Excellent. However, I would argue that while it is great that a fully qualified expert has passed judgment, i.e., a death sentence, on the fallacies of the Mann "hockey stick", his basic conclusions were reached by others primarily on the basis of gross measurement errors associated for all periods prior to satellites - namely 950 of the prior 1000 years! Everyone knew this as a piece of commonsense - except the fanatics ignored it.
I do note with interest one other neat aside in Prof. Wegman's conclusions: He argues for increased employment of PhD level Statisticians on government funded climate studies!! As I have said before, "follow the money."
From your post: I do note with interest one other neat aside in Prof. Wegman's conclusions: He argues for increased employment of PhD level Statisticians on government funded climate studies!! As I have said before, "follow the money."
Considering that Wegman and his team worked pro bono, and that his quote (at the top of this post) simply states that statisticians should be included in the research teams if statistics are to be used in analyzing the data, I don't see Wegman's stand as a "follow the money" type of gambit. I see it similar to the demand that an electrician be paid for installing correcting all of the errors the amateur made in installing a new circuit breaker box.
in other words, I find his stand reasonable.