data on which the hockey stick effect was based has been "lost". That means that the original conclusions cannot be replicated. It seems that the cover up and fiction is not over yet.
There were other relevant parts in the Financial Times article and the report that motivated the news piece.
The report itself: http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel does not include the criticism from Mr. Hand. I don't know the context of the remark you quoted. The report itself does state that it was unclear whether use of different statistical methods would have produced any meaningful change in any of the research findings.
From the FT article:
FT.com / Global Economy - Global warming graph attacked by study
The criticism came as part of a report published on Wednesday that found the scientists behind the ?Climategate? e-mail scandal had behaved ?honestly and fairly? and showed ?no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice?.
Overall, I find the severity of the report's critique a bit underwhelming given the way a few of the quotes are being thrown about.
It doesn't point the finger at any particular cause. I personally believe global warming is real and mostly a natural phenomenon given the tropical history of the planet.
What I would like all of the climate scientists to do is get off the climate change wagon and take a better look at the pollution statistics and plot some appropriate hockey sticks based on that. There's no doubt in my mind that we the fish are doing one heck of a job at pissing in our own tank.