Wegman

The Wegman Report, 2006

Concerned by the M&M critique, in 2006:

The Science Committee of the US House of Representatives asked the National Academy of Science (NAS) to evaluate the critique. The NAS reported that almost every M&M criticism of the HBM paper was well founded. The Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives appointed a team of eminent statitistians comprising Edward J. Wegman (George Mason Univ.), David W. Scott (Rice Univ.), and Yasmin H. Said (Johns Hopkins Univ.) to investigate the critique. The Wegman committee reported that: The removal of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age from the HBM analysis was unjustified. The HBM claims that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millenium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millenium cannot be supported by their analysis. The HBM papers are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult to judge the uncertainty of their results. CO2 and temperature correlations do not imply the causality (AGW) that HBM claims. supporting the M&M critique. Last revised by Ralph Abraham
The Energy and Commerce Committee of the US House of Representatives appointed a team of eminent statitistians comprising Edward J. Wegman (George Mason Univ.), David W. Scott (Rice Univ.), and Yasmin H. Said (Johns Hopkins Univ.) to investigate the critique. The Wegman committee reported that: The removal of the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age from the HBM analysis was unjustified. The HBM claims that the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millenium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millenium cannot be supported by their analysis. The HBM papers are written in a confusing manner, making it difficult to judge the uncertainty of their results. CO2 and temperature correlations do not imply the causality (AGW) that HBM claims. supporting the M&M critique. Last revised by Ralph Abraham