Mann used normalization.
He made his data conform to his own opinion.
Muller did not criticize Mann for normalizing the data sets, but for using an incorrect normalization procedure.
In the paragraph preceeding the the one you quote back to me Muller goes to some length not to accuse Mann of deliberate falsification (or so it seems to me)
Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.
I interpret this as a hint to Mann to let it go.
Later in the article he is more direct: it's time to move on.
A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one--if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.
We know that McIntyre and McKitrick were turned down by Nature (as I recall), that they did an end run around Nature by posting all the info on their own web site (a part of which you link to me in your second post), and that now their work has been accepted for publication in a major peer reviewed journal. And that takes us back to where we started with Terence Corcoran:
Let science debate begin
Naaaaa.
The IPCC and the U.N. would never falsify data.
Especially when it came to redistributing America's wealth.
(To themselves I may add.)
