Steven Goddard's real name is Tony Heller, and he's right.
Jun 29, 2014 7:55:40 GMT
trbixler, sigurdur, and 2 more like this
Post by magellan on Jun 29, 2014 7:55:40 GMT
After all the criticism and ridicule of Steve Goddard (Tony Heller) even by Anthony Watts and other "skeptics", it can no longer be argued something is hugely wrong with the temperature data. It has been discussed and argued in this forum for years.
Well folks, now even Zeke and Mosher who I have slammed on multiple occasions can no longer defend the reported temperature values (it isn't data). Mosher is trying, but he's going to lose. Guaranteed.
Read Anthony Watts entire post. It is unbelievable how much crow he and others are going to eat now that this whole thing is blown wide open.
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/software-verification-part-two/#comments
I dare say it isn't surprising to me and have no doubt most everyone else at SC24 either. In my business we compile tens of thousands of lines of data to verify machine performance. We don't get to estimate it if the data is corrupted or missing. All we are allowed to do is verify the accuracy and precision of the instruments used to report the data, and the environment in which they reside that could affect the accuracy/precision of said instrument. If it is found an instrument is out of calibration, we are not permitted to assume it has ever been correct; all data used after the last calibration is considered null and void; unusable and thrown out. If we shipped a machine that rejected good transmissions and accepted bad transmissions, imagine the cost to the auto companies if just 4% of the millions of transmissions that get tested were incorrectly measured. Imagine the cost to my company. Redundant checks and correlation alarms are used to throw up red flags if the data violates those rules, forcing the Controls Engineers to immediately investigate.
That's partly why I considered the entire SAT temperature record and all it's "adjustments" were garbage. Another reason is I've worked in the measurement business in one capacity or another for over 30 years, temperature measurements not excluded. It doesn't hurt to have common sense too.
Over the last year or two I'd become tired of the whole charade, which is why I mostly posted in the 'America fail' thread for that period.
This is going to be big. Bigger than Climategate IMO. I also think the whole TOBS issue is a load of crap as well.
If anyone is doubting that, read this thread at Judith Curry's blog, particularly this from Jennifer Marohasy:
judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/#comment-602047
jennifermarohasy | June 28, 2014 at 10:44 pm | Reply
No. If you read my recent paper, and see the Twitter discussion I had with Gavin Schmidt, you will see that GISS (NASA) and Berkeley both apply the same algorithms to the ‘raw’ temperature data that can have the affect of changing a perfectly good (but politically incorrect) temperature series from one of cooling to warming… I show how this is done for a place in Australia called Amberley … read the paper here jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Marohasy_Abbot_Stewart_Jensen_2014_06_25_Final.pdf
Contrary to Steve Mosher's claim Berkeley was "special" and novel. Nick Stokes, well he's just a plant to defend the garbage science and obfuscate at every opportunity. What a work of art he is.
And this from Paul Homewood:
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/ushcn-adjustments-in-kansas/
This is only the beginning, and now others will dig deeper and find more and more "errors". Tony Heller says it best:
Thank you Tony Heller for being the door mat for so long and not giving up.
Well folks, now even Zeke and Mosher who I have slammed on multiple occasions can no longer defend the reported temperature values (it isn't data). Mosher is trying, but he's going to lose. Guaranteed.
Read Anthony Watts entire post. It is unbelievable how much crow he and others are going to eat now that this whole thing is blown wide open.
wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/28/the-scientific-method-is-at-work-on-the-ushcn-temperature-data-set/
stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/software-verification-part-two/#comments
I dare say it isn't surprising to me and have no doubt most everyone else at SC24 either. In my business we compile tens of thousands of lines of data to verify machine performance. We don't get to estimate it if the data is corrupted or missing. All we are allowed to do is verify the accuracy and precision of the instruments used to report the data, and the environment in which they reside that could affect the accuracy/precision of said instrument. If it is found an instrument is out of calibration, we are not permitted to assume it has ever been correct; all data used after the last calibration is considered null and void; unusable and thrown out. If we shipped a machine that rejected good transmissions and accepted bad transmissions, imagine the cost to the auto companies if just 4% of the millions of transmissions that get tested were incorrectly measured. Imagine the cost to my company. Redundant checks and correlation alarms are used to throw up red flags if the data violates those rules, forcing the Controls Engineers to immediately investigate.
That's partly why I considered the entire SAT temperature record and all it's "adjustments" were garbage. Another reason is I've worked in the measurement business in one capacity or another for over 30 years, temperature measurements not excluded. It doesn't hurt to have common sense too.
Over the last year or two I'd become tired of the whole charade, which is why I mostly posted in the 'America fail' thread for that period.
This is going to be big. Bigger than Climategate IMO. I also think the whole TOBS issue is a load of crap as well.
If anyone is doubting that, read this thread at Judith Curry's blog, particularly this from Jennifer Marohasy:
judithcurry.com/2014/06/28/skeptical-of-skeptics-is-steve-goddard-right/#comment-602047
jennifermarohasy | June 28, 2014 at 10:44 pm | Reply
No. If you read my recent paper, and see the Twitter discussion I had with Gavin Schmidt, you will see that GISS (NASA) and Berkeley both apply the same algorithms to the ‘raw’ temperature data that can have the affect of changing a perfectly good (but politically incorrect) temperature series from one of cooling to warming… I show how this is done for a place in Australia called Amberley … read the paper here jennifermarohasy.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Marohasy_Abbot_Stewart_Jensen_2014_06_25_Final.pdf
Contrary to Steve Mosher's claim Berkeley was "special" and novel. Nick Stokes, well he's just a plant to defend the garbage science and obfuscate at every opportunity. What a work of art he is.
And this from Paul Homewood:
notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2014/06/28/ushcn-adjustments-in-kansas/
This is only the beginning, and now others will dig deeper and find more and more "errors". Tony Heller says it best:
I have been emphasizing the difference between commercial and government software.
Commercial software goes through constant review. Mine gets reviewed 2-3 times a day by my boss.
Government software on the other hand has no quality control. Consider the Obamacare web site or the just announced USHCN software disaster.
The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?
A bunch of scientists with no software training cranking out code, with the only review process being that the output confirms their biases. The error USHCN has uncovered is so blatant, that it obviously has never been through any kind of serious verification.
They were just happy to see a lot of warming, and it didn’t matter that global warming research, climate models, and US domestic policy in Washington were based on their graphs. It wasn’t worth spending two hours doing any verification.
Commercial software goes through constant review. Mine gets reviewed 2-3 times a day by my boss.
Government software on the other hand has no quality control. Consider the Obamacare web site or the just announced USHCN software disaster.
The scientific method is at work on the USHCN temperature data set | Watts Up With That?
A bunch of scientists with no software training cranking out code, with the only review process being that the output confirms their biases. The error USHCN has uncovered is so blatant, that it obviously has never been through any kind of serious verification.
They were just happy to see a lot of warming, and it didn’t matter that global warming research, climate models, and US domestic policy in Washington were based on their graphs. It wasn’t worth spending two hours doing any verification.
Thank you Tony Heller for being the door mat for so long and not giving up.