Forward Publication Schedule

Here on a Wednesday morning I am confronted by a variety of topics on which I would like to post:

My time is somewhat limited today so I have to (probably) choose. So–should I go after the news of national import (Obama’s speech and the carbon tax), even though many others will cover it and perhaps better than I?

Shall I write on the subject I have been covering most recently (Gleick)?

Should I go after a subject where I might have some relevant information (the Findus scandal with horsemeat is really a French and Romanian scandal exported to the UK, which may make comparisons with Xtreme Weather even more delicious)

Or the story that actually has relevance to discussion of climate change–Hausfather and friends’ publication of a paper that should (finally) answer Anthony Watts’ long-held questions about the quality of temperature measurements? (Update: Anthony Watts points out long-standing issues with station citing that the Hausfather et al paper don’t address here.)

Hmmm…..

Advertisements

6 responses to “Forward Publication Schedule

  1. Hausfather and friends’ publication of a paper that should (finally) answer Anthony Watts’ long-held questions about the quality of temperature measurements?

    This an issue where the boat has sailed long ago.

    If we accept a relative lack of warming in the last 16 years then how much UHI is buried in the previous 30 years of warming becomes largely irrelevant.

  2. “Planet 3′s spirited but fact-free defence of Peter Gleick and his theft and forgery of documents”

    Fact-free? Hardly. He seems to have created any number of them to support the beatification of Peter, our martyr of Gaia. Man, this gets more like religion every day. 😉

    More seriously, I believe that Heartland will be releasing their legal report on the 14th. MT’s piece reads like he is attempting to frame the story ahead of that release – sort of a pre-emptive strike. I can’t imagine why he would have revisited such an obvious PR disaster for any other reason.

  3. Assuming you haven’t seen it, you might be interested in this: http://www.skepticalscience.com/lukewarmerism-aka-ignoring-inconvenient-evidence.html

    Your name comes up in the comments as well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s