There's a new Northern Hemisphere reconstruction out, by Ljungqvist.  WUWT has a post by Loehle claiming that it vindicates his 2008 reconstruction, which it really doesn't.

I'm trying to rather hurriedly pull together a blog post about this, showing how closely Ljungqvist 2010 matches both Mann 2008 and Moberg 2005 (and what a poor match it is for Loehle).  I think this needs to be done fast, because WUWT is getting all triumphalist about this (and others are starting to put their oars in, too ... e.g., Tamino).

all the wiggly curves in Fig. 2 look kind of alike.

My take-away would be, "Loehle's stuff looks about as good as anyone else's."

If that's not your message, it would be helpful to express it more clearly.

Well, they are kind of alike.  The differences in the curves are relatively subtle, compared to the level of noise among them.  As I discuss in the post, Loehle seems to be a bit high in the MWP and a bit low in the LIA, especially for a "global" reconstruction (in contrast to Ljungqvist 2010, which is NH only).

A lot of people's impression of Loehle's reconstruction was based on the serious flaws in L2007.  The corrected version (2008) is methodologically unsound but the results are not all that far from anybody else's reconstruction.  Oh, yes, and skeptics like to pretend that the end of Loehle 2008 is "current" temperatures, when it's actually 1930ish.  Thus the importance of including instrumental temps.