Dana1981 a posé la question dans EnvironmentGlobal Warming · il y a 10 ans

Do you think Anthony Watts is irresponsible and unethical?

Anthony Watts and Joseph D'Aleo published a report through a right-wing think tank (SPPI) entitled “SURFACE TEMPERATURE RECORDS: POLICY DRIVEN DECEPTION?”. The report claimed

"Around 1990, NOAA began weeding out more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. They may have been working under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It can be shown that they systematically and purposefully, country by country, removed higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler."

All of these statements are demonstrably false. NOAA — a U.S. government agency — has no control whatever over which station data various nations contribute to the GHCN.

But more importantly, Watts and D'Aleo didn't bother to do any data analysis to confirm that the station reduction introduced a warming bias. Several individuals have now done this analysis, including some 'skeptics' and all have confirmed that no bias was introduced through the station removal. In fact if anything, it created a slight cooling bias.

Tamino at Open Mind blog - the first person to do this analysis - tells Watts "you were irresponsible not to investigate this issue before publishing your claims...your use of false claims to accuse NOAA scientists of deliberate deception was not just mistaken, it was unethical.

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?"

Do you agree that Watts is irresponsible and unethical? And do you think he's man enough to admit his accusations directed towards the good scientists at NOAA were unfounded and unwarranted?

10 réponses

Pertinence
  • beren
    Lv 7
    il y a 10 ans
    Meilleure réponse

    It is very clear that the motives of Watts and D'Aleo are not finding the truth, but to only accuse others of doing something improper. I have never seen Watts or D'Aleo do any actual analysis of the temperature data. I think they would not like the answer they find. Perhaps they have done the analysis but refuse to publish the results.

    All they do is claim that somebody is doing something wrong without offering any alternatives of their own. Yes that is unethical.

    Edit: I will apologize to Watts. Mr. Watts, I am sorry that you do not have the talent or the skill to perform any real analytical analysis on the temperature data. I am sorry that your preconceived political views have forced you to spend all your time making a crummy blog that others with your political views worship. Please accept my apology for your lack of scientific integrity.

  • il y a 10 ans

    I know he is unethical (first hand)

    http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_ite...

    The above from his surface station site used to contain and image of the interior of the Stevenson screen which clearly showed this was not a working station and had not been for years it contained one chart roll, attached to nothing and junk.

    I emailed him on this, he did not respond, he did not remove or change this link in any way except to remove the image that showed that this had not been the real site for data collection for some time, clearly the man has no interest in facts or the truth.

    It would have cost him nothing to remove one site and have it rechecked instead he showed his true con man colours.

  • il y a 10 ans

    They are pointing out the points of measurement have changed. To not investigate the impact in either direction would be irresponsible. Has this caused an impact on the temperature data? We don't know if we don't have the measurements to compare to.

  • il y a 10 ans

    Not any more than Mann or Hansen whose intent is to deceive and promote their activist agenda. When they apologize for their lies and misrepresentations - along with many other AGW alarmists - then maybe Watts should. But not unitl.

  • Que pensez-vous des réponses ? Vous pouvez vous connecter afin de voter pour la réponse.
  • il y a 10 ans

    Anthony Watts is a media-clever blogger who makes lots of money telling people what they want to hear. Who can blame him? He is a local weather-man, he knows nothing about paleoclimate.

    The irresponsible people are the simple-minded sheep who do not question his credentials or methods. It is only simple-minded who even pay attention to him. He is proved wrong every single month in the science journals, but scholarly research is far to complex for the Watt's audience to even be aware of.

    Ignore him.

  • il y a 10 ans

    isnt he? with a little education in the truth, this little guy could be of some use.

  • Anonyme
    il y a 10 ans

    yes

  • il y a 10 ans

    No, he was right and a hero to the truth.

  • BB
    Lv 7
    il y a 10 ans

    Tamino??!! You are hilarious!! What kind of crap are you reading??

    Dana, There is not a single person on this board who has the climate expertise of Anthony Watts.

    What he has discovered in temperature reporting has caused your religion of 'Man-did-it' global warming to implode....... his work scared.... and rightfully so.... the bugheezus out of you and your fellow believers...... that is why you bring him up.

    I will accept YOUR apology to Watts on his behalf.

  • martin
    Lv 5
    il y a 10 ans

    No! but you are!

Vous avez d’autres questions ? Pour obtenir des réponses, posez vos questions dès maintenant.