“Skeptic paper on Antarctica accepted – rebuts Steig et al“. “Hah!” says Anthony Watts. A skeptic has a paper into a real journal! Of course there were many review comments that were “difficult”, but they overcame the alleged resistance of the nasty “Team”!
So what new knowledge have these intrepid skeptics uncovered? Well, nothing. They’re just trying to critique a paper in Nature that showed that Antarctica has warmed (Steig et al, Nature, 2009). They report that yeah Antarctica has warmed, but it’s not quite as uniform as Steig determined. With Steven McIntyre as a co-author, as well as fellow ‘citizen-scientist’ Jeff Condon, I suspect that this will prove another exercise in sour-minded nit-picking resulting in a conclusion that ‘they could have used a slightly better statistical method’.
Such rebuttals are usually in the original journal for reasons of clarity, but this particular attack will be in the Journal of Climate.
What do we see in the abstract? Admissions that Steig 2009 “has merit”. Allusions to “suboptimal determination”. Reluctant references to “negligible differences”.
Oh here’s Anthony’s killer rebuttal of Steig! “I would hope that our paper is not seen as a repudiation of Steig’s results, but rather as an improvement.”
That’s the problem with peer-review. Your accusations have to stand up to scrutiny before they are published. Or get restated honestly. Unlike denialist websites like Anthony Watts’.