Yes, quite right Poirot.

A real sceptic (as opposed to a 'fake sceptic') might see a flaw, a problem, an error, whatever ... in a hypothesis.
Remember, this is how real science works.

A real sceptic (as opposed to a 'wannabe sceptic') questions, repeats, tests and publishes their own research - so that their methods/conclusions/etc can be put under scrutiny as well.

This is precisely what Professor Muller has done.

Indeed, Muller questioned the processes, procedures and findings as depicted in various papers/journals (including IPPC reports) so much so that he obtained substantial private funding (are you reading this Peter Lang) to conduct an independent study - without the influence of 'perceived bias'.

Yep, 'fake sceptics' (Jo & Co., Watt's, etc.) were chomping at the bit in their support of Prof. Muller research.

The rest is history - Muller's research substantiates what has been known by real sceptics all along - global warming is happening and human action (or inaction) is a significant component to that warming.

Strawmen arguments (scientists have an ego for peter's sake) are so pithy and banal to be unworthy of response.

It's amusing actually, you know you've got it right when they start using the arguments you set forth - SPQR and Anthony a case in point.

.

Not to be missed;

Leo again goes off on a tangent - changing goal posts that is. My energy bill went up 45% for supply plus 41% for usage. Only about 10% for the carbon tax. But hey, it's called motivational reasoning - Leo will say anything to anybody and anyone (msm blogs) to distort and misrepresent - bizarre really.

Watts trusted Muller and got snowed by a master self-promoter, who, in that respect, is like all the AGW 'scientists'; when the scales were lifted from Watt's eyes, after BEST 1 was released to the press, Watts wrote this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/20/the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-project-puts-pr-before-peer-review/#more-49601

Equally telling Curry, a joint author of BEST 1, disowned it and repudiated Muller's claims:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html

BEST 1 has not been peer reviewed or published as a scientific paper; neither has BEST 2.

It was intriguing to read Prof Judith Curry's take on the PBS Newshour program 'Skeptic no longer doubts human role in global warming' last month.

On her website she quoted some of the PBS Ombudsman's response to comments on the program:

"The NewsHour also heard, after the broadcast, from a scientist whose views had been included in the broadcast. As Michels later wrote in his blog: “In our broadcast piece, we said that ‘… Judith Curry, professor of earth sciences at Georgia Tech, who suspects natural variability accounts for climate change — not human-produced CO2 — said Muller’s analysis is ‘way oversimplistic and not at all convincing …’ Curry wrote to us earlier today to say that she believes we didn’t characterize her position fully and said she was ‘appalled’ with what we said.

“Here’s what Curry told us: ‘It is correct that I found Muller’s analysis ‘way oversimplistic and not at all convincing’, but the statement implies that that I don’t think human-produced CO2 accounts for any of the climate change we have been seeing. This is absolutely incorrect. For my views on climate change, see my blog Climate Etc. [judithcurry.com] In my most recent posts on the Arctic sea ice decline, I estimated that about half the decline could be attributed to human induced CO2, which is in line with the latest analyses from the CMIP5 climate models.’

“In retrospect, we should have said that Curry suspects natural variability accounts for some amount of climate change, but she also believes human-induced CO2 plays some role in what has been happening to the planet.”

Apparently there was criticism of Anthony Watt's part in the program but Judith Curry said, "The outrage over Watts seems to be not so much what he said, as over his being given any airtime at all. On a program discussing climate science, is Watts the appropriate spokesperson? I would say not. However, on a program discussing the public debate over climate science, Watts should be front and center."

Seems a reasonable distinction between the climate science and the public debate.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/22/pbs-ombudsman/

"Watts trusted Muller and got snowed by a master self-promoter..."

Au contraire, cohenite, Watts himself isn't backward when it comes to self-promotion, as is ably demonstrated in the following:

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 postponing my vacation plans..."

Postponing his vacation plans!

It doesn't get more earth-shattering than that, to be sure.

All this for Watts' own study and reply to the BEST findings (which included a substantial question over TOB not accounted for in the analysis, and also saw a person named as co-author of the paper declining to be named as such)

"(which included a substantial question over TOB not accounted for in the analysis, and also saw a person named as co-author of the paper declining to be named as such)"

NO to TOB, and who is the person Poirot?

TOB, time of observation bias, was first mentioned by eli rabbet which eli argues is responsible for the warming bias in the rural locations because Watts has not accounted for.

Firstly Watts takes data as used by Menne in his paper and says this at line 200 of his paper:


"Many USHCNv2 stations which were previously rated with the methods employed in 200 Leroy (1999) were subsequently rated differently when the Leroy (2010) method was applied in this study. This simple change in the rating system accounts for the majority of differences in the data and conclusions between this study and Menne et al.,(2010), Fall et al.,(2011), and Muller et al.,(2012)."

That is, Watts has used the same data, already adjusted, as the other studies! Watts does not ignore TOB because the other studies have not ignored TOB.

At lines 218-219 Watts notes:

"The intermediate (TOB) data has been adjusted for changes in time of observation such that earlier observations are consistent with current observational practice at each station. The fully adjusted data has been processed by the algorithm described by Menne et al. (2009) to remove apparent inhomogeneities where changes in the daily temperature record at a station differs significantly from neighboring stations. Unlike the unadjusted and TOB data, the adjusted data is serially complete, with missing monthly averages estimated through the use of data from neighboring stations. 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."

In fact Watts has allowed for TOB because the other studies have allowed for it. In addition, what Watts has also done is apply a superior statistical method, Leroy 2010, which accounts for UHI in a way the older method did not which explains the warming bias in the other temperature networks.

Facts right please.

Yes, an interesting read WmTrevor;

http://judithcurry.com/2012/09/22/pbs-ombudsman/

Thanks