That's not spoken anywhere in the Oxburgh report's newly added addendum, but if you look at how stats specialist David Hand's words were torqued, for example here (and this is a fairly mild example):
Hockey stick' graph was exaggerated
[Hand] said the [hockey stick] graph, that showed global temperature records going back 1,000 years, was exaggerated - although any reproduction using improved techniques is likely to also show a sharp rise in global warming. He agreed the graph would be more like a field hockey stick than the ice hockey blade it was originally compared to.
...then it the best interpretation of this:
Addendum to report, 19 April 2010
For the avoidance of misunderstanding in the light of various press stories, it is important to be clear that the neither the panel report nor the press briefing intended to imply that any research group in the field of climate change had been deliberately misleading in any of their analyses or intentionally exaggerated their findings. Rather, the aim was to draw attention to the complexity of statistics in this field, and the need to use the best possible methods.
Nice to see that the Oxburgh bunch is not willing to let its message get spun.
And, by the way, Michael Mann is not to be fucked with. If someone attacks his work (on, say, Fox News), he defends it in real time, within a news cycle or two. Other climate scientists sit there and endure it.
Other climate scientists should be more like Mike. It would be easier on us non-scientists trying to help them out.