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.
Incompetent by intent or convenience or perhaps even by sloth would be the kindest way to put it. Kind of hard to assign this to just plain old stupidity when there are so many with advanced degrees who would have to be stupid to the last man.
The plain fact of the matter is that the ground temperature network was never designed for the kind of accuracy and precision needed to establish temperature trends of tenths of degrees per century all over the globe. Pretending it can be co-opted for that purpose IS stupid and/or dishonest.
Question: “Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?”
Answer: “Yes.”
I don’t need to read the blasted essay. It’s just more of the same. I’m tired of reading essay after essay after essay which states what was glaringly obvious from day one.
Look, Anthony: If you are really honest with yourself you have to admit something set off alarms in your psyche, and motivated you to start “checking up on” these blithering Bozos. Something did not seem right.
Now ask yourself the simple question, “what is the opposite of right?” Indeed, the answer is “wrong.”
If it were a matter of simple incompitance, these fellows would welcome being shown they were making a mistake. It is tantimount to being about to hit your thumb with a hammer, and being advised against swinging the hammer downwards. Even if we took offence at being told we were “wrong,” (due to the haughty nature of the human ego,) the very fact we could look ahead and imagine the pain of turning our thumb a horrible shade of blue with a hammer would turn our “taking-offence” into “gratitude.”
Now I ask you, Anthony, how much gratitude have you recieved from these fellows?
The fact they are not grateful, when people such as yourself gently and Oh so politely try to point out their wrongs, and instead they totally trash people such as yourself, seems to indicate they are absolutely determined to hammer their thumbs.
This is something beyond incompetance. It involves something less than likable, which is another “wrong” which needs to be “righted.”
When you use the word, “incompitance,” Anthoney, you should be aware it refers to the adjective “incompetant,” and that an adjective requires a noun. What is the noun?
If the noun is “scientist,” there is no harm in incompetance, because the noun “scientist” means you are a person who loves truth. An incompetant scientist will not mind having his incompetance pointed out, for it means he will see truth, which he loves, all the more clearly.
However these fellows most definately dislike having their incompetance pointed out, and will take steps which muddle the truth, to a degree where it is blatantly obvious truth doesn’t matter to them. And the word for this state of mind is “corrupt.”
To call them “corrupt scientists” is an oximoron, like “near miss.” No true scientist can be corrupt. Therefore they must be described with a different noun.
(Please delete previous comment and use this spell-checked version)
Question: “Is the Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?”
Answer: “Yes.”
I don’t need to read the blasted essay. It’s just more of the same. I’m tired of reading essay after essay after essay which states what was glaringly obvious from day one.
Look, Anthony: If you are really honest with yourself you have to admit something set off alarms in your psyche, and motivated you to start “checking up on” these blithering Bozos. Something did not seem right.
Now ask yourself the simple question, “what is the opposite of right?” Indeed, the answer is “wrong.”
If it were a matter of simple incompetence, these fellows would welcome being shown they were making a mistake. It is tantamount to being about to hit your thumb with a hammer, and being advised against swinging the hammer downwards. Even if we took offence at being told we were “wrong,” (due to the haughty nature of the human ego,) the very fact we could look ahead and imagine the pain of turning our thumb a horrible shade of blue with a hammer would turn our “taking-offence” into “gratitude.”
Now I ask you, Anthony, how much gratitude have you received from these fellows?
The fact they are not grateful, when people gently and Oh so politely try to point out their wrongs, and instead totally trash people such as yourself, seems to indicate they are absolutely determined to hammer their thumbs.
This is something beyond incompetence. It involves something less than likable, which is another “wrong” which needs to be “righted.”
When you use the word, “incompetence,” Anthony, you should be aware it refers to the adjective “incompetence,” and that an adjective requires a noun. What is the noun?
If the noun is “scientist,” there is no harm in incompetence, because the noun “scientist” means you are a person who loves truth. An incompetent scientist will not mind having his incompetence pointed out, for it means he will see truth, which he loves, all the more clearly.
However these fellows most definitely dislike having their incompetence pointed out, and will take steps which muddle the truth, to a degree where it is blatantly obvious truth doesn’t matter to them. And the word for this state of mind is “corrupt.”
To call them “corrupt scientists” is an oxymoron, like “near miss.” No true scientist can be corrupt. Therefore they must be described with a different noun.
“The public may not understand the science but they do understand cheating”
But if you don’t understand the science, how can you differentiate between valid scientic methods and cheating? So many areas of science are under attack because the methods are not understood and the conclusions conflict with people’s perception of reality (be it in medicine or evolution or climate research). One thing I’ve learned with science is that the much lauded common sense if very often incompatible with the results of the scientific method.
I am on the side of those that think playing nice with these folk has gone on too long. Dr. Evans puts the salient points together succinctly and with candor (which is in short supply in this era of political correctness). Hopefully this will receive enough widespread attention to result in needed policy changes, but I’m not holding my breath.
Thank you, Caleb. I loved your post and agree with every word.
Yep it could have been published as a summary without the inflammatory title…
How on earth did civilization advance to its present high state given the apparent low character and base intentions of its present guardians? Were our best and brightest always this bloody useless and we never noticed?
So, we’re reduced to making difficult decisions between incompetence and corruption as motives for our High Priests’ useless science? Those are our choices? We have little to fear from shifts in climate, much to fear from those who lead us through those shifts. God save us from our own self-righteous elite and their foolish plans for our betterment and salvation. A pox on all of them!!
It looks like they at least did properly recognize Anthony and surfacestations.org on each photo from surfacestations.org used in the photos explanatory text. Though I might have missed one or two.
I drop in, whenever I’m able, to read Anthony’s fascinating articles and the equally
fascinating comments. I congratulate you all. As a ‘non-scientist’ (I just observe stuff and rest in the fact that GOD uses the foolish things of this world to confound the “wise”- in- their- own- minds’. so I listen, read, and pray.
After reading the majority of these posts, though ~ I must admit that ‘you Scientists’ may need to get out for a breath of fresh air ~ just a quiet walk in the woods to ‘meditate’ or to ‘pray’ for yourselves…….
Because, I for one ~ being non-political and VERY objective ~ know that the end result of all this Carbon Non(e)sense goes immediately to the Fabian’s and the Eugenics movement. I mean ~ ‘C’Mon’ GUYS!!! Everyone knows that the less human ‘virus’ you have around……….the less Carbon is emitted, right? I mean, feigning that these ‘alarmists’ (always loathed those things, anyway…it’s their infernal buzzing at 5am or later, actually…) are benevolent rather than mal ~ is ~ gosh…….dare I say it? COMPLETE HOG WASH (whatever Hog Wash is……opphs! I best go off to do do more ‘research’.)……
God bless those of you who are or rather ‘have’ inklings in the style of Lewis…
Your Sister in Science ~ Cynthia Lauren
…forgot to say that I won’t…HOLD MY BREATH.
hahaha… gotta love humor.
Cynthia
By their actions we shall know them. A well written article, thanks for posting it.
Anthony
I found the essay by David Evans to be competent and challenging – to me the greatest frustrations as a geologist remain the dashed hopes of integrity in temperature measurement (reduced stations, manipulation of data), and the apparent secrecy now attached to Argo buoy data, which I once ideally thought would answer some basic questions on sea temperatures and even pH and salinity. In view of the secrecy, Evans rightly or wrongly concludes that the Argo people just want to hide data that is unwelcome to the warmists. Where can Joe Citizen get access to Argo to get a handle on results??
Geoff Derrick
G M Derrick Geology Brisbane Australia
Dave Springer says:
November 8, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Incompetent by intent or convenience or perhaps even by sloth would be the kindest way to put it. Kind of hard to assign this to just plain old stupidity when there are so many with advanced degrees who would have to be stupid to the last man.
The plain fact of the matter is that the ground temperature network was never designed for the kind of accuracy and precision needed to establish temperature trends of tenths of degrees per century all over the globe. Pretending it can be co-opted for that purpose IS stupid and/or dishonest.
You raise a MOST interesting point: HOW MANY of ALL of the thermometers used to measure land temperature are —and have had— scales delineated in tenths of a degree?
ANTHONY:
That’s a most salient point, and one which you might consider tackling in the quest to discover just how realistic the measurements have been, and/or whether the interpolations are accurate enough to be used for scientific determinations.
If weather stations of the past —and present—were/are using mere 2º delineation commercial thermometers as their basis of measurement, then there is NO WAY that tenths of a degree would ever be resolved. Not accurately. Interpolation is in the eye of the beholder.
Further, and I’ve raised this point in the past: WHEN were those thermometers calibrated, and HOW OFTEN were they re-calibrated to assure their accuracy?
What was/is the traceability of accuracy?
Who will swear to that?
Apologies upfront: I generally read all comments before posting but am not doing that tonight due to time demands. Apologies for any repetition.
Anthony asked for criticism, so I’ll give it. I’ll speak first to Anthony’s stated concern and then to the the paper.
Anthony, you’re too kind hearted a soul, or I’m too much the opposite. Starry eyed grad students can be forgiven their incompetence because they are blinding following the leaders in their chosen field. However, whomever chooses which sites should be included in analysis and fails to provide any caution regarding siting issues is in my opinion deliberately malicious. They know that lying by omission will shape the opinion of the students and public.
To the paper…
I’m providing a critique, meaning I’m not stating where I personally agree or where I’ve found convincing supporting evidence to agree. This is a critique, it is in no way personal. Calling it like I see it.
I cannot tell who the intended audience is for this paper. I assume it is for those “not in the know” and will proceed under that assumption as the paper is an intended summary of the basic points of “our side” and therefore wouldn’t be necessary if it were directed toward “us”.
If this is for public consumption, then change “mean” to “average” on page 10 as mean is being used for the commonly understood definition of average. You don’t want to lose the audience with the first mention of statistics.
Add Fahrenheit temps in parenthesis after Celsius temps as feet is after meters in some places. Be consistent with both throughout.
On page 12, a statement regarding that airport thermometers were never supposed to be a part of the global climate record is needed. Otherwise, as a layman, I’m saying, “so, they’re there why not use them?”
On page 13, the statement “if a financial organization or drug company tried to pull this kind of deception they would get busted” needs clarification and support. The banks and drug companies aren’t doing temp measurements. I understand the allusion, but it still isn’t clearly spelled out as a typical argument should be.
On page 16, the introduction of the term El Nino would be confusing to the layman, and the point therefore lost. Explain what El Nino is.
On page 16, the phrase “which won’t report for 50 years” is erroneous, the new stations will begin reporting immediately but won’t produce a meaningful trend for about 50 years as mentioned previously in the paper.
On page 17, the Argo graph needs more explanation for the layman. Ask the guy on the street what a “Joule” is and you’re going to hear about rocks for girlfriends.
On page 19, bullet point 3 states “except tree rings”. So what? If I hadn’t already read the Hockey Stick Illusion this statement would come from left field.
The charts throughout the paper have been zeroed. This will not make sense to the common man. Explain zeroing or show the actual temps on the Y-axis.
On page 20, the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are introduced without support. As a layman I would find these topics out of place as the Hockey Stick hasn’t been shown or discussed yet.
On page 21, “the establishment do not” should read “the establishment does not”. The establishment is not a collective noun. Members of the establishment do not, the establishment does not.
On page 23, the caption is weak. The argument from the warmistas is not that all heating is attributable to CO2, but that man’s contribution pushes the atmosphere over the brink. Their point is that man-made CO2 is adding to the natural heating detrimentally, not causing all heating.
On page 25, the Hockey Stick needs an introduction instead of a depiction of Vikings. Otherwise, the narrative starts at a point that cannot be understood unless the point is already known. Again, I’m assuming the intended reader is a layman, that is someone who is intelligent and going on about their life learning what they need to survive and excel in their field without any appreciable concern for AGW.
Somewhere around this point in the paper the layman could have used a description of the logarithmic nature of CO2’s ability to cause warming.
“Western” is not consistently capitalized throughout, although strangely “West” is.
On page 29, the terms “anthropogenic” and “IPCC” are introduced without definition.
On page 29, “The Report” should be “The report”.
Page 30 reads like something lifted from Art Bell’s website.
On page 32, bullet 3, the phrase “the earth” should read “the Earth” unless you are specifically referring to soil, which you don’t seem to be.
On page 33, bullet 2 “it can forms clouds”. Seriously?
On page 35, a transition is needed to the concept of the radiosondes as the statement is made that “The outcome of the climate debate hinges on this issue: a hotspot confirms their theory, its absence falsifies their theory.” You mention all the right clues prior, but the layman isn’t going to have followed along to the next point and the subject in this point seems to have concluded.
On page 38, “Even if you don’t understand the significance of the hotspot”, ummm, given all of your basic mistakes so far, don’t dare insult the reader.
On page 38, “In biblical times they blamed the Gods”. No. “Biblical” is generally capitalized in the frame of reference of the Christians who would say “God” and they only blamed one God. If you are suggesting that during biblical times, different peoples blamed their gods, then there would be no capitalization of “gods”.
Page 39 is seriously disjointed.
On page 42 is your tribute to yourself where you state: “Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analysing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks.” Wow! That’s Mannian levels of self appreciation there!
So, there it is, my critique of the paper without stating the large majority I do agree with. Basically, this paper seems to have been written in one sitting.
Burning with the need to flame me now? Fine. I make no apologies for the recklessness of my blog posts because my intended audience is myself and my editor is my beer in hand.
[Lots of effort. Thank you, Robt]
Factually not bad. Of course it is a very one-sided presentation to the point of being unfair in its portrayal of climate scientists and their motivations. But nothing he says about the science is actually wrong, at least as I understand it.
There are some things missing that I think should be in there. He left out commenting on the way the climate establishment focuses only on negative effects of warming while ignoring or understating positive effects. For example the greening of the world over the last few decades is statistically significant and quite dramatic. Indeed this is one of the very few recent changes in the climate that actually IS significant (as a statistician would use the term). Yet it doesn’t get nearly the attention it deserves probably because people might then think that a greener world was a better one.
The language is rather extreme. But you know what … the climate establishment has left itself open to precisely this kind of accusation by its actions. What they are doing CAN be construed in this way, and if they were behaving properly this wouldn’t be possible. If they don’t want to be accused in these terms then maybe they should mend their ways and start behaving with more integrity.
CL Thorpe, your comment on ‘hogwash’ made me curious. It’s pig food, swill.
As a global warming skeptic, I haven’t read through the whole report yet, but just from skimming it appears to me that this person is trying to make an impact on laypersons who assume that it’s absolute temperature values that make a difference rather than station anomalies (change in temperature).
He starts right off with pictures of poorly placed thermometers, and indicates that the thermometers are being placed near buildings and concrete and such because it will give a quote “artificial nudge” to the thermometers. This is misleading because it’s the change in temperature that’s relevant. The meteorologist over at wunderground has argued that this type of placement is more likely to lead to underestimation of alleged warming, if anything.
What I believe it does mean is that temperature observations at such stations are more likely to be unreliable. But a direct assertion that such placement is intentional to give an “artificial nudge” to the recorded temperature doesn’t make sense, because temperature anomalies are used rather than raw temperature data.
@ur momisugly scott ramsdell:
November 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm
If no else thanks you, I will for that great by topic by topic correction. I’ll use your comments when I comment here from now on to make it easier for the laymen reading here who want to know but left their science from high school or college way behind years ago. Thanks again.
REPLY: Because I’ve met some of the players. Incompetence rules supreme in government jobs. – Anthony
How about the trainers, coaches and team owners?
Anthony is not being too nice. He is noting that the likelihood of a giant conspiracy is vanishingly small. Therefore, incompetence is a larger possibility. There is also the possibility that the AGW camp is right. Of course, the evidence against them mostly points to incompetence. Bad siting, floating stations, stations parked on graves, interpolation issues, et cetera. The insistence that the method is correct is flawed, but understandable. I am with Mr. Watts in thinking that malice is not a factor. I differ here: Until Mann and the bunker mentality set in. Then you get Ben Santer wanting to rough up some hooligans in the alley. Phil Jones not sharing. The “Why should I share my data when you just want to find something wrong with it?” Again, though, I feel that incompetence is the cause here, but an incompetence of courage.
Maybe a lost comment:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/08/new-essay-from-dr-david-evans-and-sppi/#comment-526010
Not sure, but there is some quirk in WP (or Mozilla) that seems to eat comments, and sometimes does, but sometimes doesn’t.
wayne says:
November 8, 2010 at 10:10 pm
@ur momisugly scott ramsdell:
November 8, 2010 at 9:12 pm
If no else thanks you, I will for that great by topic by topic correction. I’ll use your comments when I comment here from now on to make it easier for the laymen reading here who want to know but left their science from high school or college way behind years ago. Thanks again.
==========================================================
I assume this is facetious as I made no comments toward the science. My criticism assumed that the paper was directed toward the layman as there would be no point to direct it toward long term posters such as yourself Wayne.
Maybe we need a new term for incompetence that has a REALLY big payoff?
I think it is not just incompetence, it is also group behavior.
I worked for 40 years as a member of large groups of scientists. I started with a group of 20 from four labs, and by retirement ended up with a group of over 2000 from over 300 labs. Very early on I realized that there is a sociology of groups , scientific groups too fall in that category.
There is group think in groups of scientists too, which influences decisions not always in the best direction. Once a decision is pushed through, usually by consensus but after negative positions are clearly presented, there is polarization, similar to football fan polarization. Follow the leader(s) must be a survival trait carried by our genes.
Now dissenters are not called “deniers” , but certainly it is the supporters who will get the best posts within the group hierarchy. Sometimes dissenters split off and start looking for axions.
I am saying that due to the great facilitation of the internet, climate scientists have fallen into this “group” “follow the leader(s)” behavior from the “madness of crowds” and not particularly from incompetence of fraud. It is the leaders who frame the decisions and those are the ones who might be accused of both, but leaders also have their psychological feed backs from the crowds and it might be this was their only reward.
So I am with Anthony, until there is a sociological study or a court lets go with incompetence and “madness of crowds”.