2011-09-19 00:55:47The Weekly Digest and the Pielke Affair
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

Should today's edition of the Weekly Digest highlight or ignore our ongoing brouhaha with Pielke?   

2011-09-19 03:31:18
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'd certainly mention and link to the post.  You can also mention that we will likely publish a couple of other responses, both to the ongoing discussion so far, and to Pielke's new (off-topic) questions to us, but that we're in the process of determining the most constructive way to proceed.  It probably deserves its own heading in the weekly digest.

2011-09-19 04:18:23
Alex C

coultera@umich...
67.194.30.40

Eh, I'd keep the language as level as possible, and would recommend myself not putting "(off topic) questions..."

2011-09-19 05:38:34How about this...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

SkS Highlights

The SkS author team wnt into high gear this week defending the integrity of SkS from a baseless criticism leveled by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. on his blog site. The context of this unfortunate episode is documented in Dana's excellent article, One-Sided 'Skepticism'.

Although he did not allow SkS authors to respond on his blog site, Pielke did chose to post comments on the thread to Dana's article. SkS readers are encouraged to check out this enlightening comment thread.

Included among Pielke's comments is the following puzzling statement about Anthony Watts:

"I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness."

The SkS author team will have more to say about this statment and other's made by Pielke in the coming weeks.

 

  

2011-09-19 05:48:49
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.53.162

Looks good Badg........ummm John.

2011-09-19 06:11:46
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

wnt into => went into

Although he did not allow SkS authors to respond on his blog site => Although he does not allow comments on his blog site.

Not sure if we should highlight that Watts comment.  I would take that part out.  Don't want to tip our hand too soon with that one.

2011-09-19 06:20:48Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
98.122.98.161

The Watts comment is already in the public domain. It's an attention grabber and will engender comments. I believe we should run with it,

2011-09-19 06:27:24
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.106.125

I'd at least take out the last sentence

"The SkS author team will have more to say about this statment and other's made by Pielke in the coming weeks."

We may or may not, and this tips our hand.  If you want to highlight the quote, that's fine.

2011-09-19 08:52:48
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.56.122

"Included among Pielke's comments is the following puzzling statement about Anthony Watts:

"I have worked with Anthony and he is devoted to the highest level of scientific robustness." "

 

- I would take out this statement on Watts: We may be dealing with him (directly or indirectly) concerning the "Christy's Crocks" issue trade-off with the idiotic Gore issue. Let's not queer that deal before we've even decided what to do with it. Too many balls in the air at one time!

- I also agree with Dana to hold off on the statement about the SkS team: We don't need to say this now, and there is no advantage to saying it now. And the timeframe may be much shorter. Let's not tie our hands unnecessarily.