Gotta love what’s in the yellow highlight.
Since that story was printed in USA Today about the Wegman issues, I’ve been getting an influx of anonymous whiner trolls that are saying things like this:
| Tamsie |
Submitted on 2010/11/22 at 11:29 am
speaking of obvious, it’s becoming glaringly obvious that WUWT (and most other contrarian sites) are avaoiding the Wegman scandal. I wonder why that is? |
Heh, what’s obvious is that you haven’t done your homework. We’ve had several posts well in advance (starting October 8th, 2010) of the current hubub being stirred up by the USA Today article, which was late to the party by about a month. But, they don’t seem to have the in depth coverage we do.
So for those too stupid or lazy to use the search feature of WUWT, here is our collection of Wegman coverage in chronological order, they are indeed enlightening and far more in-depth than the USA today article:
On Wegman – Who will guard the guards themselves?
Wordsmithing
Mashey Potatoes, Part 1
Dipping Into The Sour Mash, Part 2
Manic Flail: Epic Fail
How to solve attribution conflicts in climate science
Bradley Copies Fritts
Because Nothing Ever Happens In November…
On Bradley: Blackmail or Let’s Make a Deal
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Amusingly, some of the sources that Wegman supposedly neglected to cite use undocumented quotations from earlier generic texts, etc. (aka “plagiarism”?!?). So we’re dealing with uncited quotes of uncited quotes!
“… all the way down.”
A few hours left for “Cancun’s Gate”…buy more popcorn!
Excellent post Anthony. Alarmist trolls like them are too cowardly.
are avaoiding(sic) the Wegman scandal. I wonder why that is?
For the same reason most people don’t kick puppies?
So, to paraphrase, the Wegman Report was, well, a Report, not an original work.
Reports often quote other material. Original works are supposed to be, you know, original.
But hey, whatever helps people live in their little worlds of denial…
(psst, how’s that whole warming/sea level rise/arctic ice melting/ocean acidification thing working out? Have we reached a tipping point yet? Who do we tip? al-Gore or our waiter?)
So far, wherever I’ve come across this, people seem to miss that is an academic scandal, not a scientific one. Whether it’s plagiarized is immaterial to the question of whether it’s accurate. Many people don’t seem to understand this.
So for those too stupid or lazy to use the search feature of WUWT, here is our collection of Wegman coverage in chronological order, they are indeed enlightening and far more in-depth than the USA today article:
As a representative of the Lazy, I would like to formally thank you for amassing these articles together for me. Now, when I get around to it, I will perhaps read them. But more likely, I will make a comment about them without doing more than a skim.
How can you plagarize from Wikipedia? I remember in high school being told NOT to use encyclopedias as sources. Wikipedia would be even worse, being manipulated day to day by proponents of their versions of history, science, philosophy etc.
UPI plagiarizes USA Today about Seminal Report Debunking Global Warming Statistics:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/11/upi-plagiarizes-usa-today-about-seminal.html
I’m sure Tamsie is a sweet little troll – shame she (?) doesnt turn to stone when the sun comes up! LOL
but seriously – what a load of tosh! The words mountains and molehills spring to mind! what a bunch of ****’s.
Still, you’ve gotta admit that its a great way to prove AGW theory! LOL
[Now, now. No trolling comments. We all know that in the Diskworld universe, trolls have silicon brains and exhibit exceptional intelligence – but only once their brains have cooled down. 8<) Robt]
Bradley filed a claim and George Mason University convened an inquiry. The inquiry was supposed to have reported by September. Either they have not reported or they reported the claim was bogus. If they had reported that they found the claim to be true, we would have heard something about it by now.
I think the reason we first heard about this in October is because GMU had reached a decision and it did not support Bradley’s claim. Bradley would have been in breach of his confidentiality agreement if he had spoken out before the inquiry was completed (most Universities follow such a procedure in these cases). Since he spoke with USA Today for the October 8, 2010 atricle and was not sued by GMU, I can only assume the report was in and it did not support his claim, otherwise he would have surely trumpeted his success for all to hear.
The fact that the story died as quickly as it did likely means that the press also knows the inquiry ruled against Bradley’s claim. If this is the case then the media is contributing to an injustice and should be liable for any damage Dr. Wegamn may have suffered to his good name.
Dealt with on CA by Steve himself. Enjoyed very much the RC trolls trying to ice skate up hill.
in 2006 Dan Vergano received an award for his 13 June 2005 article, entitled “The Debate’s Over: The Globe is Warming”. in his response at the following link, he talks of attempts to silence scientists:
2006: American Geophysical Union: Dan Vergano Receives David Perlman Award
http://www.agu.org/about/honors/union/perlman/vergano_dan.shtml
SteveMcIntyre today:
22 Nov: Climate Audit: Escape from Jonestown
I planned to write a one-year anniversary piece on Climategate, but have found it difficult to capture the right tone. I had thought about events and had spent a fair bit of time answering questions for David Adam of Nature, none of which were reflected in Adam’s recent panegyric to Phil Jones. (Adam said today that he had used some of my answers in his article but they had been deleted by Nature editors.)…
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/
meanwhile, Dan’s been gushing over linking “rock stars” with scientists, and getting plenty of followup:
18 Nov: Discover Mag: Chris Mooney: Link Dump for the Rock Stars of Science campaign
It kicked off with a piece by Dan Vergano in USA Today, in which Vergano quoted the campaign’s leading rocker Debby Harry of “Blondie”: “All these people are doing great things. We have to get the word out.”
Well, it has gotten out: …
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/11/18/link-dump-for-the-rock-stars-of-science-campaign/
17 Nov: Science Blog: Jamers Hrynyshyn: Where are the rock stars of climatology?
There’s an advertising feature in the latest GQ that champions 17 “Rock Stars of Science.” Each ad includes a genuine rock music star alongside three or four genuine scientists, some Nobel laureates among them. The idea is to make science sexy..
So far, though, the researchers are mostly taken from the life sciences (plus one astronaut). What would happen if, say, we tried to do the same with climatologists? I’m thinking James Hansen (already kind of a rock star, with his penchant for getting arrested in front of coal-fired power plants), Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt, Phil Jones?
Would this kind of slick public outreach only further alienate those who, thanks to slanderous propaganda campaigns, are already skeptical of the entire field’s integrity, or would it engender more respect? Is it too late to salvage climatology’s reputation among the far right, or should we even worry about that? …
The Rock Stars of Science are to be congratulated for daring to be different. Here’s a list of them…
http://scienceblogs.com/classm/2010/11/where_are_the_rock_stars_of_cl.php?utm_source=networkbanner&utm_medium=link
guess the debate is not over!
The Wegman Report was purported to analyze/review scientific research. Thus, it must be a work of scholarship/research. Credibility is lacking when the analyst accuses the subject of misconduct when the analyst is committing misconduct him/herself. On the other hand, who would know crime better than a criminal?
There is also the matter of Said, et al. (2008). Comments?
There is more to the objections to Wegman’s report than copying stuff from other publications without attribution, i.e. plagarism. It is worse than that, because Wegman’s report claimed, altered the text that they copied from Bradley, to indicate that tree rings cannot be used as an independent proxy. This is the opposite of what Bradley says in his book. Wegman’s report doesn’t mention this difference at all.
http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/22/wegman-and-rapp-on-tree-rings-a-divergence-problem-part-1/
What I understand is that the report claimed to validate McKintyre’s criticism of the methodology of the statistical analysis underlying the hockey stick, when in fact, it merely copied exactly what McKittrick did instead of doing an independent evaluation.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/#more-2745
That is a more serious charge than the objection that the authors simply copied background material without attribution.
Hopefully, George Mason U’s investigation will determine the ethics and correctness underlying the Wegman Report.
tim maguire says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm
Whether it’s plagiarized is immaterial to the question of whether it’s accurate. Many people don’t seem to understand this.
———–
I disagree.
Plagarism would not prove that the conclusions of the report are false.
BUT
It does raise questions about the diligence of the people who prepared the report. If they were lazy about the writing what more important things were they lazy about?
An important issue is that Wegman represented himself as having sufficient analytical expertise to pass judgement on a climate science paper. This means he has to understand the knowledge domain of climate science. The plagiarism is a strong indication that he had not internalized knowledge of climate science and therefore his conclusions are likely to be superficial and therefore possibly in error.
When do the comedy reruns go into syndictation?
By now there ought to be stock answers for every troll.
Haha. What’s a plagiarism expert?
So, why haven’t they made a statement, given the obvious public interest?
CRU Orders Removal of Climate Realist Article From the Express Newspaper.
http://ourmaninsichuan.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/cru-orders-removal-of-climate-realist-article-from-the-express/
Pointman
Robinson says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:28 pm
The fact that the story died as quickly as it did likely means that the press also knows the inquiry ruled against Bradley’s claim.
So, why haven’t they made a statement, given the obvious public interest?
They report to the parties – Wegman and Bradley – not the media.
Mean people who just want their voice to be heard hit the “End” key on their keyboard immediately after clicking on the headline. The “Means” justify the”Ends” , dontchaknow. Or is it the other way round? 🙂
Pointman, Your link no longer has the original article.
I sure hope this post is open to whining about Wegman whiners too.
While the WordPress search mechanism could (and should!) be whined about, it never ceases to amaze how many times I can just enter a keyword and come up with several earlier posts to list to someone not skilled in the art of entering a keyword in a web form.
Like it doesn’t even have to be a clever keyword. Why, just now I entered Wegman and Lo and Behold, a list that included the the posts Anthony mentioned. Zaphod Beeblebrox couldn’t have done better!
Hmph. No posts on Beeblebrox, one on Tamsie. Proof that the universe just isn’t fair.
Reading Lazy Teenager’s comment gave me a good laugh! May, could have, should be, might possibly. Very solid terminology there. Reminds me of climatologists. Similar to astrologists and reflexologists. (No insult to astrologists and reflexologists!)
What the trolls cant stand is that no-one buys their bs any more. We have seen the man behind the curtain, and he wasn’t just naked.