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.
post lost 🙁
Steve November 8, 2010 at 9:54 pm
Just the anomalies matter, so bad placement doesn’t matter?
Did you forget, dismiss, or deliberately ignore the long-term trends derived from the heating-up of these stations?
@ur momisugly scott ramsdell:
November 8, 2010 at 10:40 pm
No Scott, you took that wrong. That was a sincere thanks. I have people read here but few are savvy to science lingo and they are soon lost in the nomenclature as you pointed out about this paper. It’s just that the same points you made of the paper apply when each and everyone of us comment or post here. If we want more people to understand then it’s important to watch the terminology. I just thought your detail was great, lots of examples of where we say some things well understood here that might throw a normal guy new to this climate science.
Interesting to note in more and more comments that there is a political agenda that uses AGW very successfully as a motivating tool.
Steve says:
November 8, 2010 at 9:54 pm
<>
Realistically, IMHO, the temp data sets from poorly sited ground stations and especially those within an urban setting are indeed more likely to be unreliable. However, unless a thermometer is placed virtually adjacent to a (large) cooling stream of air, I cannot envisage a situation where any typical stations would underestimate warming as per wunderground guy you mention. I suppose a situation near to a large water fountain, whereby a fine mist of water is wafted around the station, and could cause local air ‘cooling’ via latent heat of evaporation, etc – but how likely is that?
One of the photos shows a small metal rain gauge being shown as a ‘reflector’ – this seems a little excessive, as indeed, it would only reflect sunlight onto the temp screen at certain limited times and would be unlikely to significantly affect results IMO, but obviously still needs consideration if we are trying for total accuracy.
I find it hard to understand why proper standardised station placement, design and construction is so apparently difficult to achieve?
Re using temp anomalies – the basic idea is that a temp anomaly is to observe the trends and largely assume ‘local factors’ would be wiped out. But increasing urbanisation would in itself be a local factor trend – and the temp anomaly ‘baseline’ that’s chosen could of course accentuate this UHI or mitigate it – depending on the timespan and conditions prevailing for the dataset average to define the zero baseline. So, if there was a load of urban development within that timespan, the baseline will be slightly higher, – if not, and urban development continues after the baseline data timespan, the observed UHI effect would be greater.
And then of course, there’s ‘homogenisation’ – unless raw and adjusted datasets are presented in parallel, with explanations of differences, proper comparison is difficult.
Anthony you have brought great credit to the cause and yourself throughout by being so decent but the terms “cheating’ and “deception” are probably the same ones the media will switch to when they jump, and they have to soon. All these environment reporters can’t just shut up forever. Evans knows this moment is coming and when they lash out it will be pirana like. In the press they need stuff to go on about and silence doesn’t sell papers. We are getting closer every day. I have seen Evans on TV and he is measured and convincing, the boldness of this essay says something about where he sees the game heading next year.
BP and Shell established the CRU in 1971. They still fund it – along with other major oil & gas producers and the nuclear industry The only logical reason for doing this was to provide a scientific justification for shutting down the coal industry. Shutting down coal means far more natural gas is sold.
In creating the CRU it is obvious that Shell and BP deliberately chose the worst university in Britain. The University of East Anglia was newly created, cash-strapped and haven for left wing activists.
BP and Shell also made sure that CRU was stacked with mediocre activist scientists. Why would they do this? A highly reputable university such as Oxford or Harvard would have demanded far more rigorous checks and balances and a far higher degree of independence from the cash source. Mediocre scientists are far more malleable because they don’t have a choice of alternative jobs.
The outcome was predictable. If you get a bunch of third rate researchers and ply them with enough money will get the results you want.
Appointing oil company director Rajendra Pachauri to head the IPCC was extra insurance.
Thanks, Rhoda. Yes. I was searching for an appropriate word and *while I’ve NEVER used the word ‘hog wash’ in my lifetime before today ~ it was the ONLY statement that utterly fit my sentiments. Just for ‘grins’ I did google ‘hog wash’ and found that our ‘common meaning’ of the word, while indeed being ‘slop’……. linguistically speaking ~ the not so very omnipotent ‘they’ have also labeled a guy who formerly worked with NASA with the ‘term’ ~ as sort of a nickname. Sad, isn’t it? From my recollection, his name had the misfortune of sounding like ‘hogwash’….. or something like that. I do sincerely enjoy research, hence ~ here I am ~ philosophizing while Rome burns???? Oh. You ‘may’ like this one, too ~ if GOD uses the foolish to confound the wise ~ why is it that so many good souls are finding ‘con’s found in this climate bruhaha?
C L Thorpe
David Evans is considered somewhat arrogant. However he is entitled to be. He completed six science, engineering and mathematics degrees in just nine years. He obtained four degrees from Stanford in four years- three MS degrees and a PhD.
Good facts in this document (mostly from Mr. Watts), but too agressively presented.
This is the worst way to do things…because it is very probable most people using temperature records have no idea about this, and they will reject everything because nobody like to be treated like a cheater, a liar.
This document can’t be taken seriously….worse: it links these very serious facts about temperature stations, with a conspiracy theory, giving very good arguments to reject it. Scientists are human before being scientists, and unfortunately, humans are emotional before being rational.
Even in front of a blatant mistake, people won’t admit anything unless they can save face.
‘Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by simple incompetence.’
Odd that the ‘incompetence’ always comes out in the warming of modern data and cooling of older data. I suppose, if one was to be very generous [and you are this more-so than I can manage!], one could just say that the believers spot incompetence (and remove the results) when it leads to results contrary to their views – a sort-of biased editing of the results of neutral incompetence!
I have been following Dr Evans’ cumulative epistles on Jo Nova’s excellent site as they have appeared, installment by installment. To understand Dr Evans’ tactics, it must be understood that Australia has become a battleground with Green activists gaining control of much of the common weal with increasingly disastrous results, such as landowners/farmers no longer being allowed to carry out sensible bushfire mitigation activities. The case of the Thomsons and their difficulties operating their properly and legally set-up feed lot at Narrogin which began when Mr Thomson voiced his doubts about AGW very publicly are the kind of situation that is becoming a commonplace in Australia. When ‘science’ is so egregiously mis-used to not only mislead the general public but to impoverish them as well, Dr Evans paper seems a timely response to me.
Anthony, I have the utmost respect and admiration for you, but I too have had personal experiences in government service that have left me in no doubt the corruption does flourish in pockets of government service wherever government service exists. Putting it all down to ‘Cock-up theory’ is too much for many like me to accept. The dishonesty and nastiness that was exposed by the releasing of the ‘Climategate’ emails and the continuing dishonesty of the enquiries into that affair, the tactics of leading members of the Royal Society and the APS’s reaction to Dr Lewis and his very public retirement must be countered intelligently and effectively. In my personal opinion, Dr Evans is doing that and doing it very well.
I would say it is malicicous to use the incompetence of laypersons to advance your own political causes.
Was Beatlemania a conspiracy, or just a movement in mass culture? I see the popularity of AGW as being largely due to the story having appeal to a mass cultural movement. In reality AGW might be true or it might not. But notice how many people would be disappointed if it wasn’t? My greenie friends would be. They feel eager for something to change, for the world to slow down, for life to become more balanced, and for everyone to make the environment their core value. Many intelligent people have this feeling, and a number of them are scientists.
Meanwhile some politicians take notice, and some businesses take notice, and perhaps they seek to gain some advantage from this opportunity, rather like a band manager who wants to sell records, regardless of whether they are good or not. When AGW supporters say it is ridiculous to imagine there’s a conspiracy, I think in their hearts they feel this because in their hearts they truly feel that they care about a more “natural balanced world”. They do care. My own objection to them is that, whilst they care, they need to start understanding complexity, unintended consequences, and yes, that some businesses will make money out of this, whether they like it or not.
An environmentalist who worked in carbon trading told me flat out, that AGW doesn’t have to be true, because it is about “reducing greed.” That’s not a conspiracy. That’s just a popular movement.
Sorry, “malicious”.
Jan ~ I just can’t figure that last statement out… EVERY person… lay or whatever ~
is/MUST BE incompetent in at least SOME aspect of this globe. People are manipulated all the time, since the beginning of time ~ and all of us can rightly benefit from taking off our rose-colored glasses to examine truths. The TRUTH is that just like ‘reduce, re-use, recycle’ propaganda drummed into each of us on a daily basis ~ YES. Recycling is ‘nice’ and not malicious ~ but ~ as we busy ourselves in the latest (now global) fad ~ rest assured that there are those who enjoy our lack of attention elsewhere to exploit it to the MAX. Malicious or not ~ it’s plain ol’ human nature. That’s why servant leaders are so rare, such an exception. And, as an ‘aside’ I’d like to share with all you polite ‘non-Americans’ out here, that while we are indeed a bit brash ~ the world needs EACH OF US ~ so, now if you’ll excuse me ~ I’m gonna go relish the fact that we in the Southeast of Australia won’t have to be bagging our sheep gas in order to maintain the farm’s profitability.
C.L. Thorpe
From Band managers to AGW being all about ‘reducing greed’ ~ How naive are we?
Don’t answer that. I’ve worked in the music industry and I’ve had to stop my cockle hunting because of Greenies…sigh… Allow me to enlighten. BOTH are ‘cogs in the machine’ and BOTH are simply a means to an end. Not seeing this is fairly tragic. I’ll pick up pieces of garbage on the beach for FUN as long as I can continue to make my New England clam chowder, folks…but, them Greenies ~ it’s the cockles first, and then People Proof Fences as we allow the rabbits to run free. I’ve got one last grabber for all the Scientists out there……… are you all ‘aware’ that heterosexuals are called ‘Breeders’ and have been for YEARS now? It’s high time that this community/global village, or whatever ~ wakes up and sees that ‘as we farm’ so we ‘are being farmed’.
Global Warming/et Al…… is simply a means to an end. You smart guys just keep on being honorable and I’ll keep praying for you all.
C.L. Thorpe
I’m very concerned by Dr Evans’ comments about the Argo network. He states that the record has been ‘adjusted’ by removing data that indicates more cooling than expected. Is this true? And if so, were technical faults found with the buoys concerned? If no technical faults were found, what was the specific justification for removing this data? If the data were removed simply because it didn’t fit into their assumptions then it sounds like possible scientific fraud.
Is it also true that the data is not publicly available? If so, then this is also completely unacceptable. You would have thought these people would have learned a few lessons by now, particularly with the anniversary of Climategate this month.
If the data has been ‘adjusted’ and it is not publicly available, I would suggest that Anthony should contact the Argo director to request that all adjustments and data deletions be explained publicly and that the data itself be made public.
Like many others, I had assumed that the Argo data was beyond reproach. But even this now seems to be in doubt. This is a sorry time for science….
Chris
You have to agree that everything was “just roses, roses” until WUWT appeared in the Blogosphere……Afterwards….all turned into “Blood, sweat and tears”
Perhaps this shows that Meteorology case it is not the only one in science but WUWT has brought to light a much wider case.
I owe Dr David Evans a debt of gratitude. An article he wrote on The Missing Hotspot in an Australian newspaper helped put me on the sceptic path regarding out of control AGW and led me to blogs like WUWT, Climate Audit, amd later Jeff Id. O the relief 😀
No mincing of words in that piece! No Sir! It came in big chunks of veggies and meat in a strongly flavored broth!
In theory, it should not be too difficult to determine whether malice plays a role or not.
Errors due exclusively to incompetence should be free of any clear bias.
If the errors are in both directions in roughly equal proportion (and by similar amounts), then there is no basis to assume malice.
If the errors that help make the case for sustained warming are significantly more frequent (or systematically larger) than errors in the opposite direction, then malice becomes very plausible.
Never attribute malice to that which can be explained by simple incompetence.
You know at some point Anthony, and we are well beyond it, attributing repeated offenses to simple incompetence is no longer possible. It IS malice, and it IS totally corrupt.
I vaguely remember a news clip about it. The network was showing a lot of cooling. So they identified the individual probes/floats that were showing the most cooling, labelled them “defective” and removed them. After that there was still on average a bit of cooling.
Naturally would love to know how they knew some were defective.
Anthony, you can only fudge and deny the obvious for so long, surely? As noted above and often elsewhere, howcum ALL the errors favor the AGW thesis? The odds against this are about 2^(n-1), where n is the number of errors. Tell me, what would you estimate n is right about now?
Then when you “Follow the money”, it turns out that pushing AGW pays big-time, and opposing it costs big-time. Given that, fraud is so likely as to be the default assumption, the null hypothesis. Tim Ball, vociferous anti-AGW writer who was perhaps the first ever with a PhD in Climate Science, drives a clunker because that’s all he can afford. I wonder what Mikey, elevated to prominence and authority while the ink on his PhD diploma was still damp, drives?