Watts' work raises bad headaches for the climatology establishment
Seems to me that Watts et all have shown up what may be a huge problem in the whole methodology of climatology. If the basic underlying data cannot be trusted, then all the castles in the air of theory and models and catastrophes and sensitivity and the whole shooting match are in severe doubt too. Thirty years of work will be in jeopardy.
And whether or not others can find detailed holes in their paper or their method or their motivations or their grammar or their politics, they have still shown that the data is unreliable. That charge will not go away by suggesting that they didn't follow scientific protocol or are Republicans or funded by donations rather than government grants. Or that they are Bad People who Eat Babies and want to destroy the planet by next Tuesday fortnight round the polar bear barbecue. Or whatever irrelevant nonsense the establishment come up with.
If I were the NOAA, I'd be working pretty darned hard to get out an equally serious paper to show where Watts is wrong (if he is). Just hurling abuse at him and his team does not show an adult response...but that of the playground.
And if he is shown to be right and the warming is only half of that previously reported, I think I can guarantee that the public will be willing to spend only half as much on climatology as before. That will have severe implications for the climatology establishment...who have no other substantial sources of funding. Bad times ahead for them!