Willard Anthony Watts is a former radio and TV weatherman and notable global warming denier. He claims to have subscribed to AGW years ago before he saw the light and became a denier. He also claims that he is (otherwise) an environmentalist. This makes him something of an AGW concern troll. He is the proprietor of the Jerry Seinfeldian Watts Up With That (geddit?) blog, usually shortened to WUWT or, as it is sometimes affectionately nicknamed, LOLWUWT orWTFUWT. In the wake of Steve McIntyre of Climate (Fr)audit fame co-winning the 2007 Best Science Blog prize, the contest yet again made a mockery of itself by giving Watts the same award in 2008. He also started Surface Stations, an apparently moribund database of pictures and data on weather stations. Although Watts has made appearances on both Glenn Beck[1] and Sean Hannity's[2] shows, he is among the less nutty of the prominent deniers. Mostly he just repeats the same tired old denier talking points, or pulls out some random data and says, "Look, it's cold somewhere!" As is typical of media weathercasters, Watts (a college dropout) has no academic training in the physics of climate or related disciplines. Unencumbered by scientific expertise he works by intuition, and intuitively he could not bring himself to accept the documented increase in the U.S. surface temperature record. There had to be a problem with the instrumentation or book keeping — somewhere. Watts explained his story to Glenn Beck. At first he speculated that the composition of new weather shelter paint had interfered with the measuring system:[3] “”Well, Glenn, I kind of stumbled into this. This was a project started on serendipity. I started out looking at paint. You may call seeing some of the early weather shelters that are housing the thermometers. They look like chicken coops on stilts that are white with slots and so forth. Anyway, to make a long story short, the weather bureau designed them back in the 1800s and they lasted until now, some of them still in use. They changed the paint in ’79. A long time ago I had a conversation with the state climatologist of California about them and we wondered if the change in paint—the original spec was the old Tom Sawyer whitewash because they were designed in the 1890s and they changed the paint check in 1979 to latex—so I wanted to do an experiment about finding out whether that paint made a difference ... And then I went to another station in Marysville, California at the fire station and it was a new design and I discovered that the fire chief parked his vehicle, radiator end, right next to the sensor within about two feet of the sensor ... So my project changed from looking at paint to looking at stations all around the country. In his early days Watts tried to position himself as a genuine "skeptic" concerned about the quality of data, but eventually he couldn't keep a straight face. Ironically, Watts has done more to strengthen the scientific evidence for AGW than refute it. A libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, published his "academic" work based on the Surface Stations data claiming that NOAA's weather stations did not meet regulatory code and had collected unreliable data that exaggerated maximum temperatures.[4] Watts' data (collected by volunteers) consists only of pictures and information about the locations and surroundings of weather stations. Watts then assumed that poorly-located stations had to overstate the global warming trend, without bothering to do any of that annoying and tedious stuff like statistical analysis. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres did analyze the data, and found that the stations Watts flagged as unreliable were indeed unreliable. They had actually underestimated the maximum temperatures.[5] Good catch, Anthony! The authors further pointed out that "photos and site surveys do not preclude the need for data analysis." (Zing!) In 2011 Watts claimed to have new "research" that would prove the unreliability of the weather stations and shake the very foundations of AGW theory. In fact, when the paper was finally released, it came to essentially the same conclusion as the aforementioned JGR study: minimum temperatures at a number of stations were biased slightly upward and maximum temperatures biased slightly downward, thus canceling out the bias when averaged.[6] http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
Futurecurrents and his ilk are pushing the above all over the web this month in an attempt to discredit Watts. I guess the Skeptical Science Crusher Crew gave orders that this was the post of the month to drown out the "deniers'. Futurecurrents once again shows off his only skill - cut & paste. Why don't they mention that the heads of the climate departments at 5 out of the 10 top science universities in the U.S. state that climate change due to man-made CO2 is not a threat. Maybe they need to do another hit job on Dr. Judith Curry (which back-fired on them badly previously). Or maybe the climate cabal just needs to get back to further adjusting their temperature readings to fabricate their "crisis" and get more government funding.
go to the link troll and you would understand that as the US was adjusted up so were temperatures all over... in the end you got the chart that was adjusted up. which indicated by the next chart I posted.
So I catch you in an obvious lie, because you are a crazed liar, and your response is to call me a troll.
Let's talk about the $1.5 Trillion spent every year to "solve" the non-existent climate change problem. Maybe this money could be better spent on food, shelter and education for people.
One of the most frequent myths we hear about polar bears is that their numbers are increasing and have, in fact, more than doubled over the past thirty years. Tales about how many polar bears there used to be (with claims as low as 5,000 in the 1960s) are undocumented, but cited over and over again. Yet no one I know can come up with a legitimate source for these numbers.* The most important point is that whatever happened in the past is really irrelevant. Polar bear habitat is disappearing due to global warming. Even the most careful on-the-ground management doesn't matter if polar bears don't have the required habitat. http://www.polarbearsinternational....ntists-say/are-polar-bear-populations-booming