Anthony Watts can't do Attribution

Update: This post has been substantially rewritten now that Anthony Watts has printed my comment to his blog.

Anthony Watts declares on his blog : USA’s record warm March 2012 not caused by “global warming”

To support this assertion Watts draws on the work of Dr Martin P. Hoerling of NOAA . Hoerling finds GHG forcing "likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave" which turns Watts's headline on it's head.  Dr Martin P. Hoerling is an expert on attribution.  Anthony Watts is not.  So there's a wide gulf between the words of a NOAA scientist and what the blogger says the scientists said.  WUWT cannot reflect the highly nuanced question of attribution. And that's not opinion, that is observation.



  1. Watts is more interested in misleading readers and influencing poll numbers. Observe his obsession with visitor traffic. It's says nothing about the quality of information on his site. He simply doesn't care.

  2. Hengist cannot do maths! Even a 10% attribution means that 90% had to come from elsewhere? Your arse, perchance?

  3. Graeme, my maths is a lot better than Anthony's. 5-10% is an anthropogenic signal which Anthony brushes over. Read Dr Hoerling to find out about the other 90% randomness. Think that doesn't matter ? Think again, a blogger (I forget who) recently used this metaphor to explain: When I was a student I only spent 5% of my grant on beer, but beer was responsible for 100% of my overdraft.