As I stated earlier: you can save all your misdirection. All it takes is simple logic to clearly show that Karl et al. results are an outlier.
I didn't exactly make this up, either. Lots of others have been saying it. In fact, even many of the big news sources haven't dared to touch Karl with a 10-foot pole. It's just that -- ahem -- "credible".
Serious (and valid) critiques of it started to appear even before it was officially published. And several papers have come out since which disagree.
I'm not going to go look them all up. But if you want a good idea of just how *desperate*
this paper appears to be, have a look here
No, I do not claim Watts is any kind of "final authority". It's just one example among many. If you haven't found at least 10 takedowns of the "science" in Karl et al., you haven't been looking. (Or paying attention.)
Your other rantings about past things you disagree with are of no interest to me. I stated it clearly enough in that last quote of me you supplied above. You're still doing the same old shit. Calling it something else wouldn't make it any more "charming". Actually, it would be lying.