2011-10-21 14:18:21The BEST Kind of Skepticism
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55

Post on the reactions to BEST:

The BEST Kind of Skepticism

2011-10-21 14:41:21Looks good Dana
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
130.102.158.12

If I wanted to go down that route (and I don't want to but it's therapeutic to vent here), I'd draw a cartoon of Anthony Watts, boggled eyed and enraged, glaring at the BEST paper and screaming "12 point Times Roman? It has to be 11 point Helvetica or it's invalid! Throw the whole paper out!!"

But we're taking the high road and don't engage in such low brow tactics.

Right?

2011-10-21 15:12:56
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.101.55
Yes we are, John :-)
2011-10-21 15:56:38
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
198.53.65.169

Hi Dana,

"It's not a coincidence that the NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NOAA surface temperature datasets show approximately the same amount of warming, and the BEST results have confirmed their accuracy (Figure 1)."

Maybe add that that is something that has been established for some time now.

"BEST also confirmed that HadCRUT is biased low, which we already knew."

Maybe add that it is not surprising that that record is now cited the record of choice for skeptics (e.g., Spencer), despite the allegations of fraud and data fudging were made against Jones et al. after ClimateGate.

Someone also noted that Watts is angry about a paper that essentially confirms a paper that he recently co-authored with Fall et al. 

I would also make it clear that the time interval used is a red herring and starman argument by Watts-- the period in question inlcudes the window discussed in Fall et al,.  Additionally, remember when John Nielsen-Gammon claimed that he was wondering whether or not the biases they identified for the min and max Temps for USA sites (which happen to cancel out) would also cancel out in the global data-- this paper suggests to me that there is no warm bias b/c of siting issues in the global data as well.

"To continue scrambling for reasons to believe otherwise is not skepticism."

Would it be too much to say "...is not skepticism, it is denial"

Or something like that.

I might also nip the memes that will now be made by the deniers that "OK it is warming, but it is not us" (maybe just provide some links for readers) or that wamring is gooood  and a link to other evidence that it is warming, although you may have done that in the OP.

Off to bed, so only gave it a very quick read.  Re the hypocrisy of Watts complaining about people releasing papers before they are reviewed, this may be useful. I have not verified though!

Good that the science post went first.

2011-10-21 16:03:14
Andy S

skucea@telus...
66.183.185.188
Good stuff. Nicely complementary to my post. Watts must be feeling crushed. My heart bleeds.
2011-10-21 20:42:21
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.57.247

Well, you have to admire the incredible stupidity of the 'new flat-earthers." What the frack else did they expect?

Thumbs up from me.

2011-10-21 21:11:19
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn
bioluminescence@hotmail.co...
80.42.217.59

Simple, to the point - good article. 

2011-10-21 21:36:30
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.38.116

"So for those of us who consider all the evidence"

=>

"So for those of us who consider all the evidence"

Otherwise it's too self-congratulatory.

2011-10-21 21:38:32
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
192.84.150.209

Good to go.

Like Albatross with Watt, I'd be more blunt with Pielke, but I understand it would be too much.

But let me vent a bit at least here. I'm really pissed by Pielke, starting from his comments here and ending with the last blog post on BEST results. He didn't read the paper(s), he didn't care to check the facts; denying the validity of the results is, well, just blatant denial. Just a few months ago I wouldn't call him a denier, not anymore.

2011-10-21 21:57:08
Kevin C

cowtan@ysbl.york.ac...
144.32.72.165

<Charlie>The warming between 1818 and 1825 is interesting - nearly 1 deg/decade. That's about 5 times the rate of recent warming isn't it?</Charlie>

Well, probably not Charlie, but someone might pull this one. Given the error bounds it's not a killer. Is there anything in the paper about the wiggles?

This page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_Century
notes that Tambora and another erruption lead to the 1810's being one of the coldest decades in history.

2011-10-22 02:31:23
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
64.129.227.4

Good comments guys, have incorporated them and will now publish.