“Stanford: Urban CO2 domes mean more death“. Anthony Watts reprints a Stanford University press release about the local health effects of CO2 concentrations in cities (actual abstract here). Could this justify his fixation with urban/rural temperature variation? Nope.
Maybe this is just a random poke at “alarmist” conclusions.
Wott's Up With That? 
Come on, Ben, it’s your job to take these ramblings and extract some sort of a coherent point or thesis. Whilst some days it may be difficult to reject the null hypothesis (i.e., Anthony is just sullenly mashing keys at random) we rely on you to pull order out of denialist chaos.
[It’s a hobby, not a job! Sometimes I’ve just got to clear the backlog… – Ben]
Watts’ post is an excellent example of why he is so bad with science. Right out the gate he gets it wrong when he writes: “I find it funny though, that this study mentions urban warming related to CO2 only. The terms ‘Urban Heat Island’ are not found in this study at all.”
That’s because it’s not about any of those things, Anthony, or anything to do with climate change. All one has to do is read the abstract to learn it very narrowly focuses on CO2’s impact on local air pollution in urban areas. End of story.
“It’s a hobby, not a job! Sometimes I’ve just got to clear the backlog… – Ben”
I am 100% kidding, Ben. I revealed my true feelings in this post on my own blog:
“Addition to the blogroll: Wott’s Up With That”
This outstanding blog — found in my obsessive late-night climate Googling — examines the mendacious WUWT post by slimy post, cleverly dismantling Watts’ reality distortion field with facts, context and humor. Check it out!
[Well, OK then. :-) – Ben]
It may be a hobby Ben, but it’s a valuable service to science.
Keep up the good work!