Another climate change denier myth - this one a favorite of Anthony Watts and his "Watts Up With That" blog - has just bit the dust.

Many skeptics for years have sought to explain away decades of climate research by showing slides of weather station thermometers sited next to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.

This much-touted “urban heat island effect” was supposed to trump all those fancy graphs and equations that egghead scientists were fixated on. Except it’s not true.

A recent peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research looked at data from 114 weather stations from across the US over the last twenty years and compared measurements from locations that were well sited and those that weren’t.

They did find an overall bias, but it was towards cooling rather warming.

According to the authors,

“the bias is counter intuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.”

Oops.

I'll admit, as someone who spends most days looking for leaked documents, the package of stolen emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University is pretty juicy. Anything that provides insight into the inner-workings of your opponents is pretty much manna from heaven in this line of work.

I have been going through all the files today and I hate to disappoint but it just ain't the scandal climate conspiracy theorists want it to be.

These emails are blissfully being spun by the climate contrarians as proof of some type of worldwide conspiracy by scientists to fake the climate change crisis. Michelle Malkin, who relishes Ann Coulter-esque statements, goes so far as to call it "the global warming scandal of the century.”

Right.

As Brad Johnson writes, it's more likely proof that climate deniers are the crazed conspiracy theorists we always thought they were.

At the center of the conspiracy claim is a quote in a casual conversation between colleagues talking about Mike's Nature "trick."

They are referring to the Michael Mann hockey stick study from ten years ago that has been the subject of attacks by climate skeptic bloggers for many years now. In fact, it got so bad that the US National Academy of Sciences was called in by the US Senate to look further into the validity of the Mann study.

One of the enduring myths of climate denialism is that global warming stopped sometime in the last decade. I see it in the blaring headlines of pseudoscience websites, in comments on my videos, even some of our most "distinguished" journalists have been taken in.

Okay, let's try this again.

Peter Sinclair producer of the well-known "Climate Crock of the Week" video series, posted a video debunking weatherman Anthony Watts who runs a Climate Denier Den also known as his Watt's Up With That blog.

The video was auto-scrubbed by YouTube after Watts claimed the video broke YouTube's copyright rules. The video has since been reviewed by a number of US copyright experts and (big surprise) there appears to be nothing that could be construed as anything but fair use. 

This whole situation has raised the ire of even some of the more ardent commenters on DeSmogBlog who normally disagree with pretty much everything we say on this site. One such commenter, Rick James wrote:

"I have to admit it doesn't look good for the skeptic side when something gets scrubbed like this. Watts loses some stature here unless he can post something convincing about why he did it on his blog. Silence won't get it done."

One could speculate that Watts had a problem with the clips Sinclair used of Watts being interviewed by Glenn Beck on Fox News (Watts formerly worked as a weatherman for a Fox News affiliate), but that would be pretty weak given that Watts has no problem excerpting large swaths of print articles like this one posted tonight from the BBC on his own website.

As I have asked on two posts here on DeSmog and on Huffington Post: tell me Mr. Watts, what part of this video is it that gives you the right to have it removed from the public discourse on climate change? You can email me at desmogblog [at] gmail [dot] com.

Here's the video again, reposted on YouTube:

UPDATE: You can download a copy of Sinclair's Climate Crock: What's Up With Watts here (39MB format: .mov) - it has been taking forever to get up on Vimeo.

So what do you do when someone posts a YouTube video saying you're a crock? One way is to complain and get it wiped clean off the 'inter-tubes.'

A video called "Climate Crock of the Week" about head-in-the-sand global warming denier Anthony Watts was posted last week on YouTube by Peter Sinclair who has been running the "Climate Crock" series for quite sometime now.

The video was making the blogosphere rounds, getting a lot of comments on YouTube and on a post I did over the weekend here on DeSmogBlog as well as Huffington. And then "poof" this happened: 

The video was removed after Watts complained under YouTube's Copyright Infringement guidelines. This has become known as a DMCA Takedown - with the DMCA being the US copyright law used to criminalize anyone infringing and/or circumventing copyrighted works.

NOTE: Anothy Watts has demanded that YouTube remove Sinclair's video. This is the notice Sinclair received from YouTube: "This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Anthony Watts Surfacestations.org claiming that this material is infringing:"

The Watts Up With That readers are an "emotional" little gang of online trolls that have way too much time on their hands - with way too little science - trying to prove that climate change is nothing to worry about.

Peter Sinclair (who has recently become a contributor here on DeSmog) did his Climate Crock of the Week video on Watts. You can check it out below and maybe after take a swing by the YouTube version to see the massive flame war that the video has provoked.