[RobRoy]

I thought this was a pretty cool and informative article at first.

But this killed it for me:

>>Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”<<

It exposed the agenda.

Actually, up to that paragraph it IS a pretty informative article. Like so many articles by Global Warming and TOE True Believers, it is not the facts in the articles with which I have a problem. It is with the conclusions they make. Whenever I see the word “may” in an article, I always internally add the words “or may not”.

[cogitator]

What you need to do is search on "Josh Willis" (I'd probably add his affiliation -- Scripps, I believe -- to find out what he's been doing recently and why he's doing a CYA maneuver. (Part of the reason is that he put out a paper that got hyped by climate change skeptics, then a methodological error got discovered, and now he's under the gun from skeptics for not supporting their case as much as they thought he was supporting it when the original paper came out!)

Examples:

Willis Tries to Dismiss His Own Ocean Non-Warming Research

Josh Willis Comments On Ocean Heat Content Trends

So it seems to me that skeptics don't like it when a good, careful, conscientious and cautious scientist tries to explain why the data doesn't fit their preconceived notions about what's important and what it's supposed to be doing.

(I find it interesting that a skeptic who doesn't apparently specialize in oceanography is telling an oceanographer what his observations mean.)