Bob Clark wrote:
Reading between the lines one might draw the conclusion that you are already aware of the paper prior to publication.

Alex writes:
For the record, I have not read the paper that may be in preparation by the TES team. Being "aware of [a] paper prior to publication" does not mean or should not be construed to mean that one has read the paper or is even privy to the conclusions. That said, the TES bolometer readings are no surprise to me, and I'll be interested to see what Christensen et al. manage to get through peer review. BTW, it is not uncommon for scientists in the community to be aware of other related work so that the literature may be consistent. A hint: one should keep his or her eyes peeled for the upcoming MGS Special Issue of JGR-Planets, which will have plenty of papers to keep everyone reading for a while ;-)

Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii