RP Sr has been pushing his favourite climate change metric - ocean temperatures - and hyping one paper - Lyman et al, that appeared to show a cooling in that metric. It seemed to me rather imprudent to do this based on one untested paper; now unexpected support comes from Lyman et al themselves who have discovered biases in their data. So... RPs argument collapses. This is rather reminiscent of the "lets use the MSU" crowd, who touted its suerior reliability over the sfc record, before discovering - oops - that their favourite Spencer+Christy version was wrong.
Also rather amusingly, RP used the Lyman paper as an example of an "error" in IPCC ar4. As I pointed out, the Lyman paper was beyond the IPCC cutoff (and he was wrong about the rest as well). So I'm sure he will be correcting his scitizen column very soon now.
I just wonder, who of the trio - Richard Lintzen, Fred Singer and Roger Pielke - is the best :-)
Well, ocean temperature is an obsession for one, inaccuracies in climate models or inadequate troposphere warming (0.6C instead of 1.3C) are obsession for others...
I think it's like between evolutionists and creationist - whatever is not terribly and exactly explained by evolution theory, makes the whole thoeory wrong in the eyes of creationsist... ;-)
Another metric: The number of people using a single paper to push their contrarian/denialist views.
I seem to recall that RP Sr. was caught out in the open some time ago by a gang of rogue climate scientists and forced on pain of derision to admit that he agrees with the consensus. FWIW.
The savage mice caught Jr. out in the open too.