Hi Hasbeen,
Or alternatively you could get on board.
At the risk of mixing my metaphors, come on in, the water's fine.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Oh, and here's one of the worst offenders of accusing the temperature record keepers of outright fraud, right on cue.

Actually Hasbeen, it helps when you have the whole context, or even the whole sentence.
Which you will find here, for your own perusal, I'm not expecting you to read it though, I know you only bother with the selective quotes.
http://muller.lbl.gov/TRessays/23-Medievalglobalwarming.html

The guy is really a true skeptic, what he isn't is a denier. He follows where the data leads. That's probably why you don't identify with his position.

Marc Who? Bugsy. Never heard of him. You need to do better than that.

Trashcan Man, this report does not vindicate the Hockey Stick, it just demonstrates confirmation bias - yours. The Hockey Stick took in around 1000 years of reconstructions spliced with data, and this paper looks at around 150 years. It has absolutely nothing to say about the Hockey Stick.

I'm not sure that the research is as robust as it could be. Apparently they do their statistics on averages (smoothed data), at least according to this analysis http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/10/21/keenans-response-to-the-best-paper.html.

But full marks to Muller for putting all of this out in the open. If he continues in this way we will all learn some more about statistics, and the results will be refined to give us a much better answer to the question of how much the earth has warmed.

However, as I said earlier, the satellite record gets around most of these issues, so I'm not really sure why we persist with the land-based records. And yes, the satellite record says it has been getting hotter. That is not an issue in this debate.

Graham. Yes, I was wondering if they had to be famous to matter to you.
Now I know.

"Generally accepted" is not the same as "universally accepted", as you of all people should know. There is a subsection of the skeptics that believe that the databases are fraudulent.

They may not be in the majority, but some of your more avid commentators have been listening to them intently.

Careful Bugsy, your arrogance is getting a bit thick there.

By the way, have you seen what Judith Curry [co author] has had to say about Muller getting a bit chatty with the press, before peer review & publication, & Muller's back down on some of his early running off at the mouth.

People do need to be careful of that, don't they mate.

Hasbeen,

People should also be careful about what they read in the media.

Have a look at what Judith Curry has to say about misrepresentation of her statements.

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/mail-on-best/#more-5526

And her general agreement with Muller

http://judithcurry.com/2011/10/30/discussion-with-rich-muller/#more-5540