This has just been released today, and it carries on the cover a well known USHCN station photograph. You’ll probably recognize a number of the surfacestations.org photos in it.
Unfortunately, I was not given the chance to review this essay before it was published.
There are things I agree with and disagree with in this essay. Regarding the title, I tend to take the view of Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by simple incompetence.
In addition to what I plan to bring to Dr. Evan’s attention I hope that WUWT readers can provide a review of some of the other content.
Here’s the link for download:
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here.
After a quick read, my biggest beef is the constant referral to cheating and misrepresentation – which may well be true – but this is not the way reputable scientists conduct themselves. There’s no point in name calling – the scientific way is by proper and impartial scientific explanation with sound data and sound reasoning and any explanation, whether by the SPPI or anyone else should follow such guidelines.
It would be difficult to explain everything by simple incompetence alone.
I don’t know how much political clout SPPI has, but probably not as much as those invested in the global warming scam. And that’s what counts, not whether or not a thermometer is located next to a blast furnace. It’s too bad, but until the “science” fits the political agenda, or becomes too widely known to be ignored by the media, these kinds of expose’s do nada. It’s probably all moot anyway, since my take on the situation is that the world is going to hell in handbasket no matter what.
I read the various parts as published on Jo Nova’s site.
I can understand criticisms, Anthony,but remember this is aimed at politicians and the uninformed (sorry, tautologous).
Corrupt versus incompetent? I can accept incompetence in the initial data compilations and theories, but continuing to support the idea with fudging of data, concealing data and codes and the refusal to debate in an open forum with dissenting experts does stretch my kinder, sympathetic instincts.
I suspect many involved in promoting AGWH are nice, honest people BUT and that is a big but! Maybe I’ve been reading to many books and too many physics papers that I struggle to understand 🙂
Given what has happened, both stupidity and malice seem to have been used by the global warming establishment in alarming quantities.
Yes, it would be best to assume simple, non-malicious explanations.
Should the climategate email “dark alley” comment be attributable to incompetence?
Evans may be wrong on some specifics and may be too quick to call errors and omission as cheating, but in the end he does not dispute the underlying theory that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming. So it appears he is a frustrated luke-warmer. This is also suggested by a number of other articles he has written.
So the question is whether he has the science right or whether he does not. As with so much in climate-science only time will tell. Anyone looking at this new article would be well advised to put “motive and blame” filters over their reading glasses.
Haven’t yet read the 40+ pages (just the ToC and conclusions), but did notice that each photograph is properly credited.
As the question ‘corruption?’ is phrased as a question, this seems absolutely fine to me – and looks to be a well written summary. The question needs to be asked.
The establishment needs to explain itself – why have the scientific method, truth, and honesty been turned upside down in support of this cause?
“Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by simple incompetence.”
Of course. But imcompetence has been ruled out time and again, over and over.
Anyone who thinks this rule can suggest the AGW movement is based on a unforntunate series of mistakes, didn’t understand compound probabilty at school.
Malice it is.
If the SPPI is the ‘dirty tricks’ arm of the climate realist movement then they’re fully justified in doing what they’ve done. I thought they were a bit more than that though.
I particularly noted the part relating to the missing 0.6C hot spot. I think that a certain Kevin Trenberth is still looking for that somewhere. I believe in the oceans now that they could not find it above the water line. What about the missing Argos information? I think it unacceptable that this is not being made available. Dr Evans seems to be a bit of a fan of Dr Roy Spencer and his clouds negative feedback theory. I must admit that I think Dr Spencer is on to something. An interesting paper touching on interesting and important issues.
AGW is an ideology. It is offten a case that the strongest proponents and leaders of an ideology are usually the one who best understand its shortcomings, but they take biggest advantage and benefits of what it offers. Others just follow, perfectly natural behaviour as exercised by flock of birds or shoal of fish; Darwinism in action.
Perhaps the crack Phd Climate Scientists from AGU might care to demonstrate their skills by writing a scientific critique of this paper, as well as An Inconvenient Truth.
The public deserve to know. After all we have been paying the scientists wages
Anthony, you’re too nice a guy.
This scam was to make billions for scoundrels, while keeping the developing world in poverty, and enslaving the first world. How much power would the warmists have if they control every activity that produces CO2. Already the dictators are talking about ration cards.
I think it needs nice guys like you though. Otherwise, sceptics could look lie the AGU, advocating instead of investigating.
Craig says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:33 pm
It would be difficult to explain everything by simple incompetence alone.
The actual article describes it not as simple incompetence but the INEVITABLE result of government-only funding which created a sort of incestuous environment. Anybody who disagreed was tossed.
“Cheating” is a bit strong for that phenomenon, but it is in the correct direction, and gets a major point across to a shallow-thinking public.
And it matters. One reason we know CO2 IS up is because of the greening of the Sahel and worldwide increased crops. This is a starve-or-feast difference and the alarmists are on the wrong side of the equation.
Likewise, both warming and carbon dioxside increase biodiversity.
It appears the next big “cause” for young idealists will be biodiversity. This gives us an opportunity to promote truth about climate science. There is no need to panic about biodiversity, as the biosphere is a kaeidoscope continuously evolving new forms. But there IS opportunity and fascination and wonder and we can learn positive ways not merely to protect biodiversity, but actually to increase it.
oops carbon dioxide
I read this VERY early this morning. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is written at a level a member of Congress can understand. He sort of leaves the reader with a gloomy, “there’s nothing that can be done” tone at the end. How many of us have not already reached the conclusions Evans perhaps not so delicately describes? Perhaps it didn’t smack of “scientific integrity” and dispassionate objectivity, but you gotta admit…he’s right (and you know it).
There’s really not a whole of text in this PDF. A lot of it is photos, charts, graphs and references at the end. After to read this read Roy Spencer’s latest post at his site:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
incompetence is usually self-correcting in a Darwinian sort of way (law of natural consequences).
to deftly sidestep natural consequences, as documented by the repeated avoidance of providing evidence, source data, FOI requests, etc. requires intent.
this intent = corruption.
Several persons here seem to take exception to the term: cheating.
Is this another example of our PC society run amok or do those commenters honestly believe the scientists in question are just poor ignorant boobs?
I believe a liar is a liar, a cheat is a cheat and a thief is a thief. (Trust me-that young man whole stole my car was not confused about the chain of ownership.)
The problem will persist until we lose our fear of facing facts. ‘Pretending’ a problem does not exist does not make it go away. Nor does exaggerating-or minimizing it.
Sigh~lately, it seems the muck is so deep that no one knows the truth anymore.
Unfortunately this SPPI paper is a “rant”, not a reasoned response. Written simply without the ideological righteous indignation, it would have been worthy of recommending to a warmist. It is not worthy of that. Preaching to the choir is what Gore et al do. It is a shame that the SPPI has done this with a simple summary of the problems with the science behind CAGW.
Dr T G Watkins; “but remember this is aimed at politicians and the uninformed (sorry, tautologous)” – A nice line doc.
But once I thought about it, I decided that politicians are informed!
They are informed by party hacks, by opinion polls, and by advisers who tell them 1/ what they want to hear, 2/ what aligns with party policy, 3/ what will pave the way for their own prospects, 4/ according to their own biases and prejudices, and 5/ limited by their own lack of understanding.
So they are well informed, but I’m not sure from where they are informed of hard facts.
The US Republicans seem to have taken a bit of notice of public opinion and in this case it might prove useful, although time will tell.
“It’s the irresistible force of human affairs”
This description of AGW is near perfect: no explicit malice or
incompetence … just the human way of doing most things … except science !!
The problem with AGW is that it was moved out of the science-only
domain long ago and now it’s just another ‘human affair’. It should be brought
back, if possible, to the science-only domain.
A very well written essay.
Anthony’s work on surface stations is pure gold and the key to start ‘decoding’
the rest of the AGW monster.
“Paul” at CA posted today a link, http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/08/alderheimers/#comment-245164, to a Swedish TV-on-demand film covering Climategate. It has a number of images of Dr Phil Jones looking all forlorn, rather like Gollum in the Lord of the Rings. Large contributions to the film by Mann, Oreskes and Schneider are complaints at the politicisation of climate science. They brought it upon themselves, so should the realists, such as David Evans, use their own weapons against them?
Anthony, I for one would like to know just why you will overlook malice whenever you can show simple incompetence?
REPLY: Because I’ve met some of the players. Incompetence rules supreme in government jobs. – Anthony