Steve McIntyre has realised there's a serious issue overlooked in Anthony Watts' "paper", and is scolding himself for doing a rushed look at the statistics as a favour for Watts (who was, quite openly, only motivated out of spite for Muller getting PR for his own conclusions.)
Eli Rabett has a post about the work too, with contributions from others, and the future ain't looking so bright for Mr Watts.
I liked Rabett's general take on this:
The take home, of course, beyond confirmation bias, is the same one that Eli discovered a long time ago when Tony, Monckton, Steve and the rest of the crew were all agog at the stamp collection of early CO2 measurements assembled by Ernst BeckWe shall see how this unfolds.
What amateurs lack as a group is perspective, an understanding of how everything fits together and a sense of proportion. Graduate training is designed to pass lore from advisors to students. You learn much about things that didn't work and therefore were never published [hey Prof. I have a great idea!...Well actually son, we did that back in 06 and wasted two years on it], whose papers to trust, and which to be suspicious of [Hey Prof. here's a great new paper!... Son, don't trust that clown.] In short the kind of local knowledge that allows one to cut through the published literature thicket.
But this lack makes amateurs prone to get caught in the traps that entangled the professionals' grandfathers, and it can be difficult to disabuse them of their discoveries. Especially problematical are those who want science to validate preconceived political notions, and those willing to believe they are Einstein and the professionals are fools. Put these two types together and you get a witches brew of ignorance and attitude.
Unfortunately climate science is as sugar to flies for those types.
Will it affect climate fake skeptics if Watts comes out with egg on his face? Nope. All that matters for them is the first press release claiming victory.