First post

Another silly post on Watt's blog which doesn't so much miss the forest for the trees as notes the forest, ignores the forest and then goes looking for a tree. 

Post titled: "Sanity check: 2008 & 2009 Were The Coolest Years Since 1998 in the USA"

Starts by noting the forest if only to dismiss it. Obligatory GISS smear included:

While the press is hyperventilating over NASA GISS recent announcement of the “Hottest Decade Ever“, it pays to keep in mind what happened the last two years of the past decade

He's talking about the last 2 years of the US temperature record. That's pretty much the point of the post. That's right. He's hand-waved the far bigger and more relevant statistic - the entire globe over the past decade - in order to focus on some cooling he found in 2% of the Earth's surface in the past two years.

Furthermore the "pays to keep in mind" is made as if the last two years of temperature in the US record somehow overshadow the fact the last decade was the warmest on record. It doesn't. It was. GISS shows it. UAH shows it. They all show it. Get over it.

Question: If he wants to focus on the last 2 years of temperature data, why does he focus on the US and not say the Globe?

So we have dismissal of the bigger statistic - warmest decade on record, plus accusing those of citing it of "hyperventilating" and then fabricating a big deal out of a far more mundane statistic.

And then posting the Trenberth Travesty Email. What a fucking joke.

Your thoughts are welcome. Did I miss something?

Oh yes the comments of the article. You can't take the comments too seriously. We have the usual stupid from someone called 'Jim S', which I only include here just to remind everyone of the strangely unnotable background hum of stupidity in the comment section of WUWT.

Jim S:
The earth is cooling. The next decade will be much colder than normal. All funding should be withheld from NASA until there is a full explanation of this fraud.

Then Wade makes an admission.

Wade:
To Wouter: There is a reason why we like to start with 1998. It is the same tactic the AGW crowd uses of taking a very low temperature as a starting point and saying “see it is getting warmer!” So two can play that game. “See it is getting cooler!” If you condemn this, you must also condemn when the AGW crowd does it as well.

So they do it knowing it's wrong? Just because the "AGW crowd" do it? What tosspots!

I do however think Wade is talking out his ass in this case. My recollection over the past few years is that cherrypicking of start points is an almost exclusive tactic of pseudoskeptics. That they've convinced themselves that the "AGW crowd" do it as much as them probably speaks more of their delusions. You know these people cannot even keep track of basic facts. Eg:

Henry chance: 
Hide the decline. 
CO2 was at 400 ppm in 1942. It has also fallen since then.
400 ppm in a post on a warmist blog will be enough to get the post deleted.

That's what this blog is about. Citing them. Laughing at them. Find some more, post some more. Any psuedo-skeptic blog or site.