Guest Post by Steven Mosher
Not the funniest Monty Python sketch, but for me it illustrates what the climate wars have finally come down to: blackmail. The examples range from the benign–pressuring journalists not listen to skeptics– to the professional– pressuring colleagues to avoid working with skeptics, to the petty–Ammann refusing to do a paper with McIntyre because it would be bad for his career– to the bizarre, blowing up people who refuse to sign a pledge to cut their carbon emissions.
Aptly titled, “no pressure”, this video depicts the common fantasy people have about those with whom they disagree. “Why can’t we just blow them up? “ When reasoned words don’t work, there is an ineluctable progression through the following stages—naming calling, caricature, demonizing, dehumanizing, through fantasy attacks which culminate in action. Doing something about it. Showing them you mean business.
Wegman is the perfect target. Perfect because he is not central to the skeptical position. Perfect because he’s just doing a job. Perfect because it will send a message. Shooting the messenger always does.
And the message it sends is that they will come after you with every sort of pressure if you refuse to comply. To be sure there are weak forms of pressure from the skeptic side: the recent legal action taken against Mann is a useful example. For the most part, however, the skeptics have no power, and so they are left using the meager legal tools they have: the FOIA and the subpoena.
Skeptics cannot impanel committees to whitewash and they cannot go on witchhunts. This is most clear in the case of the NCDC misappropriating the work of Anthony Watts. As Watts details here when his work was misappropriated he really had no recourse except to write a strong letter. To their credit NCDC remedied the matter by fixing the attribution, something Wegman could do by climate science corollary.
What if Watts, however, had taken legal action against NCDC and had offered to withdraw that action if the NCDC retracted its work. Blackmailing the science because of a mistake made in the preparation of a document. What would be next, asking that papers be withdrawn because of grammatical infelicities, or typos?
And so Bradley now walks in Anthony’s shoes. How well does he fit them? Did he write to Wegman and ask for proper attribution? Or did he follow in the 10:10 path and try to blow Wegman up ?
In a comment at CA Donald Rapp tells us
“The issue is not whether Wegman committed plagiarism as a technicality, but rather, who cares? Obviously, Wegman had nothing whatever to gain from using words written by Bradley in reviewing Bradley’s work. Lost in all this is the question of whether Wegman was right – and I believe that he was. If Wegman was right, then the various hockey sticks prepared by Mann, Bradley and Hughes, Esper Cook and Schweingruber, Mann and Jones, and Mann et al. are all bogus. While dozens of people continue to file their comments on whether it was plagiarism or it was not, that is akin to fiddling while Rome burns. Meanwhile, the hockey stick continues to spread through our schools and textbooks like a plague, while Bradley desperately tries to protect his turf from the truth by discrediting Wegman personally. Proof of this is that Bradley has offered to stop his prosecution (persecution?) of Wegman if Wegman will remove his report from the Congressional Register. It is like a burning of the books. Farenheit 451 all over again.”
Steve McIntyre quotes from Bradely’s mail.
“I filed a complaint with George Mason University (where Wegman is a Professor) & they have set up a committee to investigate my complaint. I[A] recent letter from their Vice-Chancellor indicates that they expect the committee to report their findings by the end of September.
That’s the long & short of it. I have told the University that I am prepared to drop this matter if Wegman makes a request to have his report withdrawn from the Congressional Record. No response on that.
Thanks
Ray [Bradley]“
Maybe Bradley had a different game show in mind.
Jim-“I’m not a criminal lawyer” Edwards frames the issue nicely
“That would be amazing because, if so, it may be evidence of an honest-to-goodness crime [not the imagined crimes AGW-debaters are constantly crowing about].
It looks like Bradley is threatening to ruin Wegman’s career unless he alters his prior Congressional testimony.
That smacks of post-facto extortion or witness tampering. [both potential felonies]
I don’t practice criminal law, but it does not look good to me.”
Or we can be charitable and suggest that Bradley is a Burro for even contemplating bringing this pressure to bear on Wegman. Finally, Wegman’s University is in Virginia, my sense is that Cuccinelli might take notice of it, were it brought to his attention.
Can I help Wegman write that letter? Please? Can i, can i, huh, can i? Here is first draft:
Dear Members of Congress,
As you may recall I some time ago provided a report to you in regard to the now famous “hockey stick” report on climate by Mann and his team. I write this letter now to advise that I neglected to provide proper attribution in regard to a commonly in use definition. A certain member of Mann’s team by name of Bradley, has initiated legal action against me, which he has advised he will drop, provided that I request that my report to you be withdrawn.
I respectfully request, in light of this situation, that this letter be accepted by Congress to that end, and that the original commission be reconvened. This will allow me to add the attribution in regard to the definition that appears to be so aggregious, though I must advise that it being in common, use determining the original writer may prove challenging. I feel up to that challenge, as are, I believe, the remaining members of the commission. By reconvening the commission at this time, we will also be able to correct other ommissions and elaborate on other matters that have come to light since then. I will leave the matter of Bradley’s attempt to blackmail both me an you on this matter in your hands. I am more interested in turning my attention to matters related to the “hockey stick” which should be added to the original report including, amongst other charges, massive amounts of plagiarism, verbatim quoted text with key words such as CO2 redacted in order to appreciably alter accuracy and perception, continued research founded upon selective use of data, inverted data, discredited data…….
….. and so I apologize for the length of this letter but it really did require 28 pages to list all the matters of scientific malfeasance that require proper analysis and documentation in addition to all the original criticisms found in my original report which remain unaltered regardless.
Lastly, while I stated early in this letter that I was requesting my original report being withdrawn, I trust you understand that this communication meets the letter of the law in regard to that request, but I have no problem in admitting that it does not meet the spirit of the request, and I have no personal issue with Congress retaining the report. By writing this letter I have accepted Bradley’s agreement to discontinue legal action, there is no need to actually withdraw the report. Indeed, my comment earlier in regard to the matter of blackmail may in fact prevent you from even considering such an action, but that is just an observation on my part. Of more importance is that you reconvene my commission so that we can continue the original work and extend it into the darkest recesses of the team’s labs and shine a light on the balance of their work which appears to have been…. worse than I thought.
If Wegman gets the same kind of investigation as Michael Mann and Phil Jones did, he has nothing to fear.
Good article Steven.
Here’s another…
http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6392618/thank-heavens-for-bob-carter.thtml
davidmhoffer says:
October 21, 2010 at 10:41 pm
David, in your second draft of a letter for Professor Wegman, please switch the
“legal action to “an academic administrative action in the third
sentence in the second paragraph.
As some have noted above, a “legal action” for plagiarism would fail due to the
principal of “latches … waiting too long to file an effective action due to
time limits having passed. Unless George Mason University’s complaint
procedure has time limits, the Bradley complaint and subsequent investigation
keeps on ticking.
Meanwhile, Bradley, Mann, Hadley, and the CRU cheerleaders will happily
tack on “currently under academic investigation” when referring to Wegman,
the Wegman Report, and especially the opening of McShane and Wyner, 2010.
Since there’s no Attorney General to smear with political epithets, and no
publisher to brow beat or ostracize, this is one of the few openings left for
the “Team” to attack the M&M (2003, 2005) Wegman 2006, the National
Research Council (NRC, 2006) and McShane & Wyner, 2010.
As crabs scuttle at you sideways, so too does the Team in their approaches
to silence their critics. This instance seems to be a refinement of the tactics
exposed in the Climategate e-mails.
Gobsmacked by Bradley’s hubris.
I posted this at CA
The report was issued four years ago and presumably Professor Bradley was provided with a copy.
It would have been remiss for him not to have read the report at the time.
One can only conclude therefore that he was content with the report in its composition if not in its findings.
As my earlier post (at CA), why now?
I now add to this, Whilst his attempt to get the report withdrawn is absolutely pathetic. Then is it arrogance because he sees he has no legacy and if the report is withdrawn then somehow his reputation will be restored. I think the Team are a busted flush.
Questioner: Well Ray how do you feel about this.
Ray: I feel hurt and humiliated that someone should use my work without proper referencing.
Questioner: Well Ray I thought there was in excess of ten references to you and if you take the use of MBH then that’s a lot more.
But I understand your pain when did you feel the pain Ray.
Ray: I felt the pain of all this yesterday.
Questioner: Ray when did you read the report.
Ray: Oh about 2006.
Questioner: What a strong person you are Ray.
I say chaps, we could start up a brand new phrase to illustrate the mentality of the warmists. It could go something like this……”Lower your shields & prepare to be assimilated, Resistance is Futile!” Do you think it might catch on, anybody?
First they tried to hide the decline, now they try to remove the evidence.
Bradley is just jealous that Mann gets all the attention.
A friend once gave me valuable advice which i have never forgotten. He said “never be seduced by your own advertising” Unfortunately for mr Bradley, he never met my friend.
Silly Wabbit
Great post… on a day of great posts… the week is ending on a real high note…
Unless, of course, you are one of the climate faithful… in which case you are no doubt feeling a distinct chill in the air 🙂
Dr Wegman should send David Hoffer’s letter. The reply would inform him that this is the 111th Congress, a different Congress than the 109th, to which Prof Wegman reported.
At least one member of the 109th Congress has since died in office. No doubt the Democratic majority could use its extensive experience and dig her up for approval of Wegman’s request.
Mining AGW promotional material for unattributed references and wholesale cut-n-pastes is called for.
My bet is a search find massive examples of both.
Ammann, not Annann.
[fixed, thanks ~mod]
As usual you are missing the obvious
1. Elsevier believes that its copyright has been damaged and has complained to GMU
###
really, the publisher who knows that there is a 3 year time limit engages in a frivolous claim on their own. I suppose of course in a criminal investigation one will get to subpoena the publishers mails. Do you think there might be a mail from Bradley to his publishers requesting that they take action? do you think that mail might be in the stack?
Oh Really? Maybe you should take a look at this little thing called “Fair Use” when dealing with copyright law:
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.,
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
There is only one thing to do when attacked like this, counterattack. Problem, what to counterattack with? “That smacks of post-facto extortion or witness tampering. [both potential felonies]”. You now have bullets in your gun, aim and fire. The AGW crowd has been getting away with criminal behavior for too long (such as abridging freedom of speech by censoring oppsing views, a violation of the highest law of the land, the US constitution), it’s time to jerk their chain and put them on notice that this will no longer be tolerated.
Be ruthless, make an example.
Any readers live in Texas, perhaps in Joe Barton’s district? Since the Republicans will very likely control congress in a couple of months, and Barton will likely be restored to power, he may be very interested in talking to Bradley about
late hitswaitpost mortemhow about TARDY tampering with his committee’s earlier investigation.Could the appropriate Texan please send him a polite note?
I’m beginning to think more and more that the “scientists” on realclimate.org are more like the mafia than scientists or directly linked to it. Their tactics certainly are no less demeaning than the images we see in The Godfather when business owners are threatened to pay money for their ‘protection’ or else pay the consequences.