A new temperature reconstruction has certainly resonated with many people. Here is a summary of what some of the blogs have been saying, and my corrections of some small inaccuracies.

American Thinker wrote a very upbeat but over the top piece.

The scientific argument that humans have caused global warming – a major underpinning of the “Kyoto Protocols�? – suffered a major blow last week, with the publication of a new study. The implications have not yet spread very far beyond the rarified circles of specialists, but the gospel of “anthropogenic�? – human-caused – global warming has lost one of its intellectual foundations.

However, the article has not yet been through the rigor of publishing – but some preliminary results will be in the Australian Institute of Geologists newsletter next month.

From on High fielded a NYT article by David Ignatius with:

In other words, with the criteria used, it is possible that any random data set can provide results identical to those obtained in the model that global warming theorists have been touting for several years. Meaning – the model is, in and of itself, worthless.

The method may not be entirely worthless, but the detection limits of the methodology may by so high they may not have detected any temperature changes.

YARGB – Flares into Darkness resulted in a lot of discussion.

As those of you following the debate about global warming will know, the National Academies of Science are currently running a symposium to evaluate the results of Mann et al, and the criticisms of McIntyre and McKitrick. David Stockwell has published preliminary results of his new study, applying the methods of Mann et al to the same surface temperature data, but using other associated data.

The study simulates the simple select, calibrate and average methods of most researchers in use prior to Mann more complex methods using Principle Components Analysis. It is McIntyre and McKitrick who have been dismantling Mann’s methods.

At ClimateAudit the cheerful Steve McIntyre quipped:

Another excellent post by David Stockwell here. Everyone having fun?

Everyone?

The Great Satan saw it as grist to the mill.

Further evidence of Science becoming Political, to the point that “the science” is being manipulated to support an agenda instead of the facts.

At Ökologismus it was said:

Ähnlichkeiten mit der sog. “Hockeyschlägerkruve�? von Mann sind unverkennbar. Nach der Berechnung der Fehlerreduktion (RE) und der R2-Statistik bekommt David Stockwell tatsächlich eine deutliche Hockeyschlägerkurve.

At Bad Astronomy and Universe Today it was commented about Hockeysticks:

David Stockwell did one here… doubt anyone will be referencing it, however… he used the same methodology, just input random noise. ut oh.

oh, Steve McIntyre did one as well… turns out he actually used tree rings, too! he just picked a different set, out of those that the hockey stick team throw out regularly, and managed something quite different… turns out they really do pick and choose the proxies that match their desired outcome. so much for statistics.

At Keisarin uudet vaatteet it was written:

David Stockwell taas demonstroi miten Mannin metodeilla saadaan lätkämaila satunnaisesta datasta. Kannattaa tutustua.

Out of the Race made some very astute ‘man in the street’ deductions:

Now, I’m no scientist or mathematician, but when random data produce the same conclusion as real-world data when input into a statistical model, it seems to me that maybe, just maybe, the statistical model might have a built-in bias toward producing that result.

I’m not saying that the scientists who developed the statistical climatic models engaged in intellectual fraud. I am saying that anything created by humans, especially a statistical model that purports to reconstruct and/or mimic a system as complex as the earth’s climate, quite possibly may contain errors.

At the very least, this development suggests that qualified scientists should conduct a detailed review of the structure and process of the climactic models that produce the “hockey stick” pattern to make sure that the pattern is not an artifact of the models themselves. Until that happens, maybe it would be better to suspend expensive government-funded projects aimed at stopping global warming.