Sorry, I know there's a thread on Watts' paper but I can't find it. I feel like Frankenstein - I've lost control of the monster that is this forum!

Anyhoo, I digress. Got an email from the blogger at opiniondominion.blogspot.com who points out how Watts' public statements on microsite influences contradict his paper. Something to consider when we blog about this paper. I'm not convinced we should handle him with kid gloves. The man made scurrilous statements, making baseless accusations about scientist integrity and travelled the world holding up his photos of weather stations to cast doubt on the temperature record. A bit of accountability is not necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, here's those links for future reference:

My posts are

http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-rubbishing-begin.html

http://opiniondominion.blogspot.com/2011/05/for-attention-andrew-bolt.html

I strongly recommend you listen to the interview with Andrew Bolt (linked to at one of my posts) from June 2010 for the full appreciation of how wrong Watts was!

I am no scientist, but as you can see from my comments, I am mainly upset at the political and propaganda uses to which Watts used this project for years.

Watts has already indicated in his one answer to me on WUWT that his claims in June 2010 were before the paper was finalised, and he has said he will post soon himself at WUWT on the paper.  That post has not yet appeared, but it might be worth waiting another couple of days to see if it does.

I think some interpretation of the "seriousness" of the errors found is deserved, because I am sure Watts (when he gets around to commenting on it) will be emphasising those, and not the fact that the key result completely contradicts his prior claims and propaganda.

Deal with the paper like we would any other, straight bat.

But it's probably worth making it clear what Watts said before; it's a very important lesson! Don't assume you're right and the scientists who've spent years working on this and correcting for your accusations are wrong until you've done the actual analysis to back it up!

I haven't had a chance to look over JC's material on Watts, and I won't have time for a few days.

However, I would emphasize again that we should think about a way to encourage him towards "getting things right"; this is not going to be as satisfying as kicking him when he's (deservedly) down, but may pay higher dividends in the future.

But I can't be specific right now, so this is just a thought.