Willis: Reply to the Economist

This replaced the previous sticky, and I have this comment about the Economist. Bad form and unprofessional to use the word “denialists”. For WUWT  readers who wish to complain: letters@economist.com or use their online form here. – Anthony


On Dec 11th, the Economist published an unsigned article attacking both me and my work. This open letter is my reply.

TO: The Person Unwilling to Sign Their Economist Article

Dear Sir or Madam;

Recently, you wrote a scathing article about me in the Economist discussing my post called  The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero. Some of it was deserved, but most was undeserved and false. The URL for your unprinicpled attack is http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/12/trust_scientists … trust_scientists? Trust_scientists?? Have you read the CRU emails?

But I digress … you begin by quoting from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, viz:

A change in the type of thermometer shelter used at many Australian observation sites in the early 20th century resulted in a sudden drop in recorded temperatures which is entirely spurious. It is for this reason that these early data are currently not used for monitoring climate change. Other common changes at Australian sites over time include location moves, construction of buildings or growth of vegetation around the observation site and, more recently, the introduction of Automatic Weather Stations.

The impacts of these changes on the data are often comparable in size to real climate variations, so they need to be removed before long-term trends are investigated.

While this is true, it doesn’t apply. None of the GHCN adjustments are from any of those sources. This is because the GHCN does not adjust for location moves. Nor does it adjust for construction of buildings, nor for any of the other items listed. The GHCN uses none of those to make its adjustments. So all of that is totally meaningless.

Next, you say the “explanation for the dramatic change in 1941 is simple”:

As previously advised, the main temperature station moved to the radar station at the newly built Darwin airport in January 1941. The temperature station had previously been at the Darwin Post Office in the middle of the CBD, on the cliff above the port. Thus, there is a likely factor of removal of a slight urban heat island effect from 1941 onwards. However, the main factor appears to be a change in screening. The new station located at Darwin airport from January 1941 used a standard Stevenson screen. However, the previous station at Darwin PO did not have a Stevenson screen. Instead, the instrument was mounted on a horizontal enclosure without a back or sides. The postmaster had to move it during the day so that the direct tropical sun didn’t strike it! Obviously, if he forgot or was too busy, the temperature readings were a hell of a lot hotter than it really was.

This might make sense if there were any “dramatic change in 1941”. But as I clearly stated in my article, <b>there is no such dramatic change</b>. The drop in temperature was gradual and lasted from 1936 to 1940. The change from 1940 to 1941 was quite average. So that claim of yours is nonsense as well. In any case, the change in screening did not coincide with the 1941 move. In my article I cited a reference to a picture of a Stevenson Screen in use in Darwin at the turn of the century. Perhaps you didn’t bother to read that.

So, to sum up your first arguments, changes in the Stevenson Screens and other local conditions cannot be the explanation for any of the GHCN adjustments because 1) the GHCN doesn’t use local conditions to make adjustments and 2) the timing of the screen change is wrong. In addition, there was no “dramatic change in 1941”.

Next, you point out two actual mistakes I did make.

First, in my proofreading I did not catch that I that I had written “the 1941 adjustment” when I meant the 1930 adjustment. That should have been obvious to me, because there is no 1941 GHCN adjustment. My bad.

Second, I had said that the Darwin temperature data couldn’t have been adjusted by using the GHCN method. This method requires five neighboring stations to which Darwin can be compared. Why couldn’t the GHCN method be used? I said it was because in the earlier time periods like the 1930s, there were no such stations covering that time period within 500 km of Darwin. I was wrong, it fact there is one such station.

Neither of these errors of mine affect my point, which is that there are not enough neighboring stations to adjust Darwin using the main GHCN method. The GHCN folks mention this possibility, saying:

Also, not all stations could be adjusted.

Remote stations for which we could not produce an

adequate reference series (the correlation between

first-difference station time series and its reference

time series must be 0.80 or greater) were not adjusted.

The homogeneity-adjusted version of GHCN includes

only those stations that were deemed homogeneous

and those stations we could reliably adjust to make

them homogeneous.


Unfortunately, they adjusted Darwin anyway. Consider the GHCN adjustment in 1920. To find five stations around Darwin covering 1920, you have to go out 1,250 km. Nor is there any guarantee that those stations will be suitable. You need to have five stations with an 80% correlation with the Darwin record … I wish you the best of luck finding those five stations.

So while my statement about stations nearer than Daly Waters was wrong as you point out (there is one nearer station that covers the 1930 adjustment), my point was correct – there are not enough neighboring stations to adjust Darwin using the GHCN method. The first GHCN adjustment to Darwin was a single year adjustment in 1901. To get five “neighboring” stations for that adjustment, you have to go out 1728 km. You fail to deal with that issue at all. Instead, you say:

“So is it reasonable, if the GHCN is using complex statistical tools to adjust the temperature readings at Darwin based on surrounding stations, that they might come up with the figures they came up with? Sure. No. Yes. I have no idea. And neither does Mr Eschenbach. Because in order to judge that, you would have to have a graduate-level understanding of statistical modeling. … I don’t understand that formula. I don’t have the math for it.”

“Surrounding stations”? We’re talking about stations a thousand km away and more, not surrounding stations.

And while I am sorry to hear of the lacunae in your math education, please don’t make the foolish assumption that others are similarly limited. I have no problem with the GHCN math. If you truly have no idea on the question as you say … then why are you excoriating my ideas on the question?

Nor is it inherently a complex question. The question is, should temperatures more than a thousand km away from Darwin be used to arbitrarily adjust Darwin’s temperature by a huge amount? You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Next, as an aside you make the scurrilously false statement that I said that claims of damage due to sea level rise in Tuvalu “stemmed from attempts by locals to blame subsidence problems on the developed world, and cash in on it”. I said no such thing nor do I believe it. The claims stemmed from misguided environmentalists.

Next, you say “He makes it sound as if he’s just happened to stumble across this one site whilst perusing a debate over climate change in northern Australia. But as his link to that conversation from 2000 makes clear, Mr Eschenbach is already aware that climate change denialists have been trumpeting the apparent anomalies at Darwin for nine years.” BZZZZT, poor understanding of the implications of chronology. I looked up the conversation after I stumbled across Darwin. How dare you accuse me of lying? As I said, I went to  AIS to see if what Professor Karlen had said was true. I called up a list of all of the stations in Australia that covered 1900-2000. Darwin was the first on the list, so that’s the one I looked at. Try it and see. You accusation is both wrong and totally unfounded.

You go on to say

“[Climate change denialists] do so because of that errant data at Darwin from before 1941, which makes it look as though there was a cooling trend there. The fact that climate-change researchers have to do a particularly strong correction on the data at Darwin, because they moved their dang instruments from the downtown post office to the airport, makes Darwin a perfect place to look for support if you want to claim that climate-change scientists are cooking the data.”

While a correction in Darwin is perhaps necessary, it is cannot be because they “moved their dang instruments” in January of 1941. LOOK AT THE DATA. There is no big change in January of 1941. It occurred gradually over the previous five years. So your theory falls apart upon the simplest examination of the facts.

Next you say: “Average guys with websites can do a lot of amazing things. One thing they cannot do is reveal statistical manipulation in climate-change studies that require a PhD in a related field to understand.”

Your understanding of statistics is as poor as your understanding of chronology. The statistics used by GHCN are average college level tools. You are dazzled by the fact that you don’t understand them, so you make the incredibly foolish assumption that no one without “a PhD in a related field” can understand them either. Some of us actually paid attention in class, you know.

Finally, you use your closing arguments to cheerlead for peer review. Curiously, I agree with you in theory … but the peer review system in climate science is badly broken. First, as the CRU emails clearly show, it has been subjected to enormous “old-boy” pressures to pass through bad studies without a second glance, and to deny opposing papers a fair hearing. How do you think we got the Hockeystick and its cousins? Here’s Phil Jones from the emails, talking about keeping peer-reviewed papers out of the IPCC report:

I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

And you give your article the URL “trust_scientists”???

Second, the peer-review system is ripe for abuse. This is because the reviewers often know who the author is, while the reviewers (like you) hide in anonymity. This invites malfeasance. The system needs to be changed so that after the review, the [authors] sign their names to the paper as well as reviewers. At present, we have no way of knowing whether the paper was seriously reviewed by inquiring scientists, or simply passed through by the authors friends.

So I, like you, support peer review. I just want a peer review system that works. It must be double blind during the review period, with neither the reviewers nor the author knowing the others’ names. And the reviewers should reveal their names at the end, so that we know it wasn’t just the author’s best mates doing the author a favor.

Since we have an easily manipulated system instead of a real peer review system, I opt for public peer review by putting my work on the web. This lets anyone, even anonymous innumerates like yourself, register your objections.

Finally, the Economist did not contact me before publishing an article full of false accusations, incorrect assumptions and wrong statements … looks like peer review is not the only system in trouble here. I thought journalists were under an obligation to check their facts before making accusations …

Willis Eschenbach


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
L Gardy LaRoche

would a PDF be available ?


There isn’t a possibility to add Facebook-shortcut links to your post/blog?
I know I for sure would be more prone to share your link on the net this way. Sorry but don’t know if that is possible, just wondered.


Good move. Can we keep the sticky on topic though if poss (mods?). With Copenhagen i’m sure there will be plenty of other threads to “get it off your chest” (guilty as everyone else)


good – but will the author address the criticisms leveled in the comments – The most obvious being the rebuttal to his point about the absence of stations within 500km……. It is a great analysis – but let’s make sure it is right eh?


Anthony something is amiss here:
compared to the giss plots:
In no way do the plots from Giss match those in the article.


Do you think the CNN reporters will understand fraud when it is in black and white in front of them? I hope so, but I will not hold my breath.
Steve M is a Canadian genius, who has almost single handed stopped the biggest scientific lie of our age, but the media are finding it hard to grasp the significance(yet).(ditto Ottawa of course)

Mr. Alex

The Hathaway prediction Graphic has been updated for December 2009.
The predicted maximum height remains the same but the predicted maximum timing has been shifted forward a few months :


That’s right Anthony, I was thinking the same – this brilliant post should not be drowned by the terrible noise from Copenhagen. We know that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years is an illusion, as it is for the US:

Journalists: please take your time to watch this video.


How about making a list of important stories – in order of importance and sticking it on top, so that they dont get buried.
You may need some help with the order of importance. The one on the Medieval Warm period for example. The clearest explanation of Mann’s hockey Stick, Briffa’s Yamal, the various upside down ones, Richard Lindzen’s piece on the radiation budget, Lord Monkton?, Warren Mayer from Climate-skeptic has given a very good piece on Catastrophe Denied, excellent, if a bit long


Why does it seem that everytime a stations raw vs “valued data” manage to get compared by an independent source we find unwarrented upgrade adjustments … ? seems like you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting bad data …
I used to think the problem was Correct Data –> Garbage Code –> Semi-Garbage Out
Now it appears to be Garbage Data –> Garbage Code –> Garbage2 Out
G2O – the new global warming gas …

Steve S.

This will be front page in all of our newspapers soon.
What? Oh.


hi, first timer here, Watts as in the Reagan era, use it up before our dating of all datage the apocallous dote.
‘The’ climate(change)? The world, the supremacy? All hogwash
how bout changing your microclimate one 5 story familytreehousing foundation, fun and funding package at a time (also known as seed, funny moneylike).
i gather you gather a lot of negativity here (from a 40 sec look, connectivity rationed to punish yall for too little support, mind you, have yet to write a will to make up for not dribbling this and thataways already).
anyhoo, just to save myself fruitless searching and frust:
(check the discuss. page too)

Forget about HArry: He’s only trying to fix Tim’s code.
“Although I have yet to see any evidence that climate change is a sign of Christ’s imminent return, human pollution is clearly another of the birth pangs of creation, as it eagerly awaits being delivered from the bondage of corruption (Romans. 19-22).
Tim Mitchell works at the Climactic Research Unit, UEA, Norwich, and is a member of South Park Evangelical Church.

Jack in Oregon

I believe what we need to do now is to start a surfacestation type project that is focused on finding the raw daily data for the actual surfacestations around the world. Since we can not trust the data anymore, and we cant trust the custodians of the data, lets build an open source, station by station database of the RAW daily data.
A rebuilding of the US records data base with the original data is necessary. a PDF of the original data for each station with a txt file holding the same raw data, with a google map location for the station.
While some of the stations are available for free, some of them are behind government paywalls. That is not an issue for someone with a .gov email addy. I have one of those available, if we know which stations we want.
This would allow us to build a public wiki type project around the raw data. If we can get auditors for Australia and N.Z. locations to show what the known fudges are there. We can make this a global audit of public data base of raw temps.
I would suggest that any time a station is moved, we treat it like a new station. That is, each data series run is left to itself and designated as such. This way we can see what the *REAL* raw trend is.
Its time to FREE the DATA, MAKE it PUBLIC, and than we can argue about WHAT steps are applied to it.


bill (10:19:42) – interesting observation – but I think you will find it is the different scales on the three plots that is misleading you – I’ve printed then out and taking a sample date series that is displayed on each graph (1970 – 2000) I reckon they line up pretty well. The compression of the “y” axis is pretty severe and this is hiding some of the smaller peaks and troughs I think.
But yes a full analysis would need the raw data in a spreadsheet I guess…:(

View from the Solent

Perhaps related, perhaps not. ‘.. something odd about Australia and New Zealand. …’
Early analysis of data released by UK Met Office from here


shouldn’t homogenization generally enhance a temperature trend ?
trends are known to be much stronger on land masses than on oceans.
in a network of land based temperature stations, coastal locations are peripheral, in land-locations are central.
shouldn’t that, in general, lead to a higher use of trend enhancing inland locations to homogenize others compared with coastal locations ? that should result in a warming bias.

Ian B

I’m sure this has already been answered before, so apologies for being a n00b.
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve” from the data to apply to the data, or is it officially acknowledged as being done “by eye”? That is, is it purely judgement calls we’re looking at here, or is there an algorithm that any suitably skilled person could apply to derive an adjustment curve?

Leon Palmer

I’m wondering if it isn’t recursive homogenization.
A station in question is homogenized using surrounding stations. Are those surronding stations homogenized beforehand? how? Using surrounding stations including the one to be homogenized? So once it starts with up’ing one station, it’s surrounding stations will be up’ed, which will be used to up the first station, to up it further, and so on, causing runaway global warming 🙂


OT: The MET office release of a subset of the HADCRU3 data at the following link:
From the Q&A:
“1. Are the data that you are providing the “value-added” or the “underlying” data?
The data that we are providing is the database used to produce the global temperature series. Some of these data are the original underlying observations and some are observations adjusted to account for non climatic influences, for example changes in observations methods.
2. What about the underlying data?
Underlying data are held by the national meterological services and other data providers and such data have in many cases been released for research purposes under specific licences that govern their usage and distribution.
3. Why is there no comprehensive copy of the underlying data?
The data set of temperatures back to 1850 was largely compiled in the 1980s when it was technically difficult and expensive to keep multiple copies of the database.”
This is not the end – looks like this is only the start of the homogenising debate.

Chris Polis

Looks like the UHI is being added instead of taken away..

Ed Scott

“they’ve been completely above board and objective in what they have carried out…”
“there’s no definitive evidence, is there, for global warming?”
“By the time we get definitive evidence, I think it will be much too late…”
The sleazy politician, pseudo-scientist, Pachauri, gives more than enough cause to defund the IPCC and pursue charges for malfeasance in office.
An example of intellectual stupity: There is no definitve evidence (scientific fact), but that is beside the point.
Peter Liss competes with Pachuri, by saying to the skeptics: Prove that global warming/climate change is not caused by man-made Carbon Dioxide emission.
These guys are practicing criminal science.
IPCC chief Dr Rajendra Pachauri tells CNN’s Becky Anderson controversial climate e-mails were just colleagues “letting off steam”
Climate chief dismisses ‘climategate’


Aussie temps have been adjusted before – here are the papers associated with the changes.
Torok – 1996.
Della Marta – Collins in 2003
Collins and Della Marta 1999

John W.

Ian B (11:49:49) :
I’m sure this has already been answered before, so apologies for being a n00b.
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve” from the data to apply to the data, or is it officially acknowledged as being done “by eye”? That is, is it purely judgement calls we’re looking at here, or is there an algorithm that any suitably skilled person could apply to derive an adjustment curve?

I ran a test series once. Afterward, I sent a critical instrument out for calibration. It was off by a fixed amount. In the test report, I presented the raw data (measurements), the cal lab results, and the adjusted data. That’s the right way to do it.
For the met data in question here, it would involve running the new system/location and the old system/location in parallel to obtain “calibration” data to be used in converting from one data set to the other.
One of the constant complaints about the AGW “scientists” is precisely that they:
1. Conceal/withhold the raw data.
2. Don’t explain/ disclose their conversion methods.
If it’s being “done by eye,” without any disclosure, it’s fraud.


Wow, today even the coolest web page with news from computer HW and SW industry covered ClimateGate. The Inquirer is surely most witty, well written and technically superior web page that tells you what’s hot in Silicon Valley. Please read the post by PaulW. “I’ve seen the code”
“You don’t get a hockey stick when you 1) don’t use faked data, 2) include all the data (no cherry picking allowed, don’t use 5 outliers trees as your sole data points for the present, as they did! and they hid it for years!) 3) don’t use some data upside down, which they did, or 4) splice in thermometer data at the end of proxy data. I could go on…”


Please have look at the GISS temp of Darwin Airport from1880’s to 2009.
It’s an average of the high and low temp and it’s definitely a downward trend

Ed Scott

At last, playing in the right ball-park.
What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming
William M. Briggs
“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?
Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding — shared by nearly everybody about the nature of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) — over exactly what constitutes evidence for that theory and what does not.
Remember when we heard that the icebergs were melting, that polar bears were decreasing in number, that some places were drier than usual and that others were wetter, that the ocean was growing saltier here and fresher there, and that hurricanes were becoming more terrifying? Remember the hundreds of reports on what happens when it gets hot outside?
All of those observations might have been true, but absolutely none of them were evidence of AGW.
Diminishing glaciers did not prove AGW; they were instead a verification that ice melts when it gets hot. Fewer polar bears did not count in favor of AGW; it instead perhaps meant that maybe adult bears prefer a chill to get in the mood. People sidling up to microphones and trumpeting “It’s bad out there, worse than we thought!” was not evidence of AGW; it was evidence of how easily certain people could work themselves into a lather.
No observation of what happened to any particular thing when the air was warm was direct evidence of AGW. None of it.
Every breathless report you heard did nothing more than state the obvious: Some creatures and some geophysical processes act or behave differently when it is hot than when it is cold. Only this, and nothing more.
Can you recall where you were when you heard that global warming was going to cause an increase in kidney stones, more suicides in Italy, larger grape harvests in France, and smaller grape harvests in France? How about when you heard that people in one country would grow apathetic, that those in another would grow belligerent, and — my favorite [1] — that prostitutes would be on the rise in the Philippines? That the world would come to a heated end, and that women and minorities would be hardest hit?
Not a single one of these predictions was ever evidence of AGW.
For years, it was as if there was a contest for the most outlandish claim of what might happen if AGW were true. But no statement of what might happen if AGW is true is evidence for AGW. Those prognostications were only evidence of the capacity for fanciful speculation. Merely this and nothing more.
So if observations of what happens when it’s hot outside don’t verify AGW, and if predictions of what might happen given AGW were true do not verify AGW, what does? Why did people get so excited?
In the late 1990s, some places on Earth were hotter than they were in the late 1980s. These observations were indirect — and not direct — evidence of AGW. The Earth’s climate has never been static; temperatures sometimes rise and sometimes fall. So just because we see rising temperatures at one point does not prove AGW is true. After all, temperatures have been falling [2] over the last decade, and AGW supporters still say their theory is true. Rising — or falling — temperatures are thus consistent with many theories of climate, not just AGW.
Climate scientists then built AGW models, incorporating the observed temperatures. They worked hard at fitting those models so that the models could reproduce the rising temperatures of the 1990s, while at the same time fitting the falling temperatures of the 1970s, etc. They had to twist and tweak — and with the CRU emails [3], it now appears they twiddled. They had to cram those observations into the models and, by God, make them fit, like a woman trying on her favorite jeans after Thanksgiving.
They then announced to the world that AGW was true — because their models said it was.
But a model fitting old data is not direct evidence that the theory behind the model is true. Many alternate models can fit that data equally well. It is a necessary requirement for any model, were it true, to fit the data, but because it happens to is not a proof that the model is valid.
For a model to be believable it must make skillful predictions of independent data. It must, that is, make accurate forecasts of the future. The AGW models have not yet done so. There is, therefore, no direct evidence for AGW.
The models predicted warmer temperatures, but it got cooler. One of the revealed CRU emails found one prominent gentlemen saying, “We can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
It is. But only if you were concerned that the AGW theory will be nevermore.


To see Darwin in a regional perspective, visit JoNOva for additional data across tropical northern Australia. It only reinforces Willis’s thesis.


I’ll try that again, hopefully the link to JoNova will show:

Ed Scott

Keeping up with the warmist (cold-hearted) political whores.
The Copenhagen Diagnosis
Updating the World on the Latest Climate Science


Sorry for the OT. Very Interesting from Newsbusters.
Major Media Spread Erroneous U.K. Temperature Data
By Terry Trippany (Bio | Archive)
December 8, 2009 – 15:12 ET
If you go to Google today and search on the phrase “warmest decade” you will get a result set with thousands of breathless articles claiming that 2000 to 2009 is the warmest decade on record. This is on the cusp of an announcement from the UN climate talks in Copenhagen where world leaders are desperate to speed past Climategate and refocus the world’s attention on their apocalyptic global warming agenda.
The media that couldn’t bring themselves to report on the growing scandal surrounding falsified data is all on board with reporting this latest news. Yet it is clear that the Huffington Post, CBS News, the New York Times and others didn’t even bother to check the data that was released from the the UK MET (UK Government Department of Climate and Weather Change). If they had they would have immediately discovered what I found, that the US csv (comma delimited) data dump from 1851 to 2009 is erroneous in its compilation. The January column for each year shows period information instead of temperature records and the latitude appears transposed as well. It appears that they incorrectly shifted the column headers when compling the dump. (Load the raw file into Excel and compare it with the UK csv data to see the erroneous data columns side by side. Data provided by the Guardian UK.)
This data was provided as a means to “dampen the row over the hacked climate science emails”.
The Met Office also released the raw data from around 1,500 global monitoring stations in an effort to satisfy critics who have demanded that researchers be more transparent with their data in the wake of the email hacking row at the University of East Anglia. (UK Guardian, Met Office figures confirm noughties as warmest decade in recorded history)
Don’t jump to any conclusions that this is some sort of conspiracy or that the data itself is incorrect. That can not be surmised without extra information. It is just another indication of the desperation by a group of scientists, policy makers and scare mongers that are too sloppy to check their own facts and figures; even before releasing it to the whole world as proof to counter valid questions concerning the validity of their data.
With full unquestioning faith we are expected to buy into this sloppy sort of science as a foundation toward making public policy that will affect nations of the world’s people for generations to come. If they can’t even get the release of the simplest of data sets correct then what are we to wonder about what it is that they got wrong?

Colin Porter

On a similar theme ,but with a slight digression, I don’t know if you have seen this before, but it seems that you have been concentrating too much on climategate and may have been pipped at the post by a sixth grader called Peter, who has made a direct comparison of rural sites with urban sites, with very interesting results.
I picked it up in a thread by gjg on
Unfortunately it seems not to have been “Peer” reviewed but has most definitely been “Pater” reviewed.

D. King

Copenhagen climate summit in disarray…
“The UN Copenhagen climate talks are in disarray today after developing countries reacted furiously to leaked documents that show world leaders will next week be asked to sign an agreement that hands more power to rich countries and sidelines the UN’s role in all future climate change negotiations.”
Wait till they figure out the whole reduced food thingy.


I’ll repeat again why does the GISS data ( see Bill above ) show a DEFINITE COOLING TREND for Darwin 1880’s to 2009?

Spenc Canada

Is Google censoring? Now I only show 8 mill hits for climategate. This am it was 34 mill, which is also low in my opinion. Now it auto suggests “climategate-Copenhagen” and the articles in the lead are all pro GW? Seems suspicious to me.

Ed Scott

Climategate: Obama’s Science Adviser Confirms the Scandal — Unintentionally
Posted By Myron Ebell On December 5, 2009
I remember when Copenhagen Diagnosis came out because nearly every major paper ran a story on it. Global warming is happening even faster than predicted, the impacts are even worse than feared, and that sort of thing. I also remembered that the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis included many of the usual conmen who are at the center of the alarmist scare. So I asked my CEI colleague Julie Walsh to compare the list of authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis with the scientists involved in Climategate.
I’m sure it will come as a shock that the two groups largely overlap. The “small group of scientists” up to their necks in Climategate include 12 of the 26 esteemed scientists who wrote the Copenhagen Diagnosis. Who would have ever guessed that forty-six percent of the authors of Copenhagen Diagnosis [6] belong to the Climategate gang? Small world, isn’t it?
Here’s the list of tippity-top scientists who both wrote the authoritative report that Holdren relied on to support his statements and belong to the “small group of scientists” who are now suspected of scientific fraud:
Nathan Bindoff, also a lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (hereafter LA-IPCC FAR)
Peter Cox, also LA-IPCC FAR
David Karoly, also LA-IPCC FAR and the Third Assessment Report (TAR)
Georg Kaser, also LA-IPCC FAR
Michael E. Mann, also LA-IPCC TAR (the hockey stick scandal made him too radioactive to participate in writing FAR)
Stefan Rahmstorf, also LA-IPCC FAR
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, merely “a longstanding member of the IPCC.”
Stephen Schneider, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and the First and Second Assessment Reports (SAR) plus two of the IPCC’s synthesis reports
Steven Sherwood, only a contributing author to IPCC-FAR
Richard C. J. Somerville, co-ordinating LA-PCC FAR
Eric J. Steig, no connection to IPCC listed
Andrew Weaver, also LA-IPCC FAR, TAR, and SAR
In the interests of space, I’ve left out all of their distinguished positions as professors, editors of academic journals, and heads of institutes. You can search for their Climategate emails here [7].
Then there are those Climategate figures who didn’t help write Climate Diagnosis, but who have been involved in the IPCC assessment reports. Here are three that come to mind:
Phil Jones, contributing author IPCC TAR
Kevin Trenberth, co-ordinating LA-IPCC FAR and SAR, LA-IPCC TAR, and an author of the summaries for policymakers for FAR, TAR, and SAR
Ben Santer, convening LA-IPCC First Assessment Report
Now, I wouldn’t want to jump to any conclusions here, but it kind of looks to me like the “small group of scientists” caught out by Climategate are pretty much the same people who make up the vast and strong scientific consensus on global warming and write the official reports that the U.S. and other governments rely on to inform their policy decisions. I’m sure Dr. John P. Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, has a plausible alternative explanation. He always does.


So what was the temperature yesterday in Darwin?
What I mean by that is when my weather forcaster tells me what the high and low was are they telling me the raw data or the value added data?

Graeme W

Hysteria (10:15:01) :
good – but will the author address the criticisms leveled in the comments – The most obvious being the rebuttal to his point about the absence of stations within 500km……. It is a great analysis – but let’s make sure it is right eh?

His article clearly stated that he was referring to other stations in 1941. I checked the Australian Bureau of Meterology website and all of the stations you listed as being within 500km have data starting after 1941.
The other issue, that was raised in the other thread, is that the ‘station zero’ data isn’t an actual station, but is the spliced data from two different stations (the Darwin Post Office, which was destroyed in 1941, and the Darwin Airport that has records starting from 1941). That’s not identified in the raw data he’s using.


I repeat (a comment I made on another thread about Darwin), go to Wolfram Alpha
Enter the search terms darwin airport uk temperature
Then, from the popdown menu, select “All” to see that Darwin’s avg., temp has been a very constant 80DegC for the last 50 years.
See, also, the lead article here for Greenland’s precipitous and sustained DROP in temperature, that you will not hear about from the warmers.
If a warmer’s lips are moving, he’s almost certainly lying.

Peter S

The Jo Nova link is an excellent one – following through on Darwin Smoking Gun by looking at nearby stations.
Anthony might consider this report deserves a follow-on post of its own.


I’m getting heavily confused. The GISS graphs displayed here:
have been prepared from raw temp data, or are those after “adjustments” ?


poetpiet (10:47:47) :
I can only suggest ventilating the room for a few hours before posting. While I appreciate that there is a correlation between crack use and HadCRUT post 1980, I’m just not convinced of causation.
manfred (11:24:57) :
shouldn’t homogenization generally enhance a temperature trend ?
Enhancement is the problem. Homogenization [in this sense] should seek only to make a sensible series out of the data available for that station. Enhancement as seen here is otherwise called “fudge”.
As for coastal v inland, I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that a station can only ever be compared to itself and even then only if it is the same station. If my coastal station shows a -0.3°C trend and you decide to “enhance” it using a bit of “inland” warming, you have made “liars” of both stations. Try it with your bank balance if you don’t see my point.
Leon Palmer (11:50:17) :
I’m wondering if it isn’t recursive homogenization.
Was asking myself that very same question while reading the source article this afternoon. It is obviously a question that will take a lot longer to answer than most. It does seem plausible though. [for Australia] Target Alice Springs.. grab 5 stations … adjust Alice Springs. Move in any direction .. get a new target .. grab 5 stations [including Alice Springs] … adjust… Positive feedback is real.
Ian B (11:49:49) :
Is there some stated algorithmic, reproducible method for deriving an “adjustment curve”
Plenty. And that is the core of the problem. Pick an algorithm (or combination of) that when applied in a “one size fits all” fashion to every station on the planet gives you the answer you expect then simply quote the source paper. You too are now peer review proof. Station details? We don’t need no stinkin station details.
Jack in Oregon (11:03:34) :
I believe what we need to do now is to start a surfacestation type project that is focused on finding the raw daily data for the actual surfacestations
While I agree it would be nice and I would certainly get involved with a kind of “open source” project to do all that, I don’t know that it helps in this instance.
The problem (as I see it) here is that we have a series..
(A) 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10
GISS take that series and come up with …
(B) 9,9.3 ,9.5,9.7,9.9,10,10.25,10.5,10.75,11,11.25,11.5
CRU (will we ever know?) come up with ..
(C) 10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,11,13,15
It really doesn’t matter in this case that (A) is accurate. The real question is how did (B) and (C) using (A) arrive at their respective series?


The mentalists have taken over Richard Dawkin’s forum. One of them, posting in response to this debate over Darwin, has come up with an interesting image:
This appears to show that Darwin is in a somewhat unique position, would you not agree?

Akira Shirakawa

Regarding Darwin temperature data and the recently officially released HADCRU data subset I found this link on Climate Audit. It’s a rather interesting find:

Akira Shirakawa

Sorry, I meant the Air Vent blog.


Alice Springs: Station # 015590 23.7 S, 133.88 E
I get a slope difference that is really different for different months.
Are these the same stations; or is the difference between the town and airport 10 km away?
This is a nice area to do UHI.

Fred Harwood

I really miss Steve, and hope for less personalities and more auditing. The subject matter, matters.