Here’s something amusing in the New Scientist article, which includes a defence of the Stick. Their jpg is compiled by one Robert Wilson of the University of Edinburgh, who includes the reconstruction from Juckes 2006. Has Juckes been accepted or doesn’t this matter any more?
Like IPCC, Rob has failed to show 1960-1994 values of the Briffa 2001 reconstruction. Rob, if you’d like to issue a correction to this graphic, it would illustrate the Divergence Problem very nicely.
Also if Rob has used a common version of Crowley, as I discussed at CA some time ago here , Crowley spliced the instrumental record in the latter portion of his “reconstruction” so the yellow line shown by Wilson is not a “reconstruction” in its latter part but just a rendering of the temperature record giving a misleading impression of the success of this particular proxy set.