Flashback: ClimateGate scientists on Michael Mann and his work: "probable flaws" and "clearly deficient", and "crap" and "way too defensive", oh my!
Flashback: 2002 Briffa email mentions Mann's "diminishing support" and the "questionable nature of much of Mann's verbiage"; says "Mike could be a lot more open about the real uncertainty of his early temperature estimates"
Flashback: In case you missed it: Hockey stick co-author: "it may be that Mann et al simply don't have the long-term trend right"; "I hedge my bets on whether there were any periods in Medieval times that might have been "warm", to the irritation of my co-authors!"
Flashback: Phil Jones to Mann: "both of us think that you're on very dodgy ground...What the real world has done over the last 6000 years and what it ought to have done given our understandding of Milankovic forcing are two very different things"
Flashback: Briffa gives Mann a positive? reference, but includes phrases like "not sufficiently aware of the characteristics of some of the data with which he worked"; "overconfidence in his work which bordered on seeming arrogance"
Flashback: Michael Mann vs Michael Mann: Did I say that the hockey stick might qualify to be the "truth" as portrayed in the IPCC Policy Makers Summary? I meant it was an "obscure graph" that unnamed other people have made "appear more definitive than it was ever intended"
Flashback: Email 1705, April 2002, what "settled" science looks like: After Michael Mann writes "There are some substantial scientific differences here, lets let them play out the way they are supposed to, objectively, and in the peer reviewed literature", Raymond Bradley writes to Briffa "excuse me while I VOMIT!!"