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.
further to steve mcintyre’s mention of being edited out of the Nature article, i commented on CA that i was still waiting for the New Statesman interview with big mac, given he was one of their 50 people who matter this year:
New Statesman: 50 People Who Matter 2010 | 32. Stephen McIntyre
932 comments from readers
http://www.newstatesman.com/global-issues/2010/09/climate-mcintyre-keeper
steve has responded below my comment:
“Steve: one of their writers was intrigued by the response and interviewed me at some length. I believe that he submitted an article, but I guess that it was rejected.”
http://climateaudit.org/2010/11/22/escape-from-jonestown/
shame on the the MSM.
…Anthony…I’m SO SORRY. I had NO IDEA you had to ‘field’ folks like ‘Tamsie’…
and now that I’ve stopped ‘life’ a moment to read today… I can only say that my respect
and admiration for your…your…(it’s not often that I’m at a loss for words, kiddo) your… STICKTUIT-NESS (and patience???) has been greatly elevated today… Hey…and you saved SO MUCH CO2 by making your little blue squiggle lines…wowie, zowie… a multi-faceted man…who woulddathunkit!!
I HAD to put that little ‘male pun’ in there ’cause I thought I distinctly heard ‘Tamsie’ sounding like a Valley Chickie in that last post of hers…or…perhaps she IS a guy who’s jus’ trying too hard to sound like a girl??? Off to other REAL conspiracies…like when the sheep will go to market today and how all this Alpaca wool is gettin’ stored…
Be blessed, Anthony. You’re certainly one to all of us.
C.L. Thorpe
Plagiarism is common climatology.
I’ve compiled a small collection of climatology plagiarism examples: http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com.
Every once in awhile I jump in and ask folks to try just a bit harder to communicate. Having read each of the “Wegman” posts and comments on WUWT and several elsewhere — as they were introduced — I too was astonished by the phrasing of Tamsie’s statement as shown in the box. Then, the comment at 3:33 pm is about like throwing a scoop of chocolate ice cream in the throat of a volcano. What’s the point?
Please, all regular commenters, lurkers, trolls, and children of all ages – add a bit of information to the discussion, point out something interesting, or say something funny.
Sometimes even the weather is interesting. The northern tier of USA States is about to get overrun with one very cold and massive flow in the next few hours. I’m told to expect -21Co (aka -6 Fo) by Tuesday night. Thanksgiving week is one of the most heavy traffic periods in the US. Look for all but the most bizarre stories – even Wegman — to get pushed off the airwaves in the next days by all the weather related issues. Even the folks in Cancun will be hard pressed to counter the cold.
Yes he foiled a robbery but he was double parked when he did it!
Somebody should do a thorough search of Bradley’s work. Betcha you’ll find he’s got dirty hands.
toby says:
November 22, 2010 at 2:16 pm
“…
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”?”
=======================================================
Well, I hate feeding trolls, but seeing how no other skeptics will step up to the plate, ……
Toby, do you understand the difference between an employee and a volunteer? Do you understand the difference between a report on studies and a study? Wegman et al gave a detailed report, upon request of congress. There wasn’t any data to be saved, because they used data collected by other people. The report stands alone. Regardless of whether you agree with the conclusions or not. It is simply a statement, using other peoples data and applying statistical norms to the data, and commenting upon other peoples use of statistics and data. Toby, it really isn’t that tricky. Understand the differences and then apply the appropriate standards. You don’t like the conclusions of the Wegman report, I get that. I don’t agree with many of the conclusions of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa…..etc. You probably get that, too. The contrasts, though, are very clear. Wegman, popped in, popped out. He was asked for his opinion by the law making institution of the U.S. He obliged them. Done. Finished. Over. Stands on its own. Now, contrast that to the above mentioned. Get back to me if you need more clarification.
Thanks,
James
The time and attention focused on whether Wegman did or didn’t plagiarize Bradley reminds me of a bank robber’s accomplice creating a distraction so the robber can get away with the loot.
The latest from Deep Climate shows that Wegman and co-authors never did the statitistical analysis that they claimed–rather they simply re-ran the analysis of MacIntyre without confirming it. It”s no wonder that Wegman earlier stated that he would not share the details of his research because he planed to publish it and now, after four years he simply does not want the work examined.
REPLY: Yeah, great reference, anonymous coward “deep climate” I’m sure its always better to take the word of an anonymous person with an agenda over one who publishes all the data and code to allow for testing and replication. /sarc
John F. H.;
good post, but for better readability, here’s how to make the ° symbol:
Hold down the Alt key and enter 248 on the numerical keypad. Or 0176 if you like.
And the ¢ sign is 155, and ½ is 171, and ¼ is 172, etc., etc.
🙂
CodeTech says:
November 22, 2010 at 12:42 pm
Except, not acknowledging that you are quoting is plagiarism. And close paraphrasing, as in several instances in Wegman, is also not a sign of intellectual honesty.
And we also have the stuffed bib. Something close to half of the bib cites aren’t mentioned in the report. OK to lost other references that were studied, but they go into a separate list.
And all of that is basic writing. Middle school library level instruction.
“used poor statistics”…
Seems like they could have used a more pointed word than “poor.”
Kramer
Man, this is the first time I’ve been to WUWT. My mind is overloaded with WRONG. There isn’t time in the remainder of history to respond to such nonsense.
What is an expert on plagiarism? Someone who has adjudicated dozens of cases of plagiarism; someone who has written policy on research misconduct; someone who has been cited by many media sources as a person who can comment as an authority on plagiarism. Why is this a question?
The problem with many people is that they don’t understand that Wegman has both committed plagiarism and falsified data. Changing the conclusions of other researchers and reporting that they concluded something other than what they did is falsification.
Seriously, try using Google to learn. Look up the NIH requirements on research misconduct policies. Check out the qualifications of the “experts” quoted by USA Today.
BTW, anyone here qualified to comment on Said, et al. (2008)? It was also plagiarized, and was published in the peer-reviewed literature, AND was funded by both the NIH and DOD. Hello? Anyone there? How many complaints have been made to ORI? Do you know what ORI is?
On another note, GMU has stated specifically that they did not begin the investigation process on the March allegation until September. Federal law requires otherwise. Why the delay? Why did they only respond when Bradley’s publisher inquired? It isn’t because they found Wegman innocent; they actually found that the charges of research misconduct have substance and needed to be more fully investigated. Have you read Strauch’s letter? FFS, people, pay attention.
If Wegman used GMU servers to read his email, it is public. Period. GMU is a public institution, and is subject to FOI requests. If Wegman deletes emails relevant to the investigation, he is violating federal law. Anyone here with a law degree want to comment?
I’m out of time. Seriously, please pay attention.
BillD says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:09 pm
The latest from Deep Climate shows that Wegman and co-authors never did the statitistical analysis that they claimed–rather they simply re-ran the analysis of MacIntyre without confirming it. It”s no wonder that Wegman earlier stated that he would not share the details of his research because he planed to publish it and now, after four years he simply does not want the work examined.
======================================================
Really? This should be very easy to discern. Are there any differences of M&M(any version) with Wegman’s statistical analysis? Why don’t you go and compare CA’s postings with Wegman’s report? Or check the analysis Steve Mc. gave of the Wegman report. I’d provide the links, but as Anthony said, “So for those too stupid or lazy….”
LazyTeenager says:
November 22, 2010 at 1:16 pm
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.
===================================
An important issue…. really?
I wasn’t aware he was asked to be an expert climate scientist – “internalize knowledge of climate science” or that it was a prerequisite to reporting on the validity of the statistics used by climate scientists. Why do you say this or are you just making it up as you go along.
Yeah. I agree, ‘poor’ is soooooo ‘yesterday’. They shouldda used a ‘today’ word ~ like, say…: BANKRUPT.
C.L. Thorpe
Anthony,
“Yeah, great reference, anonymous coward “deep climate” ”
The ID of Deepclimate seems to be known at least by Ross McKitrick. Yet everyone is kind of skirting around who this guy is.
It looks like these guys are desperate to make a mountain out of a molehill!
Wow. Glad I came back to read more comments. Sam. CHILL OUT! (while weather-wise, in the USA…it looks as if, soon, you’ll have pretty much, No Choice…)
They GET IT. WE ‘GET IT’!
Sam! It sounds as if these socialist greenies have really
gotten under your skin! (Yuck. Just ‘saw’ that word picture.)
Regardless, Man ~ while I’ve been known to take issues as ‘sternly’ as you just did, at times……. I’m going to heartily recommend you take a long, hot bath (put in a new rainwater tank, just so I wouldn’t feel like I was wasting water, either! smiles)
and TRY NOT TO LECTURE FOLKS WHO’VE BEEN STANDING IN THE FOREFRONT OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE. Yeah ~ I know, I know… we’re not ALL
Scientists…but, I am a ‘scientist’ as I study and reflect upon Creation by OBSERVING ~ and in Watts Up’s case, I OBSERVE SMART GUYS AND GALS UNCOVERING TRUTH in their own uniquely qualified manners, P.S.!
If you want to ‘blog and run’ ~ so be it. But, I suggest you re-read your last comment critically. You sound like you’re ready to pull a distinctly elitist krakatowa, Friend.
Mebbe 90 miles of pristine beach under the Coorong would do you some good…
C.L. Thorpe (singin’ in 35+C warmth for the first time in MONTHS)
…an’ we ALL KNOW ‘experts’ are just extinct volcanoes.
Gentlemen
Having read the USA Today article, I’m having a hard time taking the plagiarism charge seriously. Oddly the USA Today article shifts the charge of “plagiarism” to one of “paraphrasing”. Let’s look at the example text provided — with the alleged “paraphrasing” bolded.
Text from the Bradely Report:
“These are seasonal growth increments produced by meristematic tissues in the tree’s cambium. When view in detail (Fig. 10.1), it is clear that they are made up of sequences of large, thin-walled cells (earlywood) and more densely packed, thick-walled cells (latewood). Collectively, each couplet of earlywood and latewood comprises an annual growth increment, more commonly called a tree ring.“
Text from Wegman Report:
“These bands are the so-called tree rings and are due to seasonal effects.”
My conclusion — Wegman’s the better writer.
Regards, Kforestcat
P.S. Anthony I do admire your patience.
Sam says:
November 22, 2010 at 6:53 pm
“Man, this is the first time I’ve been to WUWT. My mind is overloaded with WRONG.”
Well, in that case, you’re forgiven. Typically, when issuing a statement that isn’t given to “common knowledge”, it’s acceptable to give links.
As to the “plagiarism” claim, that doesn’t address the validity to the report. So, to me, its a non-starter. Feel free to state your reasoning as to why it addresses the validity.
As to the assertion Wegman et al falsified data, I find that incredulous in that they didn’t present any original data. They used others. If they misrepresented the data, please show where and how they did such a thing.
As far as SAID, please try and stay pertinent to the thread.
As to the GMU issue, please show where he did.
Remember, this was a response to a congressional request. This was not a study, nor an academic endeavor. It was simply a report to Congress.
Seriously, I’ve just a little more time. Any rational response would be welcomed.
James S;
Good post! The good thing about this nonsensical tempest in a teapot is that many more people are aware of Wegman’s conclusions than would otherwise have been the case.
But I gotta say — only people can be incredulous, not statements. The statements that incredulous people object to are the ones they find incredible (= not credible). YCLIU
🙂
Brian H says: at 6:23 pm
Brian,
Thanks. Okay, if I have to: C°
http://www.ascii-code.com/
But it takes me back a lot of years.
“Remember, this was a response to a congressional request. This was not a study, nor an academic endeavor. It was simply a report to Congress.”
I’m glad to know there are so few restrictions on what a congressional report may contain.
Some definite overtime work here.
Anthony writes: “REPLY: Yeah, great reference, anonymous coward “deep climate” I’m sure its always better to take the word of an anonymous person with an agenda over one who publishes all the data and code to allow for testing and replication. ”
Sorry Anthony, but I disagree. This is a poor excuse – if peer-review was conducted anonymously, the quality of a paper would be judged only by its relative merits, not who the lead author is. Your game of calling out anonymous bloggers and posters as being cowards misses the mark – Deep Climate and John Mashey have demonstrated that:
(1) large sections of the Wegman report were plagiarized, and that
(2) Wegman’s “independent verification” consisted of re-running McIntrye and McKitricks R code from their 2005 GRL paper – code which cherry-picked the randomly generated principal components for those that showed the greatest hockey-stick shape. If you look at nothing else, look at these figures:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/wegman-fig-4-4.jpg
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wegman-4-4-reproduction.jpg
The PC1 curves generated from the MM05 code and those found in WR are IDENTICAL. That shouldn’t happen if you are doing an “independent” and “expert” analysis.
Sam,
So you are OK with asking the UEA to force the climategate folks to cough up all of their e-mails then? No more, ‘they thought they were private’ and such?
As to your assertion of plagiarism, a lot of people I trust a lot more than you have looked at it and found the charges to be bogus and cynical and without merit.
But thanks for playing.