Will Watts set the record straight and apologize?
Posted by Ari Jokimäki on March 6, 2010
For a while now Tamino has been studying the claims presented by Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts:
Dropouts
Summer and Smoke
GHCN: preliminary results
False Claims Proven False
Shame
Interesting Comment
Show and Tell
Thanks
Update
Replication, not repetition
Global Update
Tamino has done great work here showing without a doubt that D’Aleo & Watts are wrong about their claims. Here’s the latest post on the issue:
Let’s take a quote from there:
If you have any honor at all, you’ll set the record straight. You owe it to everyone, and especially to NOAA, to admit that you were wrong. And you certainly owe it to NOAA to apologize. You need to make a highly visible, highly public admission of error, and apology, for using falsehoods to accuse others of fraud.
Are you man enough?
We are waiting, Mr. Watts.
AGW Observer 
doskonaleszare said
I don’t think so. Watts is going to repeat that RomanM showed Tamino’s analysis is not optimal so (insert frantic hand-waving here) his results are void. Never mind others (including Spencer) showed the station drop-out is not an issue.
Ironically, RomanM, Mosher and other, better educated septics, claim they haven’t read SPPI paper and they have no intention of doing so in the near future. So sorry, they can’t say if Watts was right or wrong. They were not propagandists, RomanM said.
They are just cowards.
Ari Jokimäki said
You might be correct on that. I haven’t really followed the sceptic circles much, though (I don’t usually read Watts for example). What’s the SPPI paper?
doskonaleszare said
Authors veteran meteorologists Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts analyzed temperature records from all around the world for a major SPPI paper, Surface Temperature Records – Policy-driven Deception? The startling conclusion that we cannot tell whether there was any significant “global warming” at all in the 20th century is based on numerous astonishing examples of manipulation and exaggeration of the true level and rate of “global warming”.
Ari Jokimäki said
Ahh, yes, that one. 🙂
J Bowers said
Watts is passing the buck when it comes to dropouts.
“Most of the station dropout issue covered in that report is based on the hard work of E. M. Smith, aka “chiefio“, who has been aggressively working through the data bias issues that develop when thermometers have been dropped from the Global Historical Climate Network. My contribution to the study of the dropout issue was essentially zero, “
Oh, no apologies, either.
angelsandarmor said
But isn’t that the tactics of the denial movement? Their asymmetric standards of evidence make it almost impossible to debate. When they get it wrong, they simply ignore the issue and move onto the next claim. They’ll tear into the IPCC for a few errors in the last report, and yet when their own research proofs to be fundamentally flawed they’ll duck and weave: http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2010/03/02/asymmetric-standards-of-evidence-how-the-deniers-give-a-free-pass-to-sceptical-grey-literature/
Ari Jokimäki said
It is also clear from Watts’ text that he’s trying to make it look like as if there still would be an issue with these dropouts (“Some say that while the data bias issues show up in absolutes and averaging, it doesn’t effect trends at all when anomaly methods are applied.”). That’s no surprise either, he’s just trying to drag the argument as far as he can – a typical denialist tactic.