Which NASA climate data to believe?

Anthony, sorry to raise the “fraud” versus “common human error” issue again, but I want to make the point that, just as surely as we cannot insist that this is fraud, it also cannot be said with any certainty that this is mere incompetence.
Yes, we must always give the benefit of the doubt, but I think the truth lies somewhere between the two. Here’s my best shot:
I don’t think GISS, NASA, etc. are very inclined to flag errors biased toward warming as problematic as much as errors that go the other way. I’m open to evidence to the contrary, but given the vast array of errors that have been enumerated here, at CA and elsewhere, one would expect something close to 50% of the total should indicate erring on the low side. I have the impression that this is not the case.
“Fraud” is a strong word. But I think what we see is a bias in the error detection and correction phase introduced by wishful thinking, paradigm fixation and groupthink. As any scientist knows, we are quicker to have a second look at outcomes that don’t jive with our expectations. Record warmth in Finland? Even as a mere island of highs in an ocean of lows — this only justifies certain people’s expectations, so why expect there to be a problem?
I grant that these folks are honest enough to fix such errors once aware of it, and I see no clear evidence (tempting as it is to say otherwise) that they are only doing so because they’ve been “caught”. But I believe the point must be made that the skeptical community is doing a clear service by being alert to precisely those errors that the AGW community tends to overlook.
When nobody seems to be objective, it helps to have a dynamic of free exchange of ideas among opposing viewpoints. Keeps everyone honest.

Anthony, This comment is not directly concerning the topic of “Which NASA climate data to believe?” but does indirectly and I wanted to post it on a recent thread, so please excuse me.
I have always found your articles very helpful and found no reason to regard you as anything but honourable. I came across a March article “Message to Anthony Watts” (Note 4) on the blog of “Tamino” which I guess relates to E. M. Smith’s 12th Feb. article “NOAA langoliers eat another 1/3 of stations from GHCN database” (Note 5).
“Tamino” said QUOTE: Anthony: It has now been independenly confirmed, by multiple persons, that my results regarding the impact of station dropout on global temperature are correct. Your claims, in your document with Joe D’Aleo for the SPPI, are just plain wrong.
You’ve avoided answering this criticism, claiming that you can’t replicate my results without my code. Yet several others managed to do just that. It’s not that difficult, and you were irresponsible not to investigate this issue before publishing your claims. The posts by E.M. Smith are so incoherent they resemble the ravings of a lunatic more than the results of a qualified analyst. Your only other response has been to call me a coward for blogging under a pseudonym. That’s nothing but a desperate attempt of a scoundrel to deflect attention from his own misdeeds.
Furthermore, your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical.
If you have any honor at all, you’ll set the record straight. You owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were wrong. And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize. You need to make a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud.
Are you man enough? UNQUOTE.
Please can you point me to any response that you have made to “Tamino”.
Someone calling himself Justin Ciderbottom (I did find one other comment by a Justin Ciderbottom on The Air Vent “How to Read RC” article – Note 6 – but nothing else so perhaps my first impression of “Justin Ciderbottom” was correct) and one Roger kept trying to get “Tamino” to disclose who he really is. “Justin” also asked QUOTE: Are you willing to debate Mr Watts, tell everyone who you are, and your qualifications? UNQUOTE but all that “Tamino” would say on the subject was things like QUOTE: Anthony Watts used false claims as the basis for accusing NOAA scientists of fraud. If he doesn’t admit his mistake and apologize for the unfounded accusation, he has no honor. None. .. Mr. Watts .. doesn’t admit his mistake and apologize for the unfounded accusation, he has no honor. .. Why do you go over to WUWT and insist that Anthony deal with the issue at hand?] … UNQUOTE.
I posted a comment on Tamino’s thread a couple of times and although it did stay on the thread for a while, as soon as it was moderated it was removed so it looks as though I hit a nerve. Here is what I posted QUOTE:
Justin, perhaps you feel the same as I do about people who hide behind false names – it always makes me suspicious. According to the Bayesian Statistics Blog (Note 1) QUOTE: Tamino, a notorious “climate change” blogger, is alleged to also be a statistician. He certainly seems to know something about time series. (Thanks to this investigation, we know that Tamino is Grant Foster, writer of “blog diatribe”-style climate papers. His affiliation in the linked paper is “Tempo Analytics, Westbrook, Maine”, but I can’t find any other reference to it online) UNQUOTE. This fits in with an impression I came to when reading Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature” by J. D. McLean, C. R. de Freitas, and R. M. Carter from G. Foster et al. (Note 2) linked on the “too bad to be believed” blog (Note 3) of Eli Rabett (thought by some to be Joshua Halpern).
UNQUOTE.
As I intimated to “Tamino”, I am suspicious of anyone who hides behind a mask and to me a false name is just as much a mask as a real one. If I have to chose between two people who to trust, one of whom is wearing a mask and the other is not then I’m inclined to trust the latter. I don’t think many of us would choose the former.
As a matter of interest I see that Grant Foster figures in those Climategate E-mails (address tamino_9 – Note 7)) talking with the co-authors of “Comment on “Influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature”.
NOTES:
1) see http://bayesianstats.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/bad-bayes-still-bad/
2) see http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/comment_on_mclean.pdf
3) see http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/03/too-bad-to-be-believed.html
4) see http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/03/05/message-to-anthony-watts/#comment-41510
5) see http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/12/noaa-drops-another-13-of-stations-from-ghcn-database /
6) see http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/10/01/how-to-read-rc/
7) see http://www.climate-gate.com/search.php?tag=345
Best regards, Pete Ridley
REPLY: Hello Pete.
The reasons you cite are exactly why I don’t respond to “Tamino”. He’s complaining about a publication, with both Joe D’Aleo and my name plainly on the cover. Yet in his criticism, he has not the courage to put his own name to his criticism. Science is supposed to operate on a level playing field. If someone publishes a paper in a journal for example, the journal will not accept and publish a criticism from somebody named “Bugs Bunny” anymore than that would from somebody who signs their name as “Tamino”.
“Tamino” wants all the benefits of a public criticsm, but none of the risks himself. Until he puts his name on what he publishes, I have no intention of addressing him anymore than I would address somebody who calls himself “Bugs Bunny”
On that note, there have been other valid criticisms of that publication done by people who have the integrity to sign their names to their work. The recently updated version 2 of the paper (April 13) now available at http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/policy_driven_deception.html addresses some of those criticisms. I ask that you read the update and tell me if you think what has been published, in good faith, again with out names attached front and center, is something that we should apologize to an anonymous coward for. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony Watts