In the meantime, the most important message to carry away is that even though the NAS study nitpicks some of the details of the Mann study, they acknowledge that the “hockey stick” is real, real as in physical and historical, and is not merely an artifact from one potentially flawed reconstruction methodology. Like I said earlier, Mann is not the only person in the last decade who has attempted such a reconstruction, and he isn’t the only person who has found a significant recent break in the temperature record. The primary reason his work is the most cited of its kind is because it was one of the first, and the most well-known. That’s generally how citation works, for better or for worse. It isn’t limited to climate science.

I’m not sure what stance you think I was taking, I was just trying to point out that the NAS report did not, in fact, back Dr. Mann’s graph. However, you say:

As for criticisms, Mann himself acknowledged most of them as legitimate.

So it only took 7 years, a couple of congressional hearings and a NAS panel convened in his honor to admit it. Bully for him.

Actually, in this response from RealClimate to the NAS panel report(which I assume he had a hand in writing), it’s hard to see where he admits to much of anything. Do you have another reference?

As for criticisms, Mann himself acknowledged most of them as legitimate. A science as difficult as this naturally has room for improvement, and researchers will of course make errors. If Mann was arguing against the NAS for their criticisms, I think you would have a more solid stance here.

While I think the Bush White House is guilty as sin on a long long list of antiscience endeavors, global warming is probably the least likely place they will budge, given how much money is behind denying the reality of it.

Pres. Bush, in a speech in 2001:

First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.

There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.

And at a press conference in 2005:

Listen, I recognize that the surface of the Earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem.

You can argue that the Bush White House is not doing enough, or is doing the wrong thing, but I don’t think you can argue that they are denying the reality of global warming.

You mean the one backed by the National Academy of Sciences, perhaps the most august scientific body on the planet?

From the NAS report:

Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee finds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.

Plausible? Hardly a ringing endorsement. If you read the full report, it actually endorses most of the criticisms of the Hockey stick graph.

You’ve suggested visiting RealClimate before - I check it daily. Will you visit Climate Audit ? I think a skeptic like you will appreciate what he has done there.