Usenet Replayer


X-Received:  by with SMTP id n7mr1139185qaj.5.1364997150940; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version:  1.0
X-Received:  by with SMTP id d1mr130921qel.11.1364997150899; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Path: ! ! ! dartmaster ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ca1no27134409qab.0 ! ! ef9ni2qab.0 ! ! ca1no27134408qab.0 ! ! ! not-for-mail
Date:  Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info:; posting-host=; posting-account=MiQ8xgkAAADR5okCD4jSQv9kzcUF7tfS
User-Agent:  G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent:  Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0,gzip(gfe)
Message-ID:  <>
Subject:  Why the Marcott et al FAQ was published on Easter Sunday
From:  Tunderbar <>
Injection-Date:  Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:52:30 +0000
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  quoted-printable
X-Received-Bytes:  2964
Xref: (Who's computer is this?)

Why the Marcott et al FAQ was published on Easter Sunday
Posted on April 2, 2013by Anthony Watts

Steve McIntyre explores this question along with the bigger question
about the core top redating which created the Marcottian uptick:

Q. Why did realclimate publish the Marcott FAQ on Easter Sunday?

A. Because if they’d waited until Monday, everyone would have thought
it was an April Fools’ joke.

Ross McKitrick has an excellent article at National Post here.

Pielke Jr has an excellent post, reviewing the original statements by
the authors of the Marcott article with particular attention to their
promotion of the uptick, which Real Climate is now pretending not to
exist. William Connolley responded in the style that is too popular
among RealClimateScientists: by calling Pielke names – RP Jr Is A
Tosser. Not exactly Churchillian wit.

Some comments at RC here, but nothing from the original authors,
despite requests from Schmidt that they weigh in. No answers to any of
the original questions other than Schmidt trying to “imagine” reasons.

New article by Andy Revkin here, including my comment that Tamino’s
post, praised by RC and Revkin as “illuminating”, had been plagiarized
from an earlier CA post. Although Tamino had previously conceded that
he had consulted my blog post and had properly cited and linked my
post in a draft, he is now arguing that he was justified in deleting
the citations and links, though the rationale appears to be nothing
more than pique.

Core Top Redating

Obviously, the main question arising from the sequence of CA posts was
the rationale and methodology used in their core top redating.

Read his entire essay here.

Where you can get the newsgroup