Just over a month ago, RP Sr wrote a ludicrous post [WebCite] about the “game-changing” Watts Et al 2012 (I’ve just realised quite how illiterate that is, too: Et shouldn’t be capitalised, and “al” is spelt “al.”. McNider Et Al even gets the Al capitalised). I was less impressed; indeed, disappointed. Everyone took the piss out of RP, quite deservedly. It didn’t take long for those who read it carefully (not me, sorry) to find flaws in the paper; VV is one such. There were promises of updates (or so people tell me) but it all seems quiet. However, perhaps unbeknownst to many, Evan Jones [*] has made some extensive comments here discussing the paper, and ongoing work. So, if you’re interested, I recommend reading why-wattss-new-paper-is-doomed-to-fail-review/#comments.
For myself, I think I’d like to see the revised version of the paper before I commit more time to working out what its about and if its of any importance. I remain dubious that the time-varying bias has been demonstrated, or the difference in methodology and results from previous has been justified, or the comparison with the satellite record been addressed.
Since we’re talking about comments, I’d like to say that (a) the comments have been very interesting recently, thank you; but (b) please extend courtesy to those visiting, perhaps in particular those you disagree with. This will be enforced.
[*] Or someone claiming to be him. But I’ve no reason to believe it isn’t EJ.