BH, you are not a climate scientist, are you? In fact you are not a scientist at all, yesno? I take it you have some modicum of understanding of statistical procedures as this is where your main criticisms seem to lie. There and in the conduct of the researchers in question. I will deal with these two criticisms in that order before dealing briefly with your bizarre suggestion that paleoclimate research is 'dodgy'.
I started trying to draft a critique of your own criticisms but quickly realised that my understanding of the ins and outs of the statistics in question fell short of that necessary to understand the finer details of paleoclimate modeling. McIntyre's blog contains much intricate technical analysis and I canot begin to verify whether his criticisms are justified. This is the point where my faith in the power of science is tested. Because if I- a scientist currently writing his PhD thesis with formal training in statistics- can't begin to fathom the subtleties of the science in question then I'm absolutely one hundred percent sure that you don't either. Do correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I am. Therefore, BH, you aren't actually criticising anything. You are merely collating and regurgitating others' analysis- flawed or otherwise- that supports your own position of denial. This position- known as "cherry-picking"- stems from your fundamentally unscientific denial of anthropogenic climate change, as previously noted. Unlike you, I follow the consensus and accept without reservation that climate change is happening, as does every single national scientific body on the planet, because I afford the opinion of experts some considerable authority. There is a chance that you- as a layperson in these affairs- might have achieved some insight into the statistical procedures and methods used by these expert researchers that has previously been missed. It is also possible that there exists in orbit around mars a teapot belonging to one Bertrand Russell. It is also possible that McIntyre as an economist (note, not a climate scientist) might have achieved some insight into the appropriate nature, or otherwise, of the statistical procedures carried out by MBH and Wahl and Amman, as has been detailed by other researchers, as well as a panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences, as you yourself observe. However, it seems that any error produced from inappropriately applied statistics on their part is small and does not significantly affect their conclusion- as reported by both independent researchers and the MBH group in a follow-up paper. I wonder why you fail to mention this affirmative follow-up work?
BH, fuck you with bells on. You are a climate change denialist and actively prosetylise your anti-scientific views in a pseudo-scientific manner so if anyone is being misleading, it is absolutely you, you, you. Pretending to report on scientific matters without any substantial grasp of the science involved is grossly fraudulent. I may as well criticise the design of my car for lacking the obvious efficiency saving of a fusion reactor and antigravity motors. Whilst I accept McIntyre's peer-reviewed criticisms I reject your ignorant regurgitation of them out of context and out of proportion without reservation.
Ah! That was refreshing. Righteousness is a refreshing beverage so excuse me while I take a moment to savour its zesty flavour . . . . . . . . . There! Now, on with the climate-change-denialist thrashing.
BH's second criticism of the climate researchers involves their conduct in not releasing the aforementioned R-squared statistics for subsequent independent confirmation. Irrelevant of the merit or otherwise of these data (as far as I can tell from subsequent review they stand up reasonably well) I can say that it is inappropriate for researchers to withhold supporting data from a fellow researcher attempting to independently reproduce your work. I have contacted several people to ask for such information when developing methodologies and have always been pleased by the prompt and comprehensive responses I receive. I don't know what else to say about the conduct of the researchers in question, except that they gave plausible reasons why they shouldn't share the R-squared statistics- that it wasn't relevant- and that they were awaiting publication of another paper which would establish that this was so. That that paper was then rejected does not make their refusal to share the statistic any more reprehensible but it is also unsurprising. Research has become a dog-eat-dog world thanks to the supremacy of the publish-or-die mentality which now pervades all fields and as a result data is jealously guarded until publication to prevent others copying and expanding upon your own hard-won ideas. If you feel this climate is an inappropriate one in which to conduct research with global implications then I wonder why you haven't blogged about it? (I don't even need to search your blog to know that you haven't, do I.)
Yawn! I'm bored now. This is all obvious to anyone who is prepared to look at issues objectively. I can't be arsed to make a decent job of trashing your statement that paleoclimatology is 'dodgy'. I have little doubt that you watch TV, use a computer, paint your house and take medicine. You are content for science to underpin our provision of all of these services but reject it out of hand when the very same process of critical reasoning leads us to conclude that we are catastrophically altering the global climate. That is called hypocrisy.