I can’t complain about news coverage in senior journals with a trifecta of Nature, Science and the Economist. Here’s link to the Economist article. The Science and Nature are pay-per-view, but I quoted from them here and here. While none of them are exactly throwing rose petals as we walk, neither is there a knee-jerk assumption that we are wrong. Feel free to send nice emails to the editor of Geophysical Research Letters, who will undoubtedly be receiving much hate mail, and also to the editor of Energy and Environment. She receives much criticism, but, if she had not asked me to write an article, I would never have ventured into these waters. Before that invitation, I had never written an academic article although I’ve obviously got lots of experience in other types of writing and analysis.
I won’t get in the habit of reporting hit counts, but I’m interested right now – there were hits from 891 different users yesterday and nearly 1500 hits. You don’t need to be quite so shy about posting.
Of the sub-page hits, the comment on other studies has got the most hits. I’ve got a considerable inventory of material on other studies and will starting putting this out; I’ve started with some comments on Crowley. I’ll put a search button to keep this topic locatable. I worked through quite a bit of Moberg yesterday, mostly tracking down data. I’ll post up some of this as I go since it will illustrate what happens when you try to replicate one of these studies. In the red noise simulations for MM05 (GRL), I used simulations from the waveslim package, which is wavelet based, so I’m in pretty good shape for trying to figure out what’s going on with the wavelet analysis and will try to explain it in a simple way.