2. What happened with the lying about you using the wrong version (link)?

3. Link to story re deleting of database and speculation why? lose track of the intrigues…

I’m particularly intrigued by this splicing, because the first dataset provided to us containe spliced tree ring PCs, a data set later said by Mann to be “garbage”. In a remarkable feat of prestidigitation, even though we had noticed the splicing and avoided the problem by re-assembling the data, Mann convinced the climate science world that we used the “garbage” data set. Among other things he lied about the date of its creation as it was created long before our inquiry. (He deleted the dataset together with its incriminating date evidence). The real and still unanswered question is whether Mann used the “garbage” data set. It’s possible that he didn’t; that it was an intermediate concoction of Rutherford (sho uses the name of the dataset pcproxy in an archived graphic). But then it’s worth inquiring as to who used this dataset. Anyway, we didn’t.

So when I see splicing, it has a resonance for me that it doesn’t for others. The new source code dump refers to data sets that don’t exist in the archived data, so it’s still hard to tell how they got their exact results. Wahl and Ammann’s claims that they have exactly replicated Mann are pure disinformation. They, like us, can somewhat emulate Mann’s results, but they haven’t exactly replicated them.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=125

We would like to take this opportunity to re-iterate our commitment to getting the science right, and as importantly, getting it right in real-time. We welcome all corrections or clarifications and we will endeavour to fix any errors, great or small, as quickly as we can.