Watts's this got to do with understanding climatology?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

 What an ironic start to this little blog I feel compelled to construct.

Being as the point of this blog is to highlight the utter foolishness that parades as right-wing-science over at Watts Up With That.com...  I present exhibit #1: 

WHAT: I ASK YOU does WUWT guest post by Willis Eschenbach 10/24/11 have to do with trying to understand anything about our climate?




Can any of you Watts'zers explain it in a systematic rational manner?

I BET YOU CAN'T    ;-)  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What the BEST data actually says

Posted on October 24, 2011

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

My theory is that the BEST folks must have eaten at a Hollywood Chinese restaurant. You can tell because when you eat there, an hour later you find you’re hungry for stardom.

Now that the BEST folks have demanded and received their fifteen minutes of fame before their results have gone through peer review, now that they have succeeded in deceiving many people into thinking that Muller is a skeptic and that somehow BEST has ‘proven the skeptics wrong’, now that they’ve returned to the wilds of their natural scientific habitat far from the reach of National Geographic photographers and people asking real questions, I thought I might take a look at the data itself.

Media whores are always predictable and boring, but data always contains surprises.

Data coupled with statistical prowess, and a political agenda supplies infinite  "surprises"
{well OK, limited by imagination} 
ways of manipulating well-chosen data-sets to imply watts-ever you want them to... 
should that be ones agenda.  

BUT WATTS THAT GOT TO DO WITH HONESTLY UNDERSTANDING 
WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPEN WITHIN OUR TROPOSPHERE?

Real science demands an ability to examine the full spectrum of data available.


Something tragically missing from Watts'es blog.
 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My question to Mr. Eschenbach:

Shouldn't the introductory paragraph > for a serious article heralding a title such as: "What the BEST data actually says" > outline the factual points of contention?  

Instead of a streaming fountain of vitriol?