It’s getting tiresome.

There’s a new post on WUWT about how



“Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].”



Anthony Watts was so excited he felt the need to alert Richard Muller to this result. The blog post leads to the usual frenzy of accusations that the global temperature estimates are a fraud. There’s much talk of how the entire global warming during the last 100 years is only 0.4C, and half of that must be natural, leaving a mere 0.2C (at most) attributable to humankind, so they’ve been right all along that we’re not changing the climate in any dangerous way. There are even some bizarre statements like one reader concluding “that is fully consistent with what we’ve said all along, that incresed water vapor is a negative, not positive feedback…” How water vapor got into the discussion, I don’t know.

What’s lacking is the faintest glimmer of actual skepticism about this claim.



Here’s the data for global average tropospheric temperature from UAH:

This is satellite data — nothing to do with surface station records. It’s from Roy Spencer and John Christy at UAH — can’t be accused of trying to exaggerate global warming. That red line is the estimated trend from least-squares regression.

The question on everyone’s mind must be this: how much does that trend line increase during the 33.5-year time span of the UAH data record? Answer: 0.46 deg.C.

That’s more than is stated in the WUWT article for the last century. Yes, folks, we’ve seen more global warming in just 33.5 years than Watts’ post claims happened in 100 years. According to satellite data. From two of the most prominent scientists who deny dangerous man-made global warming.

The WUWT crowd laps it up. Uncritically. No skepticism at all.

It reminds me of when Roy Spencer (one of those UAH scientists) claimed that the U.S. was warming at a mere 0.013 C/decade, when his own UAH data set indicated a warming rate 17 times as high.

Where’s the skepticism? It sure isn’t at the WUWT blog.