You don't appear to have read the Wegman report. Both M&M and Wegman have plotted graphs correcting Mann's errors.
The M&M & Wegman's critiques, i.e. their "improved" methods, don't change anything. Which is why they don't like to produce graphs. They like to say Mann made error, but when the "errors" are "fixed", Gee, you get the same results. Duh.
energycommerce.house.gov
Here is the preamble
Testimony of Edward J. Wegman
I would like to begin by circumscribing the substance of our report. We were asked to provide an independent verification by statisticians of the critiques of the statistical methodology found in the papers of Drs. Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes published respectively in Nature in 1998 and in Geophysical Research Letters in 1999. These two papers have commonly been referred to as MBH98 and MBH99. The critiques have been made by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick published in Energy and Environment in 2003 and in Energy and Environment and in Geophysical Research Letters in 2005. We refer to these as MM03, MM05a, and MM05b respectively. We were also asked about the implications of our assessment. We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise. We do not assume any position with respect to global warming except to note in our report that the instrumented record of global average temperature has risen since 1850 according to the MBH 99 chart by about 1.2º centigrade. In the NAS panel Report chaired by Dr. North, .6º centigrade is mentioned in several places.
Our panel is composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University). This Ad Hoc Panel has worked pro bono, has received no compensation, and has no financial interest in the outcome of the report.
.
.
If you go to figure 4 on page 16 of the report Wegman plotted both Mann's graph and the graph resulting from the correct method using a centered PCA reconstruction.
Wegman's recommendations:
Recommendation 1. Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.
Recommendation 2. We believe that federally funded research agencies should develop a more comprehensive and concise policy on disclosure. All of us writing this report have been federally funded. Our experience with funding agencies has been that they do not in general articulate clear guidelines to the investigators as to what must be disclosed. Federally funded work including code should be made available to other researchers upon reasonable request, especially if the intellectual property has no commercial value. Some consideration should be granted to data collectors to have exclusive use of their data for one or two years, prior to publication. But data collected under federal support should be made publicly available.
Recommendation 3. With clinical trials for drugs and devices to be approved for human use by the FDA, review and consultation with statisticians is expected. Indeed, it is standard practice to include statisticians in the application-for-approval process. We judge this to be a good policy when public health and also when substantial amounts of monies are involved, for example, when there are major policy decisions to be made based on statistical assessments. In such cases, evaluation by statisticians should be standard practice. This evaluation phase should be a mandatory part of all grant applications and funded accordingly.
Recommendation 4. Emphasis should be placed on the Federal funding of research related to fundamental understanding of the mechanisms of climate change. Funding should focus on interdisciplinary teams and avoid narrowly focused discipline research.
..
Refer also to M&M's first peer reviewed paper available at:
climateaudit.org
There are several graphs showing temperature reconstructions using correct statistical methods. There is also a discussion of other errors by Mann in the database he used for his "hockey stick" reconstruction.
The database used by MBH98 contains the errors and defects listed below. We detail each of these points in this section, then in Section 3 we show how correcting these errors and defects affects the calculation of the Northern Hemisphere average temperature index using MBH98 methodology.
(a) unjustified truncation of 3 series;
(b) copying 1980 values from one series onto other series, resulting in incorrect values in at least 13 series;
(c) displacement of 18 series to one year earlier than apparently intended;
(d) unjustified extrapolations or interpolations to cover missing entries in 19 series;
(e) geographical mislocations and missing identifiers of location;
(f) inconsistent use of seasonal temperature data where annual data are available;
(g) obsolete data in at least 24 series, some of which may have been already obsolete at the time of the MBH98 calculations;
(h) listing of unused proxies;
(i) incorrect calculation of all 28 tree ring principal components. |
