Yesterday I waded through a demonstration of a fairly egregious splice of the instrumental record into Crowley’s reconstruction as used in Crowley . Today I consider the use of the Crowley reconstruction in spaghetti graphs and, in particular, Mann’s statement at realclimate that:
No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, "grafted the thermometer record onto" any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.
Mann and realclimate are obviously pretty quick to dismiss any opponents as simply being "industry-funded climate disinformation", but I grew up in era when people talked about "running dogs of the capitalist imperialists" so the mentality of such comments is easy to recognize, just as the Marcusian overtones of "false objectivity".
Anyway here are some curiosities from Mann’s own treatment of the Crowley series, which provides evidence that Mann knew that Crowley had carried out exactly this form of splice.
Update Dec 2, 2005: Tim Lambert has suggested that this series may actually be some variant of MBH99 incorrectly labelled. A reader has sent in a digital version of the series labelled "Crowley and Lowery" here
Update. March 26, 2006. If Mann incorrectly used a displaced version of MBH99 and labelled it as Crowley and Lowery, as Lambert believes see below -, then this screw-up should have been reported to EOS and a corrigendum issued. To date, no such corrigendum has been issued. To my knowledge, Lambert has not written to EOS to confirm this screw-up. It is beyond question that Crowley spliced data in exactly the way that Mann said that "no researcher, to [his] knowledge, had ever done". Obviously, Mann, as the lead author for IPCC TAR on these multiproxy studies, should have been aware of this splicing. Lambert suggests that it is possible that, in addition to screwing up the EOS graph, Mann may have failed to inform himself properly about the Crowley splice; in that case, Lambert believes that Mann’s quote above could be based on ignorance and a failure to take proper care rather than deceit. This is an alternative possible explanation.
First let’s look at the spaghetti graph in Mann et al [EOS 2003]. It’s hard to distinguish details in these spaghetti graphs, but I’ve looked closely at this one in a blow-up mode. The Crowley version (yellow) is almost certainly the version CL2.Jns11, made from splicing the CRU temperature after 1870 until 1998 (smoothed to a 1993 end) with the 13-site composite prior to 1870. In the unspliced version (CL2), the Crowley reconstruction is higher than the instrumental CRU record in the 19th century and joins up with it only in the late 19th century. While it is hard to see, the CL series used here definitely tracks the instrumental series, as is the case with the spliced CL2.Jns11 version.
Figure1 . Spaghetti Diagram, Mann et al. [Eos 2003].
Courtesy of a climateaudit reader, here is a parsing of the Eos Spaghetti diagram, showing the Crowley layer extracted. You’ll see that my surmise is correct and how that the Crowley version here is clearly the long splice.
Figure1A . Spaghetti Diagram, Mann et al. [Eos 2003].
Now let’s look at the spaghetti graph in Jones and Mann , from about 6 months later. Here Crowley-Lowery (2000) is in black. Jones and Mann appear to have used the version CL2.Jnsm11.adjusted, which is also spliced but is only spliced from 1965 on rather than the longer splice from 1870 on the other version. The evidence is that here the Crowley version intersects the CRU version halfway through the 19th century, which matches the smoothed short splice rather than the long splice.
Figure 2. Spaghetti Diagram, Jones and Mann 
Now let’s look at the caption to Jones and Mann :
Original Legend: Reconstructions of (a) Northern Hemisphere (NH), (b) Southern Hemisphere (SH), and (c) global mean (GLB) annual temperatures over the past one to two millennia. The expansion in Figure 5a compares a number of different NH estimates over the past 1000 years, while the main plot shows the proxy reconstructions back to A.D. 200 of Mann and Jones , updated through 1995 as described in the text. Smoothed (40-year low-passed) versions of these series are shown to highlight the low-frequency variations. … Shown also (yellow shading) is the 95% confidence interval in the reconstruction (i.e., the positive and negative 2 standard error limits of the smoothed reconstructions). The various other (smoothed) NH reconstructions shown in the enlargement to Figure 5a have been scaled by linear regression against the smoothed instrumental NH series over the common interval 1856″€œ1980, with the exception of the “‘œ”‘œBriffa et al.” series, which has been scaled over the shorter 1856″€œ1940 interval owing to a decline in temperature response in the underlying data discussed elsewhere [Briffa et al., 1998a]. The Crowley and Lowery  series shown here replaces an incorrect version of the series shown in similar previous comparisons [e.g., Mann et al., 2003a]. [my bold]
So what was "incorrect" about the Crowley version used in "similar previous comparisons" – that it was splice of the instrumental record? Was this "industry-funded climate disinformation"? Who needs disinformation with this gang that can’t shoot straight? All you need to do is show what they actually do – that’s damning enough.
The graphic to Jones and Mann  was submitted by MBH to Nature in their Reply to our submission to Nature. It included the following different legend, which I noticed in my notes and which I’ll try to remember to discuss some day.
Legend from SuppInfo4 to MBH 2004b FIGURE 1: Reprinted from Jones and Mann (2004). Reconstructions of different proxy-based NH estimates (9-14) over the past 1000 years, smoothed on 40 year and longer timescales. Shown also (yellow shading) is the 95% confidence interval for (14). The various other reconstructions have been scaled by linear regression against the smoothed instrumental NH series over the common interval 1856″€œ1980, with the exception of (12), which has been scaled over the shorter 1856″€œ1940 interval owing to a late 20th century decline in temperature response in some of the underlying data discussed elsewhere (12). Series (10) represents the extension of MBH98 back to AD 1000. Each of these reconstructions are based on entirely independent statistical methodologies from MBH98, and either completely (Esper et al), almost completely (Briffa et al, Crowley and Lowery), or mostly (Mann and Jones, Jones et al) independent data. [my bold]
Given that, for example, 13 of 17 proxies in Jones et al were used in MBH98-99 and a 14th (Jacoby NH) was used in its 11 components in MBH98-99, I don’t see that this is "mostly independent" data, but – hey, this is Hockey Team-speak.