“When the IPCC disappeared the Medieval Warm Period” Frank Lansner offers a limp implication of conspiracy theories against the IPCC. Anthony Watts thinks it’s good stuff. Frank’s own website is “Hide the Decline”, so you can see the debunked starting point that he’s coming from…
Where's the warm spot Frank? 1000 - 1400 can be colder or warmer even among your "selected" data sets. How is this IPCC manipulation?
It’s funny that we have to keep saying this, but the “IPCC” doesn’t do any climate research, they gather independent scientific conclusions and amalgamate them. The whole point of each revision of the IPCC reports is to merge new evidence and better understanding of existing evidence.
But Frank thinks that accusing the IPCC of differences between reports(!!!) is the same thing as proving manipulation. I think Frank would have better luck with his position if he stopped hunting for charts that he can spin to suit his bias and focussed on what actually drove the updates. You know, things like when new data was available or if a more correct interpretation of old data was found or perhaps the introduction of an improved error correction. But as nothing remotely like this is apparent in his post, we must assume that he’s incapable of doing it.
Wott's Up With That? 
Ben, you accurately point out that “the IPCC doesn’t do any climate research, they gather independent scientific conclusions and amalgamate them.” Unfortunately, the WUWT gang doesn’t seem to want its readers to understand how the IPCC operates. They like to perpetuate the myth that there’s a big building with a big bureaucracy working full time to write these mysterious reports, all the while ignoring the real scientific community. This is a good example of where Watts is anti-science.
If Watts is serious about criticism of the IPCC process, then he owes it to his readers to let them know the basic facts of the organization. For example, I did not know until I read at realclimate that the IPCC Geneva staff is only 10 (ten!) people. So much for a big bureaucracy. Realclimate also mentioned how reporters were startled to learn how massive the IPCC reports are when they actually see them, which put the few errors in context.
Funny how some people love proxies at one time and hate them at other times. And how they always seem to hide data that doesn’t support whatever nonsense they are trying to promote.
Keep up the good work, Ben.