Now we have two authorities stating that it is bad science (Wegman and Jolliffe), as was obvious to most unbiased scientists from the beginning (that includes M&M).
It is interesting that you were much more open minded and skeptical 5 years ago. What changed?
Intriguing that the quote was about the old M&M paper.
The short answer would be: more data. A longer answer would go into the types of data: a lot of phenological indicators (as I've noted) -- quite a few things in the most recent IPCC report that might have gone unnoticed by those just reading the summary for policymakers -- some pithy comments by Frank Wentz I discovered by accident -- the summer sea ice trend -- and there's more, a lot more. I don't have three hours to write it all down.
I'd be curious to know what you think I was more skeptical about. I've felt that I always was consistent on increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations causing warming, and hewing to a mid-range (2-3 C) projected global temperature increase by 2100. I credited the hockey stick critics with doing necessary work to address discrepancies in that line of research, while always seeing the paleoclimate research as only contributing to, and not defining, knowledge of how the modern climate is changing. Mann and Co. coming out with another paper that reignites the sound and fury is a distraction, because it creates emphasis on sidebar questions like "was the MWP actually warmer or only just as warm as now?" and "if it warmed up in the past naturally, then there's no proof that the warming now is non-natural, is there?" (Pardon me while I choke.)
As this discussion has progressed, I've become increasingly dismayed by the constant barrage of inaccurate, incorrect, and repetitively reiterated discredited and misunderstood arguments trotted out by the increasingly vocal skeptics, which are accepted credulously by those who view climate change solely as a political issue. My dismay has certainly affected my tone.