Desperate Deniers Part 3: Rud Istvan mixes up GISTemp data versions

This is Part 3 of the Desperate Denier series, following the announcement that 2015 smashed the record for the hottest year. A numerically-challenged disinformer called Rud Istvan is blaming the hot planet on Dr Thomas Karl  from NOAA and Dr Gavin Schmidt from NASA (archived here).

Deniers have been swiping at NOAA ever since it updated its data set to include a heap more weather station records over land, and switched to an updated version of sea surface temperatures. Thing is, in Part 1 of this series, I showed how the trend for the NOAA data set is virtually identical to that of three other main datasets. In fact if you look at the trend since 1971, which was the last time there was a change in the trend, NOAA has the second lowest trend.

Rud Istvan disputes Anthony Watts' surface station findings

I notice that Anthony Watts has posted an article (archived here) that disputes his surface station project paper, Fall et al (2011). To be more accurate, Rud Istvan seems to be misrepresenting Anthony's paper - by cherry-picking the bits he likes and ignoring the bits he doesn't. Then Rud gets some facts wrong while apparently trying to "prove" that the global surface temperature hasn't risen this much:

Rud Istvan goes on a Gish gallop at WUWT

Rud Istvan is a climate science denier who hangs out at various denialist haunts. Today he's got a silly article at the anti-science blog of Anthony Watts at WUWT (archived here). He's trying to sell a dumb book he wrote to the deniers at WUWT. (Just how much did he pay to get his "book" vanity-published and marketed as an ebook!) His article has the word "truth" in the title: "Talking Truth to the Climate Consensus". This is a big red flag, alerting the wary that what follows is likely to be a lie. Particularly as the article is on a blog that is known as a climate disinformation blog.

Rud says that Bjorn Lomborg is a denier because he doesn't promote mitigation of climate change (by reducing CO2 emissions). Bjorn is more in favour of letting the lucky survive - those who can afford to adapt and recover, and letting the rest go to pot. In other words, Bjorn ignores the fact that we all rely on each other. If the USA can afford to recover from floods and fire and drought, it won't be much help when the goods it has got used to can't be produced any because more vulnerable nations sink under rising seas or are caught up in conflict after famine and drought.