the authors somehow convinced the Nature editors to change the date when the paper was going to be published in order to coincide with the announcement of Gore's speech to Congress? And, given that Gore's speech was (according to your link) just announced yesterday and I can imagine Nature would need to decide their publication schedule at least a few weeks in advance, this whole scenario seems impossible...unless the authors got very advanced word on when Gore would speak. (And, even then, I don't know how plausible it is that the authors could get Nature to move up or back the publication of their paper.) I suppose it is conceivable that the timing of Gore's speech or the announcement the Gore would speak was timed to coincide with this paper, although it seems more timed to the political realities of having a new President and new Congress. Ross Hays first and last paragraphs are the most telling I have ever read on the subject of man's possible influence on global climate. He is to be commended for his integrity; or as my father drilled into me as a boy. "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." On an associated topic; could anyone throw any light on the reason why there appears to be an apparently large number of 'Economists' pushing the AGW agenda? They are no more 'climate scientists' than I am. Considering the track record of many Economists (often appearing little more than guesswork), I would be loathe to