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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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I wish it would be withdrawn so we can get on with the larger issues at hand.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.