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:
Sam , Lazy Teenager : Wegman cited the work he quoted/paraphrased in his bibliography . It was a report for a congressional committee , not an original paper for either publication or academic review . If you wish to delve further into this , please read the posts from WUWT that Anthony lists above , including the comments . If you’re really concerned about plagarism and generally sloppy work , please look into the EPA’s co2 endangerment finding – they lifted much of it from the IPCC .
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
Why???thought the piece was good. delinpole hit the nail on the head……
Put CRU in a bad light!is it possible to put them in a worse light than they already are
Just shows the state of british hacks/editors.too much vested interest’s with papers bankers and backers.
What happened to this “green and pleasant” land,and the british sense of right and justice??
I’m a paid up-up genuine Wegman whiner and I love it!
Wegman “downloaded all his e-mails to his laptop and they were deleted from the GMU server”.
If Phil Jones or Michael Mann had done that, you would have heard the screams of outrage all the way to the Petermann Glacier. FOIA request, anyone?
This one will run and run. Wegman’s statistical indiscretions (I suspect those of his assistants, with poor oversight from Professor Wegman, whose expertise I recognise) are being exposed. Is there going to be equal time for Wegman-gate as for the faux-scandal “Climategate”?
Doug in Seattle said:
Of course, but that is only useful if the complaint and its resolution aren’t public. Given that it’s in the media and being promoted by some as a smear against Wegman, I’m surprised a clarification hasn’t been forthcoming, either from Wegman himself or from the institution. One can only assume there’s something else going on here on top of the complaint.
Note that according to the institution’s own policy on these matters, they do all they can to help repair the reputation of the accused if it’s subsequently found he has no case to answer.
Too funny, do the alarmist idiots just realized what they did? They gave the upcoming GOP dominated congress a new excuse to launch a new investigation.
ROFLMAO!!!
sometimes re-runs are good too !!!
Mycroft;
What you take for granted will be taken.
“Is there going to be equal time for Wegman-gate as for the faux-scandal Climategate?”
Climategate, however, was and is a REAL scandal – much like the climate ruling class elites ripping off the U.S. tax payers for crappy research programs to the tune of billions in Climate Ca$h.
But enough of that …now…time to PARTY in Cancun!
Why do you expect AGW believers to actually do any work? If they did any work, they wouldn’t be AGW believers! All they can do is live fat and rich off taxpayers, make baseless and severe accusations to anybody who has the audacity to fact check, and dream up more ways to continue to cycle.
tim maguire says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm
“So far, wherever I’ve come across this, people seem to miss that is an academic scandal, not a scientific one. Whether it’s plagiarised is immaterial to the question of whether it’s accurate. Many people don’t seem to understand this.”
I am continually surprised at just how many do understand that! People are learning the truth regardless of the increasingly brazen and corrupt attempts to misinform by the legacy media/government. Let them try and make something out of Wegman. For the alarmists, all roads now lead to ruin.
Sam,
Since Bradley himself committed plagiarism (as you would see if you actually read the links posted in Anthony’s posting above) your logic would have it follow that Bradley’s complaints of plagiarism are “lacking credibility”.
This kind of logic is silly. Wegman will lack credibility for me if it is found that things he said were WRONG. The very fact that the report is being attacked in this sidewise manner is an indication of the soundness of the content of the material.
Anthony! Figured you might like this news from Russia….
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101122/ap_on_re_eu/eu_climate_siberian_meltdown
The odd thing about these Warmists, some of them here, is that they don’t seem to read the text upon which they comment. They also frequently are unable to discern the inherent contradictions in their pronouncements, or they would not utter such rot, or at least be more careful in commentary. They are like religious fanatics, with their monolithic belief system, impervious to reason, calmness, or common sense.
“Wegman “downloaded all his e-mails to his laptop and they were deleted from the GMU server”.”
At work, I run MS Outlook. Server side I have very limited space, so I regularly download my email to my laptop HD. This by default deletes the emails from the server side (a good thing too, because I would quickly run out of space). It really doesn’t matter anyways, every organization has backups which you could retrieve this type of information from if it came down to a subpoena.
If you’re trying to draw a parallel to what Jones did, you’re pretty much failing.
One is a case of doing something criminal per FOIA, saved only by the statute of limitations. The other is sloppy attribution and an academic foul.
from the Wegman Report
“This committee, composed of Edward J. Wegman (George Mason University), David W. Scott (Rice University), and Yasmin H. Said (The Johns Hopkins University), has reviewed the work of both articles, as well as a network of journal articles that are related either by authors or subject matter, and has come to several conclusions and recommendations.”
For the life of me, I can’t find where they didn’t paraphrase the content in the entire report. What portion, paragraph, or sentence did they “plagiarize”?
Stealing from one source is plagiarism. Stealing from many is research!
Why thank you! That is so sweet! And this post is exactly as satisfying as I knew it would be!
REPLY: Yeah, sure, whatever. Try using the search feature next time before making false claims. – Anthony
LazyTeenager says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:16 pm
“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.”
Maybe you should read about the Turing test. The validity of a conclusion does not depend on the internal state of the entity that produced it.
Or try a primer on logic first.
Please Sir, may I play a trolly-dolly here?
Some claim that the Wegman Report was flawed because he was not a graduate of the UEA school of Climatological Statistics.
Others offer up the Strawman that he had plagiarized required-reading texts after others, more eminently qualified than he, had done so but without claiming that he’d conducted original research.
I have a far more serious issue with the Wegman Report than any of this fluff:
Simply stated, He let his side down. In his hands he held decades of future state-funding for his profession. All he had to do was nod in the right direction. Should have been straightforward.
Sadly, however, he fumbled the catch. He committed the biggest crime possible against the “SCIENCE”: he told the truth.
What a travesty!
eadler says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I read that DC link – and all I can say is I wont be going there again in a hurry! LOL The ‘analysis’ of the wegman vs bradley wording is rather pathetic IMHO and seems to forget the purpose of the Wegman report.
I was going to deconstruct it, but on reading the comments, the last (curiously?) comment by – Lonny Eachus | February 18, 2010 at 1:33 am | – pretty much says it all!
As a geo-engineer who has to write both factual and interpretative reports, the difference is quite immense, but can also be quite subtle. The former is obviously a factual matter. Reporting that A+B=C for example. The latter is when a professional opinion is ‘added’ which could say, be along the lines of ‘It was found that A added to B gives a result C but that this may be influenced by factor D’. Factor D is considered significant and thus the result C is less reliable.
I put it to anyone trying to debase the Wegman report, that they have not understood the context in which it was prepared. The clue is also within the title ‘Ad hoc Committee Report…’ is it not?
Mashey and Deep Climate’s accusations are largely insubstantial, most certainly regarding plagiarism and failure to properly cite sources. Their style is most akin to the worst of conspiracy theories and for that reason alone it is difficult (if not near-impossible) to take them seriously.
Their criticisms of Wegman et al regarding its independent statistical analysis of the hockey stick, particularly with regard to their examination of R code in the selection of PC1, however, appears to carry some merit and needs to be properly rebutted. As far as I can see, this hasn’t yet happened, but it is essential that it does happen.
Given DeepClimate’s track-record of bizarre claims I fully anticipate that someone (Steve McIntyre, preferably) will deliver an appropriately obliterative refutation. Soon would be good.
John from CA says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:22 pm
Well said – thats exactly how I read it too!
“So for those too stupid or lazy to use the search feature of WUWT,…”……very nice spankage!
Tamsie says:
November 22, 2010 at 3:33 pm
Why thank you! That is so sweet! And this post is exactly as satisfying as I knew it would be!
=======================================================
Tamsie, I’m disappointed. Surely there’s something you can add to the conversation. This post should affirm that we’re (A, the mods and the readers) open to just about all topics of conversation. For instance, I’m willing to speak volumes about the validity of a plagiarism claim in a congressional report. Can one really plagiarize in a congressional report? It is my sincerest hope that our congress wouldn’t be denied information to make decisions regarding our day-to-day living because someone was worried about “copying off” someone else. It was information congress was seeking, not attribution.
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?
Whoever said this didn’t take the time to think things through.
@Simon
Forget about Steves response.
The RC disciples are driven by just one instinct.
He’s wrong, he’s lying, he’s a shill of Big- whatever.
Nothing that you will say will overcome that POV until they become receptive to that philosophy.
Don’t hold your breath, mate.
It may be some time yet!