Scientific scandal appears to rock climate change promoters

It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith
does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in
emails, Yamal is insignificant. And you say that (contrary to
what M&M say) Yamal is *not* used in MBH, etc. So these facts
alone are enough to shoot down M&M is a few sentences (which
surely is the only way to go - complex and wordy responses
will be counter productive).
But, more generally, (even if it *is* irrelevant) how does Keith
explain the McIntyre plot that compares Yamal-12 with Yamal-all? And
how does he explain the apparent "selection" of the less well-replicated
chronology rather that the later (better replicated) chronology?
Of course, I don't know how often Yamal-12 has really been used in
recent, post-1995, work. I suspect from what you say it is much less
often that M&M say - but where did they get their information? I
presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if
you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely - but I am not
sure Keith is able to do this
as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of.
And the issue of with-holding data is still a hot potato, one that
affects both you and Keith (and Mann). Yes, there are reasons - but
many *good* scientists appear to be unsympathetic to these. The
trouble here is that with-holding data looks like hiding something,
and hiding means (in some eyes) that it is bogus science that is
being hidden.
I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this.
I'd be willing to check over anything he puts together.
Tom. 

Update from Thomas Lifson:  Charlie Martin has more at Pajamas, including confirmation that "the CRU confirmed to the BBC that they had indeed been hacked." But he exercises appropriate caution:

The problem is that the files and emails seem just too good to be true. A number of files seem to be smoking guns -- revealing how to resist Freedom of Information Act requests for their data (which would both be scientific misconduct and actually illegal); long-term marketing plans on how to push the climate-change agenda; and discussions of how to pressure peer-reviewed journals to stop accepting papers that disagree with the "accepted" view of global warming.

In other words, just what the skeptics have been suggesting for years. It seems just too neat, and we don't have independent verification of where the files came from. Someone who is willing to hack might also be willing to create fakes.

But then, the whole package is very large -- 63 megabytes -- and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.