I don't dispute that it's possible that Mann's statistical analysis left something to be desired. From what I understand, neither does the scientific community. See RealClimate. However, other data sources, other scientists, other review boards, agree with Mann's final conclusion: the climate is rapidly warming today in an anomylous manner. Even Wegman agrees with that.

Science 28 July 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5786, p. 421

[Discussing the first Congressional hearing:]
[NRC Scientist] North got some unexpected support from Wegman . . . With a couple of qualifiers, Wegman a...

I don't dispute that it's possible that Mann's statistical analysis left something to be desired. From what I understand, neither does the scientific community. See RealClimate. However, other data sources, other scientists, other review boards, agree with Mann's final conclusion: the climate is rapidly warming today in an anomylous manner. Even Wegman agrees with that.

Science 28 July 2006:
Vol. 313. no. 5786, p. 421

[Discussing the first Congressional hearing:]
[NRC Scientist] North got some unexpected support from Wegman . . . With a couple of qualifiers, Wegman agreed with North that
most climate scientists have concluded that much of global warming is human-induced. And North's 12-person committee agreed with Wegman's three-person panel that the record is too fragmentary to say anything about a single year or even a single decade. The only supportable conclusion from climate proxies, the academy committee found, is that the past few decades were likely the warmest of the millennium, a conclusion of Mann's that the Wegman panel did not address.

Wegman's criticism of specifics of Mann's method does not include a re-analysis that says something like, "under our analysis, the data shows that the climate is not changing."

Instead, this is Wegman's conclusion:

Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.

If there is a better analysis that shows a different conclusion, I can't find it.

That is not point that temperature is rising. Point is in the interpretation and in what should be done with the climate change. But what I am worry about most of all is not the climate (its behavior is unpredictable even without external forcing), but the situation in science. Human-induced global warming is just a poor-developed hypothesis that is based on limited data, uncertainties, primitive math models, underestimation of natural factors, and, as we can see, on misuse of statistics. This is not a scientific theory because it is not capable of explaining past climate variability. At the same time, it proclaimed consensus and gave out alarming forecasts. I would address tens of much more...

That is not point that temperature is rising. Point is in the interpretation and in what should be done with the climate change. But what I am worry about most of all is not the climate (its behavior is unpredictable even without external forcing), but the situation in science. Human-induced global warming is just a poor-developed hypothesis that is based on limited data, uncertainties, primitive math models, underestimation of natural factors, and, as we can see, on misuse of statistics. This is not a scientific theory because it is not capable of explaining past climate variability. At the same time, it proclaimed consensus and gave out alarming forecasts. I would address tens of much more serious hazards with much more progress in the sciences and with incomparably less funds. And the word "consensus" is not used at all.