He certainly understands John Mashey. Here are some examples of the debunking for this whole affair:
Wegman whiners: this post’s for you
Here’s the USA Today article
He certainly understands John Mashey. Here are some examples of the debunking for this whole affair:
Wegman whiners: this post’s for you
Here’s the USA Today article
“He certainly understands John Mashey. ”
I’m not sure anyone understands Mashey. However, Wegman is uniquely positioned to understand the flaws in Mashey’s report.
“these attacks are unprecedented in my 42 years as an academic and scholar.”
He means he’s never been caught before
The plagiarism charge, reported by USA Today, is not the worst part of the indictment of the Wegman report. It is the easiest to understand and report on, and I think that is why USA Today focuses on it.
The Wegman report is purported to be an independent analysis of MBH ’98, when in fact, a lot of it was simply copied from the McKintyre and McKittrick 2005 paper. In addition, its criticism of the non centered proxies used by MBH, which was simply an echo of M&M was incorrect.
Since then a lot of papers on climate reconstruction have been published in the peer reviewed literature and all are shaped like a hockey stick.
I wonder if Ray Bradley will make a statement? If I remember correctly, Bradley was found to have ‘borrowed’ a considerable portion of his ‘seminal’ textbook from a previous author.
Bradley’s original contribution was the removal of the string ‘carbon dioxide’ as a cause of increased tree growth. (Bradley wanted to emphasize the assumed link between CO2 and temperature, of course).
Wow, the skeptical community entirely dissected the bs plagiarism claim over a month ago and now the alarmists are bringing it up? Is their attention span as deficient as their critical thinking?
It makes you wonder why the experts USA Today consulted failed to notice the Bradlley text they falsely alleged had been plagiarized by Wegman had in fact been copied and/or paraphrased by Bradley from Fritts 1976 without citation, as reported by Steve McIntyre? It’s not like the fact was unknown to the general public through the blogosphere with a few seconds searcch with a search engine.
I love the answer to proof that a vital piece of Cliamte science is bunk is to point out the bits that you copied and not the actual sicence, brilliant, next they’ll be just making things up as they go along, oh wait that’s what the models are for.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/23/old-climate-models-do-a-bad-job-with-clouds-so-a-new-model-says-warming-must-be-worse/
Here come the trolls. By the way trolls, might be worth reading the book on the right called ‘The hockey Stick illusion’, although I will not hold my breath as it goes against the doctorine. Great book by the way.
You owe Mr. Wegman an apology. He did not plagiarize Wegman. If you think otherwise, you are going to have some very tall explaining to do on how it is possible for Wegman to plagiarize a work copied by Bradley without citation from Fritss 1976.
[snip – policy, invalid email address]
Gotto pay rights to copy 🙂
Wegman doesn’t appear to be favouring the “It’s a report what else do you expect???” defence I see repeated often here. It’s a shame there wasn’t room in the screengrab to include his actual defence
“Wegman said he and his report co-authors felt “some pressure” from a House committee to complete the report “faster than we might like.” But he denied that there was any attempt to tilt the influential climate report politically.”
This suggests that he accepts the plagiarism is real and is not acceptable and is saying it was done to complete the report on the required deadline.
It is useful though that the “Wegman whiners: this post’s for you” handily lists all the previous posts about the issue so we can compare the defence put forth here with Wegman’s.
eadler says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
Congress asked Wegman to reproduce M&M for purposes of validation. It is a dishonorable act for you to deliberately misrepresent this obvious fact in a bid to harm Mr. Wegman’s professional reputation with a false claim of plagiarism.
“He certainly understands John Mashey”. Well, that’s more than I do. This is confusing. Who is accusing whom of plagiarism? Plagiarism of what? Which one is the skeptic, Mashey or Wegman? If you post articles by illiterate journalists, they need an explanation to go with them. Better still, just post the explanation.
@D. Patterson
“It makes you wonder why the experts USA Today consulted failed to notice the Bradlley text they falsely alleged had been plagiarized by Wegman had in fact been copied and/or paraphrased by Bradley from Fritts 1976 without citation, as reported by Steve McIntyre? “
Probably because it’s simply not the case as can easily be seen by McIntyre’s excerpts e.g.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (left). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. (right): Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. These are termed sensitive (from Fritts, 1971).”
You may notice that “from Fritts 1971”. McIntyre’s argument is that 1976 might be a better reference. It’s enormously silly to try and pretend that because McIntyre thinks there’s a better reference that better reference is therefore “uncited” and therefore the work used in Bradley’s book is uncited. Even if you accept McIntyre’s arguments totally then the claims are cited just not cited optimally.
Just read that USA Today article:
just few points from this para alone….
-Bradley only objected via Masheys analysis? – so he never read the report himself or if he did he did not ‘instantly’ recognised plagiarism?
– Masheys analysis took a whole freekin year????
– copying without credit? – has anyone read the bibliography?
and finally, what about the USA Today ‘example’ in the link given – it’s pathetic! The WR is a summary report and by definition must use common language and terminology of previous publications. Moreover, in presenting the summary type view – it seems (to me) that Wegman et al are demonstrating that they have (necessarily) had to read and understand the basic premises in order to undertake their mathematical method analysis. I would take the view that the written description (which may well be re-written in a highly similar vein, but with more personal understanding ‘tweaks’) is correctly undertaken and in order to give the background information, cannot be done any other way! I mean, how else do you describe a tree ring, for example?
Honestly, I have never seen so much smoke being generated from such a tiny spark! And that can really be the only explanation – its a smokescreen!
Wrong, the Fair Use Doctrine for a report commissioned by Congress is privileged use of copyright material, even when Bradley copied the material from Fritts 1975 without citation and with uncited alterations to Fritts expression and idea of the work.
sharper00 says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:26 am
In other words, not even you understand what you are talking about…..
[snip – policy, invalid email address]
sure, that’s the reason (wink)
doesn’t go away just because you don’t want to see it.
[no, asdf.com is one of the catchphrases we watch for, famous troll “TCO” used asdf.com as a bogus email address ~mod]
sharper00 says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:21 am
No, it suggests he was under pressure to hurry, exactly as it states. YOU suggest otherwise, but nobody in here really cares what YOU suggest, other than perhaps eadler, because you obviously have an axe to grind. You can’t argue the facts (Wegman is correct) so you’d rather argue something immaterial as a distraction.
Mark
sharper00 says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:21 am
See http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-22-plagiarism_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip for the full story, such as it is.
We should review for our trollish friends.
Bradley’s name is mentioned in the report 35 times. Here are some of the examples of Wegman’s failure to “cite”, copied from the report….
Featured prominently in the IPCC report was the work of Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Raymond Bradley,……
Table 1 based on Bradley (1999) illustrates……
Table 2 found in Bradley (1999), which was reproduced from Bradley and Eddy
(1991) summarizes……
After Bradley and Eddy (1991)….
See Bradley (1999) for a discussion……
together with his colleagues Dr. Bradley and Dr. Hughes, continued…..
in previous studies by R.S. Bradley…….
Then in the section titled “BIBLIOGRAPHY Academic Papers and Books”, Bradley is referenced 13 times.
Yeh, he sure tried to pull a fast one there. If this is the best the alarmists can do in form of a rebuttal, the game’s over.
sharperoo: both can be accused of being sloppy in citing references. The difference is that Bradley was writing professionally and didn’t properly credit. (Presumably he was making money on Fritts’ efforts. ) Wegman was doing a public service. A very important public service, I might add.
Again, the content of Wegman’s report has never been successfully refuted. That’s all that matters here. You people can slime him all you want. It won’t change the content of the report.
eadler says:
November 23, 2010 at 11:09 am
I have briefly read Wegman, (I confess to skipping the detailed statistical bumpf as far too mind blowing for me!) but I have not noted anywhere in the report where it says that they specifically analysed Manns methods and code, etc. It would be appreciated if you could indicate where such analysis is present.
I did note in the Exec Summary, it specifically states that Mann never provided the full code or data so presumably such an independent analysis wasn’t possible and this seems to be generally mentioned elsewhere, in that they have deconstructed Manns work, along the lines of M&M and confirm M&M’s findings. Or have I got that wrong?
I suspect a majority of this silly gorilla poop viral PR is “funded” and this is a lame pre-play before the New Congress drags all the AGW lame asses into the “Chamber” for a Congressional Hearing.
This “Hearing” will be a sight to see!!!
They may even decide to “Tar and Feather” Al Gore. Nasty thought but I have to admit, I’d vote for that!
…as in most “Team” efforts, they shoot the messanger
if they can’t kill the message.
At least the folks in Cancun will have something other to
talk about instead of Republicans in the House and drug
lords in the countryside.