This post is especially for those who aren’t sure whether global warming is real or not, whether it’s man-made or not, whether it’s dangerous or not. Let me tell you what made up my mind.
Readers may recall that not too long ago, I personally analyzed all the data in the entire GHCN (global historical climate network). I did this because Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo published a document claiming that the GHCN data, and the way it was processed, exaggerated estimates of how much the globe has warmed over the last century or more. They even claimed that the scientists who managed, and who processed, these data had deliberately manipulated both the data (by selectively removing or retaining data locations) and the analysis (by their methods of applying “adjustments”) to exaggerate the warming trend.
Although I trust the scientists who managed the data and did the analysis, and have no reason to mistrust them, I tested the claims anyway. I processed the entire GHCN, to compare the temperature from the stations which had stopped reporting to those which continued to report, and to compare the temperature according to the raw (unadjusted) data to that according to the adjusted data.
I discovered that both claims by Watts & D’Aleo were wrong. Station dropout did not exaggerate the warming at all (it had almost no effect), and the adjustments didn’t exaggerate warming either (in fact they reduced it). I challenged Watts to apologize, not for getting it wrong but for accusing the scientists involved of fraud. His only response, as far as I know, has been to plead ignorance because he didn’t do the analysis — nor did D’Aleo. They published a document claiming fraud, but they hadn’t even done the analysis.
I did. I didn’t just take somebody’s word for it. I didn’t just look at some graph of some cherry-picked data set and believe the story that went along with it. I analyzed the data myself. All of it. Doing so, I started a minor “ripple” in the internet, because about half a dozen other bloggers decided to reproduce my results — they actually analyzed the data! All of them came to the same conclusions that I did.
That’s not the only time I’ve actually analyzed data related to global warming.
When Christopher Monckton made false claims about the growth rate of carbon dioxide, I analyzed that data too. When Monckton objected that I had used data from Mauna Loa atmospheric observatory rather than the NOAA global dataset that he used, I analyzed the NOAA global dataset and showed that he was wrong again. When Norman G. Purves at “Climategate Country Club” made false claims about sea level rise, I analyzed that data too. When David Whitehouse made false claims about the trend in global temperature, I analyzed recent trends in the four most common global temperature records. I’ve done that often, and even estimated by strict mathematical analysis when the trend has changed.
When Anthony Watts and Steve Goddard made repeated posts with false claims about sea ice, including its extent and its thickness, I actually analyzed sea ice thickness data from submarines. And of course I analyzed sea ice extent data from satellites, and made my own prediction of the summer minimum extent of the arctic ice pack. My prediction turned out to be remarkably accurate — unlike those of Watts and Goddard — although I admit that not only did I use the right theory, I got lucky. I’ve also analyzed sea ice extent for more than a century, for both hemispheres, not just the satellite data covering the last three decades. Hell, I’ve even studied how ice extent relates to its latitudinal range, and the difference between sea ice extent and area.
I’ve analyzed changes in specific humidity. I scrutinized the heat wave in Moscow last July and estimated the chances of such extreme values, both present and future. I turned the microscope on sulfate emissions and concentration in Greenland ice cores. I’ve even studied how temperature “adjustments” affect the Tokyo data.
And all of those only amount to a small fraction of the data I’ve analyzed — actually analyzed — related to global warming. When I studied these data sets, I didn’t just look at a graph and take somebody else’s word for the logical conclusion. I analyzed it myself.
You know what?
I found out that the mainstream climate scientists had the right interpretation. Every time. The ones who keep telling us that global warming is real, is man-made, and is dangerous — they’re the ones who were right about what the data indicated, not the so-called “skeptics” who claimed otherwise. Every goddamn time. Of course, I can only testify about the data I’ve actually analyzed myself. But rest assured that’s a helluva lot.
The results are consistent: confirming global warming. Every time.
Open Mind 
That reads a bit like a retirement address, Tamino. I hope that’s not the case. I’ve been lurking here since a few weeks before your GHCN analysis, and I’ve very much appreciated your skill at whack-a-mole. I hope you have the energy to continue. Cheers.
[Response: No, it’s not a prelude to retirement.
I was just struck by how much climate-related data I’ve analyzed, how often, and how it has confirmed mainstream global warming theory. Every time.]
All of this is just the reason I’m reading this blog. Independent, clearheaded and comprehensible analysis on just the right level – I’m no scientist, but I have some background in undergraduate physics and mathematics, and that’s quite enough to read and understand your posts – and to laugh (or weep) at people who wouldn’t know proper analysis if it rang their doorbell.
So, I take the opportunity to thank you for providing all this for us. It might be more valuable than you think.
Thanks for your hard work Tamino.
Time for a name change? “Climatedenialistsaudit.wordpress.com”
Nah, that’s already taken by http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Tamino,
could you give me some idea of the technical knowledge (in terms of topics in statistics, climate, programming, etc) that would be needed for one to do a competent job in analyzing this data.
ps
sorry if you already answered this question.
[Response: One would like a good foundation in basic statistics. Also, the particular study of time series analysis. As for programming, I think R (which is free) will do the jobs you’d want to do, rather well.]
Thank you for what you have done. Might I add that you also dealt with spurious claims about hockey sticks multiple times over the past years. If only all of these discredited skeptic claims actually sunk in to those who completely deny.
Quick question if you don’t mind, better to learn R or Matlab (Ignore cost) ?
[Response: I’m a big fan of R. And it’s free!]
R and Matlab are really designed for different things, so it largely depends on what you want to do. If you’re interested in Matlab, I’d recommend taking a look at Octave, which is an open-source maths package which uses the same syntax.
Wow, this analyzing data thing seems to have worked well for you, Tamino!
Think it might catch on more widely?
(But seriously, thanks on my part, too.)
I first read this as a retirement address as well. My bad. The harder they come, the harder they fall. In my field (trying to save Atlantic salmon in the U.S. from extinction), this kind of topsy turvy has become de rigeur.
As with L Tapani above, I’ve just enough undergraduate science and math to appreciate your work. Between yourself Tamino, Cook’s Skeptical Science, Joe Romm’s Climate Progress , Eli Rabbet and our local Hot-Topic.co.nz… are my daily ‘must reads’.
I have to say I’m always delighted to find a new post from you Tamino (and a little dissapointed when I don’t ) because I know I’m usually in for another stretching of my mathematical boundaries. Or more importantly, another object lesson in clear logical thinking.
I hope you realise just how very much your efforts here are deeply appreciated by people like myself who for the most part are mathematically ill-equipped to participate in the conversations…but are both thrilled and appalled by them at the same time.
Tamino, another book? With R codes for the try-it-yourself crowd
Hi,
I think you left out the most interesting part. IIRC, you started analyzing data because you were a sceptic yourself, and it was the signal you yourself discovered in all that data that convinced you of the hell we’re setting loose on earth.
When I studied these data sets, I didn’t just look at a graph and take somebody else’s word for the logical conclusion. I analyzed it myself.
Spoken like a true skeptic. Thanks for your tremendous efforts!
From someone who lacks the skills necessary to do such analysis a sincere thank you for all your efforts.
I find it dismaying that such false claims, far from diminishing in the face of being shown clearly to be wrong, seem to just keep on proliferating, often propagated by the same people. Are they ill-equipped to competently assess the merit or lack thereof or are they making a conscious choice to promote arguments that support their ‘side’ regardless of accuracy? Perhaps on the basis that the more outrageous the arguments the more clearly they display the strength of commitment and loyalty to the cause?
Mr. Tamino-
The climate scientists in New Zealand seem to be having trouble with their data analysis.
With all of your experience and expertise, do you think you might be able to help them?
Link for background information-
http://www.suite101.com/content/legal-defeat-for-global-warming-in-kiwigate-scandal-a294157
Take that trash somewhere else –
http://hot-topic.co.nz/niwa-v-cranks-4-shoot-out-at-the-fantasy-factory/
All the deniers are good at is dirty politics. If they actually had any hard data to offer in response, they would have come up with it years ago and the debate would be over.
orkneygal,
Anything you read on that suite101 site should be taken with a rather large grain of salt. There’s virtually no vetting of what those thousands of freelance contributors publish up there.
Here are some comments from that article that show it up for what it really is – unverified tripe straight off a denier site:
You have been taken in by a climate change denier blog. NIWA has not been defeated. The blog even refused to link to any statement. And it is well known for its lies and distortion on climate science and honest New Zealand scientists.
In fact this particular group was thoroughly discredited a year ago when they published their original attack on NIWA. It was shown to be factually wrong and scientifically incompetent.
This current legal hearing is still in process. Chances are that the deniers claims will be thrown out and exemplary damages awarded against them.
And:
Good lord, this is just a straight up lie. NIWA has said nothing of the sort, and the case has not even been heard yet. NO verdict has been drawn. It’s pretty pathetic when you’re so ideologically bent you have to start making up your own headlines.
Steve Metzler-
Thank you for your advice. It is never prudent to rely solely on what bloggers and commentators type on the internet about other material. It is better to read the original material for yourself.
That is why we are actually studying the original documents, not the interpretations of it. As you might imagine, the original documents are heavy with legal terms, which makes them a bit difficult to follow.
Certainly, from the original documents, NIWA is clearly denying that there is an official New Zealand temperature record, for example (@#7 in the documents below.)
Which raises many uncomfortable questions, such as “Why have all these government climate scientists been working on the New Zealand Temperature Record (NZTR) since 1992 (when NIWA was formed), if it is not official?”
That admission seems unworthy of a science base organisation. NIWA does seem to need help if they are incapable of keeping an “official” record in what is supposed to be their area of expertise, don’t you think?
In any case, the original documents are at the links below.
Click to access statement_of_claim.pdf
Click to access statement_of_defence.pdf
Well, maybe New Zealand is some sort of weird place, but this:
Is fucking stupid because in the US, for instance, thousands and thousands of government scientists work on all sorts of things that aren’t “official” in the sense this poster presumes.
Why is New Zealand different?
Maybe our poster can enlighten us.
Orkneygal, is there an official “Special Relativity Theory” in New Zealand? An official air pressure record? Treadgold and his fellow denialists are loons.
tamino, I thank God for you and your blog, and not just because you pre-reviewed my paper for me. You’ve made real advances in explaining advanced statistics clearly for a bunch of interested people. The Bible describes teaching ability as a gift from God. I believe it.
“No, it’s not a prelude to retirement.”
That is good news; for a horrible moment I thought you had given up. Not that I could blame you, dealing withe the same old bull**** time and time again.
You have a way of making the statistics sensible and understandable. Your efforts are appreciated.
Mistletoe time again.
I often come across other blogs with old links to topics that used to be here.
I hope someone can redirect incoming links to recovered files, or to info more useful than the ‘not found’ result.
Tamino,
With some adjustments/changes , your post would make for a great editorial in the science and technology section of a major media outlet. Contact the relevant staff and see what can be arranged.
One change that would likely have to be made is to remove names of the offenders and simply refer to them as contrarians, “skeptics” or those in denial about AGW.
I realize that the climate scientists know what they are doing, and are doing it right, and you just managed to convince me over again. Just think how convincing your post would be for the person on the street!
Please consider this proposal seriously.
Yes!
(please)
thanks for the summary of some of the many analyses you’ve done. have you considered an archive that would save these analyses for the long term? i’ve tried to revisit some of your past work only to find it evaporated into the ether.
“have you considered an archive that would save these analyses for the long term?”
I second that suggestion.
It’s hard enough casting pearls before swine (this site’s company of course excepted), but when they roll down the drain and are lost, that’s a real shame.
If you need to employ someone to do the recovery work, I’m sure many people would chip in to help.
Anyone looked at “statistics.com”?
“… the leading provider of professional development courses in statistics.
I second Maple Leaf’s suggestion. The inveterate denier will (no doubt) simply call you a liar– but the wider audience, I think, would find this very convincing.
I third Maple Leaf’s excellent suggestion! We have to fight the wanton destruction of a habitable planet (for Mankind) on as many fronts as we can open up.
Kudos too to John Abraham, Scott Mandia et al and their new initiative.
Cheers – John
Nice summary.
Thanks for all that work.
PS: sometimes I try to find some interestingold post but it’s not there anymore. Any policy about deleting the old ones?
Re: Alexandre
A copy of Sea Ice, North and South, Then and Now can be found here, courtesy of the Internet Archive Wayback Machine.
The Yooper
Thanks Daniel.
This backup website is amazing!
I’ve also analyzed sea ice extent for more than a century
You’re that old but still not retiring? Amazing! ;-)
BTW, when can we expect Watts and d’Aleo to finally finish their Policy-Drivel Deception report? I know they have repeatedly told us all about its conclusions, but where is the analysis?
You know something Tamino? Way back when “Surface Station Temperature Records…” first came out (its been repeatedly revised now), a conservative friend of mine sent me a link to it. I decided to look into it, took a look at the paper’s references, and tried to run them down. This dude “Chiefio” kept cropping up. It seems he billed himself as some kind of computer expert and number cruncher. Now, long afterward, the really embarrassing fact is that Chiefio, with all his fabulous skills, never took the time to perform the obvious and elementary analysis YOU did. If nothing else, this one example should allow us to dismiss out of hand anything Watts and his crowd have to say.
These are guys who sit around in bathrobes in front of computer screens trying to get attention. They don’t have any more interest in actual science than my two border collies do.
And by the way, thanks for a lot of useful and interesting posts.
Hey! You be careful what you’re saying about border collies! They have black bits that get hot in the sun and white bits that don’t and therefore know from direct experience a damn sight more about albedo effects than “Watts and his crowd” do!
Well said Tamino. I haven’t analysed the data myself (my field is palaeoecology, maths is not my strongest point) so I am delighted that you have and do. But my confidence in the reality of global warming is similarly based (“The results are consistent: confirming global warming. Every time”). I would be delighted (being rather fond of this old planet, most of the people on it, and its magic environment) to discover that there was some fundamental self-regulating mechanism for the planet that had been missed; or that some error in the models had exaggerated the prospects of warming over the next century; or that some technological problem had badly affected measurements in upper atmosphere or deep ocean. Whatever, someone comes up with something that means my little patch of Earth, and my grandchildren, are not in the gravest danger as this century unfolds, and I will be cheering from the rooftops.
But, sadly, I have not yet, after ten years or so of reading everything I could get hold of, including way to many Denier claims and arguments and looking at the responses to those from serious climate scientists, read ANYTHING that even hinted at a last minute rescue from the cavalry riding in. Not a single denier argument holds up under examination. And I don’t think it’s going to happen now.
i think with a little extra editing and some rewriting, adding background info you could turn the blogs into a book ala efforts by Terrence Tao & Richard Lipton.
Goddard finds that he is unimpressed.
We are shocked.
Good God! Do you mean somebody actually reads Goddard?
Tamino thanks for the reminder of the work you have put in keeping me informed and entertained. Have now ordered your book to get another fix.
dhogaza | November 24, 2010 at 6:18 am
I am happy to reply, though usually I ignore profane remarks. In this case, it is difficult to tell whether you are being intentionally abusive, slovenly in your typing, or perhaps on the grog.
Whatever the case with you is, the case with New Zealand is that we now have a Carbon Trading Scheme.
That is what makes us different than most other countries. So, the relevance of the NIWA muck up to all that is our Parliament relied upon NIWA infomation about climate change in passing the Carbon Trading Scheme act.
There are many other things about New Zealand, the Land of the Long White Cloud, that make us different.
You should visit us. You would be most welcome here and I am sure you would enjoy your stay. That might also help you understand what it is that is different.
orkneygal,
Gee, and here I thought it was Global Warming, rather than “New Zillund Warming”.
Actually, I did visit your lovely country, and my wife and I loved it. I would also like to see it preserved as the beautiful place that it is.
Tell ya what, I’ll keep working on getting a cap & trade or fee & dividend system up here in the north if you guys will keep trying to face reality and do the right thing in the south. Deal?
First, I would say that Treadgold has so far demostrated that he doesnt know how to homogenize data for an historical record and data to date shows that NIWA does. Secondly, noone is government is so naive as think that reducing CO2 outputs from NZ will reduce temperatures in NZ – its more a case of doing our bit as part of a global effort as responsible global citizens. If NZ says its too hard, then its too hard for anyone. Even if NZ temperatures were going down (there are not as independent lines of evidence like snowline also show), then it would still be beholden on us to play our parts as global citizens.
Finally, I am also government scientist. It’s certainly news to me that say my work on oil and gas modelling constitutes an “official record”. My opinion on this? Play-acting by a bunch of conservative nutters far more concerned for what they will pay for energy than future of planet and deluding themselves rather than face a world that will change.
Should also clarify what “government scientist” means in NZ. (Not obvious to many of its citizens). The Crown Research Institutes are government owned private companies. The company pays my salary not the government. The company earns its income (until new arrangement comes into force), by winning research contracts and consultancy. In our case, government contracts account for less than half of income. I dont know NIWA’s balance. When working, a government contract is no different from any other contract. The government gets the outputs they pay for as defined in the contract, no more.
Ray Ladbury | November 24, 2010 at 10:08 am |
What a curious post.
Why are you trying to change the subject to loons-aquatic birds found mainly in the Northern Hemisphere?
If you were to make your point in a sensible way, it would be useful for us.
Orkneygal, it seems pretty clear to me that NIWA is saying that they maintain an official database of climate data, and they process that data into series like the 7ss, but that none of those processed records can be considered the single official temperature record for the country.
The US is no different. NASA, NWS, NOAA, and NCDC are all official organizations charged with collecting climate data. NASA and NCDC also produce processed temperature series, but there is no singular “official” temperature series for the US.
Tamino deserves an Oscar:
“I’ve an E&E paper that’s hot off the press
It’s all full of holes and it sure is a mess
While most wouldn’t read it, unless under duress
I’ll debunk it with glorious stats!”
From I love Stats
I get the same feeling when I research the basis for any Republican
claim I see in the news these days. Invariably, I find that the actual
reality is orthogonal to the one described in a given Republican claim.
It appears that these days it is very easy to convince a significant number
of people that down is “really” up, black is “really” white, etc.
Very sad.
tamino, I thank God for you and your blog
Have you considered thanking Tamino? After all, Tamino is the author and did all the work. Or are you suggesting that God is doing the work, and not Tamino?
I suggest that it might be a more realistic and effective method of expressing your thanks.
[Response: For some the phrase “thank God” is considered a blessing. For others it’s a “figure of speech.” But it’s certainly not an offense.]
Is there any easy way to see old Tamino posts before they got erased. Someone mentioned something about webcaches to me before but I was wondering if anyone here had some instructions on how to find them.
Re: Clearscience
The Internet Archive Wayback Machine is a pretty useful tool. If you know the original URL (there’s the rub; how do you find something if you don’t know the URL?), you can look it up.
In the case of missing Open Mind posts from Tamino, the above is a useful tool for posts older than the 1st week of August, 2008 (I don’t know why it fails to find newer posts).
Search Engine Showdown is another such site.
The Yooper
For some the phrase “thank God” is considered a blessing. For others it’s a “figure of speech.” But it’s certainly not an offense.
For this poster, it is an insult to science.
[Response: Let’s agree to disagree, and leave it at that.]
And this poster finds it amusing that some people can’t understand that it is possible for people to believe in both God and Science at the same time… Personally, I have more faith in Science to show us the way out of this mess than in God, but then, others would say that God has given us the capabilities required for Science, even if by just by setting up the “ground rules” 15 billion or so years ago, and being “hands-off” ever since…
[Response: Let’s leave it at that.]
Orkneygal, it is hard to understand what your problem is. Your entire argument seems to rest on the fact that you apparently can’t find a record that is “official” even though you omitted to define what meaning you attach to the word. However, whatever definition is attached to it has truly no importance in regard to the situation. If you can reason, you should understand that the official character of it has no bearing whatsoever with the reality reflected by that record. Only if the “official” record is at odds with other records would that have any importance. All the records for global temperature are in remarkable agreement. Deviations when they exist are minimal. Picking one as “official” vs. others makes no difference, so the official label presents no interest.
As another commenter pointed, here in the US, there are records kept by NOAA, NASA, NCDC, etc. Not one of them is the “official” record. Even if there was one, it wouldn’t make much difference, they all agree.
Philippe Chantreau-
Thank you for your comments.
Are your replying to the situation out of some special knowledge about what the law says about “official records” in New Zealand, or out of some special knowledge about what the law says about “official records” in other nations?
In any case, I am interested in what the legal definition of an “official record” is in the USA.
Could you expand upon that please?
And especially any knowledge about a record made by a paid employee on government salary, using government resources-would that be “official” or not under USA law?
TIA
[Response: I see no credible evidence to doubt the work of NIWA, but I think you want to argue about that. So please do so elsewhere.]
Orkneygal,
Anything produced by a civil servant is gummint property in most countries. That does NOT make it an official gummint record. Usually multiple agencies/departments will keep statistics. To elevate one to “Official” status would likely not be easily accepted by the other agencies/departments, and in any case would confer no added accuracy.
What matters is that the records are assembled and processed using accepted and well documented procedures, and so, are reproducible.
IHK–yes, that’s really the major problem of our time, at least from a political point of view. Substantial fractions of Americans believe
*That President Obama was born in Kenya.
*That he’s a Muslim.
*That he wants socialism.
*That global warming isn’t happening, or isn’t man-made, or isn’t dangerous.
*That NASA faked the moon landings.
*That aliens kidnap millions of people every year to give them anal probes.
*That your sun sign determines your personality.
*That their taxes have been going up for the past ten years.
*That Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. know what they’re talking about.
*That liberals are equivalent to Communists.
*That federal spending is a great economic threat.
*That the president has great control over the economy.
*That capital punishment is a deterrent.
*That the minimum wage increases the income of poor people.
*That Sarah Palin would make a great president.
I could go on all day. I’d better stop now or I’ll add several dozen more examples.
BPL, I recall seeing survey data showing Americans who believe extraterrestrials have landed in the USA outnumber those who believe Americans have landed on the moon.
clearscience:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/https://tamino.wordpress.com
Tamino, thank you for all good work and excellent analyses. I really like your posts, since they are clear and well worked. And I’d very like to translate (in accurate and valid manner) some of your posts to Slovenian language, when I am debating GW issues with my fellow citizens. Of course, I’ll do only with your permission and I promise I’ll try to do it as accurately as possible and I will provide link to your original. Thank you anyway, but I feel obliged to ask you for permission. I know you put a lot of effort in this really highly professional and scientific correctly blog.
I’ve always enjoyed your blog – you cut through the denier BS with impeccable analysis. The climate science community needs many more of you to break the utter crap spread by the deniers.
So one day a year or two ago, Eli opens his Email at work and finds a letter from some honest climate scientists asking permission to use a brand new statistical technique (well, new to them) that had been published on his blog. After a back and forth, it turns out they meant Tamino, and Eli was happy to pass them on to him.
Keep up the good work =:>
Eli, this should be a post, not a comment. Positive real-life stories are rare; cherish them!
I second that!
It seems to be that time in the US for giving thanks. Open Mind was the first climate blog beyond RC that I started to read regularly because it provided in-depth, but understandable (most of the time, but that’s OK), analysis of the climate data. As a bonus, the commentators provided a learning experience as well as lively discussion. I am thankful to all of you, and in particular Tamino, for this site.
Orkneygal, I don’t know and I don’t see why I should care. Whether or not a record is official has absolutely no bearing on its validity. A record can be accurate and non-official, accurate and official, inaccurate and official, inaccurate and non-official. One would hope that, if some sort of authority(goverment? scientific body? other?) adopts a given record as its “official” record, this record is reasonably accurate, or at least in good agreement with the others. However, there is no requirement that any authority adopts a record for this record to be usable for all sorts of purposes.
For those interested in how nature works, the only thing that matters is how accurate it is. I thought that this particular point was plain in my post.
As I said earlier, here in the US, there is a number of records. I don’t know if any of them can be called “official” and if it was I don’t know what that would mean. I don’t really care. All the records are in excellent agreement and the error margins aren’t very different either.
I don’t know what you meant when you said you couldn’t find an official record for NZ and I don’t care much either for identical reasons. The possible reasons why one could care about the official label are not related to the physical quantities represented by the record or how the record can be used to understand the greater picture.
Thumbing his nose at Tamino, Watts put up a post with his own brand of analysis, indicating that there has been no global warming since 1970, using unadjusted temperature data.
I have been posting there from time to time countering some of the stupid arguments made by deniers . I composed a post which pointed out that Tamino had also used unadjusted temperature data, and performed an global averages using gridded data and found no difference in the resulting global temperatures.
The post was rejected.
The next time I tried to post something, there was no box for me to wite a post in. They must have a record of my IPP address and decided that I couldn’t post there.
They make a show of allowing dissenting opinions to post, but apparently if mention or link to this web site, they decide to ban you totally.
You’re surprised? Time after time Tamino destroys the data ‘analysis’ by Watts or one of his minions.
That WUWT post was incredibly stupid. A big clue is that even Steven Mosher is pointing out the obvious problems. One point was that this “no global warming” is in contradiction to “warming via cosmic rays”, also a denier argument.
Consistency? LOL. That doesn’t matter to Mr Watts, and certainly matters even less to his flock. I just waded through the comments on the Ottmar Edenhofer interview page at WUWT. I refuse to dignify it with a link but if you chose to go there get there through the link at the bunny’s comment page. At least if you go that way you can see the relevant part of the interview and not just the highly selectively truncated misleading parts presented by Mr Watts. The funny (peculiar, not “ha-ha”) thing is that the comments that claim that AGC is a socialist conspiracy are roughly equaled by those asserting that the goal is the suppression of the third world. Only a couple of folks seem to be aware of the difference between science and politics, or to understand the significance of the interview. All they seem to care about is any evidence at all, no matter how lame, of a conspiracy (any conspiracy).
“choose” “ACC”
(oops)
Mike G | November 24, 2010 at 3:14 pm — My understanding is that NOAA’s NCDC is tasked with producing a global temeprature product. One can take that as “official”, I suppose, but it doesn’t mean it is better than the other three main global temperature products produced around the world.
FWIW, Reto Ruedy commented that NCDC’s record might just be “the best.” Of course, “certain people” tried to spin that comment to the effect that that meant that GISS personnel were aware of, but unconcerned with, flaws in GISTEMP, thereby manufacturing another “scandal.”
But that one never got much traction–why, I don’t know, as sheer stupidity seems not to be a barrier.
Tamino
I had already made up my mind, but this post has reinforced my belief that global warming is real. Thank You.
GG
Tamino
Once again you make the most convincing case for which side of the fence to come down on.
Well Put.
arch stanton,
A conservative friend of mine posted a comment on the Edenhofer interview – not, mind you, the interview itself, but the cherry picked WUWT summary. He said up front that he had not read the text of the interview itself, but amazingly, was willing to speculate on its “implications”. This should tell you all you need to know about the conservative position on climate science. Frankly, I think most conservaties are just plain intellectually lazy. They would rather have their ideological favorites spoon feed them what they want to hear than do the more difficult work of investigating the facts and forming their own opinions.
Chris Rhetts wrote:
Perhaps. But as an Objectivist I typically bought all my books from Second Renaissance owned by Peter Schwartz of what was then the Ayn Rand Institute. In part I spent money there because I was supporting the cause — and wouldn’t be supporting the “other guys” which early on I worried might be sanctioning whatever it was that they had done that was wrong. Veering off into thought crimes, I believe. Or “sins” might be more accurate.
Not all of the books were written by Objectivists, in fact the good majority weren’t, but I could trust that, for the most part, they had passed some sort of quality test. I wouldn’t be wasting my time or money. And for me money was more of an issue. Let’s face it: most books just aren’t that good — and when you are talking academic books it is quite easy for them to go very bad, e.g., somebody with an ideological axe or downright deconstructionist. So in place of someone else’s axe you make sure its one of your own.
But at a deeper level I think there was the worry that books that didn’t meet a certain level of purity might challenge my worldview — and that in turn meant dealing with anxiety as one’s self-concept is largely founded on one’s worldview. Not something you would want to admit to yourself too often — and something you might hope at some point to outgrow — as you got “your sea legs”. But I was lucky in this regard: reading then critiquing Kant required me to experience anxiety at a level that I have rarely matched.
At a certain level, I suppose you could argue that people who buy only the books that they are pretty sure will agree with them are being pretentious. They may very well be pretending to be more intellectual than they actually are.
But are they intellectually lazy? Well, perhaps in comparison to someone who is more widely read. Perhaps in comparison to someone who is more willing to read things that will challenge their views. But probably not in relation to someone who doesn’t read that much or sticks to the news or fiction of one stripe or another.
Are they simply trying to avoid having to actually put some mental effort into arriving at their views? In many cases no doubt. In others the psychological issues that are involved may be more complex. And they aren’t necessarily that specific to one political leaning or another, although nowadays… What a mess.
Hi Chris, Timothy,
I think Mr. Watts is very good at doing what he does. You could say he has it down to a science (but not that what he does is science).
Mostly through selective quoting, innuendo, subtly misrepresenting the facts, reprinting outrageous claims that he can later say “I was just reprinting the story” and maintaining a high volume output (short attention span theater) he exploits a sector of folks that are more prone to confirmation bias. It could well be argued that the confirmation bias is a byproduct of laziness to deal with challenging personal beliefs. He attracts and maintains an audience that prefers the ease of putting their faith in one source that predigests the story for them and at the same time envelops them in a soothing echo chamber where folks of differing opinions are considered to be trolls.
In any case there is a very pronounced and disturbing tendency there to accept the presented story at its implied value and reluctance to review the source material even though it is usually very easy to do so (no need to be a Hank Roberts Google wiz).
I would agree that laziness on one level or another is a part of the picture.
arch
So when did you make up your mind?
Maybe a big OT for this thread, but less so than for other recent threads:
Brian Dodge, on RC, did what I thought was a neat “quick analysis” of the question of temperature records and the temporal distribution thereof:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/so-how-did-that-global-cooling-bet-work-out/comment-page-5/#comment-193812
I then chimed in with the opinion that you should expect to see declining numbers of records in the absence of a temperature trend over time:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/11/so-how-did-that-global-cooling-bet-work-out/comment-page-5/#comment-193812
I wonder if a past post here has considered this question in more depth? Or if a future one might do so?