..then again..

Maybe so, but like I said, we're looking for statements of truth, not just at a single argument from one side. Even if this was published by ICI, so long as the data presented is correct, then it is still valid. My big objection to the hockey stick graph is that it's datasets aren't rational and in most depictions the 95% uncertainty bands are removed, note that when you see a chart with the 95% bands on (that's 95% likely to be within those bands, not outside) it's a bit scary how inaccurate the first dataset is compared to the last 50 years of measured data, a small shift (quite possible) and the mean jumps huge amounts.

Personally I'd like to ignore any data from anyone so clearly biased, but unfortunately we can't. Both individuals referrence the same study of 900+ papers and both draw different conclusions manipulating the facts to their own ends.