Really, these days (since the middle ages), to quote WattsUpHisButt on D'Aleo & Watts' latest XOM-funded anti-science attack rag is impure, adulterated denial BS.
Or as the esteemed Texas State Climatologist all too politely puts it:
It's called "Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception?" (pdf here) and it's by Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts. A reader asked me to comment on it. It turns out to represent a refreshing change from the IPCC reports. While it's necessary to dig and dig to find errors in the IPCC reports, the errors in what I'll call STR are right there on the surface, easy to spot. Here's a sampling:...
D'Aleo and Watts are saying that because predominantly only warm stations are available in the data set in recent years, the temperature anomalies will be falsely positive and show a bogus warming. Their logic is absolutely wrong, and all major global temperature compilations (NCDC, GISS, and CRUTEM3) are calculated in such a way that a loss of stations like this doesn't bias the anomaly estimates.
To sum up, the fundamental premise of the D'Aleo and Watts report is incorrect, and in all likelihood means the exact opposite of what they think it means. The IPCC vs. Joseph D'Aleo and Anthony Watts