“Dr. Ray Bradley’s amazing photo“. Anthony Watts presents us with chilling evidence of scientific fraud: Professor Ray Bradley’s faculty website photo! Got him! And thus the grand conspiracy unravels.
Dr. Ray Bradley's Faculty photo, showing 'evidence of deception'.
So…
Is a staff photo scientific evidence? No.
Does Anthony realise that this informal photo doesn’t even show the entire chart? That, cunningly, Dr. Bradley’s body is concealing some of the details? No. (That’s the clue that Anthony missed.)
1200 words about nothing at all, with even more in the comments praising Anthony’s revelation… Just another day at WUWT.
By the way, why is Dr. Bradley earning denialist attention? He’s the climate scientist that Dr. Wegman plagiarized and misrepresented in his 2006 Report and had the nerve to complain about it. Anthony and crew are looking for ways to make him uncomfortable.
Wott's Up With That? 
Alas my comment there is still in moderation:
Well, I mean after moving the goal posts several times through the thread (once when pointed out that CO2 is well mixed and it doesn’t matter where the measurements are taken, and then again when shown that the caption on the photograph explains the “splice”), Watts settles on:
So my vote is Did-Not-Show-Color-Difference-On-Graph-As-Good-As-Mann-Gate!
He can’t even admit that CO2 at Mauna Loa is 390ppm:
Has to claim it is just “said”.
The article is completely fucking ridiculous. The problem is not the graph behind Bradley, it’s the raving morons in the WUWT comments.
Apart from being much ado about nothing, Watts also demonstrates (again) that he hasn’t the faintest clue about what’s going on. His ‘analogy’ at the end, comparing this graph with splicing the stock data from two different companies together boggles the mind. His reply to a commenter who points out that the only issue is that the heading should read “Vostok Ice Core + observations” instead of just “Vostok Ice Core”, shows that he doesn’t even know he’s digging himself a hole: