IPCC rules required TSU to remove references to any articles where they did not have at least a final preprint in hand. Again, had TSU done that, the problem wouldn’t arise. It’s too late to cooper up the situation regardless (nd BTW nothing has been done so far despite Armand’s notice.

Although the first part of your post was a credit to this board, in the last two paragraphs you, sadly, reverted to unwarranted assumptions and baseless accusations:

You say “I presume you got this information from Steve …”
Wrong.

You say “So I wonder how long you and Steve have known about this problem…”
I can’t speak for Steve, since I have not corresponded with him on this subject other than my public posts on this board. I have known about this problem for about 2.5 days.

You say “… and have failed to get it fixed. The TSU database page does include a button entitled “Contact WG1 TSU” so it is extremely easy to get them to fix inconsistencies. ”
(sigh) [apologies to Gavin!] John, you should realize by now that it’s your unwarranted presumptions and assumptions about others’ actions that get you into trouble. You should consider that not everyone will act just as you would in a situation.
I have corresponded with the TSU regarding this matter, but consider it unlikely that they will be able to turn back time and provide the changed article in time for the start of government review in early April (as it would have been, had the authors acted properly).

Finally, you say “The quality of the AR4 is not helped if people see problems which are easily fixed, but for purely partisan reason do not fix them.” I wholeheartedly agree, and suggest that you pass on this comment to the proper recipients — the authors of the article in question.

1. If the “Hockey Stick is broken” can anyone point to a recently published millennial temperature reconstruction…

2. #47: I guess our mutual problem is that YOU seem to understand the meaning of the term “broken thermometer” when applied to tree-ring proxies and I don’t.

3. #52: I assume, per, that your grasp of the English language is insufficient for you to understand subtle signals like putting something in quotes “¢’‚¬? in the present case, it meant that I didn’t say it but someone else did. It has nothing to do with understanding or agreeing with what that somebody meant.

Dear John H, I think it is quite clear that my grasp of the English language is not adequate to keep up with what you write ! Apparently, you use quotes and ask questions when you don’t even understand the words you are using.
I did offer you the chance to engage in discussion of issues with substantive merit. I notice that you declined the offer, and took the opportunity to indulge in a little bit of name-calling.
Isn’t it funny how actions speak louder than words ?
yours
per

And to all those who continually seek to pressure me into commenting on matters outside my field

Seems like most of the posting you do here – which I assume is done under your own free will and not under pressure from the intellectually bankrupt folks of the board – is outside your field. That is, aside from some sea level skirmishes which pop-up here-and-there. But since the sea level discussion now has its own place here, I assume that you will reside there and refrain from “commenting on matter outside my field” on other threads?

Christmas in May!

John,

JohnA has previously corrected me over the issue of black holes – which I erroneously described as points in 3D space with infinite mass. Wrong. Infinite density, which error I freely admitted to on my personal blog.

But that does not imply, mullah-like, that he proscribed my error.

But in your case we need to make an exception, unfortunate as that is.

However this thread is fast disappearing into another horizon, rather than the one SMcI intended, so I stop here.

John, are you not over-reacting a little? You seem to come across as a mullah who has his cherished beliefs profaned by the unclean.

Obviously in your area of science you have not experienced the hard knocks we in mineral exploration experience from having our pet theories falsified by drilled facts.

I have always wondered why climate theories are advertised as such, since they seem somewhat difficult to disprove empirically, especially in terms of the time frames involved.

Since climate is sensu-strictu weather over a 30 year period, then climate predictions could only be tested to be valid or false after a period of “climate length”.

So global warming (AKA climate change) isn’t a real scientific theorey in these terms.

Your intemperate reactions to comments here seem to somewhat support that idea.

A very brief review of “climate change science” in action may be found at http://www.john-daly.com/sonde.htm