|X-Received:||by 10.224.72.199 with SMTP id n7mr1139185qaj.5.1364997150940; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)|
|X-Received:||by 10.49.41.65 with SMTP id d1mr130921qel.11.1364997150899; Wed, 03 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)|
|Path:||news2.ip-mobilphone.net ! NNTPLoader.ip-mobilphone.net ! news.titannews.com ! dartmaster ! nx02.iad01.newshosting.com ! newshosting.com ! 22.214.171.124.MISMATCH ! npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com ! news.highwinds-media.com ! feed-me.highwinds-media.com ! ca1no27134409qab.0 ! news-out.google.com ! ef9ni2qab.0 ! nntp.google.com ! ca1no27134408qab.0 ! postnews.google.com ! r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com ! not-for-mail|
|Date:||Wed, 3 Apr 2013 06:52:30 -0700 (PDT)|
|Injection-Info:||r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com; posting-host=126.96.36.199; posting-account=MiQ8xgkAAADR5okCD4jSQv9kzcUF7tfS|
|X-HTTP-UserAgent:||Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/19.0,gzip(gfe)|
|Subject:||Why the Marcott et al FAQ was published on Easter Sunday|
|Injection-Date:||Wed, 03 Apr 2013 13:52:30 +0000|
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/02/why-the-marcott-et-al-faq-was-published-on-easter-sunday/#more-83340 (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 theyd 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 Taminos
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.