If you want to have an audit (n. Thoroughgoing check or examination) of climate reconstructions,  its reasonable to get one done by an auditor (n.  Person qualified to conduct an audit).

So here it is, the latest from Juckes et. al., from Climate of the Past. This looks like a detailed, comprehensive study of the recent history of reconstructions, and includes, most fairly, discussion of both MM2003 and Soon & Baliunas 2003, as well as all the usual suspects.

It appears to recognise some legitimate objections to MBH’97/’98, and addresses a great many of the questions which critics of the ‘Hockey Stick’, especially Steve McIntyre, have asked over the past couple of years, for example, about bristlecone pines. I think it important to say here that I think McIntyre has done some interesting, if peripheral, work on climate science, and shouldn’t necessarily be equated with the trolls who live in his neck of the woods, though, as gatekeeper to the site, he must be held ultimately responsible for the vitriol and idiocy which is perpetrated there.

It also appears to  deal with these objections seriously and fairly, and in its selection of a ‘new’  reconstruction (the ‘Union’ reconstruction), has taken any uncertainties arising from these properly into account.

Therefore, it might be reasonable to conclude that the results the team come up with are as fair, balanced and empirical as anyone would want. Until, that is, someone comes up with something new to ‘audit’.

I am interested to know what McIntyre himself makes of this latest offering, and whether it satisfactorily provides both a response to criticisms of past reconstructions, and  an authoritative new reconstruction which is ‘beyond reproach’.

One curious side note: the team has effectively sidestepped the whole issue of a ‘hockey stick’, by ending most if its stuff in 1980 or thereabouts. if anyone has the means and the desire, I’d also be interested to see how that ‘Union’  graph would look with the last thirty years of temperature data added to it…