Muller was never a skeptic IMO except maybe of Mann and his work IMO. I am skeptical that Muller isn't biased. At least I hold him in more regard than Mann or Hansen in that he seems to want to advance science. If they paste on interpretations of recent temperature thermometer proxies onto the previous uncalibrated or poorly calibrated tree ring and other proxies, then I would remain skeptical. Well in fact, I will always remain skeptical. It is just a matter of how much skepticism I will have. I think the skeptic blogosphere would echo my skeptical nature but welcome any new good evidence.
You mean replicate it by changing the core top dates to make a fake uptick like Marcott did or replicate it like stringing instrumental records on top of proxy records like Mann did?
March 1st :"The 20th century temperature rise is unprecedented in 11,000 years."
April 1st: "Oh, but the 20th century uptick is complete garbage and you should ignore it."
EDIT: "Well, I guess at least the skeptics are now being honest and saying from the outset you would reject it."
I never said I would reject it, I was just asking a valid question on which way they could replicate it which you didn't answer.
Would they replicate it by:
1) Redating the core tops like Marcott did?
2) Stringing on short term instrumental records on top of smoothed proxy records like Mann did?
It's not really a question you have to dodge, I'm just curious as to what method they would use to replicate the results .
Have any of the BEST papers passed peer review in a mainstream scientific journal yet? If not, I'm surprised you bring them up.
Or perhaps you are happy with their new definition of peer review: http://berkeleyearth.org/faq/#peer-revie...
Actually, they created a brand new journal just for BEST: http://www.scitechnol.com/gigshome.php
As for your question, yes I'd be impressed if they could replicate Marcott without the statistical gymnastics: http://climateaudit.org/tag/marcott/
No because BEST is already biased, I would not expect honest truth from the likes of Judith Curry and Steve Mosher, However if you got someone like Richard Lindzen to confirm it I would sit up and take notice.
I will believe them only when they can make actual accurate predictions about future conditions.
So far their record is worse than chance.
Our money for climate predictions would have been better spent on a monkey with a spinner.
There are no skeptics to speak of, and hard-core climate science DENIERS -plus their small army of wannabes and copy-cats- will deny anything and everything in their frenzied BS barrage against science, until they are finally embarrassed and held up to deserved public ridicule so many times that they give up, except for denying all their prior denying. Like extra-terrestrial-channelers, Birthers, Holocaust deniers, and other such irrational kooks, the climate science deniers can always find fresh dupes to recruit, so there is no hope for getting them to listen to facts, logic, or common sense. All that can be done is to continuously expose their ignorance and dishonesty, and to STOP referring to these highly NON-skeptical crackpots as "skeptics."
Of course they will, it's a Pavlovian response with them, It saves them the trouble of actually thinking
Let's say the BEST project decides to replicate the Marcott and Shakun work, and finds the same thing they do. Would the skeptic blogosphere accept that or would they reject it like they did when the BEST project confirmed Mann et al.?
