Looks like the word is going to be Copygate for the Wegman report investigation. I concur with Lucia who writes:
Skepticgate.
Keith [Kloor] campaigns in favor of his skepticgate writing:
I don’t think copygate has quite the same ring as skepticgate, but good for Jeff for noting it.
I’m betting one of the other of these words is going to catch on. I like “copygate” because the issue has to do with “copying”, where as “skeptic” could mean any number of possible issues. On the other hand, if literal connection to the precise issue governed these things, “climategate” might have been called “emailgate”.
I’m going to be using copygate for now. We’ll see what catches on.
My search shows “Copygate” to be in greater use already. Here’s the thread on Jeff Id’s blog and over at Keith’s Collide-a-Scape.
Given how Keith impatiently reacted to all this, I’ve moved him from “Lukewarmer” and put his blog link in with the others he consorts with. His attempt at maintaining that cool dispassionate psychologist illusion suffered from too many emissions. Too bad really, since we had so few true Lukewarmers.
FYI Andy Revkin coined the phrase “skepticgate” in a tweet, and Mr. Kloor is pushing that word at his blog, but didn’t coin it. IMHO it is too broad, since not all skeptics are under investigation, just one.
He’s a bit of a smug git, that Keith Kloor, ………which would tend to indicate a Warmist. No?
I like ‘copygate’ – it focuses on the action, less generic.
How about facetiousgate? The charge of plagiarism against Wegman is facetious.
And, ‘skepticgate’ is harder to pronounce than ‘copygate’ 😛
‘Copygate’ doesn’t begin to cover it, but nice try at attempted damage limitation.
DesperationGate.
Or, maybe, ClutchingAtStrawsGate.
So, because Kloor echoed a “warmer” he must believe in catastrophic climate change? If, say, I agreed with one of Plantinga or Swinburne’s criticisms of The God Delusion would I be a Christian?
REPLY: No, actually, his current essay was a “tipping point” for me. The bulk of balance offsets came prior. -Anthony
Re: chek
I assume from your comment that that you think it should be “skepticgate”. Could you explain why?
The report in question was about the statistics used in a climate reconstruction and not about climate. As far as I am aware the author of the report (Wegman) has never publicly stated whether he is skeptical of the science or not. Since neither the report nor the author has anything to do with being skeptical why should this be called skepticgate?
Over at the Air Vent, Jeff put up the definition of what plagiarism is. Basically it is what you think it is: Trying to pass off someone else’s work as your own original work.
As Jeff shows it is a little hard to do that when you put a fricking footnote in referencing Bardley’s book.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/as-copygate-turns/#more-10584
So that leaves only a Copyright angle of complaint, which falls apart on the grounds of Fair Use:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
This is just Warmers being Warmers and lashing out. To me this was a very dumb tactic and in the end will hurt them more then help. I wonder in George Mason’s University’s report on Wegman we will see how they cleared him on the grounds of how much money he brings in?
What’s everyones gut feeling? Does this investigation actually call in to question the reports conclusion?
Although could it be that alarmists are trying to discredit the report through under handed tactics? I mean if they can sully enough of the authors reputation then they will successfully lay enough doubt about the report to maje people think twice even if the investigation changed nothing in the conclusion of the report.
Mailman
‘SkepticGate’. Hah, poor fools. This budges no thermometers, no feedback of water vapor, no stat of Mann, and no echo in the chamber. A tempest in climate’s deep teapot.
===============
I started the read Mashey’s report, but frankly is seemed more like more like an outlet for Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. I couldn’t get through it. He’s gone through and color coded things based on whether he thinks they are PR talking points versus “good science”. It all comes across like he is a bit deranged. So maybe OCDgate would be a better term. Or maybe Wegman Derangement Syndrom. In any case, this story isn’t going to get traction with the press unless there’s clear, simple evidence of outrageous misconduct by Wegman. I haven’t seen it. Can anyone point to an example of the purported plagiarism?
“Yeah-But Gate” is the appropriate gate in this case.
Vicky Pollard background cultural information available here:
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zExc6SK4kpA&fs=1&hl=en_US]
Anthony,
as you first mentioned, it’s been over a day now and there is still no post at C-a-s on the resignation of Hal Lewis from the APS. It seems like the perfect topic for KK’s little blog. I think what we have here is “head in the sand gate”.
Chek,
It’s nice to hit a word that works, I plead blind or at least glaucomic squirrel. But you have to be kidding me about ‘doesn’t begin to cover it’. Wegman actually cited the book which brought about the investigation!
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/as-copygate-turns/
OK, hang on, I’m now getting a better understanding of the problem. Apparently Wegman did not comply exactly and precisely with the MLA rules of citation. He does cite the work that he was quoting, but failed to individually cite specific instances. The specific violation seems to related to the following rule:
“Place the parenthetical reference as close as possible to the material being documented and where a pause would naturally occur, preferably at the end of a sentence”.
So I think the best name for the scandle would be — Wegmandidn’tcomplywiththeMLAcitationstyleguideandshouldhaveknownbettergate
I remember getting marked down for this very same thing in my Introduction to English Literature class. I think I lost 3 points. Very serious stuff.
Kim (October 9, 2010 at 11:10 am)
Very well put!
How about ‘SpeciousGate?’
Or perhaps ‘SpuriousGate?’
Both would seem to apply, what with the vain attempts by the warmists to muddy the truth every chance they get …
Yeah, right. Small error. Repeated in 35 pages. A whopping 40% of the total document.
Plagiarism is not so bad, every single (undergrad) does it so it becomes the rule.
It is Skeptigate for you.
REPLY: BTW, You might want to consider changing your handle. It is being confused with “DeSmog”, you know those paid political ranters over at the inconsequential DeSmog Blog? You might consider Desmon G or some other variation to delineate. – Anthony
Athlete, Re Harold Lewis’ resignation letter to the APS, I sent it to Andy Revkin of the NYTimes’ DotEarth blog essentially challenging him to launch a new thread around Lewis’ resignation and his rationale. I will post any response that I receive from Revkin.
1) I’m not “campaigning” or “pushing” anything. I actually think the gate suffix is ridiculously tacked on for every controversial story (e.g. “splattergate). I merely noted (wryly, I thought) that copygate didn’t have the same catch as skepticgate.
2) Based on your reading of my post (and my comments in the thread), who am I cavorting with? Seems like you have a pretty thin skin, like that other guy I tend to be critical of.
REPLY: Thanks for the note. The post content at CAS and demographics of your commenters speaks for itself. But more importantly, when will you be putting up a thread on the APS/Hal Lewis resignation? – Anthony
mpaul – that sounds about right .
This investigation might actually set a very valuable precedent. If this kind of nitpicking punctiliousness is to be the de facto standard for “climate science” a little retrospective application of that standard should send the vast majority of CS to the ash heap. Virtually the entire output of the IPCC would fail to meet the standard and, if Wegman’s failure to properly format his footnotes disqualifies his work, Mann’s continued abuse of the Tjilander proxy should certainly disqualify his own. Briffa’s exaggerated pruning of his tree ring data set, Jones’ “the dog ate my data”, Hansen’s hysterical boosterism, Schneider’s moral flexibility, etc. should all be more dispositive than a lack of proper punctuation of footnotes.
The warmistas will abuse their position as long as they hold it. They still are in control of the US and European governments and have a stranglehold on the executives of most of the world’s scientific societies.
Wegman is the latest of the scapegoats, but will not be the last.
Lesse – so far we have “copygate”, “skepticgate”, “facetiousgate”, “DesperationGate”, “ClutchingAtStrawsGate”, “OCDgate”, “Yeah-But Gate”, “head in the sand gate”, “Wegmandidn’tcomplywiththeMLAcitationstyleguideandshouldhaveknownbettergate”, “SpeciousGate”, and “SpuriousGate”. Like I commented on Lucia’s blog (where thay had several other suggestions), we’re gonna have ‘gate’-gate pretty soon at this rate.