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.
Rotten to the cores.
April Fool’s jokes need to be at least plausible.
He is risen. The temperature has not followed.
Marcott etal is a mess. A journey with the affliction of Skeptical Science Syndrome
I wish it would be withdrawn so we can get on with the larger issues at hand.
this is fraud … especially since we have his thesis paper as evidence …
Presumably, someone can issue a FOI request to determine whether the published answers really were to Frequently Asked Questions.
Q. Why did realclimate publish the Marcott FAQ on Easter Sunday?
A. To resurrect Caspar.
In climate science every day is the 1st of April
Why on Easter? Because it was an Easter egg hunt to find the truth.
http://tinyurl.com/yt6drf
Marcott et all doesn’t rise to the level of an April Fool’s joke–actions of the Genocidal Warmistas are deadly, not humorous.
Fraud is as fraud does.
Why did the Met Office publish its updated graph on Christmas eve?
[Insert your punchline as I can’t think of a funny one]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9797315/A-forecast-the-Met-Office-hoped-you-wouldnt-see.html
The only hockey stick visible in any of this is that of Tamino’s odious self-righteousness when he’s caught out.
I am confident that Marcott wishes he had never published his paper the way he did and it’s unlikely the IPCC will include it in its next report (but anything is possible as they are very desperate indeed ).
Marcott says the uptick is not robust yet published it. If the IPCC includes the not robust uptick in its next report then the IPCC publishes non-robust temp graphs.
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.
They have certainly missed the deadline. It was already April 1 in Australia & New Zealand when it had got published. And that’s what matters.
“If the IPCC includes the not robust uptick in its next report then the IPCC publishes non-robust temp graphs.”
as long as they look like a hockey stick…
Because, like Miss Veruca Salt, realclimate is a “bad egg”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jF1exwkW3c8
The new verb http://pindanpost.com/2013/04/02/media-and-science-journals-marcotted/
John Parsons AKA atarsinc
The Marcott, et al “uptick” was not robust within the constraints of their longterm methodology and they say that explicitly. Other methodologies with much finer distinctions (because they aren’t constrained by the long timeframes) are all over the place. Put two and two together people. JP
“Davy boy” here.
Forrest Gardener asks, “Why is Grant Foster referred to on these pages by his alter-ego Tamino?”
Because he has a strong preference to be called “Tamino.” He gets very peeved if someone calls him by his real name. I have no idea why.
When I used his real name, not knowing his preference, he called me “astoundingly rude.”
Since then, I’ve only addressed him as “Tamino.” I don’t believe in being unnecessarily rude to people, even if they are rude, themselves. However, he censors me regardless of what I call him, or how polite I am.
Forrest Gardener says:
April 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Because he wears his sunglasses backwards.
Get it? 😉
On a personal level, the downside of all this nonsense is that I’ve been exposed to critturs I never knew existed, such as ‘Tamino’. I’d rather have remained oblivious.
The upside is, the entire furore may become a game-changer, absurd and insignificant though the fallacious paper may be in itself. Tiny pebbles may launch great avalanches – we live in hope
Jimbo says: “Why did the Met Office publish its updated graph on Christmas eve?”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/9797315/A-forecast-the-Met-Office-hoped-you-wouldnt-see.html
Because there weren’t any wise men on hand at the Met Office on Christmas Eve.
Which accounts in part for the polarization evident in his interactions. Get it?
Why is Grant Foster referred to on these pages by his alter-ego Tamino?
==========================================================
Because he thinks he is a character out of an opera (The Magic Flute)
Why is Grant Foster referred to on these pages by his alter-ego Tamino?
———————–
Because he is a juvenile idiot.
Checking to see if my comments are getting thru.
Can’t get a comment to show up (won’t even budge from my computer) on the Hansen Nuclear thread. WUWT?
Also can’t comment on the Hansen nuclear thread … it highlights a red box around my name and won’t budge.
Has WUWT finally joined SKS and Loopapers and a few others in blocking me? 🙂
Pamela Gray says:
April 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“Can’t get a comment to show up (won’t even budge from my computer) on the Hansen Nuclear thread. WUWT?”
Try a reboot, maybe some cleaning tools and a few reboots. Your comments of 7:18PDT and 7:21PDT appear to me.
Pamela Gray says:
April 2, 2013 at 7:21 pm
Can’t get a comment to show up (won’t even budge from my computer) on the Hansen Nuclear thread. WUWT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’m having the exact same problem, as is markx apparently. The “name” box outlines in red and won’t let you edit what is in it. Looks to me like javascript is broken on that page (which would be weird to be isolated to that page). It thinks there is nothing in the box and won’t let you put anything in it, and won’t let you post without a name…..
” ‘Davy boy’ here”, you did OK to get the Tamino response!
He’s right scuppered now.
.
I’m having the exact same problem, as is markx apparently.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I’ve used both Chrome and IE. Same issue with both. I’m pretty certain the problem is server side.
[snip]
Since Hansen quit, after the dressing down he received at NASA HQ with several Attorneys General (NASA, DoI, DoE, DoJ, WH) and Councils of each and accountants of the IRA present he did not receive this Nobel Prize as the letter of invitation falsely (a ruse) purported. The 300 plus did give out a huge laugh in the face of a one Mr. James E. Hansen and wished him bon voyage [snip].
Forrest Gardener says:
April 2, 2013 at 2:42 pm
Why is Grant Foster referred to on these pages by his alter-ego Tamino?
——————————————–
Why not? What’s the difference?
All this talk of using others work as your own just makes me think of Tom Lehrer singing of Lobachevsky.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXlfXirQF3A
James Bull
The proximity to April’s fools day seems obvious.
Professor Judithi Curry has a very good article on her blog about this whole affair
http://judithcurry.com/2013/04/02/were-not-screwed/
and her advice to the Sceptics is interesting
“JC advice to the skeptical blogosphere: Lets get to the bottom of this, but while doing so I remind you that one element of this is the struggle for the scientific souls of two promising young scientists. Please don’t overegg the pudding and inadvertently send them to the RealClimate refugee and training camp. Cordially invite them to engage, and work with them to try to change the culture in the paleoclimate community.”
Not everyone commenting thinks that they should be “treated with kid gloves”.
The sad reality is none of this will affect Marcott’s career , in fact has shown with ‘the Team ‘ coming out in full bore support that his future in climate ‘science’ is bright . Which shows us a great deal about the nature of climate ‘science’ and all of it poor .
John Peter is far too late , they’ve shown they’re more than willing to go to ‘the RealClimate refugee and training camp’, knowing full well this will be career enhancing.
.
It is the same tactic as Jo More used – she was a UK spin doctor for the left-wing Labour government. As the Twin Towers burned in New York, she emailed…
Quote:
It’s now a very good day to get out anything we want to bury.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Moore
These guys are utterly ruthless and cynical, in the gaining and use of power for their own purposes.
.
I posted this on William Connelly’s blog about Roger Pielke being a tosser. (WC’s comments following my points) I guess Mann’s hokey stick is still a valid tool (to some people)!!!
RP Jr is criticized for doing the lawyers’ (attorneys’) trick of saying then having to retract, but getting the message to the jury anyway. Isn’t that what the upticks do?
[No, because the uptick is correct. You are familiar with the instrumental record, aren’t you? So what makes you think that anyone will need to “retract” the recent warming? -W]
Mann’s hockey stick is still a poster child for warming, even though thoroughly discredited.
[Sigh – if that’s what you’ve got fixed in your mind, we’re not going to get it out, no matter how untrue it is -W]
It is OK to say the uptick doesn’t matter because scientists know the facts, but Joe Public only sees the uptick and remembers it and is influenced by it and may never see a correction.
[You’ve just repeated yourself, but I won’t bother repeat my reply -W]
“Why is Grant Foster referred to on these pages by his alter-ego Tamino?”
Because he thinks he is a hero. In fact he is the comic relief and should name himself Papageno.
I guess this whole episode begs 2 questions:
#1 Will a retraction ever be forthcoming? While the news releases deceived a lot of news outlets, they were more than willing to be deceived as it fit their agenda.
#2 What will this do to the reputations of those who initiated the deception and of the authors of the paper?
Still having the same problem of the red box around my name on the Hansen thread. I tried to post again. It won’t go through so here is what I wrote:
“So, another projected study of future events touted as having already happened. This reminds me of the missing heat lamentation. Will Hansen be lamenting the lack of untimely end of life in the coming decades?”
Puppet_Master_Blaster_Master says:
April 2, 2013 at 9:52 pm
That is as tasteless a remark as could be found on here.
[Reply: Agree. Offesive comments snipped. — mod.]
Nice. Do you worry about all the [snip] scientists as well? Probably even a few [snip] scientists out there, how do you feel about them? Because being [snip] has sooo much to do with the science, doesn’t it?
[Enough, OK? The original comment was snipped. — mod.]
Pamela Gray says:
April 3, 2013 at 6:13 am
Still having the same problem of the red box around my name on the Hansen thread.
Have you tried using a different email addy?
[Also try clearing your cache. — mod.]
[Also try clearing your cache. — mod.]
Marcott cookies?
StuartMcL says:
April 2, 2013 at 6:27 pm
It seems that the “Papageno” character from the same opera would be a more accurate nom de plume. (eager to take credit for stuff he didn’t do and readily lies about it)
Q. Why did realclimate publish the Marcott FAQ on Easter Sunday?
In Spanish, the word “real” can mean: royal, regal or kingly.
A. Because all the real horses and all the real men couldn’t put spikey together again.
Or if you prefer.
A. Because Marcott et al came in an attractive hard science shell but was a gooey mess on the inside.
The fact that OSU hired this guy and now keeps him speaks oodles about how bad things are at my alma mater. If you can’t trust them, why donate from now on?