IPCC did not say that it was "likely" that MBH98 had statistical skill in verification statistics – they asserted it flat out. Because it was not merely an incidental graphic, then they should not ignore the misrepresentation. That’s a completely different issue than whether the graphic itself was "likely" or not. Indeed, because MBH98 failed cross-validation r2 tests, IPCC could not assert that it was even "likely".

As for the predictions in your last paragraph, I wouldn’t know about the former one, but as to the latter one you’re absolutely right. I would point out that since the IPPC only said MBH was “likely” to be right, it’s not reasonable to ask them to admit to a misrepresentation even if you’re correct in your statistical criticisms of MBH.

Could get Jack Nicholson to play Mann, then he can re-hash the whole. “You wnat the Truth, you can’t handle the truth.”

Near the beginning we are greeted by a professor Von Storch played by an animated duck. He has a role as narrator and introduces a brief telling of the Chicken Little Fable.

Also we have Clyde Crashcup, ludicrous visionary who produces Rube Goldberg contraptions on his chalkboard, creates them, has some sort of disaster and then says “Oh well, back to the old drawing board!”

List of Clyde Crashcup inventions on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clyde_Crashcup

Finally we are introduced to important characters, all coroners to symbolize the analysis of a dead hockey stick graph. The aging absent minded professor is played by Jack Klugman, revered coroner of the old show “Quincy”. The hero is played by Robert David Hall, coroner of the hit TV series “CSI”.

Steve seems to prefer an exotic look in the babes so that role is played by the CSI Miami coroner, Alexx Woods.

On the amusement side, I’m convinced that Ammann and Wahl have been twisting themselves like pretzels to have their article meet IPCC deadlines. That’s fair enough on their side; but it indicates that they put some importance on being mentioned in IPCC 4AR.

For example, one day before the Christchurch meeting, they announce "provisional acceptance" presumably to influence IPCC to include Ammann and Wahl in the 2nd order draft. Obviously, Ammann and Wahl did not meet Christchurch standards that the article "will not be subsequently modified (except perhaps for copy editing)" because it seems that the provisional acceptance included requirements for heavy modifications, which were then carried out after the Christchurch date. (I’m not certain that the modifications were carried out after December 13, but the circumstantial evidence strongly indicates this, as discussed before.) Ammann and Wahl certainly did not inform IPCC that they had to carry out substantial modifications of their articles under the terms of the provisional acceptance and that they did not meet Christchurch standards for inclusion and accordingly they regretfully withdrew their article from consideration for use in the second order draft.

Lead authors for the second order draft had to have "final preprint" copies by late February or remove the citation. March 3 was the deadline for lead authors sending their copy to IPCC WG1. On Feb. 28, Ammann and Wahl had the Feb 24 version of their article finally accepted by Climatic Change and on March 3, they post this version up at their website. Intuitively, it seems to me that what they’ve posted up on March 3 is something that only meets Christchurch standards. This isn’t a "final preprint" showing a reference Wahl and Ammann… Climatic Change 32, 568-622 or whatever. They are about 2 months behind schedule in both steps. It must piss them off.

But we are in no position right now to speculate that IPCC has in any way bent its standards with respect to Ammann and Wahl or even that they have not noticed that the revisions unwillingly confirm our observations about MBH verification statistics. I think that we can reasonably speculate that the latter is very unlikely if only because the changes were made in breach of Christchurch standards and the changes were probably not brought to the attention of the IPCC Lead Authors. (By the way, shouldn’t Ammann and Wahl have had a duty to report material changes to IPCC Lead Authors? You would in a business prospectus.)

Also we are in no position to know whether IPCC will use this article after the above breaches of policy are pointed out. BTW the substantial changes in Ammann and Wahl post-Christchurch is not an "incidental" breach.

You know something, I think that there’s at least a 50-50 chance that Ammann and Wahl is not used in IPCC 4AR. I think that there’s a 0% chance that they will report that results in Ammann and Wahl showed that IPCC TAR had misrepresented the statistical skill of the MBH recosntruction.