On Wegman – Who will guard the guards themselves?

Thanks, Mr. Fuller. I agree that this needs to be taken seriously, and the results should fall where they may.
Are there any allegations that any of the substance or results are in question, or is this purely a question of failing to cite sources? Is it Bradley’s work that is in question?

WHY are you showing that schematic diagram from the 1990 IPCC report that had limited data basis? It was a sketch to guide discussion based on general concepts, including anecdotal evidence (primarily European, for that matter).
If there is need to verify what I’m saying, here’s the entire IPCC WG 1 First Assessment: http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf (a 28 MB PDF, fair warning)
The figure is one panel of Figure 7.1, on page 202. Here is what is said about it:
“The period since the end of the last glaciation has been characterized by small changes in global average temperature with a range of probably less than 2°C (Figure
7 1), though it is still not clear whether all the fluctuations indicated were truly global.”
“The late tenth to early thirteenth centuries (about AD 950-1250) appear to have been exceptionally warm in western Europe, Iceland and Greenland (Alexandre 1987, Lamb, 1988). This period is known as the Medieval Climatic Optimum. China was,
however, cold at this time (mainly in winter) but South Japan was warm (Yoshino, 1978) This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence
that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
So that’s it. Three references to support the schematic (discussion of the Little Ice Age follows). It isn’t a very good basis for comparison, and seeing it might support some preconceptions that should be better supported than by one sketchy curve.

I agree with your underlying argument. However, allowing any given home university to investigate and be the ultimate adjudicator on alleged wrongdoings by its faculty is tantamount to giving the rabbits the responsibility to guard the lettuce.
The “fox guarding the chicken coop” analogy somehow seems more appropriate, although it fails in its ability to reflect universities’ politically correct aversion to blood on the walls. And that it unfortunately exactly what it required.
If Wegman et. al is tainted, let’s get to the bottom that ASAP and draw the appropriate conclusions. If that turns out not to be the case, those who made the allegations should be fed to the foxes in the most public manner possible.

With the graphs I can’t understand why Michael Mann’s more recent work (2008?) that seems to support the concept of a Medieval Warming Period is never quoted. Is it not big enough or is there another reason?

Bradley is raising a complaint on the notion that Wegman’s report contained bits that may have been plagiarized from another source (or simply not adequately referenced). If the allegations were true, would that then diminish the weight of Wegman’s conclusions, or simply give Wegman a black eye for improper referencing/crediting? If the complaint was that Wegman made up things out of whole cloth that went directly to strength of his conclusions, there should be major concerns about the entire matter, including the possible importance of MBH98. What is Bradley’s possible motivation? Plagiarism seems to be a different matter than falsified or corrupt data and flawed process.

it’s being handled by the institution involved, as it should be

This is exactly the problem with PSU’s investigation into allegations against Mann. They wanted to shield him and so broke almost every rule that they, and the state government, had set up for such investigations. The same can be said for the investigation into Phil Jones’ colleague (cant remember his name offhand) and the wandering Chinese weather stations. Universities (and I say this as a member of faculty myself) have abrogated the right to make their own investigations. It will be interesting to see how they handle allegations against Wegman and whether the same ‘easy line’ is taken as has been seen in other investigations. I hope not.

Legal definition for “plagiarize”: ” to copy and pass off (the expression of ideas or words of another) as one’s own ”
Is not it true that an investigative report is not an “original work”? Isn’t the purpose of any report to use the language and framework of the work under question, to analyze it for flaws, and tear it apart? We are not talking about poetry of tree rings, don’t we?
Was the Wegman report ever presented as “original work”? Did the committee claim the treemometer method as their own? In the particular Bradley case, the report simply describes their methodology. What could be possibly wrong with this? But I guess you never know in the world of lawyers…

I’m sure Wegman could get a cushy job with Heartland, or CEI, or one of those other lobbying groups if the university deems the charges of plagiarism to be valid. ..
And Tom, it is never “a pity” that shoddy science is discarded. Science is supposed to be objective, whereas the Wegman report and his Congressional testimony was clearly biased towards certain outcomes (discredit Mann, provide “skeptics” with blank ammunition to be repeated ad nauseum, and delay action on greenhouse gas emissions.)
Congratulations to John Mashey and Deep Climate for exposing the shoddy scholarship of the Wegman Report.

Let the data speak for itself. So much of this controversy is driven by altered data. Whenever one sees the emphasis on “norming” or “homogenizing” or even “averaging”, we all know now that the data has been falsified. NOAA started it, but it has now become a global phenomenon of greedy morons pretending to do science while in fact doing make believe.
The real problem is that we have habitats and environments that need serious attention while these schemers suck up the energy.
It appears that New Zealand has finally realized that NIWA was a criminal enterprise. Well so is NOAA, NASA, and Mann, Hansen, etc.

So now the besieged make a desperate sally to try to disrupt the slowly gathering forces that encircle them. Well that is what a sally port is for and much good may it do them.
The fortress is undermined, its walls crumbling beneath their feet, and they know it.
What they do not understand is the firepower they are facing.
The bow and arrow is old and a potent weapon but it was the English who turned it into the first modern mass firepower weapon: and devastated France with it. It was not that the idea was new it was the technology.
The ancient Romans devised the first highly organised infantry army and they knew all about light and heavy cavalry and indeed pikes as well as bows and arrows. They also had excellent artillery and understood the idea of mass firepower but had no way to achieve it.
They could have defeated any army until Crecy when the English showed what true mass firepower with the longbow could do. No Roman general would have had any answer to that nor at the time did anyone else for a hundred years.
And it was the massed firepower of the longbow that emasculated the fortress. Up till then a great siege was needed to keep the enemy in his castle and prevent a breakout so the forces were about equal. But it only took a handful of longbowmen to confine the enemy behind his defences and so allow the army to roam free and take what they would.
What you are now seeing is much the same thing.
For over one hundred years the MSM in many forms, the press, the films, books, the TV and wireless have controlled information and the elites, especially politicians, have shrewdly used this to their advantage.
What T’Internet and the WWW has done is put this information into the hands of us all: and the blogosphere has started to organise. It is a messy process and of course these elites are trying to control it. They understand the threat. But they have no answer as of yet.
This little battle over AGW is merely a curtain raiser, like Crecy, a slight flexing of the muscles. Of the common man and woman who will not be put upon. The decisive battle, Agincourt is still some time away.
Although I shall not live to see them there are very interesting times ahead.
But this kind of counterattack so very late in the day tells you just how short of any effective ammunition the defenders of AGW, the politicians, the rent seekers, even the so called scientists are and how little they understand of the new battleground on which they must fight.
Kindest Regards

I should also note that this is being handled better than Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s investigation of the University of Virginia’s grants for Michael Mann–basically because it’s being handled by the institution involved, as it should be.
Here’s the problem with Tom’s thinking.
UCLA Cans Professor James Enstrom for Thought Crimes.

Enstrom, an epidemiologist at UCLA’s School of Public Health, … says his studies show no causal link between diesel soot and death in California — findings that … set him far apart from the pack and put him in direct conflict with the California Air Resources Board [CARB], which says its new standards on diesel emissions will save 9,400 lives between 2011 and 2025 and will reduce health care costs by as much as $68 billion in the state.

One month after coauthoring an op-ed for Forbes.com expressing his concerns with these obviously pernicious regulations, Enstrom got a letter stating that he was getting canned because his “research is not aligned with the academic mission of the Department.”
That academic mission: to help the moonbats running California use faulty science and phony environmentalist posturing to destroy the state’s economy, with the rest of the country soon to follow it down the drain.

And the results after a REAL investigation was conducted?
BREAKING: SFO Chronicle says “Faulty science behind state’s landmark diesel law” – an error of 340%