There was one thing about this interaction with WUWT and Co, that I found interesting. Interesting in the way Judith Curry uses the word, suggestive and non-committal.
I wrote a comment (see below) on five blogs that had covered the story, quite neutral comments not to violate any comment policy. They had a link to my blog article for more information. One would expect skeptical people, in the original meaning of the word, to be interested in an alternative opinion, especially so if it comes from someone that is reasonably well informed. However, only one of the five comments was published. [UPDATE: now two comments, see below.]
The post was published on the 1st of February, at the time of writing 3 days ago.
Five blogsThe Hockey Schtick: New paper finds adjusted temperature data in China has significantly exaggerated warming
Below the post at The Hockey Schtick are two comments, but mine did not appear.
[UPDATE: After a twitter exchange, I have resubmitted my comment and it has appeared. Problem solved.]
Watts Up With That?: Important study on temperature adjustments: ‘homogenization…can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.’
Anthony Watts thought the homogenization article was very important. My comment has not appeared yet. Last time I tried a similar comment, at least the text "[sorry, but we aren't interested in your slanted opinion - mod]" appeared.
I am on the WUWT black list and normally it takes a few hours before my comments appear, at which time the discussion has typically progressed for fresh posts and most people do not seem to notice the comment any more. Three days would be a new record.
Tips on How to Study: Important study on temperature adjustments: 'homogenization…can …
Then I wrote a comment for Tips On How To Study. Looking in more detail now, it does not seem to be an ostrich blog, but rather someone who copies articles from other blogs, mostly not about How To Study.
The Drinking Water Advisor: Beijing adjusted surface temperature data found to have exaggerated warming trends
The fourth comments was at The Drinking Water Advisor, a blog about water, fluoridation and climate change. My comment did not yet show up here.
Errors in IPCC climate science: How many times does a truth have to be told ? – UHI warming has been cemented into global temperature series by adjusting for steps outward from cities
There is one blog where my comment was posted: Errors in IPCC climate science. Chapeau. One of the bloggers, Warwick S. Hughes, has written some scientific articles and comments on station data quality. He should have been able to see the mistake in the WUWT article.
ConclusionsThe last few month I have trouble with getting comments published, also on science blogs, but I would estimate this to affect a few percent of my comments. Getting only
The commentAt WUWT and Tips, I wrote the comment below. On the other blogs shorter ones with a similar tone.
The authors wanted to accurately study the influence of the urban heat island effect and thus removed the cooling effect of two relocations using a special homogenization method. Without this method the importance of urbanization would have been underestimated.
This special homogenization method is not used for global climate data, where the aim is to remove the effect of urbanization as well. Thus this WUWT post is unfortunately inaccurate. For details, please have a look at my blog.
I would personally say, that that is quite neutral. Certainly compared to the way scientists are described in the comments of WUWT.
Further readingWUWT comes right out and says "We Aren't Interested" in facts
HotWhoppers take on the previous time WUWT was not interested in my slanted opinion.