I've largely stayed out of the "hockey stick wars" lately (by this I'm referring to climate science, not the resumption of NHL play). But some new stuff published in GRL (by von Storch and Huybers ) rather seems to undercut the criticisms that have been raised by McIntyre and McKitrick of the old Mann et al. hockey stick paleoclimate reconstructions.

The statistical questions raised by MM are somewhat arcane for the general blog-reading audience. In the first case, MM argued that the methodology used by Mann et al. essentially produces "hockey sticks" artificially out of random noise. Von Storch (who one of the M's loves to quote approvingly, and who is one of the deans of climate statistics) disputes this assertion. Huybers argues that MM's criticism of the Mann et al. choice of statistical significance tests is wrong. Suffice it to say, for purposes of the policy discussion in which MM have been invoked, that the responses by von Storch and Huybers suggest that the MM statistical criticisms of the hockey stick reconstruction are not as bone-headedly obvious as Michael Crichton wants to believe.