The science is settled "they" are once again screaming from the mountaintops and they've got a "super" hockey stick to prove it.

The Scariest Climate Change Graph Just Got Scarier
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/new-hockey-stick-graph-scarier

We're Screwed: 11,000 Years' Worth of Climate Data Prove It
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013/03/were-screwed-11-000-years-worth-of-climate-data-prove-it/273870/

What about the "science" itself?

Well a funny think happened on the way to publication. Namely that the "super" hockey stick was not included in Marcott's thesis paper that he defended for his PhD in 2011.
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/21129/MarcottShaunA2011.pdf?sequence=2

Curious?

In addition, while the case for the "robust" nature of the datasets used in the thesis is mentioned multiple times including citing others on obtaining "robust" data, yet the Science publication says this "the reconstruction over the past 60 yrs before present (the years 1890 − 1950 CE) is probably not robust because of the small number of datasets that go into the reconstruction over that time frame."

and this "we do not think this increase in temperature in our Monte-Carlo analysis of the paleo proxies between 1920 − 1940 is robust given the resolution and number of datasets."

Curiouser? Why the change and does it relate to the appearance of the uptick? hmmmmmmmmm. ;)