"Listen up, closely - see Judith Curry's name there? She's a co-author."

Bonmot, your deceit and dissembling is, to quote your impressionable little mate Poirot, "astounding".

Curry has disowned the BEST temperature record number 1 and would not participate in BEST 2; she publically chastised Muller for his statistical methods and his publicising of the BEST papers before they were peer reviewed.

In fact BEST 1 has been peer reviewed and rejected, see comment 24 here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/blockbuster-anthony-watts-squewers-muller-best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/#comment-1097151

In respect of BEST 2, also publicised by Muller before peer review, Curry is scathing. BEST 2, which extends BEST 1 back to 1750 and makes completely unfounded conclusions about AGW is repudiated by Watts' new subsurface paper which is also before peer review; for a comparison of Watts' paper and BEST 2 see Jo Nova here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/blockbuster-anthony-watts-squewers-muller-best-and-the-surface-record-all-in-one-paper/#comment-1097151

Watts has used the updated statistical method of Leroy which is the gold standard for adjusting raw temperature data; the BEST methodology is hopelessly flawed and does not use Leroy. When Leroy is applied to the raw data a temperature trend of less than 1/2 found by BEST and the IPCC is found. This repudiates AGW in its extent and arguably as a cause of the much less temperature increase over the 20thC.

Watts is a true scientist; he does not have his snout in public funding either directly, or through academic positions or employment in one of government funded scientific bureacracies such as NASA, CSIRO and BoM.

Watt, Watt. Watt?

Goodness me, Anthony Watts "suspended" his blog for the "major" announcement:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/27/wuwt-publishing-suspended-major-announcement-coming/

"....there will be a major announcement that I'm sure will attract a broad global interest due to its controversial and unprecedented nature.
To give you an idea as to the magnitude of this event I'm suspending my vacation plans..."

And here it is!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

cohenite,

"Watts is a true scientist..."

: )

It seems Watts' paper is more notable for its typos than its groundbreaking science.

Who's doing the "peer" review apart from his fans on his blog?

Which respected journal is going to publish it?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com

Poirot, if I may explain in context:

Take out scientists employed by; universities, scientific organisations and research institutions, NGO’s, industry/business groups, etc.

What you have left are mainly charlatans (sorry, “true scientists”) – popular bloggers where all ‘wannabes’ and so called ‘sceptics’ gravitate.

Seriously though, while I wouldn’t go as far as to accept the Muller et al BEST conclusion without undergoing the peer review that will follow (after all, it only reinforces what real scientists have known for decades) – I am amused by the antics of the charlatans (sorry, “true scientists”).

Bonjour, mon ami,

Yes, I've learned a lot about the "skeptic" movement in the last year - fascinating really, as a phenomenon.

Of course, I'm more interested in the impetus behind such a movement and its machinations, and why it's only "climate" science that they believe is a sham. They don't seem to harbour the same suspicions regarding scientists in other fields.

Poirot and bonmot try to make sense of Muller's mess:

http://frenchbulldog.hrastro.com/photos/photo/french_bulldog3.jpg