Does Anthony Watts know he's been debunked?
For those who don't know, Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who has put together a network of volunteers to go around rating the surface temperature stations used by groups like NASA and NOAA to measure the global surface temperature (or at last, the temperature in the USA). Watts suggests that too many stations are located in poor places (near buildings, concrete pads, asphalt, etc.) to be reliable due to the 'urban heat island' effect. NOAA and NASA claim they filter out these kinds of effects.
Apparently there's a “Climate Crock of the Week” video series on YouTube. Recently, they did a piece on Watts and NOAA. The piece covered a recent NOAA report which used Watts' own data to prove the "bad" stations and "good" stations have almost identical data.
The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube’s copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use. You can see the video for yourself here (I highly recommend it).
One 'skeptic' wrote “I have to admit it doesn’t look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won’t get it done.”
It's standard procedure for YouTube to remove a video when somebody complains of copyright infringement. Do you think Watts exploited this loophole because he realized the video debunked the whole purpose of his site? Now that Watts' surfacestations project is worthless, what relevance does he have?
This isn't the first time this kind of analysis has been done. The 'best stations', 'worst stations', and GISTemp show the same trend.
- Author UnknownLv 6il y a 1 décennieMeilleure réponse
Of course he knows but he has to milk SurfaceStations.org for all he can while he still has followers ready to listen. Judging by this http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-c... he still has followers.
Funny, I posted "Admit it Watts, you've been debunked".on that page and has since been removed. Negative comments will not be tolerated I guess.
- eric cLv 5il y a 1 décennie
This says it all.
"NCDC published no methodology, data or formula used, or show work of any kind that would normally be required in a scientific paper."
"I’m regularly lambasted for publishing things here that are not “peer reviewed”. But, when NCDC does it, and does it unbelievably badly, not only is the “talking points memo” embraced by the alarmosphere as “truth” and “falsification”, but NOT ONE of those embracing it show the remotest interest in questioning why it fails to meet even the basic standards for a letter to the editor of a local newspaper."
- amancalledchudaLv 4il y a 1 décennie
Eric c got there before me.
It is very telling that you have blindly accepted this without any evidence whatsoever. (I’m sure there’s something else that you believe, despite the total absence of evidence, but I forget what it is.)
I could tell you that aliens are causing Global Warming. Would you believe me? Or would you ask for proof? I would hope that you’d ask to see the proof?
So, as per usual, it’s one rule for the Global Warming Liars and a different rule for the sceptics.
I also note with interest the ad hominem nature of the video. Remind me; when did ad hominem attack become relevant to scientific debate?
As ever with Global Warming - don't believe the hype.
- bartruffLv 4il y a 3 ans
i'm uncertain what you recommend by utilising failed. the exterior stations undertaking is a effective gadget for assessing the siting themes with the exterior stations. this does not mean that the exterior record is incorrect or unreliable, whether it does not mean that the attempt is ineffective the two.
- Que pensez-vous des réponses ? Vous pouvez vous connecter afin de voter pour la réponse.
- RichardLv 7il y a 1 décennie
So talking points are now proof? Wow, just when I though science couldn't sink any lower.
They state the surfacestations says 70 of the 1221 are class 1 or 2 that 5.7% of your network is giving you good data. They admit that "However, at the present time this is the only large scale site evaluation information available so we conducted a preliminary analysis."
So they admit that they don't know if their own station meet their standards. They don't know if or when the stations fell out of compliance with their standards.
If only 6% of your networks was giving you good data, would you trust the results? If you didn't know if your stations met your standard would you trust the numbers?
I don't know about you but I wouldn't. But then again I want good data and I don't have preconceived conclusions.
- Anonymeil y a 1 décennie
From the recent vehemence exhibited by most of the more dedicated promoters and followers of the AGW religion it appears many are now really checking the science and it takes so very few obvious pieces of real science to prove AGW is a fallacy. So basically AGW believers and promoters debunk themselves because they are using science fantasy that has no realistic support from actual scientists and so fails the test of accuracy every time it is tested. But then it is easy to debunk any evangelistic religion with facts, I do it all the time with Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam and AGWisim. There is so little difference between these different religions it is very easy to spot them and find where they cheated and so debunk them.
But then true believers will never question the doctrines of the church and that is why heretical teachers of facts like myself are needed to counter the false teachings of the true believers.
- Ottawa MikeLv 6il y a 1 décennie
"The piece covered a recent NOAA report which used Watts' own data to prove the "bad" stations and "good" stations have almost identical data."
This is more "fun with numbers". My source addresses the "prove" part of the above statement better than I could.Source(s) : http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6370
- pegminerLv 7il y a 1 décennie
The goal of people like Anthony Watts and organizations like the Heartland Institute, like the prior tactics of the cigarette companies, is not to prove anything, but to raise doubt. In that sense he is still successful. People like BB still think he's some sort of scientific god. If you're looking for reasons not to believe AGW, it doesn't matter whether or not Watt has been scientifically debunked, you'll hold on to what he says.
- bucket22Lv 5il y a 1 décennie
Watts is an emperor with no clothes. Scientifically, he has no case. Politically, his message should live on for quite awhile as he has many mindless followers and cheerleaders.
Watts trying to scrub a YouTube video is hilarious and indicates he's quite a coward.
- Anonymeil y a 1 décennie
Does he know that people like you will fight him tooth and nail? Yes.
Does that make what he did illegitimate? no.
Let's see, erasing videos from you-tube means the science is irrelevant. That's a pretty incredible scientific argument. "Stature" is not "science."