What's Up With That Watts Spinning Svante Björck's Climate Study ?

 
I've been getting irritated at the froth flowing from the notorious Watts Up With That website to the point that it's worth sharing another censored post to their website. . .

WUWT's most recent slap in the face is the flow of hostile commentary toward a paper published by Svante Björck, a climate researcher at Lund University in Sweden.

It is an interesting study in how a paper can be attacked simply by feeling hostile to it's conclusions, while totally avoiding a serious look at the content of said study. 

I say this because the opening post by Watts does nothing to examine the study, nor to clearly delineate his objections.  Instead, it reminded me more of tossing meat out to a pack of hungry dogs, than any sober attempt at trying to learn about what's happening within our planet's climate.

I posted the following at his website (October 21, at about 9pm).

Basically it is a selection of reader quotes, that highlight the dearth of good-faith intellectual curiosity displayed among the WUWT crowd.   
Along with my skeptical comments.

Having WUWT's censors delete it is another example of WUWT managed misinformation fest, focused on making political mischief rather than any exercise in honest intellectual curiosity and a sincere desire to learn about the science and evidence of climatology.

But, if they delete it there, I can always post it here.

 PS, Wuwt'ers: One Directional Skepticism Equals Denial . . .

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The following was posted, then deleted from the WUWT thread:  "The Durban ramp-up begins – now the Earth only warms by hemispheres, and not simultaneously – until now"
 ~ ~ ~

PeterB says: October 21, 2011 at 9:05 am

This would seem to contradict the recent studies which show that the medieval warm period was simultaneous in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Does the author give any basis or explanation for this contradiction?
~ ~ ~
What recent studies?
=================

Kipp C says: October 21, 2011 at 9:05 am
Dear Dr. Watts:
I very much enjoy your analyses. Please keep up the terrific work.
~ ~ ~
What Analyses?
=================

Juraj V. says: October 21, 2011 at 9:42 am
Eat this, Svante:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20UAH%20ArcticAndAntarctic%20MonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif
~ ~ ~
What is that graph supposed to prove?  Can you explain?
=================

P.F. says: October 21, 2011 at 9:43 am
Only back 20k? There are plenty of good studies on the Eemian Interglacial.
~ ~ ~
Such as? . . .
Why don’t you folks take the trouble to share these phantom studies? 
You know so they can be looked at with some healthy skepticism!
=================

James G says: October 21, 2011 at 9:47 am
Related: http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/335168/title/Columbus_blamed_for_Little_Ice_Age
~ ~ ~
Very interesting story, here’s one quote from the article:
“Tying together many different lines of evidence, Nevle estimated how much carbon all those new trees would have consumed. He says it was enough to account for most or all of the sudden drop in atmospheric carbon dioxide recorded in Antarctic ice during the 16th and 17th centuries. Such a depletion of a key greenhouse gas may have helped augment Europe’s so-called Little Ice Age, centuries of cooler temperatures that followed the Middle Ages, Nevle's team has argued.”~ ~ ~
 
But, I wonder what it has to do the above post?  Can you explain?
=================

pat says: October 21, 2011 at 9:51 am
I am fairly certain I read 3 studies recently . . .
~ ~ ~
And what the heck good does that do anyone?  
Jeez, don’t you folks call yourselves “skeptics” 
Where’s The Beef?
=================

higley7 says: October 21, 2011 at 10:13 am
I don’t care if the hemispheres do the square dance, CO2 still does not drive climate and cannot cause the climate swings he is describing. He still subscribes to the hidden need to find a major role for CO2 while ignoring the other much larger climate influences.
~ ~ ~
got anything to support your grand assertions? . . .  besides more assertions, how about some real scientific studies?

What about the facts regarding ten key climate indicators - 
Why doesn't any of that stuff register with you folks?
=================

paddylol says: October 21, 2011 at 10:38 am
Should not Dr Bjorck have noted and refuted contrary research showing the events such as the RWP, MWP and LIA occurred simultaneously in both hemispheres?
~ ~ ~
Do you have a listing to offer or is it all virtual knowledge?
=================

philip B says: October 21, 2011 at 12:52 pm
SH sea ice shows an increasing trend which has accelerated over the last several years. This is damming evidence that whatever is causing climate change, it isn’t well mixed GHGs.
~ ~ ~
Got anything besides your opinion to offer?
How about doing a little good-faith learning? Here’s an interesting link to an article that does a nice job of explaining some of these details you folks seem to willfully ignore:
....... 
Arctic Ice Volume is diminishing even more rapidly than Area
Posted on 21 October 2011 by Peter Hogarth
Including about sixty links to scientific papers so please don’t dismiss it with vacuous insults.
=================

Lars P. says:
October 21, 2011 at 2:09 pm
The south must be having a different sun:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=8517
~ ~ ~
So what does that graph and silly one paragraph rant explain?
Can you explain?

~~~~~~~