I rebloged Steve Goddard’s post when I saw it (with the proviso I had not checked it). Judith now has a “there’s no smoke …. without rubbing two skeptics together” type article.
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
- Drewski on The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.
- anng on The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.
- scottishsceptic on The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.
- Drewski on The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.
- anng on The Pause comes of age: no child has seen any global warming.
-
Archives
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- September 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
-
Categories
-
Meta
I don’t know if Steve Goddard is right but I know why he’s not accorded the support he thinks he’s entitled to.
Like many warmists he communicates by over the top headlines, not content. I got the feeling from the start that he wanted the top sceptic blog spot and was banging posts out, often almost identical to each other and even some with literally zero content. He’s done some great and I mean great work but he interspaces it with some utter cr@p, much of it having nothing to do with climate. I had to stop directing people to his site because I couldn’t warn them to read only the good bits and ignore the political rants. Of course he can post about anything he likes but then he has to accept his climate work will be judged in conjunction with the other content.
I stopped reading his site several years ago and everytime I’ve been tempted back by a juicy headline on uclimate I’ve regretted it. Anthony Watts and others have clearly tuned him out too, so where Steve might have something worth saying they jump to the conclusion that he’s in the wrong. Steve certainly wouldn’t admit that the reaction he gets is partly deserved.
I get the feeling that Steve will try to divide the sceptical bloggosphere over this. I know which side of the fence I’ll choose, even if Steve is right.
They each contribute in their own way.
However, whilst I’m very tempted to comment about certain blogs, I best keep quiet.
Well that’s the safest option.
Yes, they do both contribute and I’d be more than happy if they came to an agreement over this. But two of the reasons why I have more time for sceptics than warmists is they don’t uncritically support each other and that from time to time most admit where they have made mistakes. What worries me about this is that some see Watts’ actions as a kind of betrayal of the cause.
I’ve just been looking at this. And if what he is saying of this post: http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/one-more-time/
Is correct then he does seem to have a huge point.
If as it suggest, he’s taking the average of N stations and the average of N adjusted stations (no interpolation – just one-to-one) then I can’t see …. for a start why they are being adjusted at all, let alone how there can be nearly a 1C change.
As for the arguments about “we would grid it – so because we would do it that way it’s right” – I think their bollocks. If Goddard is finding any serious discrepancies, then this may be showing that there is something fundamentally flawed with the idea of gridding.
And Anthony Watts agrees and apologises.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/#more-112127