An Open Invitation For Jan Perlwitz
By Paul Homewood
Once more, Mr. Watts posts an article on his blog, which insinuates that GISS scientists committed fraud, i.e., they are being accused of doing not scientifically legitimate manipulations of the data for the purpose to deceive, by making the anthropogenic influence on climate larger than it was. The “skeptic” crowd in the forum understands the cue and transforms the insinuation into open accusation.
I should explain that Jan is an Associate Research Scientist, who works with GISS, although, as I understand, he is actually employed by Columbia University.
In reply, I left the following comment:-
Jan P Perlwitz,
Perhaps then you can explain why such big adjustments have been made to Icelandic data?
In October, I asked NOAA to provide the calculations GHCN had made for one station in Iceland for homogenisation. Bryant Korzeniewski at NOAA told me this would not be a problem. Yet 3 months later, I still have no reply, despite chasing several times.
I realise you work for GISS, but I am sure in the interests of transparency, you could use your influence at NOAA to expedite this.
But it gets worse! On top of GHCN adjustments, GISS have substantially INCREASED the warming trend at Reykjavik for UHI, instead of REDUCING it. The Iceland Met confirm there have been no station changes etc that would justify this. But when I challenged Reto Ruedy, he was unable to explain it either.
Then you wonder why we don’t trust your data!
So far I have had no reply from Jan, and, to be fair, I was not expecting one as I would not have expected him to return to the site after his initial comment.
So I am now extending this opportunity to Jan to address these two specific questions, in the hope that he can restore some of the trust and confidence in GISS/NOAA, that many of us feel is sadly lacking.
In anticipation, thank you Jan.
It is evident from his comment, that Jan fails to appreciate that one of the reasons for the distrust, is that GISS are not open about these changes that they make. If they can justify them, they should publish them openly and transparently, and also keep the original data fully archived. It should not be up to independent bloggers to have to ferret all this out.