs. 96.5%), in albedo (30% vs. 70+%), cloud cover, atmospheric mass (Venus’s is 100 times Earth’s) and surface (Earth is 71% water, Venus all solid crust) make no difference in the Venus/Earth temperature ratio at all (zilch, zip, nada). And I have also averred, for more than 3 and 1/2 years now, that I feel no responsibility to provide a better climate theory than the consensus (including a better radiative transfer theory). The radiative transfer theory can successfully “reconstruct” measured radiation spectra in the atmosphere until the cows come home; it obviously fails, spectacularly, to model the warming of the atmosphere properly–most obviously, in its claim that the Earth’s surface radiates as much as does a blackbody in a vacuum and at the same absolute temperature as the Earth’s surface, which is obscene in its fundamental incompetence. Until you all confront the FACT of the Venus/Earth temperature ratio, and what it means for the correction of climate science theories of atmospheric warming, I will continue to stand by that original analysis, as originally done.
Looks like filibustering there Harry. Engineers don’t like a bunch of filibustering, to us it makes your arguments look weak if it takes that much ‘verbiage’ to be clear on, I mean obfuscate on, an issue …
“_Jim says:
June 30, 2014 at 2:32 am
Looks like filibustering there Harry. Engineers don’t like a bunch of filibustering, to us it makes your arguments look weak if it takes that much ‘verbiage’ to be clear on, I mean obfuscate on, an issue …”
And not saying anything responsive makes you look ignorant.
Eric Old Bean, what is there to say to Harry’s rhetoric? Crap is crap, so why respond?
Do you have something to contribute, or no?
Eric, notice how Jim is not only unresponsive, he runs for the protective cover of the label of “us engineers”, to curry favor with that group here. I would have banned his continuing recalcitrance from my blog at this point, for I know him for what he is. I am a physicist, but I have worked as an engineer too, in a variety of high-tech instrumentation; that label doesn’t cut any more slack with me than any other. Real intelligence gets my respect, not unending hack argumentation.
Eric, Harry has no concept of how a gas molecule ‘resonates’ upon exposure to EM energy … do you have any concept how a ‘polar’ molecule like H2O responds to a broad spectra of incoming solar radiation, or the broad, but lower amplitude spectra come from a 270 to 320 Kelvin earth?
No, most likely not. Why have a discussion then. We had a knock-down drag out with a couple others a few weeks back who didn’t understand gas radiational physics either, so where were you during that discussion?
You want individual instruction on this – I can give you an e-mail address – please deposit an amount equal to the #hours of instruction desired x 75.00 US (an hour).
.
_Jim. You have failed to respond to Harry’s claim other than with ad hominem statements. Do you think it’s a big coincidence that the temperature profile for Venus matches Earth’s when taking into account pressure and distance from the sun? It’s a fact. Please explain using something other than derision.
Harry, you;re s supreme waste of time. We’ve covered those subject, but you want me now to cover ‘old ground’ again and come play under your rules and address your fantasy … come to grips with gas radiational physics and maybe we can talk …
In the meantime, look up IR Spectroscopy to get started. Note how polar molecules like CH4, CO2 and H2O vibrate and ‘wiggle’ in certain given ways … note that EACH different wiggle pattern is associated with a different EM (electro-magnetic) area of the spectrum.
You have a ways to go, Harry, and probably Eric too.
Goodbye Eric, goodbye harry. Not going down the rabbit hole of Venus.
I think Steve/Tony has a right to feel aggrieved because he was judged with pre prejudice and thrown to the AGW nutters political bureau where they would have been having orgasms over this . Something similar happened on WUWT recently when an British Solicitor Steven Wilde was offered to posit his theory on climate change purely so that Anthony and others could ridicule him, it was a disgraceful affair and I personally can’t forget how people mocked Wilde after posing as a ‘we take you work seriously please publish it here’ attitude.
I could imagine Mann, Gavin, Stoat Connolly, tamino grant and Cooke et al would have been squealing like little piggy’s when Anthony gave succour to those lying bastards by attacking and diminishing Steve/Tony like that in public. Now the question is did Antony really admit he got it wrong or was he embarrassed by others who had a look and said ‘hello Steve’s right here.
What gets me is . this info has been known for a long time and not one of the sceptics outside of Steve wanted to know.
Anyway where are we now with this lot. P Homeward has shown the current data is being spun upwards but how about the past being made cooler, is that being accepted?
Really if everyone on the sceptics side has a look and then can confidently say that NOAA has been ‘at it’ spinning the figures then this is surely a big, big story and in the wake of Lerner at the IRS and the mistakenly lost non backed up data. It proves that the current Obama administration has allowed employees to distort and twist data with tacit approval or have guided the whole enterprise.
I’m not a “sceptic”, rather a denier, but I remind you I wanted to know about the fraudulent adjustments, and added to it quickly (and once again, easily):
“US Temperatures Have Been Falsely Adjusted According to the Level of Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere”
i have just been to the blackboard to see what zeke h. has posted in defense of steve,s allegations.
now i am not the sharpest tool in the box ,but from what i can see,every single graph he has posted supports steve,s main assertion.indeed the only assertion that needs to be addressed. some small warming of current trends/temps and more importantly ,significant cooling of the past.
please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect,as i said,i am not the sharpest tool in the box.
It does, Bit, I’ve ran a couple of posts which supports Stev’es views, using the Blackboards graphs. I rather enjoy doing that.
Is Anthony Watts another victim of the Democratic Party-dominated educational establishment? Has Anthony Watts been cheated of skills in reading and writing? Why is Science only political–why is the only True Science “Aryan Science?”
Well done, Steve. I think the problem is that many people out there – skeptics included – just don’t want to or can’t believe that there is actually a serious, calculated and ongoing fraud happening in the US climate science fraternity. Although, how they could seriously doubt it after Climategate is hard to fathom.
The main problem is: if the impression being given is “we’re saving the planet”, the general public are more inclined to overlook “fiddling the books” (just ask Al “it’s OK to lie” Gore); however if it is something that can be demonstrated to affect their wallets (or something else personal, like health, etc) significantly, watch the loud screaming start.
At least he admitted that he was wrong; good on him for that.
But I agree that the first half of his mea culpa read like, “even a blind squirrel finds a nut every once in a while.”
As for the Big Story: if he’s honest, he’ll get to it on his own. Or, we could help him along. If somebody organizes a crowd-sourcing of review of every single station’s data, I’ll join in.
Another failure to communicate with WUWT…
———————
kbray in california says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 29, 2014 at 8:02 am
Anthony, WUWT made the Drudge Report.
Sweet.
———————-
I must have used a dirty word…
Yes, well maybe not. If you use “Anthony” in a post it goes straight into moderation … (thought this was common knowledge?) Better to break it up, that’s why you see An-thony or Anth*ny in posts sometimes too.
“Always assume the worst and one day it may come true.”
– born cynic
A true indication of paranoia on his part. Sorry, that’s the way that looks to me (and what I already know of him, from this hassling of Goddard and before, since I did my “Venus: No Greenhouse Effect” article, in November 2010, which definitively disproves the existence of the greenhouse effect.
Harry, not really interested in Venus; as an argument it looks like one big rabbit hole to suck people into and waste time. I am also highly doubtful of your understanding of gas physics, especially radiational physics.
As to paranoia, something you may be seeing. To each his own.
And I have answered you above. You are just one of the many incompetents who won’t listen to new and definitive evidence. As I have said many times, the only way you can redeem yourself is to show, using the consensu theory, how to explain the precise Venus/Earth temperature ratio my simple comparison showed, how all the other differences in the two planetary systems in fact have zero effect upon that ratio. Until you do that, your words mean nothing to me.
Ha ha ha .. ‘incompetents’ Right. Just keep thinking that way. It’ll take you far, far from reality.
I’ve seen your posts before on the gas radiational physics; and it’s lame. You have a ways to go to understand IR Spectroscopy and why this is important to understanding gas radiational physics.
Until then, your theories won’t help you to explain WV’s gas radiational physics action either, which is, of course, far more dominant than what little CO2 contributes …
Good luck with ‘your’ theories, Harry.
I give the facts, you respond with empty taunts. If you really understood anything, you would have shown it by now. I hope any who pass this way will see you for what you are, and not give you any more heed.
Bit Chilly
‘please feel free to correct me if this is incorrect,as i said,i am not the sharpest tool in the box.’
Don’t put yourself down!
I thought Anthony did a ‘mea (a bit) culpa’.
Slightly begrudging, but hey better than before, and judging by the whining, he’s hit a nerve.
Well done, Steve.
IMO Anthony Watts has tried to mold himself to be accepted by mainstream science organizations and have cozy relationships with elitists in general while at the same time have his work accepted as legitimate science. I think he’s tried to walk down the middle of the road, and we all know what happens when you walk the down middle of the road. His vicious attacks on Tony Heller over the past few years, particularly 2013/2014 when Tony was really challenging the data
I think the time for friendly discussion with climate alarmists is over. They have branded anyone disagreeing with the “consensus” (them) as everything from holocaust deniers to baby killers. The entire system is corrupt and chocked full of crooks and liars masquerading as scientists.
Then there are the Zeke’s and Mosher’s of the blogosphere. Zeke tries to be a nice scumbag while Mosher is just a run-of-the-mill rude arrogant scumbag. Both are legends in their own minds. How is it possible to have such confirmation bias that you can’t see a problem with adjusting average temperatures downward or upward by several tenths of a degree or in some cases as much as 5 degrees and not question it? What honest person can condone such garbage and still claim to be objective? Of course then there’s always Nick Stokes; the purest definition of the most polite 1st class a**hole one can possibly be. On this side of the fence we have Nik from NYC. Eat your heart out Nik……you jerk.
Personally I believe this is more than confirmation bias. I think the likes of Tom Karl and his ilk have purposely looked for ways to promote their political agenda by manipulating the temperature data to advance the “Cause” and more than happy to have the support of Zeke/Mosher/Stokes/Tamino who blindly support the government funded fraud. Only by digging deep into the methodologies could it be exposed for the fraud that it is. People like Verity Jones, E.M. Smith, Steve Goddard, Paul Homewood and others have been pointing out problems for years, but at the forefront it has been Steve Goddard’s unwavering consistent reporting tactics that have finally drawn attention nationally. Did Steve accomplish this by being nice? No, he was brutally honest and in the process offended some on both sides. I didn’t agree with everything Steve Goddard wrote, but the underlying message concerning climate “science” I did.
Unfortunately Anthony Watts decided that being friendly and accepted was more important than calling a spade a spade. I’ve read his writings long before he started WUWT. He used to be a pit bull, but once he began limiting speech by determining certain subjects were taboo, he compromised his integrity IMO. Those who’ve been reading WUWT know what I’m talking about. He did that to fit in with the elitists, and every time he extended the hand of friendship to people like Tom Karl. Muller, Zeke, Mosher et al, he got burned. You can read the frustration in his posts, yet he continued to place Steve Goddard in the ‘nut job’ category to please his “friends”.
Personally I think the admission by Anthony Watts that Tony Heller was right all along (it was obvious to me) on this data tampering issue, he still wants to believe it is innocent mistakes and can’t bring himself to break off friendships he’s worked hard to maintain to remain as a useful idiot [in their view].
I believe this “mea culpa” by Anthony Watts is only the beginning. It will now be impossible for anyone to defend the garbage put out by NASA/NCDC/NOAA or any other government agency or satellite organizations funded by taxpayer’s money that also promote a political agenda. I believe this is bigger than Climategate because it undermines the entire argument by CAWG’s concerning the temperature record of the last 100+ years.
Can anyone find a better example to fit this often used quote by Arthur Schopenhauer?
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”
Think about it.
Very well put Slimething. In a similar vain Willis E is going bananas with David Evans on his new Solar theory and how David is publishing the information.It is pathetic to “watch”.
This whole event, happening, issue, whatever you want to call it—should be prime example #1 on how to conduct science. It displays in very stark terms the differences between what the skeptic community does and how the alarmist community operates. Can anyone here imagine how something this would have played out within alarmist circles? They would have literally jumped on a grenade to ‘prove’ they were right. By jumping on the grenade I, of course, mean trash the messenger. Maintain the momentum and end this BS before we all end up as 3rd world countries.
Well, Anthony Watts did not make the topic a sticky for a few days like he does for his pet issues. It should be left at the top for a month IMO. The data manipulation is so blatantly wrong, yet he doesn’t even post a follow up.
If he lets this fade away, I will have lost all respect for him.
re: slimething June 29, 2014 at 7:41 pm
Well, Anthony Watts did not make the topic a sticky for a few days
An assertion that is at odds with what I saw posted at WUWT; verily, part 1 and part 2 of this issue were both seen on the ‘hot topics’ billboard which is just below the masthead on WUWT. That’s how I found those threads.
Maybe your browser responded or rendered that page differently than what the rest of us saw … (using Chrome here)
.
If it were stickied, it would be at the top for several days with newer threads underneath. That’s what Anthony does for topics he thinks are of great importance. Right now the top story is “NOAA’s temperature control knob for the past, the present, and maybe the future – July 1936 now hottest month again”
I’ll give it some time. He may collaborating with others to validate what has apparently sparked some brain cells allowing him to see there is much more wrong with the SAT records than just siting issues and UHI.
re: slimething June 29, 2014 at 9:41 pm
If it were stickied, it would be at the top for several days with newer threads underneath. …
New format, or haven’t you noticed? (Literally speaking: WUWT has a new format) Ya click on a link, it takes ya right to the story! Shazam! From the top of the page!
I don’t see how turning this molehill into a mountain serves any purpose either. Creating a ‘sticky’ just post might be a real PIA with WordPress too … do you know for certain if the ‘billboard’/menu of stories at the top of the page is a workaround for this? (Really now – I feel like I’m talking to India tech support or something.)
I think your browser isn’t showing the new format … all I can figure out …
@Jim – You rang??
Oh, nevermind…… 😉
I find it very distressing to read this continual and ongoing acrid exchange between Steve/Tony and Anthony. This is just what the Warmistas love to see. A lot more moderation and politeness on both sides would be very good to see. I was pleased to see Anthony taking a few steps back recently and coming to grips with the massive fraud that is going on in the US bureaucracy at the behest of its Political Masters. It is hard to admit but it is quite obvious. Let’s focus on the big events and forget personal antagonisms.
You are talking to the wrong person.
You can’t just forget them when they are ongoing and increasing.
Even the Great 1990 Dying of the Thermometers was primarily ignoring of available data sources. Very selective, of course; the previous 20 yrs or so average was 1.5°F or so lower than the next.
I am sorry I do not see A.W. having any real excuse for his actions regarding Steven. If this was new material I would give him the benefit of the doubt but it is not NEW TO HIM.
Verity Jones posted a similar graph to that of Steven Goddard’s back in 2010 when she and E.M. Smith got together to look at the “Station Dropout Problem” back in the winter of 2009-2010.
A.W. was well aware of the problem since he posted in March of 2010 – On the March of the Thermometers referencing E.M. Smith’s work and the first comment has a pointer to Verity Jones’ site Digging in the Clay.
Of Missing Temperatures and Filled-in Data (Part 2)
(Steve you might want to post your graph and Verity’s graph,with the date, together for the benefit of casual drive-bys.)
Dang, the link got busted. – On the March of the Thermometers
Kudos.
I see once again I am two days behind the news, haha, That’s what happens when you have small children and work 70 hrs a week 🙂