An Open Letter To Professor Richard Muller and Team relating to the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project
Tips and Advice: Learning from past mistakes
Dear Professor Muller and Team,
If you want your Berkley Earth Surface Temperature project to succeed and become the center of attention you need to learn from the vast number of mistakes Hansen and Jones have made with their temperature records. To aid this task I created a point by point list for you.
1) Any errors, however inconsequential, will be taken Very Seriously and accusations of fraud will be made.
2) If you adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently fiddling the figures whilst cooking the books.
3) If you don't adjust the raw data we will accuse you of fraudulently failing to account for station biases and UHI.
4) Homogenization is what Enron did.
5) If you rely on CLIMAT messages for the monthly updates this will cause a sharp station count drop after the first month. If that happens we will accuse you of fraudulently deleting stations to produce warming.
6) If you ever modify your algorithm and rerun it over the data so that some past monthly values change, we will accuse you of fraudulently rewriting written history.
7) By all means publish all your source code, but we will still accuse you of hiding the methodology for your adjustments.
8) If you publish results to your website and errors are found, we will accuse you of a Very Serious Error irregardless of severity (see point #1) and bemoan the press release you made about your results even though you won't remember making any press release about your results.
9) With regard to point #8 above, at extra cost and time to yourself you must employ someone to thoroughly check each monthly update before is is published online, even if this delays publication of the results till the end of the month. You might be surprised at this because no-one actually relies on such freshly published data anyway and aren't the many eyes of blog audit better than a single pair of eyes? Well that's irrelevant. See points #1 and #8
10) If you don't publish results promptly at the start of the month on the public website, but instead say publish the results to a private site for checks to be performed before release, we will accuse you of engaging in unscientific-like secrecy and massaging the data behind closed doors.
11) You can never adjust enough for UHI unless your record shows cooling.
12) You better not be using stations at airports. You'll find out why if you do.
13) You don't need to adjust for Time of Observation bias. That's the upwards one isn't it? Well we couldn't give a shit about that.
14) If any region/station shows a warming trend that doesn't match the raw data, and we can't understand why, we will accuse you of fraud and dismiss the entire record. Don't expect us to have to read anything to understand results.
15) You must provide all input datasets on your website. It's no good referencing NOAAs site and saying they "own" the GHCN data for example. I don't want their GHCN raw temperatures file, I want the one on your hard drive which you used for the analysis, even if you claim they are the same. If you don't do this we will accuse you of hiding the data and preventing us checking your results.
16) You are to blame for any station data your team uses. If we find out that a station you use is next to an AC Unit, we will conclude you personally planted the thermometer there to deliberately get warming.
17) We will treat your record as if no alternative exists. As if your record is the make or break of Something Really Important (see point #1) and we just can't check the results in any other way.
18) Always wear a lab coat while running your algorithm. I don't really know about the practicalities of how science is practiced in real life, but you sure as hell better meet the expectations I have gleaned off TV. Especially when this is science that is so important (see point #17).
20) A Stationary Audit should be completed prior to and after all work.
21) Your work is important (see point #17) so it bears special scrutiny - that's why our role as auditors is so important.
22) We don't need any scrutiny because our role isn't important.
23) In the unlikely event that I haven't wasted enough of your time forcing you to comply with the above rules, I also demand to see all emails you have sent or will send during the period 1950 to 2050 that contain any of these keywords
Any accusations of fraud and wrong-doing aimed at your team will be initially posted on blogs and in the media but will be eventually compiled by our think-tanks into glossy brochures. We don't check our own claims much.
You of course have nothing to lose and a lot to gain in this endeavor!
Good Luck,
The Auditors
Update: Additional advice from commenters:
Joel
24. In the event that you comply with all of the above, we will point out that a mere hundred-odd years of data is irrelevant next to the 4.5 billion year history of Earth. So why do you even bother?
I know the results will be flawed. For a start they say that the approach is transparent but already even WTFUWT had to admit the early global results are the same as all the other temp data series, after first saying that the data were just from Japan.
ReplyDeleteSo the approach can't be transparent because even WTFUWT couldn't see through it.
And Muller said 'None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming' but just look at his eyes looking up and to the right in this picture. We all know what that means.
http://lat.ms/fWh4I9
It's all just another whitewash!!!
"And Muller said 'None of the effects raised by the [skeptics] is going to have anything more than a marginal effect on the amount of global warming'..."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, the human influence on climate is negligible.
I wonder how many UN officials they had to send round to his house to extract that confession
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to mention:
ReplyDelete24. If your results are at all different from anyone else's temperate set, then that proves that every set (especially yours!) is wrong. And don't bring up any of that "methodological differences" bull either!
25. In the event that you comply with all of the above, we will point out that a mere hundred-odd years of data is irrelevant next to the 4.5 billion year history of Earth.
BEST is wrong by design. I mean, just look at it...! Located at a left-wing ivory tower university, run by pointy-headed intellectuals calling themselves "professors". Next thing you know, an AGW campaign of statistical vandalism will spread its inky tentacles towards our Angels of Justice. A pleasant chat in the cafeteria is followed by drinks and lunch at the local Red Lobster™. Then it's long boozy dinner parties, intermarriages producing bi-partisan kids and deep-cover crypto-AGW research assistants infiltrating to complete the perversion of the datasets.
ReplyDeleteA radical, renegade approach is required. Store the precious temperature datasets at a heavily guarded National Rifle Association office in Alaska, process them on computers located at a secret facility in a derelict shopping mall somewhere in the Midwest, and hire retired Republican entrepreneurs to crunch the numbers. Maintain "Purity" at all costs!
And finally, I'm surprised that basketball legend Charles Barkley would support this nonsense, even to the point of permitting his name to be spelld wrong.
Ha you dumkoofs vee haf everyfink covered, rain in desert dis be un global varming, no rain in desert also is the global warming, ice melting that is un global varming, same mit freezing ice , hot vinter in land oven english dogs, global varming cold summer is also the global varming, everythink is the global varming, vee hafen secret ingrediant to be solven global varming but vill cost leg un shoulder,
ReplyDeleteNew vorld govern you HQ
And anyway, Berkeley is full of socialists...
ReplyDeleteIn his latest post, BlogDoctor Watts pointed out that "the global temperature anomaly is essentially irrelevant", which is kind of interesting, given the amount of time he has spent on it
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that this is just another tired and desperate warmist ploy to link global temperature to global warming.
ReplyDeleteDr Watts will soon set them straight on that score.
I think auditors should always be shown great respect. It is a tiresome task rooting out malfeascance, incompetence, fraud and conspiracy, so a little gratitude and thanks in return goes a long way.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Watts is concerned with the global temperature record. Should you think the U.S. record is not representative for you, that's your bloody problem ain't it.
ReplyDelete25.And don't forget to proof all your computers are shielded from cosmic ultrarays that distort your results.
ReplyDeleteAstral student.
Ha! You warmists are all going to eat humble pie.
ReplyDeleteProfessor Watts has discovered that the diurnal tenmperature range of the contiguous 48 has not changed, and because AGW 'theory' predicts that it should, there is therefore no AGW.
Take that! Topical topospheric hotspot anyone?
Ha!
Jernard B.
[All your stations are belong to us.]
25. Don't make sloppy computer code or put notes in your computer code complaining about how hard the coding is. Whatever coding you use will be wrong because everyone knows there is only one way to do computer coding and that is the way I do it and I am great at making computer codes for the specific applications I work on, so I know what I'm talking about. Also, the word "code" is very suspicious, so you probably shouldn't use any computer codes.
ReplyDelete25. You are not allowed to make comments on results until after publication, unless there is some kind of policy-driven deception involved.
ReplyDeleteI was reading an article today by Roger Pielke Nr. (no relation) that posited the fascinating concept that thermometers are just as capricious and unreliable proxies for temperature as tree rings.
ReplyDeleteIn fact probably more so, and re-computing global temperature by gristlecone pines would reveal the true trend of global cooling, which will be in all our best interests and definitely NOT just those of well paying corporate entities.
I'll try and post the link when I can find it again, but I'm sure that for most the name Pielke Nr. (no relation) will be attribution enough.
28567. All computer code must be written to the highest possible standards. And we mean ALL computer code, because when we receive the stolen contents of your hard drive we will not bother to determine what code is actually relevent to the project. So if we find anything we don't like, even if its written by Microsoft, we will accuse YOU of incompetent programming.
ReplyDeleteAll the global temperature records are flawed by design, it is cherry picking at its worst to get the result the socialist melon scientists want.
ReplyDeleteScience has shown us that our cherished beliefs are wrong, first we thought we were the center of the Universe, then the Sun, now nowhere.
We do not matter, we are not special and this is the flaw of these "global temperature records".
To be truly scientific we must realise the Earth is nothing special and measure the temperature of the entire Universe. My calculations show that there is a long term cooling trend from infinity to 4K. Universal warming does not exist!
This BEST mob are Trojans. No longer are they content with sucking the lifeblood (money) out of taxpayers and small children, they have their fangs into those Paladins of FREEDOM: The Koch Bros.
ReplyDeletewoow this is the most hard advisor but it is so true because we need to learn more of our past for do not make any mistake in present or future similar
ReplyDeleteReally satisfied! Everything is extremely, very clear, available can be a explanation with the difficulty. It has the knowledge.
ReplyDeleteCheap Runescape Gold Runescape Gold for Sale
is because are strictly period constrained and also once again, you could lose out if you do not discover the purchase ahead of time.
ReplyDeletein fact, we honestly permission along with you, nice publish, my spouse and i assure at some point i shall be rear to check a person post again, really benefit that, i'll save the idea
ReplyDeleteIt can be great to have the possibility to examine a good quality report using helpful facts about subject areas that will a great deal want about.I consent along with your results and definately will excitedly enjoy your own upcoming revisions.
ReplyDeleteGood publish Will be wonderful web site very well and then accomplish this. We have saved your internet site
ReplyDeleteThese are several good leds. They will really give a excellent shine i including. These types of would certainly look good in your house.
ReplyDeleteMany thanks for discussing this short article, fantastic means regarding bring this unique subject material to be able to talk. Keep on the actual amazing carry out!
ReplyDelete