How Watts Praises a PaperWatts writes a headline about a new paper (discussed here):
Why the new Otto et al climate sensitivity paper is important – it’s a sea change for some IPCC authors
How Watts decides what the paper means
With the modest rate of warming stated by Otto et al, the impacts of global warming are more likely to be positive than negative for humanity in the foreseeable future; increased crop yields for example.Oh yeah? Pull the other one...(and the old "CO2 is plant food, praise the lord"? Sheesh!)
How Watts tells his readers to ignore the authors of the paper he praises
Watts tells his readers to ignore those silly old authors. "Oh, Sure" he sneers!
Anthony snorts: The BBC says they had it all covered before and this new paper is “consistent” with previous works. Oh, sure.
Quoting the BBC:…when it comes to the longer term picture, the authors say their work is consistent with previous estimates. The IPCC said that climate sensitivity was in the range of 2.0-4.5C.
This latest research, including the decade of stalled temperature rises, produces a range of 0.9-5.0C.
“It is a bigger range of uncertainty,” said Dr Otto.
“But it still includes the old range. We would all like climate sensitivity to be lower but it isn’t.”
How Watts looks like a fool (again)
The lead author, Dr Otto responds to a question from the BBC:
Is there any succour in these findings for climate sceptics who say the slowdown over the past 14 years means the global warming is not real?
"None. No comfort whatsoever," he said.
Anthony Watts thumbs his nose at the authors and decides to take comfort anyway: "Meanwhile, in lower sensitivity land, “the pause” in global temperatures continues, and is approaching the Santer definition...If “the pause” reaches 17 years, what then?":