• HangLeft: “it fits the pattern we’ve come to know and expect from the Republicans: when facts get in the way of their bankrupt ideology, they cover up those facts and intimidate the messenger.”

  • Coturnix: “With all the misuse of science by the current Administration I still never expected the Lysenko-style persecution of scientists whose data do not support the party line. Yet, this day has come. The USA has its Lysenko, and his name is Joe Barton.”

  • Will: “Barton is known for being a staunch opponent of the Kyoto Protocol and referring to climate change provisions as “odorous” measures that would be kept out of energy legislation.”

  • William Connolley: “the TAR was quite cautious in its use of the MBH record (which was entirely appropriate, it being fairly new then). So attacking Mann (or, being more charitable, attacking MBH98) is pointless, from a scientific standpoint. But then, this isn’t about science, its about $.”

  • Kevin Vranes: “the letters are primarily meant to embarrass and harass and the hearings, if they ever happen, could be seen as an abuse of power.”

  • Sylvia S Tognetti: “This is more Funk from the Swamp emanating from the Hill that arises from the Foggy Bottom, and is not worthy of a serious response.”

  • back40: “the usual suspects are in full shriek mode claiming abuse of power and political motivations. It’s not abuse, it’s congress doing its job for a change.”

My previous post also got some reactions:

  • Hans Erren calls my post the start of an “ad hom and smear campaign”. Oh, I think the ad-hom-and-smear campaign started long ago.

  • Steve Verdon: “Notice that Lambert is his usual dishonest self and not pointing out that environmental groups fund Real Climate.” Yes, because it must cost like $100 per year to run the site.

Update: Steve McIntyre has his own roundup. He claims:

Many posters do not distinguish between the PC codes for tree ring which are on Mann’s FTP site and the code for the rest of the calculation, which Mann has refused to provide. We are obviously aware of the code on the site, since we published an article discussing it and specifically cited the URL. I’ve made this distinction on several occasions in very specific terms, but people like Tim Lambert seem unable to fathom the distinction.

This is, of course, untrue. I have never said that Mann has released all of his code. He has, however, released the data, the algorithm, and some of the code. Perhaps McIntyre is unable to fathom the distinction between “code” and “algorithm”.

McIntyre continues:

Also one more time, Wahl and Ammann have not replicated anything that we had not already done.

Wahl and Ammann don’t seem to think so:

Ammann and Eugene Wahl of Alfred University have analyzed the Mann-Bradley-Hughes (MBH) climate field reconstruction and reproduced the MBH results using their own computer code. They found the MBH method is robust even when numerous modifications are employed. … Ammann and Wahl conclude that the highly publicized criticisms of the MBH graph are unfounded.