If you had published in the peer reviewed press you would know that the term "accepted" means the paper has passed the journal's peer reviewed process and is essentially "in press". Thanks to this wonderful thing called the "internet" scientists no longer have to wait till the printing press to roll and papers that are accepted are commonly listed in a journals website. Such is the case with Fu et al. you can see this in the "papers in press" section of the journal Geophysical Research Letters here: http://www.agu.org/contents/journals/ViewPapersInPress.do?journalCode=GL search the page for "Fu" So that's one home run to me.

In regard to hurricane activity at all time lows suggest you see the fourth paper on that list. Nice curve ball but I'm afraid it been hit out of the park. Now I'm 2 for 2!

You can "discuss" all you like in a journal article but the important points are put in the abstract. Here's what this one says: "Monitoring data collected annually from fixed sites at 47 reefs across 1300 km of the GBR indicate that overall regional coral cover was stable (averaging 29% and ranging from 23% to 33% cover across years) with no net decline between 1995 and 2009." Seems my take home message is spot on. Another Home Run!

That's the game my anonymous friend. By the way I think you'll find the only person being impolite is you. It's time you came out of the dark closet you've been hiding in. Next time you want to play ball perhaps you'll be polite enough to use your real name. Then again when you play as badly you just did, I guess it's best for you that no one knows.

The topic of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and co2science's list of scientists has already been discussed on The Conversation at http://theconversation.edu.au/hear-ye-hear-ye-moncktons-medieval-warming-tale-is-climate-heresy-2326. Many of the scientists on co2science's list disagree with co2science's interpretation of their science, and this is discussed in The Conversation article.

co2science.org is not the most objective contributor to the debate. For example, statements promoting videos on the site seem to be pushing a political agenda similar to that of American Tea Party activists. The funding of co2science.org has also been controversial.

Mann et al. (2009) probably provides a reasonable summary of the most widely accepted view of the Medieval Warm Period. The abstract of that paper follows;

Global temperatures are known to have varied over the past 1500 years, but the spatial patterns have remained poorly defined. We used a global climate proxy network to reconstruct surface temperature patterns over this interval. The Medieval period is found to display warmth that matches or exceeds that of the past decade in some regions, but which falls well below recent levels globally. This period is marked by a tendency for La Niña–like conditions in the tropical Pacific. The coldest temperatures of the Little Ice Age are observed over the interval 1400 to 1700 C.E., with greatest cooling over the extratropical Northern Hemisphere continents. The patterns of temperature change imply dynamical responses of climate to natural radiative forcing changes involving El Niño and the North Atlantic Oscillation–Arctic Oscillation.

The hockey stick controversy should perhaps be called the hockey sticks controversies as it has come up in different forms and variations over the past decade or so. For an introduction see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy and references therein.

Irrespective of the flaws (or lack thereof) in Mann's methods, what is interesting about the hockey stick is multiple groups using a variety of methods get broadly similar results to Mann. This can be seen in a report (and its executive summary) produced the National Research Council of the US National Academies, which is available from http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1

Since Marc Hendrix and myself have different views on this topic, readers may wish to look at the original report and executive summary (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11676&page=R1), and then draw their own conclusions.

The point I was trying to make (implicitly perhaps) is there is only robust evidence for the MWP being a regional warming event.

The conclusions of Mann's papers from the late 1990s do receive some support and some criticism (the report dates from 2006).

One key conclusion presented in the executive summary is;

Large-scale surface temperature reconstructions yield a generally consistent picture of temperature trends during the preceding millennium, including relatively warm conditions centered around A.D. 1000 (identified by some as the “Medieval Warm Period”) and a relatively cold period (or “Little Ice Age”) centered around 1700. The existence of a Little Ice Age from roughly 1500 to 1850 is supported by a wide variety of evidence including ice cores, tree rings, borehole temperatures, glacier length records, and historical documents. Evidence for regional warmth during medieval times can be found in a diverse but more limited set of records including ice cores, tree rings, marine sediments, and historical sources from Europe and Asia, but the exact timing and duration of warm periods may have varied from region to region, and the magnitude and geographic extent of the warmth are uncertain.

I thought one of Pawel's "points" is self evident. He is trying to provide a representative view of the National Academies report, including the caveats.

There has already been one article in The Conversation that discusses how the media covers climate science;

http://theconversation.edu.au/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

The Australian media can learn more from the BBC report than Marc Hendrickx's piece on the ABC. The report identified three key areas where the BBC could improve its coverage, and these may well apply to many Australian media organisations.

Below are the recommendations from the report;

1. An at times “over-rigid” (as Professor Jones describes it) application of the Editorial Guidelines on impartiality in relation to science coverage, which fails to take into account what he regards as the “non-contentious” nature of some stories and the need to avoid giving “undue attention to marginal opinion”. Professor Jones cites past coverage of claims about the safety of the MMR vaccine and more recent coverage of claims about the safety of GM crops and the existence of man made climate change as examples on this point. He suggests that achieving “equality of voice” may be resolved by the new 2010 Editorial Guidelines which incorporate consideration of “due weight” in relation to impartiality. A more common-sense approach to “due impartiality” would also help, he believes.

2. Underdeveloped links between science programme makers across the BBC’s divisions. This he recommends might in part be addressed by establishing a regular cross-division science forum and appointing a Science Editor for BBC News to work across a range of output.

3. Too narrow a range of sources for stories and a tendency to be reactive rather than proactive, particularly in news coverage. Professor Jones recommends that this might be remedied by better use of external electronic databases that draw from a wide variety of science publications. He further recommends working to improve – and share – BBC contacts with the science community.