At some point it will be clear to even the most casual observer that one side in the global warming debate fights dirty.
Our book Climategate: The CRUtape Letters, enters its second day as a living, breathing, buyable book. Click here and buy today!
As we discuss in our book, Anthony Watts organised an army of volunteers to fan out across the country and document the pathetic state of the measurment stations charting temperatures here in the U.S. It took about two years to get over 1,000 (87%) of the stations catalogued, and they were a mess. Only 11% measured up to federal guidelines.
Watts and some scientists with more letters behind their names have been working on a scientific paper analysing the effects that bad station management practices have had on the temperature record. But, as Roger Pielke Sr. (one of the scientists with many letters behind his name) notes on his website, Dr. Menne, M. J., C. N. Williams, and M. A. Palecki played a dirty trick by hijacking Watts’ data and rushing into print with a paper before Watts et al can publish theirs.
It’s dirty pool and violates standard practice. Pielke describes it: “Despite the proper collegial approach to scientific interaction, and in contrast to the NIH policy, they have prematurely published a paper using a subset of the site classifications that Anthony has completed (and, moreover, the site classification data they used has not even gone through final quality assurance checks!) . They used only ~40% of the USHCN sites yet over 87% have actually been surveyed by Anthony’s volunteers. “
“…The publication of the Menne et al 2010 paper violates the professional courtesy that is standard practice by other scientific groups. We had even offered them co-authorship on our papers, so that we can benefit from their scientific expertise and they can benefit from ours. They refused.
This failure by NCDC to honor professional standards is just another example of the lack of accepted professional standards at this federal climate laboratory. They should have joined us in a paper, or, as an appropriate alternative, waited until we published and then complete their analysis.”
Watts made the available to USHCN upon request so they could start fixing the problem. They essentially stepped in front of him to try and grab some scientific limelight.
Or worse, they are trying to muddy the waters in front of Watts et al, as their paper could cause serious problems for the U.S. temperature records.
It’s positively Mannian. What these guys need… is a Freedom of Information Request for correspondence between director Tom Karl and the authors to find out if there was any encouragement to publish early.
Play dirty–get papered. That really should be the motto for those of us, skeptics and otherwise, that are trying to find out what’s really going on with temperatures.