So I shall post it here, and you can judge. This version has a few words like "tedious" and "nitpicking" removed, but still it fails. Can anyone guess what the problem is?
Am I too late to join this exciting debate?
Early on, someone said: The hockeystick, and the hockeystick alone, was the reason for the claims that this was the warmest century in the last long time.
But if you actually read the IPCC TAR (does anyone?) it says "Globally, it is very likely7 that the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the instrumental record, since 1861" and "the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely7 to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years. It is also likely7 that, in the Northern Hemisphere, the 1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year". What is *doesn't* say is that the 20C was the warmest.
The amusing thing, of course, is that everything the TAR said about the hockey stick remains valid for all the reconstructions subsequently published (see http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/10/increase-in-temperature-in-20th.html).
Continuing, someone challenged Mann to say why this hockey stick debate really really matters. Well the answer is: it doesn't really. See http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/11/big-picture.html
Oh, and as for all the SRES stuff... its tedious. If these poor dear marginalised economists want to produce their own CO2 projections... why don't they just do so?