With a tip of the hat to: "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" Image: Alamo Drafthouse Rolling Roadshow - click
Guest post by Thomas Fuller
In the past few months we have seen a number of amateurish attempts to counter skeptical arguments that gained traction in what public space there is for matters climatic and anti-climactic. Today we get introduced to John Mashey’s attempt to smear Edward Wegman and reclaim the Hockey Stick for further usage. It’s definitely anti-climactic.
Climategate had a huge impact on public opinion regarding the probity of some of the scientists involved. The leaked emails clearly showed bad and bullying behaviour that left a stench in any honest reader’s nostrils. Andrew Montford, among others, chronicled Climategate and the events leading up to it in a clear, detailed narrative called The Hockey Stick Illusion. It has been praised by reviewers, including climate scientist Judith Curry. I have read it. It is good. It is accurate. I recommend it without reservation.
So, a few months ago a website called Scholars and Rogues published an incredibly lame attempt by Brian Angliss to show why nobody needed to read The Hockey Stick Illusion, citing the low number of emails that were leaked as evidence that we didn’t have enough evidence. When Steve Mosher pointed out that a crooked accountant probably had numerous accurate transactions to his credit, but that only one was needed to prove him criminal, Mr. Angliss and Scholars and Rogues sort of went away.
The late Stephen Schneider and an IT administrator named James Prall published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claiming to prove that scientists on their side of the fence were more credible than skeptical scientists, because they had more publications. Sadly, they only searched in English, they got the names, job titles and specializations of the scientists wrong, they used incorrect analysis techniques (as explained quite brilliantly by RomanM on a post at Real Climate), and used Google Scholar, a commercial database with no published quality control measures, as opposed to any one of several available academic databases. They didn’t get Stephen Schneider’s publications accurate. But that’s okay, they have the names and pictures of those they labeled (incorrectly, in many cases) as skeptics on Prall’s website.
Now comes John Mashey, intent on the destruction of Edward Wegman’s criticism of Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley’s carefully concocted Hockey Stick Chart. Wegman was asked by a congressional committee to investigate their work. His report, fully supported by the National Academy of Sciences, was devastating, citing quite correctly the fact that random noise fed into Mann’s analysis scheme could produce a hockey stick, that they used incorrect analysis of principal components in their study, and that the community of scientists involved was so closely interlinked as to be best described as incestuous, making claims of independent verification a mockery.
Before I go any further, I should note that Mashey makes another accusation that hasn’t been picked up by the media: He accuses Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of being ‘recruited, coached and promoted’ by the George Marshall Institute.
Page 30 of John Mashey's full report
I don’t think that’s true. Mr. Mashey does not provide any documentation for this accusation and I’d like to see his evidence. I certainly hope it’s of better quality than the rest of what turns out to be drivel.
John Mashey’s first bone to pick with the Wegman report is that Congressman Barton’s staff provided source material to Wegman. It is the first item in Mashey’s report, (PDF – warning large download) a 250 page diatribe.
But it is entirely normal that Wegman would ask for and Barton’s staff would provide, any relevant material to speed up the investigation. I have done investigative work for several government bodies and it is in the interests of saving the public’s time and money that papers are provided. I literally cannot understand why Mashey would make this his first point.
Also on the first page of Mashey’s report is the ‘accusation’ that one of Wegman’s associates in the investigation was a post doctoral student with one year of experience, Yasmin Said. Perhaps Mr. Mashey should take a quick look at how much experience Michael Mann had when he created the Hockey Stick that became the iconic representation of climate change to the world…
John Mashey says that Wegman plagiarised material in his report to Congress.
This is odd. Wegman is not a climate scientist. He is a statistician. The material Mashey alleges Wegman stole comes from Raymond Bradley, who has since apparently filed an official complaint with George Mason University. Is Mashey accusing Wegman of falsely representing himself as an expert in climate science? Is his intent to use as intellectual property ideas generated by Bradley for his own profit?
This plagiarism claim is very strange. In Mashey’s report, he seems to go out of his way to discourage readers from actually looking at either Bradley’s text or Wegman’s. Mashey writes,
“Skeptical readers are welcome to check all 35 pages, but I suspect most will read no more than few before the repetitive style gets tiring. I had to do this to gather and summarize the data. Most people need not.”
Actually, Mr. Mashey, if you want people to believe you, most people indeed need to.
On page 19 of Mashey’s report (PDF – warning large download) is the first example of Wegman’s ‘plagiarism.’ Wegman writes on page 69,
“Overall the network includes 112 proxies, and each series has been formatted into annual mean anomalies relative to the reference period used for this data, 1902-1980.”
When compared to MBH98, page 779, it does indeed look similar:
“The long instrumental records have been formed into annual mean anomalies relative to the 1902–80 reference period, …”
Not identical, but similar. But wait a minute. What is the context for this? This is the second paragraph of a ‘Summary of Global-scale temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries’ by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (1998).
The authors are credited. The intent is to summarize what the authors wrote. The text is not identical, but to be an accurate summary would have to be similar. To say that Wegman plagiarised Bradley when he has Bradley’s name in the chapter title and is trying to summarize what Bradley said… well, I can see where this is going.
All of a sudden this 250 page, convoluted and poorly written report looks like a mountain to climb. It smells like a time-wasting replica of poorly written and un-thought out conspiracy theories.
I will be looking at this report more closely, but I will leave you with some quotes that I think show this to be the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that will have you looking for black helicopters or assorted nonsense. Here’s Mr. Mashey in full swing:
“During 2005-2006, Said was employed by Johns Hopkins University and that affiliation is the one listed on the WR. Did she do the WR work ―on her own time or was she in effect taking time from JHU teaching or research to work on the WR? If so, was this acceptable?”
(Let’s ask Gavin Schmidt, NASA employee and full time blogger at Real Climate…)
“The Federal government pays for many things. It is not obvious why {NIAA, ARL, ARO, NSWRC} seem to be paying statisticians and statistical physicists to attack climate science.”
(Maybe Mr. Mashey should take a good look again at what science is and how it works…)
“Other leadup to the WR is covered in [MAS2010], but it is worth knowing that Wegman, Said, Spencer, McIntyre, Singer, Kueter all attended a climate workshop November 14-16, 2005: www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/participants.htm. Although I do not know if they met, it certainly seems likely.”
(And what did they have affixed in their lapel buttons?)
In the past few months we have seen a number of amateurish attempts to counter skeptical arguments that gained traction in what public space there is for matters climatic and anti-climactic. Today we get introduced to John Mashey’s attempt to smear Edward Wegman and reclaim the Hockey Stick for further usage. It’s definitely anti-climactic.
Climategate had a huge impact on public opinion regarding the probity of some of the scientists involved. The leaked emails clearly showed bad and bullying behaviour that left a stench in any honest reader’s nostrils. Anthony Montford, among others, chronicled Climategate and the events leading up to it in a clear, detailed narrative called The Hockey Stick Illusion. It has been praised by reviewers, including climate scientist Judith Curry. I have read it. It is good. It is accurate. I recommend it without reservation.
So, a few months ago a website called Scholars and Rogues published an incredibly lame attempt by Brian Angliss to show why nobody needed to read The Hockey Stick Illusion, citing the low number of emails that were leaked as evidence that we didn’t have enough evidence. When Steve Mosher pointed out that a crooked accountant probably had numerous accurate transactions to his credit, but that only one was needed to prove him criminal, Mr. Angliss and Scholars and Rogues sort of went away.
The late Stephen Schneider and an IT administrator named James Prall published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences claiming to prove that scientists on their side of the fence were more credible than skeptical scientists, because they had more publications. Sadly, they only searched in English, they got the names, job titles and specializations of the scientists wrong, they used incorrect analysis techniques (as explained quite brilliantly by RomanM on a post at Real Climate), and used Google Scholar, a commercial database with no published quality control measures, as opposed to any one of several available academic databases. They didn’t get Stephen Schneider’s publications accurate. But that’s okay, they have the names and pictures of those they labeled (incorrectly, in many cases) as skeptics on Prall’s website.
Now comes John Mashey, intent on the destruction of Edward Wegman’s criticism of Michael Mann and Raymond Bradley’s carefully concocted Hockey Stick Chart. Wegman was asked by a congressional committee to investigate their work. His report, fully supported by the National Academy of Sciences, was devastating, citing quite correctly the fact that random noise fed into Mann’s analysis scheme could produce a hockey stick, that they used incorrect analysis of principal components in their study, and that the community of scientists involved was so closely interlinked as to be best described as incestuous, making claims of independent verification a mockery.
Before I go any further, I should note that Mashey makes another accusation that hasn’t been picked up by the media: He accuses Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick of being ‘recruited, coached and promoted’ by the George Marshall Institute.
I don’t think that’s true. Mr. Mashey does not provide any documentation for this accusation and I’d like to see his evidence. I certainly hope it’s of better quality than the rest of what turns out to be drivel.
John Mashey’s first bone to pick with the Wegman report is that Congressman Barton’s staff provided source material to Wegman. It is the first item in Mashey’s ‘report,’ a 250 page diatribe.
But it is entirely normal that Wegman would ask for and Barton’s staff would provide, any relevant material to speed up the investigation. I have done investigative work for several government bodies and it is in the interests of saving the public’s time and money that papers are provided. I literally cannot understand why Mashey would make this his first point.
Also on the first page of Mashey’s report is the ‘accusation’ that one of Wegman’s associates in the investigation was a post doctoral student with one year of experience, Yasmin Said. Perhaps Mr. Mashey should take a quick look at how much experience Michael Mann had when he created the Hockey Stick that became the iconic representation of climate change to the world…
John Mashey says that Wegman plagiarised material in his report to Congress.
This is odd. Wegman is not a climate scientist. He is a statistician. The material Mashey alleges Wegman stole comes from Raymond Bradley, who has since apparently filed an official complaint with George Mason University. Is Mashey accusing Wegman of falsely representing himself as an expert in climate science? Is his intent to use as intellectual property ideas generated by Bradley for his own profit?
This plagiarism claim is very strange. In Mashey’s report, he seems to go out of his way to discourage readers from actually looking at either Bradley’s text or Wegman’s. Mashey writes, “Skeptical readers are welcome to check all 35 pages, but I suspect
most will read no more than few before the repetitive style gets tiring. I had to do this to gather and summarize the data. Most people need not.”
Actually, Mr. Mashey, if you want people to believe you, most people indeed need to.
On page 19 of Mashey’s report is the first example of Wegman’s ‘plagiarism.’ Wegman writes on page 69, “Overall the network includes 112 proxies, and each series has been formatted into annual mean anomalies relative to the reference period used for this data, 1902-1980.” When compared to MBH98, page 779, it does indeed look similar: “The long instrumental records have been formed into annual mean anomalies relative to the 1902–80
reference period, …”
Not identical, but similar. But wait a minute. What is the context for this? This is the second paragraph of a ‘Summary of Global-scale temperature Patterns and Climate Forcing Over the Past Six Centuries’ by Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes (1998).
The authors are credited. The intent is to summarize what the authors wrote. The text is not identical, but to be an accurate summary would have to be similar. To say that Wegman plagiarised Bradley when he has Bradley’s name in the chapter title and is trying to summarize what Bradley said… well, I can see where this is going.
All of a sudden this 250 page, convoluted and poorly written report looks like a mountain to climb. It smells like a time-wasting replica of poorly written and un-thought out conspiracy theories.
I will be looking at this report more closely, but I will leave you with some quotes that I think show this to be the type of conspiracy theory nonsense that will have you looking for black helicopters or assorted nonsense. Here’s Mr. Mashey in full swing:
“During 2005-2006, Said was employed by Johns Hopkins University and that affiliation is the one listed on the WR. Did she do the WR work ―on her own time or was she in effect taking time from JHU teaching or research to work on the WR? If so, was this acceptable?”
(Let’s ask Gavin Schmidt, NASA employee and full time blogger at Real Climate…)
“The Federal government pays for many things. It is not obvious why {NIAA, ARL, ARO, NSWRC} seem to be paying statisticians and statistical physicists to attack climate science.”
(Maybe Mr. Mashey should take a good look again at what science is and how it works…)
“Other leadup to the WR is covered in [MAS2010], but it is worth knowing that Wegman, Said, Spencer, McIntyre, Singer, Kueter all attended a climate workshop November 14-16, 2005: www.climatescience.gov/workshop2005/participants.htm. Although I do not know if they met, it certainly seems likely.”
(And what did they have affixed in their lapel buttons?)
John A says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:19 am
Actually, Mashey’s document resembles nothing other than a classic example of the types of works of paranoid schizophrenics. The bizarre linkages, unjustified assertions of conspiracy between supposed “Enemies of the Truth” and colour coding for particular emphasis are archetypic behaviours of schizophrenic spectrum orders.
Yeah – I used to edit a magazine years ago and we would occasionally get these rambling diatribes in coloured ink, which continued from the enclosed page onto the envelope in mutiply-oriented diagrammatic scrawl.
We used to call ’em “green inkers”.
D. King
October 10, 2010 9:35 am
kim says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:46 am
Why, I think we need a Congressional investigation to get to the bottom of this. Let’s have one some fine day soon.
===========
The Iceman cometh. http://tinyurl.com/2frc5xk
“Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science.”
This shouldn’t be a problem, he’s just going
to ask Mann to “show your work”.
Climategate part 2
Get the popcorn ready Kim.
Gary Pearse
October 10, 2010 9:41 am
“Congressman Barton’s staff provided source material to Wegman. It is the first item in Mashey’s report, (PDF – warning large download) a 250 page diatribe.”
Well, well, I guess we should re-open up the three whitewash investigations that came out of climategate since the subjects of the investigations also provided source material to the investigators who were not climate scientists (although Oxbrugh was principal of a carbon/green corporation or some such).
Secondly, if I am engaged to investigate the work of a scientist, surely I am going to have wording in my preamble, and examples, etc. that seems similar to the authors of the work under investigation. Also, didn’t Wegman state that he was using the very same assumptions and data to test the authors’ work and that he came out with a very different result!!! Does Mr. Mashey find space in his 250 page PDF to refute or deal with the substance of the report (please, someone else check!)
kadaka (KD Knoebel)
October 10, 2010 10:09 am
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. said on October 9, 2010 at 11:34 pm
This whole thing is too bizarre for my little mind. I’m off to read some Emanuel Kant, at least the logic is sound, even if the style Byzantine.
Many have tried to understand old Immanuel. Many still Kant.
kuhnkat
October 10, 2010 10:42 am
Brian Angliss,
they could have hundreds of investigations exonerating the Climategate Criminals, but, if they did not reasonably consider all the evidence they would be as pointless as the ones you reference!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
John McManus
October 10, 2010 10:44 am
The complaint of copyright violation pushes this far past the level of a schoolchild cribbing an essay from a book theey think the teacher has not read. Now we have someone who copied the copier threatening to sue. Red noses and big shoes for everyone.
Nice surprise from Congress. An interested physics prof found problems with Wegman’s math. Wanting to figure it out, he asked Wegman for his methods and data. Wegman did not answer him. It now looks like he will have to answer.
Wegman could make this whole thing go away. An declaration of who put him up to this and the marching orders he obeyed would surely satisfy Bradley. Institues and their funding could be revealed in our own truth and reconciliation exercise.
kuhnkat
October 10, 2010 10:53 am
Nick Stokes,
you state that Wegman is trying to pass himself off as a scientist familiar with social networks also. You mean like he tried to pass himself off as an expert on climate reconstructions??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You warmers have been screaming at us to only use the Peer Reviewed Litchurchur for years. Here Wegman and team does just that, AND CITES IT, and you accuse him of plagiarism and pretending to be expert in fields not his primary area of expertise!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your arguments keep getting weaker as time goes by. Going to give up or become a continuing source of derision?
kuhnkat
October 10, 2010 11:02 am
Oh, and Nick, have you researched to find the ORIGINAL source of that 400 word paragraph that matches Wikipedia? What makes you think that Wikipedia is the ORIGINAL of this paragraph? That whomever posted it to Wikipedia didn’t draw from another source that is common background in the area and available for use?? They really should be more careful about their possibly libelous accusations until the source has been found!!
Of course, you really need to start by admitting that this is NOT a scholarly work NOR a work done for compensation or advancement and therefor does NOT need to meet the strict standards in the first place!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That being said, can you tell me exactly how these accusations, even if completely true (knowingly plagiarising others work), change the statistics, math, or science showing your beloved Hockey Stick is a pile of crap and Michael Mann is a crook or an incompetent?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Wow, another own goal from the CAGW climate science cabal. Mann and Bradley should have let sleeping dogs lie, rather than remind the public about the falsified ‘Hockey Stick Graph’, especially at this particular time when political sensitivity is high.
The context of the Climategate emails shows how desperate the team felt about stopping others seeing the low quality data and their sloppy scientific work. They can’t understand that whole scam is over and they will soon need to be looking for alternative types of work. Good riddance to the lot of them!
Many have tried to understand old Immanuel. Many still Kant.
To bad that this will get lost in translation, the Dutch word for “Lace” is Kant. And the guy in the black shirt has everything in kant (read “Lace”), its exciting he claims. He even has it with him now! Let me see the other one asks.
DirkH
October 10, 2010 12:06 pm
Eli Rabett says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
“There are points that are not getting proper attention. The first is that the entire Wegman group has a huge problem with plagiarism, […] She, and many here, are defining deviancy down, setting yourselves up for some very uncomfortable times when your kids or students copy and paste.”
So, you’re trading “catastrophic climate tipping points and the end of the world as we know it” for “We might have a problem in the future explaining to our kids why they shouldn’t copy & paste”?
OK, i’ll go along with that.
Even at this distance one can hear the student bleating, this was a review, I’m allowed to copy and paste, you said so. You’re just being mean. Good Luck.
DirkH
October 10, 2010 12:10 pm
(The last two lines in my comment were an unwanted echo of my copying and pasting of Eli Rabbett’s comment; which i didn’t attribute considerately. I don’t claim any copyright.)
“REPLY: Yep that’s the one. Also the same guys that gave coverage to bigfoot on his blog and even did a radio show about it. But we’re the crazy ones. – Anthony”
Nope. The incomparable Ricky and Bubba just linked to me over my expose re the Jacobson Monster (ie photos of a baby bigfoot). I never appeared their show, nor did a show of my own. Get it right or I sue.
Nevertheless, it looks like I know how to use Google better than McI. REPLY: Wow, touchy. You misunderstood. I said the same “guys” with an “s” implying the radio team, not you. Nor did I say nor imply you had a radio show of your own. But, I’ve clarified it, and added two links to your blog. I’m returning the favor since you once removed an unfair statement about me. Just curious though, how do you know they didn’t mention it on air? I work in radio, and I’ve never known radio people to put up a story on the website that they didn’t cover on air. There’s no commercial motive. Usually the idea is “learn more at the website, be exposed to advertisers there”. – Anthony
juanslayton
October 10, 2010 12:42 pm
Konrad: The Rubenesque Diva is reaching into the props box for the hat with the horns and he comes out with this dross!
My vote for quote of the week….
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 12:44 pm
Rattus Norvegicus says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:18 am
On McIntyre’s association with the GMI: http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
#######################
1. he is not listed under staff or fellows or speakers.
2. I could list YOU as an expert on my blog and it would mean????
When somebody presents clear evidence that Steve takes any benefit from this place the presence of his name on their blog has no more meaning than the link to realClimate from this blog.
What i would take as evidence:
A. being on the paid staff
B. receiving benefits as a speaker
C. recieving funding for his blog
I’m sure Osama bin laden endorses Mann’s work. conclusion? mann is a muslim terrorist
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 12:56 pm
PolicyGuy.
Looking at the entire Wegman Document. I’ve have to agree that the plagarism charge seems restricted to the prefatory material. The material related to Bradley is cited and its not presented as original material of the authors own. Since it’s background material Wegman or his students probably should have made more liberal use of direct quotation, since the high level discussion of generic issues is hard to paraphrase without generating large similarities. The SNA material is more problematic. Personally, I think the SNA stuff is merely putting numbers to a known weakness in new sciences. In every new field there are going to be small numbers of authors, many connections. The point is what do editors do to mitigate the reinforcment of errors that can be generated from a small community. Recall, That Mann writes pissy letters to Briffa and others when they disagree with him. The mails show the danger of the close association far better than wegmans checkerboard.
The real discussion, of course, should concern itself with the latter part of the report:
1. the findings and recommendations
2. the specific statistical issues that Wegman raised.
3. Does new science need more rigorous peer review or do we trust self correcting?
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 12:58 pm
Eli Rabett says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
Eli: will you submit Bradley and Annann to the same standard?
if not #Si
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 1:00 pm
bigcitylib says:
October 10, 2010 at 4:50 am
Mosher, the Bradley text predates the Goudie test by at least ten or 15 years, depending on the edition. Something McI doesn’t point out. If there is a problem there, it isn’t Bradley’s, and knowing how McI operates, I suspect it isn’t Goudie’s either.
###########
Well, I’m sure you will be after Goudie now. ( it’s there just look)
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 1:21 pm
lazy teenager:
“talking of home goals
Are you actually saying that Bradley ripped off Cuff and Goudie and then Wegman ripped off Bradley or Cuff and Goudie.
This is getting weird because you are acknowledging that Wegman ripped off someone.”
lets be clear about a few things: Looking at the Wegman et al text I see two different cases for plagarism. The first relates to Bradley’s material. The case is weak to say the least. The material used is attributed to Bradley 1999. Since I spent years tracking down and making plagarism cases at the university, I would say the following:
1. the material used should probably have been quoted in full.
2. the writer did not intend this to be taken as original material and is not “passing off” someone else work as his own.
In cases like this were the student has cited the work but not shown in the text the EXTENT of the borrowing, the issue is not at the core of plagarism. They would be instructed on the proper use of quoting and get some lessons in paraphrasing without using vast swaths of the orginal authors words. The bradley material is a non issue.
The SNA material ( from my brief read) doesnt appear to be cited properly and the direct lifting of text is more apparent. here too, since the author is not passing off the material as original research or their own thoughts, the instruction to them would be roughly the same: In this kind of material where you are giving background you still need to cite and quote properly. basically, if I had a case like this before me the matter would be resolved at my level with the student. I would ding them a full grade and ask that they rewrite with proper attribution, citation and paraphrasing/quoting.
WRT Bradley’s “borrowing” I’m suggesting this: Go on the offensive. Get bradley’s book and go after him. Or go after other people who also borrowed from him. Go after Eli. go after every single one of them. Having spent some time doing this in my past I can assure you that somewhere some climate scientist failed to follow strict rules of citation and attribution. bring on the bloodbath. Lets face it: there are a dozen or so ‘skeptics’ that serve as targets. there are hundreds on the other side. target rich environment.
To do this you have to be crazy like Nash.
curly
October 10, 2010 1:34 pm
This sounds like the same John Mashey I knew when he worked for MIPS computer systems and later worked with at SGI. As I recall, at the time, his function was “competitive analysis”, particularly for CPU technologies. Again, as I recall, this was in part a marketing role, helping position MIPS/SGI’s CPU technology in the best light. His brief note about his background on the cover page of this paper, and identifying himself as a computer scientist, seems to support that this is the same guy. Looks like he also has Penn State U connection/affiliation, as does Mann.
Of course, correlation, if there is one, does not infer, imply or indicate causation.
Can’t help but see the parallel between one of SGI’s core businesses (used to be) building hardware for creating imaginary virtual worlds (e.g. — Jurassic Park, the movie) and the imaginary virtual world of climate modeling software.
Steven mosher
October 10, 2010 1:39 pm
So, if somebody wants to start,
1. find a friend with a student enrolled in Brown University
2. Have that student retrieve Josh Halpern’s dissertation from Brown’s Database.
( 1972)
3. Then, we can submit Eli ( Josh Halpern) to the same treatment that Wegman got.
Fun huh?
GaryM
October 10, 2010 1:54 pm
Maybe someone “in the industry” could use the program designed by these guys. http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41458/title/Study_finds_plenty_of_apparent_plagiarism
“Garner’s team developed data-mining software about eight years ago that allows a resarcher (sic) to input lots of text — the entire abstract of a paper, for instance — and ask the program to compare it to everything posted on a database. ”
…
“To date, 83 of the 212 pairs of largely identical papers identified so far by the data-mining software that Garner’s team has developed have triggered formal investigations by the journals involved. In 46 instances, editors of the second papers have issued retractions. ”
Different area of science…same can of worms. Or would a Pandora’s Box reference be better?
John A says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:19 am
Actually, Mashey’s document resembles nothing other than a classic example of the types of works of paranoid schizophrenics. The bizarre linkages, unjustified assertions of conspiracy between supposed “Enemies of the Truth” and colour coding for particular emphasis are archetypic behaviours of schizophrenic spectrum orders.
Yeah – I used to edit a magazine years ago and we would occasionally get these rambling diatribes in coloured ink, which continued from the enclosed page onto the envelope in mutiply-oriented diagrammatic scrawl.
We used to call ’em “green inkers”.
kim says:
October 10, 2010 at 5:46 am
Why, I think we need a Congressional investigation to get to the bottom of this. Let’s have one some fine day soon.
===========
The Iceman cometh.
http://tinyurl.com/2frc5xk
“Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science.”
This shouldn’t be a problem, he’s just going
to ask Mann to “show your work”.
Climategate part 2
Get the popcorn ready Kim.
“Congressman Barton’s staff provided source material to Wegman. It is the first item in Mashey’s report, (PDF – warning large download) a 250 page diatribe.”
Well, well, I guess we should re-open up the three whitewash investigations that came out of climategate since the subjects of the investigations also provided source material to the investigators who were not climate scientists (although Oxbrugh was principal of a carbon/green corporation or some such).
Secondly, if I am engaged to investigate the work of a scientist, surely I am going to have wording in my preamble, and examples, etc. that seems similar to the authors of the work under investigation. Also, didn’t Wegman state that he was using the very same assumptions and data to test the authors’ work and that he came out with a very different result!!! Does Mr. Mashey find space in his 250 page PDF to refute or deal with the substance of the report (please, someone else check!)
Dennis Nikols, P. Geol. said on October 9, 2010 at 11:34 pm
Many have tried to understand old Immanuel. Many still Kant.
Brian Angliss,
they could have hundreds of investigations exonerating the Climategate Criminals, but, if they did not reasonably consider all the evidence they would be as pointless as the ones you reference!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The complaint of copyright violation pushes this far past the level of a schoolchild cribbing an essay from a book theey think the teacher has not read. Now we have someone who copied the copier threatening to sue. Red noses and big shoes for everyone.
Nice surprise from Congress. An interested physics prof found problems with Wegman’s math. Wanting to figure it out, he asked Wegman for his methods and data. Wegman did not answer him. It now looks like he will have to answer.
Wegman could make this whole thing go away. An declaration of who put him up to this and the marching orders he obeyed would surely satisfy Bradley. Institues and their funding could be revealed in our own truth and reconciliation exercise.
Nick Stokes,
you state that Wegman is trying to pass himself off as a scientist familiar with social networks also. You mean like he tried to pass himself off as an expert on climate reconstructions??
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You warmers have been screaming at us to only use the Peer Reviewed Litchurchur for years. Here Wegman and team does just that, AND CITES IT, and you accuse him of plagiarism and pretending to be expert in fields not his primary area of expertise!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Your arguments keep getting weaker as time goes by. Going to give up or become a continuing source of derision?
Oh, and Nick, have you researched to find the ORIGINAL source of that 400 word paragraph that matches Wikipedia? What makes you think that Wikipedia is the ORIGINAL of this paragraph? That whomever posted it to Wikipedia didn’t draw from another source that is common background in the area and available for use?? They really should be more careful about their possibly libelous accusations until the source has been found!!
Of course, you really need to start by admitting that this is NOT a scholarly work NOR a work done for compensation or advancement and therefor does NOT need to meet the strict standards in the first place!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That being said, can you tell me exactly how these accusations, even if completely true (knowingly plagiarising others work), change the statistics, math, or science showing your beloved Hockey Stick is a pile of crap and Michael Mann is a crook or an incompetent?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
On McIntyre’s association with the GMI:
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
Wow, another own goal from the CAGW climate science cabal. Mann and Bradley should have let sleeping dogs lie, rather than remind the public about the falsified ‘Hockey Stick Graph’, especially at this particular time when political sensitivity is high.
The context of the Climategate emails shows how desperate the team felt about stopping others seeing the low quality data and their sloppy scientific work. They can’t understand that whole scam is over and they will soon need to be looking for alternative types of work. Good riddance to the lot of them!
Many have tried to understand old Immanuel. Many still Kant.
To bad that this will get lost in translation, the Dutch word for “Lace” is Kant. And the guy in the black shirt has everything in kant (read “Lace”), its exciting he claims. He even has it with him now! Let me see the other one asks.
Eli Rabett says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
“There are points that are not getting proper attention. The first is that the entire Wegman group has a huge problem with plagiarism, […] She, and many here, are defining deviancy down, setting yourselves up for some very uncomfortable times when your kids or students copy and paste.”
So, you’re trading “catastrophic climate tipping points and the end of the world as we know it” for “We might have a problem in the future explaining to our kids why they shouldn’t copy & paste”?
OK, i’ll go along with that.
Even at this distance one can hear the student bleating, this was a review, I’m allowed to copy and paste, you said so. You’re just being mean. Good Luck.
(The last two lines in my comment were an unwanted echo of my copying and pasting of Eli Rabbett’s comment; which i didn’t attribute considerately. I don’t claim any copyright.)
“REPLY: Yep that’s the one. Also the same guys that gave coverage to bigfoot on his blog and even did a radio show about it. But we’re the crazy ones. – Anthony”
Nope. The incomparable Ricky and Bubba just linked to me over my expose re the Jacobson Monster (ie photos of a baby bigfoot). I never appeared their show, nor did a show of my own. Get it right or I sue.
Nevertheless, it looks like I know how to use Google better than McI.
REPLY: Wow, touchy. You misunderstood. I said the same “guys” with an “s” implying the radio team, not you. Nor did I say nor imply you had a radio show of your own. But, I’ve clarified it, and added two links to your blog. I’m returning the favor since you once removed an unfair statement about me. Just curious though, how do you know they didn’t mention it on air? I work in radio, and I’ve never known radio people to put up a story on the website that they didn’t cover on air. There’s no commercial motive. Usually the idea is “learn more at the website, be exposed to advertisers there”. – Anthony
Konrad: The Rubenesque Diva is reaching into the props box for the hat with the horns and he comes out with this dross!
My vote for quote of the week….
Rattus Norvegicus says:
October 10, 2010 at 11:18 am
On McIntyre’s association with the GMI:
http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=98
#######################
1. he is not listed under staff or fellows or speakers.
2. I could list YOU as an expert on my blog and it would mean????
When somebody presents clear evidence that Steve takes any benefit from this place the presence of his name on their blog has no more meaning than the link to realClimate from this blog.
What i would take as evidence:
A. being on the paid staff
B. receiving benefits as a speaker
C. recieving funding for his blog
I’m sure Osama bin laden endorses Mann’s work. conclusion? mann is a muslim terrorist
PolicyGuy.
Looking at the entire Wegman Document. I’ve have to agree that the plagarism charge seems restricted to the prefatory material. The material related to Bradley is cited and its not presented as original material of the authors own. Since it’s background material Wegman or his students probably should have made more liberal use of direct quotation, since the high level discussion of generic issues is hard to paraphrase without generating large similarities. The SNA material is more problematic. Personally, I think the SNA stuff is merely putting numbers to a known weakness in new sciences. In every new field there are going to be small numbers of authors, many connections. The point is what do editors do to mitigate the reinforcment of errors that can be generated from a small community. Recall, That Mann writes pissy letters to Briffa and others when they disagree with him. The mails show the danger of the close association far better than wegmans checkerboard.
The real discussion, of course, should concern itself with the latter part of the report:
1. the findings and recommendations
2. the specific statistical issues that Wegman raised.
3. Does new science need more rigorous peer review or do we trust self correcting?
Eli Rabett says:
October 10, 2010 at 7:55 am
Eli: will you submit Bradley and Annann to the same standard?
if not #Si
bigcitylib says:
October 10, 2010 at 4:50 am
Mosher, the Bradley text predates the Goudie test by at least ten or 15 years, depending on the edition. Something McI doesn’t point out. If there is a problem there, it isn’t Bradley’s, and knowing how McI operates, I suspect it isn’t Goudie’s either.
###########
Well, I’m sure you will be after Goudie now. ( it’s there just look)
lazy teenager:
“talking of home goals
Are you actually saying that Bradley ripped off Cuff and Goudie and then Wegman ripped off Bradley or Cuff and Goudie.
This is getting weird because you are acknowledging that Wegman ripped off someone.”
lets be clear about a few things: Looking at the Wegman et al text I see two different cases for plagarism. The first relates to Bradley’s material. The case is weak to say the least. The material used is attributed to Bradley 1999. Since I spent years tracking down and making plagarism cases at the university, I would say the following:
1. the material used should probably have been quoted in full.
2. the writer did not intend this to be taken as original material and is not “passing off” someone else work as his own.
In cases like this were the student has cited the work but not shown in the text the EXTENT of the borrowing, the issue is not at the core of plagarism. They would be instructed on the proper use of quoting and get some lessons in paraphrasing without using vast swaths of the orginal authors words. The bradley material is a non issue.
The SNA material ( from my brief read) doesnt appear to be cited properly and the direct lifting of text is more apparent. here too, since the author is not passing off the material as original research or their own thoughts, the instruction to them would be roughly the same: In this kind of material where you are giving background you still need to cite and quote properly. basically, if I had a case like this before me the matter would be resolved at my level with the student. I would ding them a full grade and ask that they rewrite with proper attribution, citation and paraphrasing/quoting.
WRT Bradley’s “borrowing” I’m suggesting this: Go on the offensive. Get bradley’s book and go after him. Or go after other people who also borrowed from him. Go after Eli. go after every single one of them. Having spent some time doing this in my past I can assure you that somewhere some climate scientist failed to follow strict rules of citation and attribution. bring on the bloodbath. Lets face it: there are a dozen or so ‘skeptics’ that serve as targets. there are hundreds on the other side. target rich environment.
To do this you have to be crazy like Nash.
This sounds like the same John Mashey I knew when he worked for MIPS computer systems and later worked with at SGI. As I recall, at the time, his function was “competitive analysis”, particularly for CPU technologies. Again, as I recall, this was in part a marketing role, helping position MIPS/SGI’s CPU technology in the best light. His brief note about his background on the cover page of this paper, and identifying himself as a computer scientist, seems to support that this is the same guy. Looks like he also has Penn State U connection/affiliation, as does Mann.
Of course, correlation, if there is one, does not infer, imply or indicate causation.
Can’t help but see the parallel between one of SGI’s core businesses (used to be) building hardware for creating imaginary virtual worlds (e.g. — Jurassic Park, the movie) and the imaginary virtual world of climate modeling software.
So, if somebody wants to start,
1. find a friend with a student enrolled in Brown University
2. Have that student retrieve Josh Halpern’s dissertation from Brown’s Database.
( 1972)
3. Then, we can submit Eli ( Josh Halpern) to the same treatment that Wegman got.
Fun huh?
Maybe someone “in the industry” could use the program designed by these guys.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/41458/title/Study_finds_plenty_of_apparent_plagiarism
“Garner’s team developed data-mining software about eight years ago that allows a resarcher (sic) to input lots of text — the entire abstract of a paper, for instance — and ask the program to compare it to everything posted on a database. ”
…
“To date, 83 of the 212 pairs of largely identical papers identified so far by the data-mining software that Garner’s team has developed have triggered formal investigations by the journals involved. In 46 instances, editors of the second papers have issued retractions. ”
Different area of science…same can of worms. Or would a Pandora’s Box reference be better?
Here’s Monty Python on Kant – and other philosphers…
(Isn’t it funny how, when talking about ‘climate science’, we always get around to Monty Python?)
re: Steve Mosher;
Obviously from a man with no papers to search.