Very rigorous arguments, Edufer -- but wasted on your target! I would submit that even from a superficial analysis of his posts, he clearly lacks even a rudamentary background in astrophysics, atmospheric-physics, thermodynamics and possibly even high school physics. His remedial and dronish harangues in effect that, local/regional climatic events are not relevant to the global equation, demonstrates a manifest ignorance of the role of proxy data/sampling in climatology. But on to more interesting things, in a 2-part question: 1) Why is it not widely criticised, that there was additional selective omission of Keigwin's 1000 year subset (of his 3000 year Sargasso Sea Core proxy data -- published in Science NOV'96), in Mann-Bradley-Hughes et al's hockeyschtick paper? The data was available to MBH'98 and subsequent papers; plus there is Sargasso's unique status in both oceanography and geography, which offers a very powerful proxy for paleoclimatologists. Getting specific, doesn't Keigwin's Table 1 and the Figure 4B graphic offer powerful proxy data independent of the industrial-revolution, and against AGW theory in general -- 4-5 periods warmer than present, and faster extended-warming rate periods (than present) is compelling? 2) Is there climate science consensus that the sum total of rebuttal publishing (post Mann'98 and his self-serving, self-citing rehash in IPCC'01), up to and including von Storch (in Science OCT'04), has broken the hockeyschtick? Are thoughtful representatives of our species now ready to laugh knowingly, when MBH'98 or IPCC'01/Mann'01 are used to support AGW?