For example, someone named John Brignell wrote:
James Hansen, notorious among global warming critics as a ruthless fudger of data. . .(as of 10/18/09 4:06 pm PDT). I asked him for proof that Hansen actually substituted bad numbers for real numbers, and his rather unconvincing reply was:
No, I did not mean that. It should not be difficult to find links to the critiques on the web via Google, but if you want somewhere to start you can try: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20June.htm#twenty"
That is (he claims), Hansen made the horrible heresy of making a prediction that (he thinks) didn't come true, which makes him a "liar." Not just that he might have been wrong -- no, there has to be an evil attached to it, a maliciousness.
And, in fact, Hansen wasn't that far off, really, for a projection (not a prediction) that occurred 21 years ago -- a lifetime or two, in scientific terms.
10/20 CORRECTION: corrected the spelling of Brignell's name.
21 comments:
Fudging of data usually means picking the input that makes the output the way you prefer.
Why do you call him Bricknell here, and in your leters to him use his proper name, which is Brignell?
And what he seems to be complaining about is that the GISS figures keep changing, and we aren't given the full details of why. We are just told that 'corrections' are applied. And the net result is that the GISS figures diverge from all the other available figures - GISS temperatures are going up while all the others are going down. That sounds suspiciously like 'fudging' in my book...
Why do you call him Bricknell here, and in your leters to him use his proper name, which is Brignell?
Quibbler alert! Quibbler alert!
And the net result is that the GISS figures diverge from all the other available figures - GISS temperatures are going up while all the others are going down..
BSer alert! BSer alert!
Best,
D
John has posted the actual mail exchange on his own blog. Makes you look a little petty here tbh.
Funny that you felt the need to post before completing the email exchange. Is pilloring skeptical bloggers for Dano's benefit so important it couldnt have waited a couple of days?
Ah.
A little petty = pointing out mendacity. A little petty = drawing attention to a disinformer.
Got it.
chuckle
You lads crack me up.
Best,
D
Dano, I'm new to this forum but you appear to be what we in England call an arse. Can you actually reply to the comment about GISS temperatures and Hansen's constant "corrections" or not? Simply being rude suggests that you cannot.
Here's somewhere you'll probably want to comment.
My own feeling is that cherry picking was always easy, and the temptation is only completely offset by genuine curiosity.
Having politics in addition to scientific inclinations more or less completely eliminates curiosity.
Tim,
These accusations are false (that is: bullsh--, thank you ron for additional graphs showing this is bullsh--) and addressed long ago.
If being an arse means "to point out someone using long-ago refuted talking points", it is an odd place indeed where you live. Certain denizens of small percentages of the population don't care about false talking points and spread them anyway - maybe they reside where you do, Tim.
They also don't like to mention previously-preferred satellite temperatures and their corrections that were long in coming that weren't found until folk demanded the ...er...source code.
HTH.
Best,
D
Funny isnt it Dano? The email exchange posted by John would show you that the "disinformation" is the blog posted here by David, but you didnt read that.
My sympathies David. All the energy you put into this blog and it appears the only reader you have who hasnt followed JB's link here is a tunnel vision troll.
Why didn't you simply ask John in curteous way what exactly he meant with the term "fudged"?
Hansen appears to have been clmsy in the past with his various adjustments. That is most accurately a "fudge".
You pathetic lads can't hand-wave your way out of the fact that there is no evidence to back the bullsh-- claims of lying, fudging, and all the other weak ululating and hand-fluttering on that site.
That is: Brignell is full of sh--.
But I think he is useful for identifying gullible rubes, and anyone who repeats this comical hand-fluttering in policy discussions can instantly be discredited, saving everyone much time and headache.
So there is some good from the fringe whinger. So, lads. Feel free to repeat him, verbatim. Please. It'll save the vast majority of the planet much time.
Best,
D
Yawn ... I really don't know which is sadder: this blog's pitiful attempt to ambush and misrepresent an elderly, retired scientist and his website, or the childish ravings of this "Dano" character.
Sigh ... oh well ... carry on, gentlemen. You do internet comedy a great service by your published nonsense.
I guess Dano here figures that, with only a few more censored explicatives, he'll rival Richard Pryor in unadulterated wit. Sadly, however, those of us who know better realize that this type of "discussion" was best left on the playground of our respective middle schools in our early teens, and it has no place in a serious conversation between adults.
Wattsupwiththat has regularly shown how US readings overseen by Hansen are fraudulent, taking readings from outside air conditioning outlets etc. His alleged corrections of this were proven some time ago by Stephen McIntyre to be rubbish & that consequently 1934, rather than 1998 is the warmest on record.
Thank you for changing the subject, Anon., away from the fact you have no facts to back your quibbling.. This is, of course, not news.
And Neil, if Watts has done what you said, can you share with us which specific stations that have had their temperatures measured by amateurs show differences? Oh, wait: no one measured temperatures to find a bias. They just took pictures. Brilliant.
Best,
D
Well, I think what Mr. Brignell is hitting at is an issue with the quality of the data. And indeed, here I often see big discrepancies. Often recorded temperature-time graphs are reworked post-recording. They are changed according to some not yet known equation to
a) cut out urban heat isles
b) reflect a change of position
c) reflect some other errors
The problem here is documentation and that nobody really questions or looks through the changes and the reasons why they are made.
This at least is an issue I can understand. I however don't see any big differences between GISS and HARDCRU/UAH. On the other side, I am highly sceptical of land based measurement. We should switch to satelite measurements nowadays.
Max: scientists have, for years (and probably now, decades) subtracted the urban heat island effects from their considerations. You have apparently n not read the literature and you have not done the research you should have.
Before you criticize people, you need to need to have a clear idea of what they have already done/attempted/accomplished. You haven't done that here.
As a newcommer here and seeing some views on either side; anyone know what the favored explanation for Doug Keenan's expose regarding urban heat island effects?
http://www.informath.org/
"The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang", Energy & Environment, 18: 985–995 (2007). doi: 10.1260/095830507782616913.
David,
How have the scientists measured the UHI effect at all of the locations in order to prepare their adjustment figures?
To you have a complete and unimpeachable reference for the set of values used and the way they are are calculated?
Is it possible to accurately subtract 'urban heat island' effects from temperature measuring stations' data? How fortuitous - In that case, why not also compensate for geographical location, seasonal variations and so on and use just one thermometer for the whole globe...
Now this is getting interesting. The true believers rely upon faith alone, while the non-believers demand proof. Neither can satify the other. Where have I heard this before?
Proof of warming?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
Post a Comment