Here's a critique of the Watts et al paper:

http://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

"Ultimately Watts et al fail to account for changing time of observations, that instruments change or that weather stations are sometimes relocated, causing them to wrongly conclude that uncorrected data are much better than data that takes all this into account."

This from "co-author" Steve McIntyre

http://climateaudit.org/2012/07/31/surface-stations/

TOBs?

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/a-short-introduction-to-time-of.html

I still don’t get the TOB criticism with Watts; this is in his new paper:

“The USHCNv2 monthly temperature data set is described by Menne et al. (2009). The 215 raw and unadjusted data provided by NCDC has undergone the standard quality-control 216
12
screening for errors in recording and transcription by NCDC as part of their normal ingest 217 process but is otherwise unaltered. The intermediate (TOB) data has been adjusted for 218 changes in time of observation such that earlier observations are consistent with current 219 observational practice at each station. The fully adjusted data has been processed by the 220 algorithm described by Menne et al. (2009) to remove apparent inhomogeneities where 221 changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighboring 222 stations. Unlike the unadjusted and TOB data, the adjusted data is serially complete, with 223 missing monthly averages estimated through the use of data from neighboring stations. 224 The USHCNv2 station temperature data in this study is identical to the data used in Fall 225 et al. (2011), coming from the same data set.”

Here is the Fall et al paper:

http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/r-367.pdf

It is plain that Watts has used the TOB adjusted data; he says this data was:

“further refined in quality control reviews led by two of
us (Jones and Watts), using the USCRN site selection
classification scheme for temperature and humidity measurements
[NOAA and NESDIS, 2002], originally developed
by Leroy [1999] (Table 1).”

That further refinement does not mean that he has tampered with the TOB adjustment, how could he, but merely applied the UHIE test from Leroy as it then was; the point of Watts’ new paper is to apply Leroy’s new methodology with its improved UHIE catching criteria.

If that is the case, and please advise if I am missing something, then the TOB issue is a beat-up.

Great piece by cohenite. What evidence is there BEST does what allegedly Watts failed to do?

Unfortunately there are not many 'thinkers' in our world and they are rarely found in academic institutions which these days are mainly vocational training centres that provide the fodder for the Corporations.

A thinker is a unique individual who is often found on the margins of society. He or she can see things that most indoctrinated individuals can't. Whether it is about global warming or the advent of American Imperialism or the gross failure of capitalism and democracy, etc, the thinker makes his or her own mind up based upon the facts.

It has nothing to do with class!

manipulation, lies, bullying and pseudo science is the best the warmist industry can come up with. Its no wonder the masses helped by Flannery and Gores idiotic prophecies can see through the scam.

cohenite,
This is Victor Venema's initial critique of the Watts et al paper:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

"Had the new study found clear differences in the mean temperature trend in the homogenised data, the study would have been interesting for the general public. Because it is the homogenised data that used to compute large scale trends in real climate. If the homogenised data would still be partially polluted by the urban heat island effect that would have been an error. The aim of homogenisation is exactly to remove artificial changes from the raw data. It seems to do so successfully, now acknowledged by WUWT the second time.
If I were reviewer of this manuscript, my main question would be to clarify the statement in the abstract that: "[u]sing the new Leroy(2010) classification system on the older siting metadata used by Fall et al(2011) Menne et al (2010) and Muller et al (2012), yields dramatically different results." If this relates to the climatologically important homogenised temperature trends, this statement does not seem to fit with the results. If this statement only relates to the raw data, this is an important disclaimer that should not be missing from the abstract."

It may be that the application of Leroy's new methodology concurs with Best's results, etc., but it's hardly the "slam dunk" that's being celebrated on the principal skeptic blogs.

"...yields dramatically different results"?