Read here. Honestly, the two well-known peer-reviewed journals that the Climategate-Team had twisted around their pinkies, are either seriously "in the bag" or incredibly inept. If you also consider the New Scientist journal with the Glaciergate revelations, it's amazing anyone can refrain from snickering about the concept of professionalism and seriousness for the peer-review process. Is it really that difficult for the peer-review gatekeepers to at least ask the "scientists" about the actual data that is plotted on a chart? Call it minimum due diligence the public should expect, instead of the gross negligence that is constantly exhibited.
"And, once again, they have used Mann's "Nature Trick" of "ClimateGate" fame, truncating the reconstructed temperature history near its end and replacing it with modern-day instrumental data, so that the last part of the record cannot be validly compared with the earlier portion, since to do so would be akin to comparing apples and oranges, which cannot produce credible quantitative results....This subterfuge is totally unwarranted. And in its current application, it's not just from 1981 or 1961 onwards that the ruse is applied; it's applied all the way from 1850 to 1995, which is the period of overlap between the proxy and instrumental records that was used to calibrate the proxy data. Therefore, since the proxy data were available all the way up to 1995, the reconstructed near-surface air temperature history should also have been plotted all the way up to 1995, in order to be able to make valid quantitative comparisons between the degree of warmth of the Current and Medieval Warm Periods."