Peck, you have to consider that since the TAR , there has been a lot of argument re "hockey stick" and the real independence of the inputs to most subsequent analyses is minimal. True, there have been many different techniques used to aggregate and scale data - but the efficacy of these is still far from established. We should be careful not to push the conclusions beyond what we can securely justify - and this is not much other than a confirmation of the general conclusions of the TAR . We must resist being pushed to present the results such that we will be accused of bias - hence no need to attack Moberg . Just need to show the "most likely"course of temperatures over the last 1300 years - which we do well I think. Strong confirmation of TAR is a good result, given that we discuss uncertainty and base it on more data. Let us not try to over egg the pudding. For what it worth , the above comments are my (honestly long considered) views - and I would not be happy to go further . Of course this discussion now needs to go to the wider Chapter authorship, but do not let Susan (or Mike) push you (us) beyond where we know is right.
Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
19 minutes ago