

Climate change skepticism: you're doing it wrong - jgrahamc
http://www.jgc.org/blog/2010/02/climate-change-skepticism-youre-doing.html

======
rimantas
I did not know that all skepticism relied on one picture. Actually I never saw
that picture before…

~~~
epochwolf
According to the article it was a picture in two british newspapers. Hardly a
basis to claim all skeptics are doing this. In fact the claim makes the exact
same errors the newspapers did: looking at data out of context.

It's two newspapers in the UK that could very possibly be using a single
reporter's work and reviewed by editors that don't understand proper research.
It's happened before at many other newspapers.

------
astine
"One picture does not a systematic investigation make."

No, but it makes a great polemical tool, like polar bears sitting on melting
ice and so-forth.

------
vixen99
I hope there are stronger rejoinders in the pipeline than this one. Evidence
of crumbling (if not collapse) of stout party comes with the final retort 'And
even if it was ....'.

Thermometers located adjacent to aircraft parking areas? Sounds eminently
sensible!

And which serious sceptic is claiming that 'one bad thermometer doesn't mean
climate change can be thrown out the window.'?

~~~
CapitalistCartr
Yeah this is what is commonly known as a straw man argument. Actual climate
skepticism is at least as complex as climate theory, and one newspaper's
incompetence in reporting isn't even news. If anything, this would make a good
anecdote regarding current mainstream press' sloppy reporting.

------
ZeroGravitas
This reminded me of the "one way hash" rhetorical technique. I'd actually
forgotten that the term was coined in relation to climate change discussions.

[http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-
and-a...](http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-and-
argumentative-fallacies/)

------
azgolfer
I would say it's the proponents that are doing it wrong. The supposedly
independent and objective inquiry into the climategate scandal has already had
one member forced to resign (the editor of Nature, btw)
[http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/11/the-team-that-cant-
shoot-...](http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/11/the-team-that-cant-shoot-
straight/)

and now another member looks very questionable

[http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/15/more-tricks-from-
boulton-...](http://climateaudit.org/2010/02/15/more-tricks-from-boulton-and-
the-hapless-muir-russell/)

------
DanielBMarkham
John,

I have a bit of cognitive dissonance going on here. I scanned this and have no
idea what you're trying to do.

Is it to take one picture used by some skeptics and try to base an entire case
of what climate science is like?

If so, that's clearly using a straw man argument.

Of course, in lots of dimensions climate change is a political/religious
discussion, and you've every right to use all sorts of rhetorical tools to
persuade us. But since your point is about science, logic, and reasoning, why
the heavy-handed format? You're actually making the case that _you're_ not so
good at the science end of things, and that certainly can't be what you
wanted, right?

~~~
jgrahamc
Probably not one of my best blog posts, I was just mad about the way in which
two newspapers in the UK have reported the Rome airport situation as part of
larger stories about how climate change apparently isn't happening.

~~~
epochwolf
I just find it ironic that you're making the same error in judgement that the
newspapers did.

------
moron4hire
8% of weather stations are rated as "poor" (>= 2C error) and 61% of stations
are rated as "worst" (>= 5C error). It's not just "one bad thermometer". It's
the vast majority of thermometers that are bad.
<http://www.surfacestations.org/>

~~~
jgrahamc
I agree that those are the claims made by Surface Stations. Do you know if
their raw data is available for download? I see their report on what they are
doing, but I would be great to see the raw, uninterpreted data about their
findings.

~~~
moron4hire
They're hidden in an obscure, non-standard UI element known as the "left side
bar menu", with cryptically named links "Online Database" and "Resources".

<http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php>
<http://www.surfacestations.org/resources.htm>

~~~
jgrahamc
I've looked at those pages and the Gallery allows me to zoom into pictures of
any individual station and look at scanned reports of the status.

But what I was asking for was something different. The project is apparently
generating data which allows them to make specific claims about the state of
each station and product roll-up statistics. I imagine somewhere there's a
database or spreadsheet with that information in it.

I can't find that for download anywhere, can you?

~~~
moron4hire
I'm sure you could request it

~~~
jgrahamc
I have. Anthony Watts is checking with some collaborators to see whether they
are willing to release it to me. It appears that he doesn't want the data to
be public until they've had a chance to submit a paper based on it to some
peer reviewed publication.

------
mml
yeah, um, but they've recorded a couple of hundred even worse situations (next
to ac exhaust, in asphalt lots etc)

