Except this time Santer replied, pointing out Watts got the science wrong (no surprise there), then asking why Watts couldn't return the decency Santer showed him at a California meeting a few years ago:
The fallacy in your argument, Mr. Watts, is that you have applied the “17 year” statement made in our 2011 JGR paper (a statement based solely on estimates of internal variability) to the post-1998 “warming hiatus” – a phenomenon that is due to the combined effects of internal variability and external forcing. You are misrepresenting our findings.Watts didn't have the decency to apologize, or AFAIK tell, even respond.
In our 2011 interaction at Cal State Chico, I treated you with courtesy and respect, even though you filmed my entire Rawlins lecture without my permission, while holding your videocamera several feet from my face. Although our scientific positions on the subject of anthropogenic climate change are very different, I had hoped that you would treat me with equal respect and courtesy. Your recent post shows that my hope was misplaced.
The other piece of dishonesty is again ignoring the UAH dataset on the lower troposphere. It now differs signficantly from RSS (this month UAH was 0.18°C higher than RSS, once you bring them to a common baseline), and the difference between them (UAH - RSS) seems to be increasing:
You can't just pretend that isn't happening.... I like to see it acknowledged, just once.