McIntyre’s use of the data from a single, more spatially restricted site, to represent recent tree growth over the wider region, and his exclusion of the data from the other available sites, likely represents a biased reconstruction of tree growth.

This is from the Abstract to the second Briffa piece Steve is talking about here, Examining the validity of the published RCS Yamal tree-ring chronology which addresses Steve throughout, and which DC quotes in full. Ad hom DC may be, but their quote of Briffa’s abstract did draw my attention to this – IMHO – significant (misleading) wording.

Bishop, I am surprised you would even bother to link that tripe here (except for educational purposes of what NOT to do). It consists entirely of distortions, lies, and ad hom attacks and serves no useful purpose in furthering dialogue.

The usefulness of linking to tripe like that is not in the realm of furthering scientific dialogue.
It does have a use however in reminding people of the second tier attacks on valid criticisms.
Mann, Schmidt, Briffa etal respond fairly testily all too often but preserve some level of professionalism. Unfortunately they also give a pat on the head to places like Deep Climate (or a Tamino, who slides back and forth from official RC posts to his own site for ad homs) and rely on them for just the kind of cheerleading and ad homs that set up a meme to discredit SteveM and others’ arguments that Gavin, Mann, Briffa and others can’t discredit with the numbers.

Bishop, I am surprised you would even bother to link that tripe here (except for educational purposes of what NOT to do). It consists entirely of distortions, lies, and ad hom attacks and serves no useful purpose in furthering dialogue.