Questions remain for the AGW alarmists, page-3

Just reprising my answer to your posting of the same video in Science & Medicine:

I'll bite. From ~8:30 to ~10:00, he very clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. At ~8:30 he shows the old, cherry-picked "no warming for 18 years 3 months" RSS graph, then follows it up with a longer-term graph of the NOAA land-ocean temperature average showing continuing warming. Then he claims the discrepancy is that "now they're including the oceans, which have never been included before" and that NASA is "fiddling" because "that's what they're told to do."

Not only is his claim that the inclusion of the ocean is new utterly false, but this whole segment reveals he had no idea what he was actually pointing at when he brought up the first graph. It covers both land and ocean too - and always has. Not only that, but anyone remotely competent knows it can't be directly compared with surface measurements without extreme care. The RSS data is a complex reconstruction from microwave measurements with many confounders, and covers a many-kilometres-thick column of air with little contribution from ground level and substantial contributions from the cooling layer of air above the tropopause.

He may be a Nobel Prize winner, but that's not what I see when I watch that video. I see a very old, tired man who may have been great once, but is now hopelessly out of his depth.