My thanks to Mike Roddy for helping with BEST review

I see Roddy is a Berkeley graduate, like Muller.

That is Mike Roddy??? I couldn’t even picture a grown man from his posts. Certainly not a man in a suit.
This is the most brain busting thing I’ve seen all week.

The drowning warmists saw a BEST straw floating in the sea and they all swam for it.

Even the most illiterate of listeners knows this is not about gradual warming, it’s about unprecedented, catastrophic fossil fuel induced annihilation. The believers love to play bait and switch, which I find extremely annoying, and must be the point, but remember they have nothing now. They’re losing the scientific argument as each day the flawed techniques and gross incompetence is exposed in greater detail and they’ve lost the political message, which if you’ve been following over the years is their only real objective. They have nothing left but their sneers, wretched language, name calling and petulance. They placed their entire existence in the hands of a relative few demagogic leaders and now they all stand naked for the world to see them for who they really are…and of course this terrifies them.

McIntyre writes at his website:
“Combining both stratifications, “MMTS rural good” had a post-1979 trend of 0.11 deg C/decade while “CRS urban bad” had a corresponding trend of 0.42 deg C/decade.”
It looks to me that McIntyre takes a very dim view of BEST’s work on siting issues. I think you should have a post on it.

‘[REPLY: GK – WUWT does not post that kind of personal information and does not encourage the harassment of people holding different views. We condemn it. -REP]’
And noticably unlike Mike Roddy himself….

Roddy’s seemingly out-of-context references to sexual activity perhaps make more sense now that we know that his blog is the diary of a North Ward Ho.

BEST is at the starting line in the cartoon above. Will they survive?

IF their claim to appear in the future in the next IPCC report is not simply unwarranted pride on their part (always possible I suppose), then yes, they will survive. All those exes and swords and the like will not hit since none of the wielders will even attempt to use them.
The WebCite article was…amusing. It may also be actionable in court, and I really think it is time for skeptics to actually do that, otherwise, the warmist sill be emboldened and escalate. The purpose of the law is deterrence, and these people need deterring. Lets look at some of it:

Misdeeds: Overnight, went from local TV weatherman to a climate “expert,” constantly attacking scientific reports for groupthink, grant-seeking greed, and phony data. Sent his minions to photograph those US temperature stations which he claimed were too close to heat sinks, skewing temperature readings.

Overnight, which night was that, exactly, what date?
How can you be a climate “expert” if you have never had day to day interaction on a scientific and predictive way with actual real world weather? If all you do is sit in your comfortable bureaucratic office and issue memos or hang around your computer ordering around your undergraduate slaves and never get out and actually observe the weather (climate) in the real world, how can you claim to know anything about it? You need to get out more.
“Groupthink”, what is groupthink, do the climategate emails look like groupthink? If they do, we no longer need accusations, we can see it for ourselves.
Grant-seeking greed, did they receive grants, do they receive more grants if they support AGW, do they receive less or no grants if they do not? In fact, have they not been caught trying, and often succeeding, in actually getting people fired for apposing AGW? Is that not my tax dollars going into those grants, and if I see evidence of grant-seeking greed, do I not have a right to look into it? If they are thus taking my money by what looks like deception, should I be able to charge them with felony “grand theft by means of deception”?
“Phony data”, was it phony, can it be shown to be phony? If it can, and that was done with my money, see the felony charges above.
“Minions”, hes got minions?? Nice to have minions, do they bring hin coffee, shine his shoes?
“Claims”, I’ve seen the photographs, that’s more than “claims”, that actually is “too close to heat sinks”, according to the NOAA’s own guidelines. Claims are one thing, seeing is believing. Since I can see it, and this guy only says “claims”, I must assume that this guy is lying.

NOAA decided to take him up on his claim and analyzed the station data from all 1218 sites, and found no evidence of bias or distortion. Anthony instantly dropped the project with no mention of his error and simply began shouting, “Climategate!” — the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy, which ultimately offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing.

“Found no evidence of bias or distortion”, well, of course they did not, they are bureaucrats, bureaucrats never find such things, all mistakes of any kind are always as well hidden and buried as well as bureaucrats can make them. That is because their political superiors are always looking for a reason to cut their budgets to support their own pet projects, as are their bureaucratic rivals, and mistakes are the best way to embarass them and accomplish this. This results in bureaucrats hiding such mistakes, which mean that there is no accountability, which means that the mistakes accumulate, and the unaccountable “minions” commit more and more of them since they will not pay for them (often through sheer laziness, such as never actually visiting the sites in question). And then we see the NOAA quietly (for reasons noted above) dropping the reported bad stations or modifying them (rarer, that takes work, see laziness above), which shows that while they will not admit it to the outside world, they know that there is a problem there.
“Anthony instantly dropped the project”, date please (actually, forget the “please” part). “With no mention of his error”, seems I’ve seen plenty of mention, nothing about error though, mention made after the mythical date the project was ‘dropped”. And how can there be ‘error” when I have seen the bad siting in photographs myself? I mean, seeing is believing, right? These people really need to get out more!
“Climategate!” — the oil company e-burglary and nontroversy”, which oil company, exactly (suggestion, call your lawyer before answering that), show evidence of e-burglary, nontroversy that garnered that much attention? Do these people even know the meaning of the word? Was their education that poor? Perhaps they are just stupid (to be charitable).
“Offered no evidence of scientific wrongdoing”, odd, it did offer evidence of conspiracy to break, and actually breaking, the law, specifically, the Freedom of Information Act, for which the perps should now still be in prison. The only reason they are not is because of another factor of bureaucracies, called “one hand washes the other” and “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours”. They may hate and fear each other, but they hate outsiders more, and will band together to protect themselves.

This article also fails to mention that Anthony Watts routinely rapes farm animals. We sincerely regret the errors.
The corrections issued above states that Anthony Watts “routinely rapes farm animals.” It has been brought to our attention by Mr. Watts that he actually makes sweet, consensual love to farm animals.

This is called ‘libel”, and is actionable in court. Since many of the above can also be called libel, I wonder, why has legal action not been taken? Simply sending them an email will not stop them, or even slow them down. Unless someone is punished and punished hard, this will continue and escalate. In addition, taking legal action will bring lies to the public attention, a positive benefit.
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual , business , product , group , government , or nation a negative image. It is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant ).
Hmm, meets all of the criteria stated above, which can be proven with actual photographs (such as from the surfacestation project) and of course the WebCite page above.
Perhaps it’s time to create a “skeptics defense fund”, find a skeptic lawyer (you know you want to, it would be fun), and prepare to go at it. Just in case that is not deterrence enough, well, take the action to court, and enjoy the cash when you win. I mean, if big oil won’t cough up the cash, let the AGW types do it.

Mike Roddy takes to the streets and writes about his encounter in which he syas, “Roddy gets hassled by liberal pussies, for his accurate signage”. When Mike is not in a suit and tie he can be found celebrating Haloween as Svengoolie(TM) as can be seen in the pictures in the link. lol
http://buffalobeast.com/?p=4630
Anthony I suggest you use the Svengoolie(TM) picture of Mike Roddy for future posts.

richard – doh, the first thing I saw posted after hitting “post” was your comment. Kudos on being first with a great quip.