Page 17.
Wonderful graphs, really. BEST proves out exactly what Watts said. CRN1 sites read half the gain over the last century that the others have. Meanwhile, the morons at Berkley toss 2 and 3 in with CRN1, knowing damn well they're just as inaccurate as 4 and 5 thanks to deviations in the other direction, and then accurately say there's no bias between "okay" and "poor" stations.
We're talking about less than a degree over a century, "okay" doesn't cut the mustard when it's showing twice as much of a gain as "accurate" does. If you only use the best available source, we have a very typical warming trend of less significance in this century than it was in the last.
Meanwhile, they somehow come to a conclusion that the poor stations are trending low over the last thirty years in spite of this, because the okay stations have been gaining faster. They then uprate all the bad stations further, completely missing the fact that those CRN2 and 3 stations used to be CRN1 stations, and are reading a higher trend because they've degraded in accuracy since their installation. They've now managed to achieve identical results to the equally flawed USHCN records, the ones that still show we've stopped gaining even with their twice inflated readings.
After they've done such monumentally stupid things, yes, they came to the conclusion that Watts is wrong and station accuracy has no bearing on the warming trends.
10 years ago, I thought the AGW crowd was populated by morons, and the morons thought it would be significantly warmer now than it was then. In another 10 years, I'll have an even bigger ego than I do now, and the morons will have moved onto something else to scream about. The effects of cosmetics advertising on animal mating habits or something.
Yes, let's ignore the data from hundreds of CO2 monitoring stations in over 60 countries around the world telling us the same thing in favour of ad hominems and conspiracy theories! Yay! Why bother with all that pesky sciencey stuff? They're all just lying to us! Whee! No doubt the tens of thousands of scientists representing hundreds of scientific bodies worldwide are all on the payroll of the World Federation of Treehuggers and have pulled off the biggest hoax ever! Thank you psychoak for opening my eyes with your intrepid investigative work into checking the records!
I'm not the one that decided the gold standard for CO2 monitoring stations was the Mauna Loa observatory, right next to two active volcanoes. AGW is junk science, as such I lack the inclination to do detailed research into the root cause of a fictitious temperature anomaly. The primary sites by which they baseline the others are all equally stupid in location, and from what I remember, the majority of the monitoring is done above ocean water anyway. As you hopefully know, the oceans release CO2 in increasing amounts as they warm, so any warming trend will lead to artificially higher readings in a marine environment.
Maybe we're really at 395 ppm, maybe we've got half that gain and we're sitting around 360 instead. It's irrelevant to me, just something I find amusing, that they'd intentionally pick CO2 producing sites to measure from. Mauna Loa is in an increasingly active volcanic region, another was next door to a major petrochemical refinery complex in China, the one in Antarctica is right next to the most active undersea volcano they could find. If there's a logical explanation, I'm still curious to know even if I'm too lazy to find out myself. The several hundred hours I spent studying AGW has exhausted my interest in climate related research.
Edit: Figured I should link the pdf for those that aren't psychic and didn't bother looking at swifty's self defeating link in the first place.
