In other news:
* ATTP bemoans the poor quality of “skeptic” out there. As usual, wise comments from PP who amongst other ideas proposes that Another possibility is that the idea is to learn from the discussion.
* If you’d like a fine example of poor quality “skeptics” and people *not* learning from the discussion, then About that graph… is good. Starting approximately with my comment July 7, 2014 at 1:49 am we have the WUWT version of Godwin’s law: all discussions will degenerate into was-the-MWP-warmer-than-now-or-not.
* Brian skirts close to that with a useful comparison.
* SoD discussues GCM tuning, an interesting topic not often addressed: the “skeptics” are too clueless to know about it, and the modellers themselves are maybe not keen to thrust it to the forefront. Here’s a non-paywalled copy of Mauritsen et al., 2012 (DOI: 10.1029/2012MS000154).
* CIP links to Peter Woit saying interesting things about “post empirical” physics, but some stuff like every theorist is well aware that one can can’t just demand experimental predictions and confirmation for ideas, that one spends basically all one’s time working on better understanding ideas that are far from the point where empirical confirmation comes into play will resonate in the GW debate.
* Moyhu’s polar polar ice plot.
* Everything you know about Galileo and the Church is wrong, as is everything you know about why the heliocentric view became accepted (I over-state for effect, slightly :-).
* History of the word “Scientist”. I know the true definition of the word.
* And note forgetting the Pope Urban Heat Island effect.
* Tuning to the global mean temperature record by Isaac Held, 2016.