I too read the article you cite. What is interesting to me is that, out of the thousands of pages the IPCC has published, you and the CS crowd have found a single mistake – one that has only been alleged at this point – and clung to it like grim death. It is slightly desperate.

And if the 2035 date is premature, does that disprove all of AGW science, of which there is a massive amount? Are the Himalayan glaciers not retreating?

And do you hold up, oh I don’t know, say…a blog run by a small business owner up to the same level of scrutiny? Or do you uncritically accept “science” and “commentary” that has not even met IPCC’s apparently lax(er-than-they-should-be) criteria?

The following information is from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Himalayan-melting-by-2035-Scientists-just-assumed-so/articleshow/5459848.cms

This is why we do not believe in the published “science” of Waldo’s experts – “It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, an obscure Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was “speculation” and not supported by any formal research. ” Of course “Some scientists have questioned how the IPCC could have allowed such a mistake into print. Perhaps the most likely reason was lack of expertise. Lal himself admits he knows little about glaciers. “I am not an expert. The comments in the WWF report were made by a respected Indian scientist and it was reasonable to assume he knew what he was talking about,” he said.”

Case closed.

or is it?

“The IPCC last week refused to comment so it has yet to explain how someone who admits to little expertise on glaciers was overseeing such a report.”

I guess Waldo’s experts are still sticking by their report, despite the admission that it is totally based on “speculation” by an obscure scientist.

WOW!!!

It is pretty clear that this thread has outgrown any sort of usefulness to anyone, but I did like this phrase of yours, “obstinancy to be educated” (it actually means exactly the opposite of what you meant it to mean [you should have written “obstinancy toward being educated”]) but if you mean I obstinately refuse to buy into your conspiracy theories, amateur pseudo-science, blog cross-postings, and cut-n-pastes from neocon rags and London tabloids, you are right!!

And didn’t I predict that you would refuse to read Real Climate? The irony of my asking you to read their hockeystick article is that I really was asking for help – you could have used your engineer brain to explain and critique their reasoning. Of course, RC is run by Schmidt, Mann, Ammann, Bradley – and the physicist is Benestad, who does climate physics. Go to the site and see for yourself. Plus their guest bloggers are all the real deal. SPPI has a politician (Ferguson), a former journalist-cum-elitist nutbag (Monckton), and a few scientists with some pretty dubious professional associations (Idso and Carter foremost).

So sure, eventually I’ll get to SPPI’s article, but I’m in no real hurry to get there. I wouldn’t trust them anymore than I would trust a blog run by a small business owner / wannabe novelist.

Anyway, this is boring and there really is nothing more to be said here. I don’t believe that you are an MIT trained engineer, Rural – in fact, I rather suspect that you are the same person who logged in earlier as “An Inquirer” or one of the other fine personas on this thread, but don’t bother trying to prove otherwise. It doesn’t matter and I don’t care. You and Bob Lazar, you know.

Real Climate? Isn’t that like asking for unbiased political commentary from Firedoglake? You are joking, I’m sure. A site run by an MIT physicist, I might add, not a climate scientist. (Who has been known for his nearly religious fervor for climate catastrophe theory, inability to brook any dissenting discussions, and threats to journalists who dared break ranks. And, I might add, was merely a middle level manager in government DOE programs…hardly a rousing endorsement of his scientific prowess.) And an article from 2005? A lot has been disclosed about data manipulation and selection since then, little man. That has been the entire point behind the East Anglia CRU email fiasco.

“We’ve heard how they…” More willful ignorance, my child? You have become tiresome in your obstinancy to be educated, or at least pointed in a direction to open your mind to rational scientific concepts which provide counterponts to the AGW theory talking points. Such a waste. Look up the SPPI response to Scientific American in their December 27, 2009 white paper, refuting SA’s feeble attempt to stave off criticism. I don’t have a link, but am sure you could Google it.

Oh, and did you the enjoy the belittling tone and condescending approach? I thought you’d be more comfortable with it, since it seems to be the only content you can provide. Endearing, in a dorky liberal artsy kind of way.

Oh, and such graceful and clever backing down on questioning academic credentials. Smooth. Not.

And helllllooooo, Dr. Rural.

“We’ve heard how they” etc. Where did you hear?

When you write, “here is clear evidence of collusion and conspiracy in trying to subvert the peer-review process,” you are correct that we disagree. I do not see “clear evidence” but I’ve already responded to this much higher up in the thread and don’t feel like doing it again. So when you write “I don’t see how any other rational conclusion can be reached” I sincerely doubt that you yourself have checked your biases at the door.

Rural, my friend, the minute you check your biases at the door I’ll check mine. I’ll even wager you leave with a few more claim slips since you obviously predicate your reading – and it is a “reading” in the interpretive sense – on the hard held belief that CRU scientists must be subverting the process and so, I suspect, any objective, rational conclusion is seriously tainted by a pretty vehement a priori conclusion you reached long before.

Real Climate has a number of responses, as does the NY Times, to CRU charges…but I suppose we automatically disregard them…

And sure – hire a third party (accounting firms or law firms usually handle this sort of thing, I think); I’ll have my people contact your people. In the mean time, even if what you write is true (and that was such a dorky thing to write I am now willing to believe that you are an engineer), you are an expert in engineering, not a climate scientist. Thus I will defer to you on matters of engineering; on matters of climate I will defer to certain other well know parties.

But I would honestly be interested in an explanation of this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/
Despite itself, it is a complex text and I suspect this is one of the reasons climate scientists are generating such distrust and the blogosphere, which tends to put things in simplistic terms, gains an audience. I actually had someone once say to me, “Well, if the laypeople can’t understand the science, what good is it?” I had no response.

I’ll check back if I can.

Keep them cards and letters coming, kids.

“One is me making my own conclusion (inferences), and stating them as such, the other is you pretending I’m putting words into these scientists mouths”

>Potato, po-tah-toe. And this argument is now pointless. <

Well it pretty much was ever since you brought it up, and now its been completely trashed, yes you’re right.

“And some of these posters are pure whackjobs, and probably neocon whackjobs at that.”

Remember that if you think they are a whackjob, they likely think you are also a whackjob, so who’s right? You, them, both or neither? I’ve seen some, shall I say goofy, posts on this site before, and many of yours are right up there Waldo.

“I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. It is also an ugly paper to review because it is rather mathematical, with a lot of Box-Jenkins stuff in it. It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically, but it suffers from the classic problem of pointing out theoretical deficiencies, without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense. So they do lots of monte carlo stuff that shows the superiority of their method and the deficiencies of our way of doing things, but NEVER actually show how their method would change the Tornetrask reconstruction from what you produced. Your assistance here is greatly appreciated. ”

English can be a very imprecise tool, but I think you argue in bad faith. I’m sure you are aware of the concept of willfull ignorance. Check your biases at the door please.

What do you suppose is meant by “without showing that their improved inverse regression method is actually better in a practical sense”? When the basic data is in question, how exactly does one show a curve-fitting method is “better” in a “practical sense”? May I suggest that “practical” here is used to mean in a way that supports their theory?

Note the concern about “deficiencies of our way of doing things.” Also note that is rather difficult to “show how their method would change…what you produced” when the un-manipulated data sets are withheld, and the manipulations are obscured.

We’ve heard how they cherry-picked data, propagated recording errors, made selective and unsubstantiated adjustments…and here is clear evidence of collusion and conspiracy in trying to subvert the peer-review process. I don’t see how any other rational conclusion can be reached.

Obfuscation will only buy so much time. It is evident that the core AGW scientists have behaved unethically and with willful intent to further a movement from which they profited. They have perverted the science for their own benefit. (Isn’t that the basis you were using to decide from which journals to accept peer-reviewed articles to consider? Shouldn’t you be consistent?)

Seems you were anxious to defer to expert opinion earlier, up until it went against your interpretation. Then suddenly it seems you feel the need to question my credentials. Question away, I suppose. I’ll be happy to wager you, through an impartial third party holding the funds in escrow, that I hold the degree I told you (and others as well), if you insist on being silly about it. I could use a boost in my income. What do you say to $10,000? $20,000? Hmmmm?