This is from Anthony Watts to Tom Peterson at NOAA, a co-author on this week's Karl et al Science paper on the claimed hiatus:
You can go to Sou's site to read Peterson's reply, which was far better than anything Watts deserved. And whose questions, of course, Watts will never try to answer.
This generates lots of thoughts, but maybe the best reply is a comment I read on Paul Krugman's blog today. His post was about why he is a Keynsian, but this particular comment is larger than that:
Watts and his blog are obviously not about countering the science with better science -- and, like any scientific ideas, the only thing that could ever replace the science of AGW is better science, unless we enter another Dark Age -- data and evidence and superior ideas -- but about a sinister denial that seeks to win the debate by other methods. Because they haven't been able to defeat the science, or even come close. I see a lot of this lately, like this and this.
Emails like that above show how they will stop at nothing -- because they aren't about science, they are about war. And in war you try to win by any means necessary.
Ever since I started studying science as a teenager, its most attractive aspect to me was its intellectual honesty. There have been and are now rousing debates in science -- I've been in seminars where you could cut the heated arguments with a knife. But the differences are, with almost no exceptions, honest ones based on honestly held opinions based on evidence and science.
So to me -- and, I suspect, Thomas Peterson, and to (100-epsilon)% of scientists and to the people who read this blog -- choosing some other value, some other strategy, is almost incomprehensible. So it's too easy to dismiss.
I think it's clear Watts et al are losing in the long-run (just one small piece of evidence to the right), but there's no question valuable time has been lost and is being lost -- at a rate of about 0.015 C of warming per year -- time the future will someday be wondering about. I expect they will be angry.