Gone. And the Medieval Warm Period, restored:

Untruncated and unspliced data used in a new paper from Briffa and Melvin at UEA restores the Medieval Warm Period while at the same time disappears Mann’s hockey stick.

…Whoo boy, I suspect this paper will be called in the Mann -vs- Steyn trial (if it ever makes it that far; the judge may throw it out because the legal pleading makes a false claim by Mann).

No comment. The most amazing thing is that this paper is co-authored by Keith Briffa:

I have to wonder if this is some sort of attempt to “come clean” on the issue. Mann must be furious at the timing. There’s no hint of a hockey stick, and no need to splice on the instrumental surface temperature record or play “hide the decline” tricks with this data.

As he notes, expect a bunch of desperate papers soon to try to resurrect it. The “climate” “community” is eating its own.

And here’s a bonus: thoughts on the upcoming legal proceedings from Roger Pielke.

[Update a few minutes later]

A new paper from Judith Curry on the manufactured consensus:

Students of science are taught to reject ad populam or ‘bandwagon’ appeals, a sentiment is articulated by the motto of the UK Royal Society: ‘nullius in verba’, which is roughly translated as ‘take nobody’s word for it’. How then, and why, have climate scientists come to a scientific consensus about a very complex scientific problem that the consensus-supporting scientists themselves acknowledge has substantial and fundamental uncertainties?

Because, sadly, there was an agenda. And many of the supporters of the climate “science” don’t understand how science actually works.

Here’s a good rundown over at Science mag on the legal hurdles Professor Mann faces in winning his frivolous suit against us.

…on the Mann lawsuit.

[Update a few minutes later]

Here is CEI’s legal defense of my blog post, written three weeks ago, which I hadn’t previously seen.

Happy tenth bloggiversary. I just had my eleventh.

An analysis by Chris Horner.

[Update early afternoon]

Some thoughts from Ken at Popehat on the plaintiff’s legal prospects:

Yesterday the other shoe dropped and Mann sued NRO, CEI, Steyn, and Simberg in D.C. Superior Court for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress (or, as I prefer to call it, Butthurt in the First Degree). The Legal Times has posted the complaint. I’ve reviewed it, and have some initial thoughts.

First, the complaint seems almost calculated to support likely conservative narratives about it. It’s very heavy on arguments by authority, citing the National Science Foundation and Columbia Journalism Review and Discovery Magazine and others for its propositions that the defendants are simply wrong in their criticisms of Mr. Mann. It fairly drips with righteous indignation over the existence of persistent global warming deniers. Global warming skeptics have been asserting that the scientific establishment is hostile to any dissent on global warming; this complaint isn’t going to dispel that impression.

Nope.

Mark Steyn comments.