Watts wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong with this picture:

Anthony Watts published a post today titled “The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project puts PR before peer review” and complained that BEST didn’t peer review the four papers they pre-released today. This is the same Anthony Watts who published a paper with Joe D’Aleo titled “Is The US Surface Temperature Record Reliable?” two full years before he published the associated peer reviewed paper. Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.

And the BEST papers? Pre-release versions of the papers they’ll be submitting shortly for peer-review at real scientific journals. The Watts/D’Aleo paper? Published by the climate disruption denying Heartland Institute.

Watts has so much invested in the US surface station temperature record being wrong that he can’t seem to admit that his own research proved it was right, never mind accept that anyone else’s analyses might show the same.

10 replies »

  1. ” Oh, and the peer-reviewed paper came to the opposite conclusion of the Heartland paper.”

    Yes, that was a good one. I think I would lie very low after that. Maybe he will begin to understand the reason for the process, rather than just jumping the queue. But I doubt it.

  2. Hopefully the next generation will not be tainted by the black propaganda that the denial industry has been spewing, and this whole debate will go the way of the manufactured cigarettes/lung cancer controversy as the deniers die out. Unfortunately, by then a lot of damage will have already been done, and the polluters will have been successful in making gargantuan profits by delaying action.

  3. (Sorry if you get this twice …).

    Would you please post the link or citation to the final Watts paper that comes to the opposite conclusion on surface temperatures as his original Heartland article?