Warming and science denialists stuck with political egg on their predictions


If they are honorable people, they wish they could take it back.

John Hinderaker at Powerline, November 23, 2009:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. What’s interesting is that in January of this year, another climate alarmist named Mike MacCracken wrote to Phil Jones and another East Anglia climatologist, saying that their predicted warming may not occur . . .

Hinderaker quoting Anthony Watts’ chest thumping at Watts Up With That. In November, with cool weather in the local forecasts, they thought that 2009 would turn out to be a cold year, climate wise, and so they were demanding that climate scientists retract predictions and claims based on the data at hand.  Watts was averaging his thermometer readings before they thermometers had been read.

Oops.

Here’s what actually happened:

NASA, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Saturday, Jan. 21, 2010

2009 was tied for the second warmest year in the modern record, a new NASA analysis of global surface temperature shows. The analysis, conducted by the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City, also shows that in the Southern Hemisphere, 2009 was the warmest year since modern records began in 1880.

Global warming map from NASA, showing the decade 2000 to 2009

From NASA: "This map shows the 10-year average (2000-2009) temperature anomaly relative to the 1951-1980 mean. The largest temperature increases are in the Arctic and the Antarctic Peninsula. (Image credit: NASA/GISS)"

I’ve been hunting for retractions from Powerline and WUWT, but haven’t found them yet.  Has anyone else seen the retractions from these guys, for accuracy’s sake, for the record?  Hinderaker blogged the issue as recently as February 2, but mistook the continued warmness as a ‘lack of additional warming.’  Really.  Hinderaker’s consistency in error is profound, with six or more posts on the issue since November 23, and not one noting his glaring error, each one assuming his error does not exist.  It is a consistency striven for only by hobgoblins of no mind.

Hinderaker said in that November post:

Climate science is in its infancy, and every proposition is controversial. What climate scientists like those at East Anglia don’t know dwarfs what they do know. They can produce a model for every occasion, but are the models any good? If so, which one? One thing we know for sure is that they don’t generate reliable predictions. In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved. When it comes to global warming, however, there is no such thing as falsification. Which is the ultimate evidence that the alarmist scientists are engaged in a political enterprise, not a scientific one.

Really?  Political commentary on climate science is in its infancy, and every proposition is controversial, even those that should not be. What ill-informed and sometimes ignorant, belligerent pundits  like those at Powerline and Watts Up don’t know dwarfs what they do know. They can’t produce a model for any occasion, but they will ask as if they had anything to add other than heckling, “are the models any good? If so, which one?” One thing we know for sure is that they don’t generate accuracy in reporting or trustworthy claims. In every scientific field other than global warming, a scientific hypothesis that generates false predictions is considered disproved. When it comes to global warming’s critics and outright denialists, however, there is no such thing as falsification. There is, so far,  no such thing as an honorable confession of error, either.  In political commentary, anyone who makes a prediction in late November that is exactly wrong when the numbers are tallied two months later, should have the grace to make a concession speech.  These ravings, and failure to strive for accuracy when error is apparent, provide ultimate evidence that the contrarians and denialists are not scientists, and are engaged in a political enterprise, not a scientific one.  Hinderaker and Watts give their readers voodoo science at its most voodoo.  They could not fail to know what they post is hoax, even if they were sucked in at first.

Even if they read this and understand it’s true and accurate, I’ll wager you won’t see any errata notices from either Watts or Hinderaker.

More, I’ll wager no one would take such a wager, not even their defenders.

Do all climate contrarians all take their marching orders from the faxes and e-mails from the GOP National Committee?

Not one of the contrarian’s work could survive half the scrutiny Phil Jones or Michael Mann has had since their server was broken into.

P.S.: These guys at Powerline have a very twisted streak, you know?

Steve [Hayward] is also the author of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators. The fourteenth edition of the Index was published in April by the Pacific Research Institute to coincide with Earth Day and Lenin’s birthday; it is accessible in PDF here.”

Why is the Pacific Research Institute timing a report to coincide with Lenin’s birthday?  Why would Hinderaker even joke about it?  No scientist is checking that date.  No Democrat is.  It’s like these guys study the old communists and fascists, not as a learning exercise to find mistakes to avoid as Santayana urged, but to steal the methods of the Stalinists and fascists. More snark than sense, more snark than science, at Powerline and the Pacific Research Institute.

Ask others to join the campaign for accurate science:

Add to FacebookAdd to NewsvineAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Furl

About these ads

43 Responses to Warming and science denialists stuck with political egg on their predictions

  1. [...] I remind readers that the last round revealed wrong-doing only by accomplices and friends of the thieves, and revealed no wrong-doing on the part of climate scientists. [...]

    Like this

  2. Ed Darrell says:

    So, we have to guess, McHarris? You don’t like rainforests because you think they’re icky, and they have bugs.

    Why shouldn’t we try to save rainforests? Do you have any idea why there is oxygen in our atmosphere? Do you think it gets there by magic?

    Like this

  3. McHarris says:

    Hailed as “the big new idea to save the planet from runaway climate change”, this set up a global fund to save vast areas of rainforest from the deforestation which accounts for nearly a fifth of all man-made CO2 emissions.
    http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/measure-your-gullibility.html

    Like this

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    The movement for AGW is a big dark political entity. Did you vote the members of the UN’s IPCC into office?

    Nor did I vote Jonas Salk into office. Nor did I vote Werner von Braun into office. Nor did I vote Friedrich von Hayek into office. Nor did I vote Watson and Crick into office. Nor did I vote Einstein into office. Scientists don’t seek elective office to do their work. Your premise is beyond silly. It’s “not even wrong.”

    IPCC doesn’t make policy. They gather information.

    Have you ever been asked your thoughts and opinions about whether we should actually be funding their activities?

    See, the U.S. is a democratic republic. In a republican form of government, government decisions are made by people elected by the population. Yeah, I was asked if I thought we should be funding activities of IPCC — which we contribute a tiny amount to, in a tiny total budget — and I advised my elected representatives to fund the projects.

    You were probably asleep at the switch back then. It was my job to monitor such science spending by the federal government.

    Was it a poor choice? Not at all. For the previous 50 years the evidence had been piling up that something was going on. After about 30 years of work by IPCC, we see that we were wise to try to get a handle on the story of just what was happening.

    Your refusal to read the results, or your insistence on belief in something not evidence-based instead, is not an indictment of the work of IPCC, nor of any other scientist. Your ignorance does not constitute a serious criticism of good scientific work.

    If you had any say in the matter would you continue to support their activities, considering the (to date) number of debacles (gates) that have been identified in just the one document?

    You were never in Boy Scouts, were you. There has been no “debacle” of any sort out of the IPCC document. Your claim shows, again, how you are willing to ignore the facts. Your claim shows too great a willingness to distort the facts.

    Am I in error? Show me any research which calls into question any of the results noted by IPCC (IPCC is not a research organization, you know). Show me any research which refutes any of the information compiled by IPCC.

    For example, if you come back and say “Himalayan glaciers are not melting,” I will be obligated top point out that you are telling a falsehood. All studies say Himalayan glaciers are in decline, and it’s a serious problem. Every study looking at the question says global warming is contributing to the speed-up of glacier decline.

    And yet, you would have the gall to sit at your computer and tell falsehoods about science?

    Yeah, I trust IPCC much more than I trust you, just on the basis of the falsehood you haven’t yet told but are warming up to.

    How many gross errors does it take before you are known as totally unreliable?

    I think you’ve run past the threshhold. How will you re-establish any reliability now?

    http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/swindle-hoax.html

    David Evans’ claim of extensive spending to prove something unprovable is a falsehood. Your excrement detectors should have been deafening you there. You cite it as if it were informative and accurate, when it is neither. How will you re-establish reliability when you cite fictional bluster instead of science, or in this case, just solid accounting?

    Global warming was not invented as political ploy by Margaret Thatcher as you claim (the incredible streams of fiction required to make such a claim take one’s breath away). The physics of warming have been understood for more than a century.

    Here’s some serious, science-based history of the study of warming, from the American Physical Society, the most successful, accurate, and Nobel-winning group of physicists in the world (and upon whose work our nation’s security rests well):
    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html#contents

    Here’s the IPCC site, with reports; I dare you to find serious error and report it to us:
    http://www.ipcc.ch/

    If you visit those two sites, is that the first time you’ve ever been to a science-based site?

    Like this

  5. McHarris says:

    The movement for AGW is a big dark political entity. Did you vote the members of the UN’s IPCC into office? Have you ever been asked your thoughts and opinions about whether we should actually be funding their activities? If you had any say in the matter would you continue to support their activities, considering the (to date) number of debacles (gates) that have been identified in just the one document? How many gross errors does it take before you are known as totally unreliable?

    http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/swindle-hoax.html

    Like this

  6. carrot eater says:

    Watts said something was in the works. He was going to ignore Tamino (for invalid reasons), but the multiple similar works make it a little hard to brush off.

    “And in fact Joe D’Aleo and I are responding to that”

    Though I fear he won’t be back to admit the US-global confusion was indeed propagated by him, and is not the fault of the author of this blog. And that the incorrect statement

    “We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.”

    appeared at Watts’ blog, and he knew it.

    Like this

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    So Anthony won’t deign to answer the several independent studies which show his assumed effect from dropping out station reporting skews warming data, because, he says, Tamino is a pseudonym.

    Somebody unmasked Tamino at Tamino’s site; Anthony won’t like it, but can we get him to respond to the data now?

    Like this

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    Anthony Watts wrote:

    Ed, you can post on WUWT any time, read the policy page if you are still confused. Your claims of censorship are just as bogus as your claims about the article you are unhappy with.

    That’s not accurate, sir. You won’t allow any posts, including the lengthy one I gave you today, nor even the trackback I gave you today. Neither of them shows up at your site — and I’ll wager they never will.

    Update, 4:45 p.m. Central: – Ha! My post from today appeared — partly breaking a four-month log-jam. No trackback yet, though, so far as I can tell.

    Like this

  9. [...] Watts complained that I don’t read his blog closely enough, or often enough.  He may rue the day he made that [...]

    Like this

  10. AMac says:

    wascawwy wabbit –

    > What? No coverage of WUWT? What’s the problem here?

    As Inspector Clouseau might have remarked, “That is not my site.” I expect that the person who runs it (pseudonymously, like Tamino) would cover WUWT, if spurned commenters submit their rejects to him or her.

    Like this

  11. wascawwy wabbit says:


    As a sometime reader of comments, I find it useful to have a sense of which blogs permit the expression of dissenting views, and which engage in aggressive, even one-sided moderation. As the issue has arisen multiple times in this thread, I mention An Inconvenient Comment, a blog which tries to compile comments at climate-themed blogs that fail moderation (or are deleted after appearing). It might be useful to cut-and-paste some of the comments in question to that site.

    What? No coverage of WUWT? What’s the problem here? Doesn’t blogspot.com provide you enough storage space?

    Like this

  12. AMac says:

    As a sometime reader of comments, I find it useful to have a sense of which blogs permit the expression of dissenting views, and which engage in aggressive, even one-sided moderation. As the issue has arisen multiple times in this thread, I mention An Inconvenient Comment, a blog which tries to compile comments at climate-themed blogs that fail moderation (or are deleted after appearing). It might be useful to cut-and-paste some of the comments in question to that site.

    Like this

  13. Chris W says:

    Geez, where are you Anthony? You seem to have disappeared.

    I was hoping you’d hang around a bit because I wanted to know why you removed all of Lee’s posts from your blog …

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php#comment-2226465

    .. and …

    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/01/so_thats_why_surfacestationsor.php#comment-2226509

    How is the third part of that series by the way ? Surely you’re not going to tell me there wasn’t ever going to be a part 3 are you ? Gad … now part 2 seems to be missing !!!

    Like this

  14. pough says:

    He’s holding his work close saying “I’ll publish it”.

    Unimaginable that anyone would do that! Thank goodness for honest people like Anthony Watts who would never, ever do anything like that.

    Like this

  15. carrot eater says:

    I think I let Anthony off the hook too easily the first time, by allowing the possibility that he was merely careless and had not read the Powerline article.

    Not only did Anthony copy/paste the offending Powerline article, but he specifically noted the part where Powerline improperly countered a statement about global data with a pointer to Anthony’s US analysis.

    Your own words, Anthony:

    “The Powerline blog has done an excellent job of summarizing the issues surrounding the Climatgate/CRUtape Letters in the past couple of days. Since they reference WUWT in the most recent article, it seems relevant to also post here.”

    So far as I can tell, the only reference to WUWT in the article is the one in contention here. So you saw what Powerline wrote, you saw they mixed up global and US, and you approved it anyway. Then you advised your readers to visit the Powerline site for more.

    It appears you have a date with the strike-through font. And you might address some demonstrably incorrect statements made here.

    Deech56: Firefox has a nice page archiving tool, in case you want to save things as they currently appear.

    Like this

  16. Deech56 says:

    To back up what Ron Broberg wrote, posts at WUWT in which I asked the same question were never released from moderation – actually, never even made it to moderation. Apparently, I am a blocked user. A pasted my posts onto Ben’s blog.

    I would suggest pasting saving WUWT posts and if they don’t appear, pasting to the appropriate thread at “Wott’s Up With That”:

    http://wotsupwiththat.wordpress.com/

    It is clear that WUWT is heavily moderated.

    Like this

  17. Ed Darrell says:

    We are reminded by the sharp-eyed carrot eater:

    Anthony, you can’t control what Powerline writes, but you copied and pasted this exact Powerline article onto your blog.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/crus-phil-jones-maybe-because-im-in-my-50s-but-the-language-used-in-the-forecasts-seems-a-bit-over-the-top-re-the-cold/

    You can certainly control what you choose to copy and paste.

    So, Anthony, you remember that comment where you told me there’s a strikeout font to use on WordPress?

    Will you even listen to your own advice?

    Not only am I confused by posts on your blog, Mr. Watts, so are you. Tighter writing and editing would probably do some good.

    Pledging the Scout Law wouldn’t hurt, either. Should we trot out the medical ethics maxim, primum non nocere, too? (Even the modern version of the Hippocratic Oath would be useful.)

    Like this

  18. carrot eater says:

    Anthony,

    Just saw this. Priceless.

    “BTW I never knew of the Powerline reference until you pointed it out so”

    You signed the remark that accompanied this post on your blog. So I it seems rather likely that you knew of it. Unless you pass things on to your readers without even reading them yourself.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/crus-phil-jones-maybe-because-im-in-my-50s-but-the-language-used-in-the-forecasts-seems-a-bit-over-the-top-re-the-cold/

    You are accusing others here of confusing US and global data. Not so. We can clearly see above that it was Powerline’s mistake, and Ed is calling it out. And we can clearly see that this mistake appeared on your blog, where you praised Powerline and copied and pasted their article. So instead of attacking Ed, you might admit that you passed on an error, and make an update to that post.

    Like this

  19. Anthony,

    What part of “Sorry, I was wrong, and I apologize” (regarding your SPPI document) can you not say?

    Carroteater at 1:30 pm also exposes the intent that I referred to. You know what you are doing when you post about the US trend. How come you didn’t reply to comments that trashed AGW in your own thread and state “what parts of USA in the title can’t you comprehend”? Why the double standard?

    Like this

  20. carrot eater says:

    Anthony Watts, and Ed Darrell:

    “While I can’t control what Powerline writes,”

    Anthony, you can’t control what Powerline writes, but you copied and pasted this exact Powerline article onto your blog.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/23/crus-phil-jones-maybe-because-im-in-my-50s-but-the-language-used-in-the-forecasts-seems-a-bit-over-the-top-re-the-cold/

    You can certainly control what you choose to copy and paste.

    So to review, you lauded Powerline for the ‘excellent’ job they do, then copied and pasted their article where they respond to a prediction for global 2009 by pointing to US-only data.

    This bait-and-switch between global and US was in fact noted by me, in the comments at (14:53:36).

    So Anthony, can you clarify whether you approve of this bait-and-switch? Did you notice it before you passed the article on to your readers? Would your readers have benefited from having this inconsistency in the Powerline article pointed out?

    Like this

  21. carrot eater says:

    Anthony Watts:

    If you think Tamino’s methods are so difficult to discern, then why were Zeke Hausfather, Ron Broberg and the Clear Climate Code group all able to confirm his/her conclusions, in short order?

    Each of them used different implementations, but they all did the same basic thing. Zeke and Tamino differed from what GISS does, to some extent.

    Tamino described what (s)he was doing over several blog posts, spanning a month. If there is some aspect that is unclear to you, it can most likely be clarified if you review that material, review Hansen’s 1987 paper, or simply ask. You can ask here, and you’ve also got your own platform; you can ask there.

    Tamino’s anonymity has no bearing on anybody’s ability to understand and reproduce the work. It did not stop the other listed workers from doing it for themselves.

    Like this

  22. Ed Darrell says:

    And a comment very similar to this one was prevented from being posted at WUWT.

    No blocking of any post on this thread here, nor in any other thread Watts has participated in.

    At What’s Up With That, however, even the WordPress automatic trackback to WUWT of this post and thread have been blocked. Anyone who reads only Anthony’s blog could be completely in the dark about other discussions questioning what is posted there.

    Like this

  23. tamino says:

    Once again, Anthony Watts replies but SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE REAL ISSUE.

    Which is: the claim that the “march of the thermometers” caused any false warming trend is false. This has been proved by at least 4 different people. Yet Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo used that false claim to accuse honest scientists of fraud. Unless they admit their mistake and apologize publicly, they have no honesty and no integrity.

    Once again, he calls me a coward for blogging and commenting under a pseudonym, BECAUSE HE WANTS TO DIVERT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL ISSUE.

    Which is: the claim that the “march of the thermometers” caused any false warming trend is false. This has been proved at least FOUR TIMES by DIFFERENT PEOPLE. Proved. Four times. Yet Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo used that false claim to accuse honest scientists of fraud. Unless they admit their mistake and apologize publicly, they have no honesty and no integrity.

    Like this

  24. Ron Broberg says:

    In the Summary for Policy Makers in Watts’ and D’Aleo’s Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception, there is the following claim:

    <blockquote. 5. There has been a severe bias towards removing higher-altitude, higher-latitude, and rural stations, leading to a further serious overstatement of warming.

    Back it up or withdraw it, Watts.

    You shouldn’t be doing the analysis AFTER you claim “policy driven deception” and then telling us all to wait.

    And a comment very similar to this one was prevented from being posted at WUWT.

    Like this

  25. Ed Darrell says:

    Scott Mandia said:

    Then he puts the icing on the cake with his last line:

    “No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change.”

    A person who truly wished to educate would make it VERY CLEAR that US temps are NOT global temps and that global temps are rising and this decade has been the warmest of the last three. GHG emissions affect more than just the US and he knows this.

    But I think Watts has been clear here that’s not his intent. Perhaps he will consent to joining in a letter to the Senate asking them to act on climate change prevention legislation, thereby making clear that Watts’s intent was not to suggest that global warming is refuted by snow in America.

    Anthony?

    Like this

  26. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh and Ed, on this sentence you wrote:

    “We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. ”

    There’s a strikethough button on the WP editor which you can use to fix that.

    Yeah, but that’s at Powerline, from John Hinderaker, based on his reading of your blog.

    Have you written Hinderaker to tell him he’s wrong, yet?

    Like this

  27. J Bowers says:

    Anthony Watts: “But I’ll make you a deal. If you feel your analysis is important enough, put your name on it and level the playing field, and I’ll cite you.”

    Look up Eric Arthur Blair, Samuel Langhorne Clemens, and Currer Bell.

    It matters not one jot whether Tamino uses his real name or not. You and D’Aleo have been debunked by him, and others have replicated it.

    Like this

  28. Anthony Watts says:

    You are a coward Tamino.

    But I’ll make you a deal. If you feel your analysis is important enough, put your name on it and level the playing field, and I’ll cite you.

    In the meantime, the document is about to be updated.

    Mandia, what parts of USA in the title can’t you comprehend?

    Like this

  29. Scott Mandia says:

    Here is the problem:

    Watts is disussing US temp trends but he knows full well that this could be confused with global temp trends by those that are careless.

    Then he puts the icing on the cake with his last line:

    No wonder the U.S. Senate is slow to get behind the need for restricting our fossil fuel-related energy supply in the name of climate change.

    A person who truly wished to educate would make it VERY CLEAR that US temps are NOT global temps and that global temps are rising and this decade has been the warmest of the last three. GHG emissions affect more than just the US and he knows this.

    Watts is being very misleading and it is so transparent. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

    Like this

  30. tamino says:

    Anthony Watts once again calls me a coward because I blog, and comment, under a pseudonym. He does this whenever he wants to deflect attention away from his own misdeeds.

    Anthony does not say a single word about the real issue, which is: the claim that the “march of the thermometers” caused any false warming trend is false. This has been proved by at least 4 different people. Yet Anthony Watts and Joe D’Aleo used that false claim to accuse honest scientists of fraud. Unless they admit their mistake and apologize publicly, they have no honesty and no integrity.

    Like this

  31. Anthony Watts says:

    Oh and Ed, on this sentence you wrote:

    “We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true. ”

    There’s a strikethough button on the WP editor which you can use to fix that.

    Like this

  32. Anthony Watts says:

    Ed, you can post on WUWT any time, read the policy page if you are still confused. Your claims of censorship are just as bogus as your claims about the article you are unhappy with.

    As far as problems go, you are the only person that became confused over the article, the only person that attributed words not mine, and the only person that attacked me for claims they misunderstood while being confused about who wrote it at the same time.

    The problem is you, Ed. You are are a sloppy reader who jumped to a conclusion.

    Like this

  33. Nick Kelsier says:

    Hattip, don’t call something “Marxist” when for the life of you you couldn’t give an accurate definition of the term.

    I have yet to meet a single person who runs around screaming “Marxism” at everything they don’t like actually even attempt to give an definition of the word.

    Gee..I wonder why that is.

    Like this

  34. Ed Darrell says:

    NASA’s GISS map for world surface temperatures for 2009. Notice the biggest cool area on Earth is over the continental U.S. — where temperatures were slightly down.

    World surface air temperature anomalies, 2009

    (See it here, if you don’t see it in this comment.)

    Like this

  35. Ed Darrell says:

    Ed, on the issue of “sloppy writing” that you blame me for, I’ll point out that this is the second time you’ve misread an article at WUWT. Before you claimed it wasn’t “delineated correctly”.

    Only the second time? That’s a miracle. You need to learn writing conventions about how to set quoted material apart, how to indicate where your intro material ends and where stuff you quote begins.

    And below that delinator, here’s what you have incorrectly cited as my writing when in fact it comes from Wordl Climate Report

    “But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.”

    Sloppy reading or PEBKAC?

    Anthony, WordPress has this key on your blog administrative page with a quote mark on it. If you highlight the material you’re quoting, and press that key, it will separate that material out so that no one could possibly confuse what you quote and what you write. You fail to use even quote marks. Yeah, if I were grading your writing, you’d lose big marks on that. In journalism there’s a phrase for it: “Plagiarism.” I know you think that if you mention the name of the source, readers are supposed to divine where you stop and where another source takes over.

    I don’t go for that woo.

    Sloppy writing, sloppy editing, take your pick. The problem’s on your end and easily fixable. Anyone striving for accuracy would fix the problem. You obstinately dig in and refuse.

    So you didn’t write it. You don’t repudiate it, either. The problem isn’t with the wit or lack of wit in the writing. The problem is that you have posted inaccurate stuff. You post it as fact, you don’t claim it as anything else.

    It’s in error. Why don’t you make a note on your blog that it’s not your writing, and that now you know it’s in error and over the top, you disagree with it? Easy fix.

    Yeah, there’s a huge problem between your keyboard and chair. That’s what I’ve been saying.

    You’ve got a strong anti-science streak. You have a lot of readers, and you’re leading them down a garden path.

    Why not stick to the facts?

    You publish attacks on science, unfair and unwarranted attacks, and you claim not to have any blame for it?

    Whose name is on your blog?

    Like this

  36. Ed Darrell says:

    BTW I never knew of the Powerline reference until you pointed it out so your theory that I sanctioned it is much ado about fluffing. I’ve dropped him a line though to make sure he gets the message.

    Now you know. Are you going to tell him?

    Yes, a couple of your posts have been snipped at WUWT for violating the policy. Get over it. According to the WP counter you have 138 comments posted at WUWT, so please don’t whine about not getting comments at WUWT.

    Policy? Policy on what. Last time we had this discussion you alleged I came close to profanity, which is a rank lie.

    You don’t allow any post of mine for any reason. I’m not sure why, except each time I offer a correction for an error, the post disappears. When I point out you’ve gone over the line, the post disappears. Some policy.

    Now you don’t allow posts for any reason.

    I’m “over it.” But it’s a clear demonstration that you’ve got something to hide, and that you don’t allow a free and robust discussion. You should get over it, Anthony. As Mark Twain said, tell the truth, you don’t have to remember as much.

    But readers can compare the two blogs, and they’ll see I’ve never written a post there attacking Ed Darrel personally, while you write one attacking me personally every few days. Readers can do the math on who hates who. Actions speak louder from your end Ed.

    I write posts that attack the false claims you make. You confuse yourself with your claims.

    With a couple of thousand posts here, how many of them even bother to mention you?

    But, hey, you’re the big dog in climate contrarianism. You got all your readers to vote for you as top science blog, though it’s difficult to find where you stand up for science. And that’s a shame. You’ve got a top-flight pulpit. You should be preaching the truth instead of smearing scientists’ reputations.

    I take it you’re not going to retract your false claims, and now you’re trying to blame it on me.

    And you think I should “get over it!” Incredible!

    Like this

  37. Anthony Watts says:

    Ed, on the issue of “sloppy writing” that you blame me for, I’ll point out that this is the second time you’ve misread an article at WUWT. Before you claimed it wasn’t “delineated correctly”.

    Here’s the article you get upset about:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/2009-shaping-up-to-be-a-normal-temperature-year-in-the-usa/

    Here’s the delineator:

    “From World Climate Report: Another Normal Year for U.S. Temperatures?”

    And below that delinator, here’s what you have incorrectly cited as my writing when in fact it comes from Wordl Climate Report

    “But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.”

    Sloppy reading or PEBKAC?

    Like this

  38. Anthony Watts says:

    You’re a hoot Ed, “my sloppy writing” caused you to make a mistake.

    Too funny, you can’t even admit your own errors without blaming someone else.

    BTW I never knew of the Powerline reference until you pointed it out so your theory that I sanctioned it is much ado about fluffing. I’ve dropped him a line though to make sure he gets the message.

    Yes, a couple of your posts have been snipped at WUWT for violating the policy. Get over it. According to the WP counter you have 138 comments posted at WUWT, so please don’t whine about not getting comments at WUWT.

    But readers can compare the two blogs, and they’ll see I’ve never written a post there attacking Ed Darrel personally, while you write one attacking me personally every few days. Readers can do the math on who hates who. Actions speak louder from your end Ed.

    As I said, updates are coming. Joe and I will address the tangible issues presented openly, not the ones cast from shadows, and not on schedules demanded by taunting.

    Before you lecture me about “doing damage to science” you really should look beyond the talking points you live in and take a look at just how bad the surface record is instead of taking it and the conclusions at face value.

    Again, look at the raw data. That tells the story far better than government adjusted data.

    Someday you may come to understand you are on the wrong team. I came to that conclusion back in the mid 90′s after years of believing what you do now. It was a tough transition, it will be tougher for you since you are so emotionally involved with it.

    Like this

  39. Ed Darrell says:

    While I can’t control what Powerline writes, I can say with certainty that Ed is the one who has egg on his face and needs to write a retraction regarding my involvement.

    The question is, can Watts control what Watts writes? PowerLine cited Watts’s article in claiming an end to warming. Did Watts offer a correction to Hinderaker? No?

    Has Watts offered to correct Hinderaker on any of his subsequent claims? No?

    The point remains: Watts is engaged in a political exercise, not a scientific one.

    Watts is technically correct that he only writes about temperatures in the U.S. being “near normal,” and not the world. That’s good news. One wishes Watts wouldn’t include digs in his otherwise accurate reporting, like this:

    But now, 2008 comes along and has broken this warm stranglehold. Perhaps this is an indication that the conditions responsible for the unusual string of warm years have broken down—and maybe they weren’t a sudden apparition of anthropogenic global warming after all.

    Such statements get uncareful readers, like John Hinderaker, all excited, and lead to inaccurate commentaries and headlines.

    Which Watts is happy to allow to happen so long as it supports his political views.

    And confession, I’m not a careful reader of Watts’ blog. I find that his writing is uncareful too often, with language that, while colorful, pushes to a political view instead of the scientific view he claims to espouse. So, no, I didn’t carefully read that post. I took Hinderaker’s word for what Watts said, especially when I saw the digs at scientists who study climate.

    I owe you an apology, Anthony. Your sloppy writing misled me.

    But tell us: Where is your correction to Hinderaker? Why do you take umbrage at error only when I cast the light on you, and not when dozens of other bloggers take your words to mean warming has ended?

    Ed, blinded by his hatred for me, has conflated an article about US CONUS temperatures citing NCDC data without bothering to check to see if the premise of the article I carried is true by checking the actual data.

    My point isn’t about the actual data. My point is about your political view of climate change, and your attempts to politicize the science inappropriately. The impression your post leaves is that you think a temporary cooling is a trend and an end to warming. I made that mistake, and so did others. It’s consistent with your political world view that scientists are scoundrels and cheats, and conspirators against people.

    You accuse me of hating you? On what evidence? It is you who censors my posts from your blog.

    I don’t hate you at all. I find your actions defending nonsense to be atrocious. I think your defense of Christopher Monckton is morally astray and a further indication that you’re not concerned about the facts, but instead about making a political point.

    But hate you? I don’t even edit your posts. If anyone has demonstrated hate in this blog-to-blog relationship, it is you, Anthony. As Lysenko hated Darwin and censored his writings, you refuse to allow people who disagree with you to do so when they are clearly in the right, but you don’t wish to lose face — or so it appears. You allow some dissent, but not all, and not the most critical. Scientists use free and open discussion — often bruisingly blunt discussion, as we know from the e-mails stolen from Hadley.

    Even on minor points, you’ve censored my posts.

    I merely criticize. As all theater critics, I love the theater. But I prefer quality plays.

    Here’s the original WUWT article (a repost from World Climate Report) cited by the Powerline blog that Ed equates to “chest thumping”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/2009-shaping-up-to-be-a-normal-temperature-year-in-the-usa/

    Note the key word there USA, not world. The USA NCDC data for 2008 is cited in this graph:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/US_temps_fig3.gif

    The suggestion is that 2009 would be similar.

    When you plot the actual data, from NCDC, and included 2009, you’ll note that it is in fact very similar to 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ncdc_us_temps_2009.png

    2009 ranks as 81st, certainly no record breaker at all. The claim in the original article I ran was:

    “2009 shaping up to be a “normal” temperature year in the USA”

    2009 was 53.12°F for the USA. The 1901-2000 base average temp is 52.79°F. The 2009 0.33°F variance is well within the standard deviation.

    The article claimed that 2009 USA temps would be similar to 2008, and they were.

    But don’t take my word for it, do what Ed Darrel should have done himself, check the actual data at NCDC here

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

    For the technically challenged, to reproduce the plot I made here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ncdc_us_temps_2009.png

    Choose for the pulldonw boxes:

    Period: Annual

    Last Year to Display: 2009

    Make no other changes.

    Now, look at the actual data from NCDC and you’ll see that Ed Darrel is the one with egg on his face and needs to make a retraction.

    Here before God and the world, let me apologize. Watts’ purple prose and digs at scientist misled me to think he was saying what John Hinderaker said Watts said.

    I don’t think that’s reason for Watts to censor my posts, but it’s his blog and he can believe any fool thing he chooses, even that I am evil.

    Your turn, Anthony.

    I don’t expect him to though, like most true believers that let personal hate cloud their reason, he’ll go off on a tangent, so let me nip that in the bud too.

    When do you send the note to Hinderaker? Can you copy us on that? Would it be okay with you if I send him your note, and ask him for you to correct his blog statement? You surely don’t want conservatives to hammer scientists unfairly, do you?

    Ed will claim yes but you still haven’t responded to “X” in which he refers to an anonymous blogger named Tamino who made a grade school taunt on his bloig demanding (on his terms) that I should make a retraction for an issue related to station dropout.

    I wasn’t going to bring that up. Watts claimed that climate science is wrong because many temperature measuring stations have been closed (usually due to budget cuts, which Anthony surely protested somewhere), and so the data, including past data, from those stations is often excluded from century-long runs. Watts said that this dropout of data produced a bias towards warming.

    However, the blogger named Tamino ran the numbers and showed that with the data dropped, warming trends over the century are still clear, and that if anything, the dropouts produced a slight reduction in overall warming appearances. Tamino isn’t alone in that statement. Others also ran the data, confirming Tamino’s findings, including a data run written up at a contrarian blog in Watts’s camp.

    So there’s little question that the changes in data did not skew the results scientists get.

    Tamino said:

    Don’t expect to see Watts or D’Aleo admit that they were wrong even though it’s now proven. Expect Anthony to continue to criticize the fact that I blog under a pseudonym. Don’t expect him to take responsibility for his own actions. Do expect them to trot out the next mole for whacking.

    Another accurate prediction, as we see from Anthony’s comments here! This Tamino person is on a roll.

    The problem is that “Tamino” is too cowardly to put his real name to his work (I always do) and he doesn’t show his work, only the results. He’s holding his work close saying “I’ll publish it”.

    Why is his pseudonymous writing a problem? Either you’re right, or you’re not. As I read that sentence, Anthony, you’re saying you understand that you made a mistake, but because one of the most outspoken of those who have run the data to show your error is unknown to you, you won’t make a correction.

    How does Tamino’s identity in any way justify your failure to correct an error, especially an error about the reputations of scientists?

    You did practice in broadcasting once, I understand. Did you never get the lawyer’s lecture on libel?

    Is Tamino wrong? Did you not claim that some scientists had committed fraud in using that data?

    You didn’t publish this at your blog?

    The long term global temperature trends have been shown by numerous peer review papers to be exaggerated by 30%, 50% and in some cases much more by issues such as urbanization, land use changes, bad siting, bad instrumentation, and ocean measurement techniques that changed over time. NOAA made matters worse by removing the satellite ocean temperature measurement which provide more complete coverage and was not subject to the local issues except near the coastlines and islands. The result has been the absurd and bogus claims by NOAA and the alarmists that we are in the warmest decade in 100 or even a 1000 years or more and our oceans are warmest ever. See this earlier story that summarizes the issues.

    Watts continued:

    Being a grade school teacher, Ed should recognize childish action and arguments as not worthy of a response, especially when the blogger Tamino hides his name and his work.

    Never have taught grade school. I work with Cub Scouts, though, and we expect them to hold to a very high standard, including telling the truth. If they make an error, they are expected to correct things if significant, and if they insult someone, they are expected to apologize.

    Cub Scouts regularly live up to those standards. I think scientists and politicians should, too.

    If it were a math paper he’s grading would Ed allow the student to write in a fictitious name and show the answer but not the work? Probably not, at least I hope not, because I was taught that way.

    Different issue here. We’re not in grade school, you, I, nor Tamino. In science, we expect errors to be corrected on the basis of the data, not on the basis of the station in life of the person who found the error. Lord Kelvin thought the Earth less than 200 million years old, and the Sun about the same, on the basis of his calculation that a molten iron body of the Earth’s size would cool to its present temperature in about 200 million years, and same for the Sun. Darwin wasn’t knighted nor did he have any other title of nobility, and many took that as reason enough to side with Lord Kelvin. When Rutherford demonstrated that radiation keeps the Earth hot, and that the cooling rate of iron is of no consequence in calculating the Earth’s age, Rutherford didn’t have a knighthood or title, either. Lord Kelvin didn’t let that delay his own corrections.

    How sad and telling though that Ed would embrace such antics now.

    Since when is calling for accuracy “an antic?”

    However, there’s some open source work being done elsewhere by people (at Lucia’s) that do show their work and who do put their own names to it. And in fact Joe D’Aleo and I are responding to that, because it is in fact a valid criticism, showing the work, the methods and code, where Tamino’s is just 5th grade noise.

    Tell D’Aleo to tone down his 5th grade rhetoric, will you? His exaggerations of what results should be achieved when data are processed are quite beyond the pale, and not worthy of any scientific endeavor.

    I can’t help but think that Tamino’s calling you on it is what has you piqued, and digging in to refuse to make corrections.

    Ed is also upset that we haven’t responded on the timeline expectation another has set.

    Heh. Ed assumes that the issued is settled, just like the science according to Gore, and that it’s all an open an shut case. But you see, it’s not. We’ll publish an update soon, but we won’t rush just becuase somebody says we should.

    If the issue isn’t settled, then you need to make that statement clearly, and withdraw your criticism of NASA’s scientists. If the issue isn’t settled, your criticism of them is uncalled for, and inaccurate.

    As for Ed’s mistake, I won’t set timelines, make angry grade school caliber taunts, or make use of hateful labels like the people that Ed embraces do. I won’t even suggest “chest thumping”.

    I’ll simply ask politely that Ed correct his article showing that his assertion about the WUWT article carried by Powerline is wrong, and that he made a mistake conflating USA with world temps, and that 2009 in the USA was indeed cool, just like 2008

    I forgive Tamino for his inability to act like an adult though.

    We’re dancing around the problem. NASA’s right, so far as we’ve seen, and the good men and women working there do not deserve the calumny heaped on them.

    I’ve done science and I’ve done politics, and I’ve done political work involving science. The petty taunts, the grade school schoolyard taunts and insults, from people you defend and promote, Anthony, are not science, not mannerly, and wrong. You do damage to science and serious policy discussion.

    You posted at your blog, appearing for all the world to approve the statement:

    NOAA stands accused by the two researchers [Joseph D'Aleo and E. Michael Smith] of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

    And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

    Publication, identification and defamation, if the issues are unresolved as you claim. Needlessly inflammatory in any case. “Accomplices?” That deserves a retraction.

    If you’re merely working for the truth, quit waging war on science, will you?

    Like this

  40. Anthony Watts says:

    While I can’t control what Powerline writes, I can say with certainty that Ed is the one who has egg on his face and needs to write a retraction regarding my involvement.

    Ed, blinded by his hatred for me, has conflated an article about US CONUS temperatures citing NCDC data without bothering to check to see if the premise of the article I carried is true by checking the actual data.

    Here’s the original WUWT article (a repost from World Climate Report) cited by the Powerline blog that Ed equates to “chest thumping”:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/09/2009-shaping-up-to-be-a-normal-temperature-year-in-the-usa/

    Note the key word there USA, not world. The USA NCDC data for 2008 is cited in this graph:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/US_temps_fig3.gif

    The suggestion is that 2009 would be similar.

    When you plot the actual data, from NCDC, and included 2009, you’ll note that it is in fact very similar to 2008:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ncdc_us_temps_2009.png

    2009 ranks as 81st, certainly no record breaker at all. The claim in the original article I ran was:

    “2009 shaping up to be a “normal” temperature year in the USA”

    2009 was 53.12°F for the USA. The 1901-2000 base average temp is 52.79°F. The 2009 0.33°F variance is well within the standard deviation.

    The article claimed that 2009 USA temps would be similar to 2008, and they were.

    But don’t take my word for it, do what Ed Darrel should have done himself, check the actual data at NCDC here

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html

    For the technically challenged, to reproduce the plot I made here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/ncdc_us_temps_2009.png

    Choose for the pulldonw boxes:

    Period: Annual

    Last Year to Display: 2009

    Make no other changes.

    Now, look at the actual data from NCDC and you’ll see that Ed Darrel is the one with egg on his face and needs to make a retraction.

    I don’t expect him to though, like most true believers that let personal hate cloud their reason, he’ll go off on a tangent, so let me nip that in the bud too.

    Ed will claim yes but you still haven’t responded to “X” in which he refers to an anonymous blogger named Tamino who made a grade school taunt on his bloig demanding (on his terms) that I should make a retraction for an issue related to station dropout.

    The problem is that “Tamino” is too cowardly to put his real name to his work (I always do) and he doesn’t show his work, only the results. He’s holding his work close saying “I’ll publish it”.

    Being a grade school teacher, Ed should recognize childish action and arguments as not worthy of a response, especially when the blogger Tamino hides his name and his work. If it were a math paper he’s grading would Ed allow the student to write in a fictitious name and show the answer but not the work? Probably not, at least I hope not, because I was taught that way.

    How sad and telling though that Ed would embrace such antics now.

    However, there’s some open source work being done elsewhere by people (at Lucia’s) that do show their work and who do put their own names to it. And in fact Joe D’Aleo and I are responding to that, because it is in fact a valid criticism, showing the work, the methods and code, where Tamino’s is just 5th grade noise.

    Ed is also upset that we haven’t responded on the timeline expectation another has set.

    Heh. Ed assumes that the issued is settled, just like the science according to Gore, and that it’s all an open an shut case. But you see, it’s not. We’ll publish an update soon, but we won’t rush just becuase somebody says we should.

    As for Ed’s mistake, I won’t set timelines, make angry grade school caliber taunts, or make use of hateful labels like the people that Ed embraces do. I won’t even suggest “chest thumping”.

    I’ll simply ask politely that Ed correct his article showing that his assertion about the WUWT article carried by Powerline is wrong, and that he made a mistake conflating USA with world temps, and that 2009 in the USA was indeed cool, just like 2008

    I forgive Tamino for his inability to act like an adult though.

    Like this

  41. Ed Darrell says:

    What un-scientific nonsense. Weather is not climate.

    Correct. Which means that Anthony Watts’s gloating about a cold winter is hoo-haw, and not science.

    Would you say, if this year happens to be lower than last year, that the world is cooling? Of course not.

    You’re complaining to the wrong party. I’m not the one who is arguing that a cold winter in Buffalo means global warming is ended.

    Were this year to be cooler than 2009, it could still be the fifth hottest year ever recorded. But a year is 10% closer to a decade’s climate record. Were 2010 to be dramatically cooler, it would be good news.

    That’s a key difference between science and political hackery: In science, we wait to see what happens, and if a predicted disaster does not occur, we’re joyful.

    But you want it both ways. This is mere rhetoric, and intellectually dishonest ones at that. Look at the larger averages of real temper measurements.

    You’re right, but you need to take your complaint to PowerLine and WUWT. Will you do that? Go tell them a cool winter does not make an end to global warming. Heck, it didn’t even make for one cool year.

    It is another wholly straw man argument you propose.

    I proposed that we not count one year as evidence climate has changed. What are you proposing? How is my proposal a straw man argument (where’s the straw man?), and critically, how does your argument differ from mine?

    Why can you not grow up? Why do you cling to this delusion of Global Warming? They have been caught in their lies. It is not a matter for rational debate.

    What delusion? The hottest decade ever means warming. As you stated, one cool year does not mean climate has changed dramatically.

    Your latter claim there is exactly in opposition to your first.

    Lies? Yes, Watts’s claim that dropping out some temperature stations introduced a bias to warming has been thoroughly falsified, and yet he persists in it. Hinderaker’s claim that 2009 would be cool is completely falsified.

    Why do you cling to the false claims of denialists and contrarians? Why not listen to the scientists?

    They have been caught.

    The Br’er Rabbit of Global Warming has been caught, you say, Br’er Bear? Do tell.

    Global Warming is Marxist politics masquerading as science.

    That claim is sheer idiocy. You should pay attention. Which side of this debate are the Marxists and Maoists on? They deny warming at all, and they say it’s nothing humans could affect in any case. In Copenhagen they said the trends were down. The Marxists said we had a cool winter. The Marxists said the evidence for global warming is weak.

    How can you side with the Marxists, and not realize it? Are you even paying attention?

    It is not science at all. It is the alarmists that have been caught with “egg on their face”. Not the rest of us.

    True, some people have been caught with their pants down, and others caught with their thumbs on the scale and fingers in the till. In each case, it was an anti-science contrarian, and not a scientist.

    Hattip, list for us, if you can, any claim from the IPCC report which has been significantly altered. To verify your list, point us to the published research which indicates the IPCC report was in error.

    See if you can get your list to number more than one. Then take the Scout Oath, and see if it still equals one.

    Such buffoonery out of you. What are you going to do, cling to this silliness the rest of your days? Grow up!

    If any post here gives you apoplexy, I consider that a public service.

    Like this

  42. joselito says:

    “Look at the larger averages of real temper measurements.”

    Citation needed.

    Like this

  43. Hattip says:

    What un-scientific nonsense. Weather is not climate. Would you say, if this year happens to be lower than last year, that the world is cooling? Of course not. But you want it both ways. This is mere rhetoric, and intellectually dishonest ones at that. Look at the larger averages of real temper measurements.

    It is another wholly straw man argument you propose.

    Why can you not grow up? Why do you cling to this delusion of Global Warming? They have been caught in their lies. It is not a matter for rational debate.

    They have been caught. Global Warming is Marxist politics masquerading as science. It is not science at all. It is the alarmists that have been caught with “egg on their face”. Not the rest of us.

    Such buffoonery out of you. What are you going to do, cling to this silliness the rest of your days? Grow up!

    Like this

Play nice in the Bathtub -- don't splash soap in anyone's eyes.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,972 other followers

%d bloggers like this: