Last year on Counterpoint Anthony Watts appeared:
Michael Duffy: In which direction does the bias lie? Are you suggesting that the temperature has not got as hot as the American official historical record suggests?
Anthony Watts: That’s correct. It’s an interesting situation. The early arguments against this project said that all of these different biases are going to cancel themselves out and there would be cool biases as well as warm biases, but we discovered that that wasn’t the case. The vast majority of them are warm biases, and even such things as people thinking a tree might in fact keep the temperature cooler doesn’t really end up that way.
Watts went to to rubbish the paper by Menne et al that analysed Watt’s data and found no warming bias.
But when Watt’s paper came out it contradicted Watt’s claims on Counterpoint, finding no warming bias, just like Menne.
The ABC Code of Practice says:
5.3 Demonstrable errors of fact will be corrected in a timely manner and in a form most suited to the circumstances.
So naturally Counterpoint corrected the record.
Ha ha, just kidding. Look at how they restate Watt’s hypothesis in their follow-up show:
His hypothesis was that the data recorded by these monitoring stations was, for a variety of reasons, inaccurate. The paper has now been published and co-author John Nielson-Gammon discusses their results.
So rather than correct it, they just pretended that this was never his hypothesis. As Steve puts it at Opinion Dominion:
Don’t, however, expect either the interviewer or interviewee to express any interest at all in co-relating what Watts used to say about his project, and what it actually found.
As one might expect from the soft-sceptic Counterpoint, they are interested in emphasising the finding relating to diurnal temperature range, the importance of which still seems fairly unclear, even according to Neilsen-Gammon.
The finding about mean temperature trends not being artificially inflated by siting issues gets the briefest of mentions. Surrounding it is a sea of words from Paul Comrie-Thomson emphasising that the paper did find something interesting, that it was a worthy project, that it would be good if more science of this type could be done, etc.
After being rightfully castigated in comments for their deceptive conduct, Counterpoint replied in comments:
Claims of misrepresentation and professional misconduct by Counterpoint are untrue and highly offensive. In response the program sought comment from John Nielsen-Gammon …
“I was expecting to be asked about why Watts said one thing about the results while the paper said another, and apparently your listeners did too. But I have no objection with focusing on what our best analysis shows, rather than considering why the previous analysis was incorrect.”
This isn’t much of a defence. First, Counterpoint does not dispute that Watts’ claims, given so much emphasis by Counterpoint were incorrect. Second, Nielsen-Gammon confirms that, like the listeners, he expected to be asked about the contradiction to Watts’ claims. Why wasn’t he? It certainly appears to be a deliberate cover up and Counterpoint has not been able to come with an explanation.
More from the ABC Code of Practice:
9.2 ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs. Complaints that the ABC has acted contrary to this Code of Practice should be directed to the ABC in the first instance. Phone complainants seeking a written response from the ABC will be asked to put their complaint in writing. All such written complaints are to be directed to ABC Audience and Consumer Affairs, GPO Box 9994, in the capital city of your State or Territory. The complainant will receive a response from the ABC within 60 days of receipt of their complaint.