“This time the issue is the 1990 IPCC graph, which McI seems to accept uncritically despite its lack of good source (see wiki for more). TGGWS used the old graph uncritically; this is obviously wrong.”

The link is not carried across in the quote, but linked to the discussion where he indicates the probably Lambian lineage of the graph. Suggesting that he “did not say so” in the blog post is highly misleading, and your inference that he was hypocritical based on the supposition that he hid the evidence relating the graph to Lamb is unwarranted (to say the least).

More directly, his criticism was based on the stark contrast between your obsessive criticism of minor details in graphs that you don’t like compared to your uncritical acceptance of graphs that sell the stock you wish to sell.

You strain at gnats and swallow camels.

Steve: I regularly remind readers not to abandon critical standards merely because they “like” a graph. I presented the IPCC 1990 graphic as an example of what climate scientists thought in 1990. I did not “uncritically accept” it. Please provide a quote evidencing your claim.

As I’d said previously, the supposed problem wasn’t on my radar at the time, since I assumed that it came from Lamb somewhere and hadn’t considered the possibility that there was an issue.

As you observe, Connolley at the time was aware that the graphic derived from Lamb though he didn’t say this in his blog post, making his entire line of criticism in the blog post highly disingenuous (to use a Mannian term) – a point that follows logically from your present commentary.

Daley corrected the attribution between Feb 1st 2003 and June 26th 2003:

http://web.archive.org/web/20030626121642/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20030201183139/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

“In 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released its 5-yearly report on climate change [10], in a blaze of publicity, which contained the now infamous phrase that there was “a discernible human influence on global climate”.

Also contained in this report but attracting less attention, was an assessment of how global climate had changed, not just during the previous 95 years, but also the past 1,000 years. In so doing they presented this graph (Fig 1.) of temperature change since 900 AD.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20010414035835/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

That wording is retained on Feb 1st, 2003, but changes to an attribution of the graph to IPCC 1990 in Nov 3rd, 2003. Apparently I was incorrect about 2004, Daley corrected the attribution earlier than that.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030201183139/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20031203160232/http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

Your update reference to “at that time” is vague. The natural interpretation (IMO) is that it refers to the time in 2008 when you diagnosed the provenance. However, in 2007 Connolley diagnosed the attribution to Lamb on wikipedia (see linked page previously by Connolley and myself). You either need to correct the claim that he did not know the source to read that he had noted it resembled a graph by Lamb, or amend the time reference so that it explicitly refers to 2005.

Steve: thanks for clarifying this about Daly. As I mentioned in my previous online comment, in deference to your observation about Connolley, I had amended my comment to say that he had said at his blog that the graphic lacked a “good source”. He made this comment in May 2007, though, as you have observed, other sources (e.g. Climategate) show that Connolley was aware that the graphic derived from Lamb. I’ve added a link to Connolley’s blog post in my update comment. As you are aware, I had linked to Connolley’s blog post in my 2008 commentary where I re-visited and updated the topic.

Shouldn’t the IPCC have properly cited it? Is it in Lamb 1988?

Further, it is clear from blemishes and other alterations in the image you used in 2005 that the image you posted (and which can still be found above) was that posted by John Daley on his website in 2001. As John Daley corrected his attribution in 2004, a year before you misattributed the image, presumably you did not get the image directly from Daley or his website, but from some other person. Would you care to clarify who first brought the image to your attention, and in what context?

I note that proper attribution involves attribution of secondary sources rather than primary sources when you use the secondary source rather than the primary source, as you clearly did not do in this case.

Steve: William Connolley’s precise words at the time were that the graphic lacked a “good source”. In deference to your comment, I’ve slightly amended my update comment to quote directly from Connolley. As you observe, the Climategate emails show that Connolley himself was aware that the graphic originated from Lamb though he did not say so on his blog and the statement at his blog was somewhat of a misdirection given his actual knowledge.

I don’t recall where I picked up the version used in the post. You say that Daly “corrected his attribution in 2004″ – do you have any evidence for this other than the fact that his attribution in 2004 (http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm) was correct? Why do you believe that Daly didn’t have a correct attribution all along? It looks to me like the incorrect attribution to IPCC 1995 in my March 2005 blogpost was my own slip, rather than something that I inherited from another commentary. Deming’s article, cited in my 2005 blogpost, got the 1990 attribution right for example. As I noted previously, I crosschecked the origin soon afterwards and all attributions after June 2005 were to IPCC 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports&diff=369393005&oldid=354829829