Post updated below – see my own experience with plagiarism by NOAA and how it was solved easily – Anthony
I get word that USA Today reports that the caterwaulings of the anonymous Canadian named Deep Climate and his accusations of plagiarism made against Dr. Edward Wegman in the Wegman report to Congress, which later became the paper Said et al, (published in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis) has succeeded.
The paper, which revealed some questionable behavior by climate scientists has been yanked by the journal’s legal team after it went through a private 3 person review. Here’s what USA Today says:
The journal publisher’s legal team “has decided to retract the study,” said CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California, following complaints of plagiarism. A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The journal study, co-authored by Wegman student Yasmin Said, detailed part of the congressional report’s analysis.
Wegman’s attorney told USA Today:
“Neither Dr. Wegman nor Dr. Said has ever engaged in plagiarism,” says their attorney, Milton Johns, by e-mail. In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman blamed a student who “had basically copied and pasted” from others’ work into the 2006 congressional report, and said the text was lifted without acknowledgment and used in the journal study. “We would never knowingly publish plagiarized material” wrote Wegman, a former CSDA journal editor.
Well, congratulations to Deep Climate for being able to attack a man in another country without having having to put your name behind it. Such courage. You must be proud.
So, no problem from my view. I expect the report will be rewritten, with citations where needed, maybe even adding extra dictionary definitions of words and their origins to satisfy the imagined slights against our lexiconic ancestors envisioned by DC and Mashey man, and they’ll resubmit it with the very same conclusions. That’s what I would do.
UPDATE: Some folks have erroneously come to the conclusion that I’m siding with the idea that plagiarism is OK . Let me be clear, that’s not true at all. My issue is how this whole affair was conducted. I had my own issue with plagiarism in the case of NOAA/NCDC which I dealt with in an easy, simple way. Here’s the issue:
More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson
Menne solved the attribution issue at my request…and here’s the solution and path forward I offered, with a hint to DC, Mashey, et al to take it.
How to solve attribution conflicts in climate science
I wrote then:
So, apology made, attribution added, document updated, and the problem was solved. Simple, I’m satisfied. Of course I could have been a jerk about it and demanded all sorts actions via formal complaints, copyright claims, etc. But I didn’t. It simply didn’t rise to that level.
It would have been easy for DC and Mashey to follow that example, instead they chose the “dark side” and demanded that pound of flesh along with a national newspaper writer acting as an accessory for public flogging. It’s ugly the way it was handled. Again, the best way forward, now that they have their pound of flesh, is for Said et al to make the appropriate edits and citations were needed, and resubmit the paper. – Anthony
Scott says:
May 18, 2011 at 9:53 am
Rob says:
May 18, 2011 at 2:46 am
Kind request : can you mention ONE paper that is shown by the Climategate e-mails to be a much larger violation of the peer-review process (and probably a larger ethical violation too) ?
So you’ve switched your claims to only be specific to peer review regarding papers instead of other peer-reviewed items such as the IPCC? Why would you do that? Would it be to avoid having to address this:
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=419&s=tag116
You are aware that didn’t happen?
So maybe you’re right…can’t name a paper off the top of my head that’s shown in the Climategate e-mails to be a peer review and ethics violation. Of course, that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about the IPCC AR4 itself, but somehow you decided to make it an argument about papers only. Is the IPCC not peer reviewed? Considering that the IPCC is intended to guide policy, it clearly answers how this is a bigger ethical violation…done for the intention to sway policy on a worldwide basis.
Are not Congressional hearings intended to ‘sway policy’? Wouldn’t you consider presenting plagiarized material, produced by a student in an area you have no expertise in, to such a hearing an ethical violation?
For instance, I suggest you look at what this guy has produced in detail:
http://www.engr.colostate.edu/faculty-staff/profiles.php?id=112
Several of his papers were essentially copy/paste from others, and at this point, no one knows what’s real and what’s not. He finally got outed by one of this senior grad students last year when the student questioned some of the data in a plot because he knew it wasn’t generated in the lab (and wasn’t in the original submission but was requested by a reviewer). The prof claimed he had it sourced it to an outside company. The student followed up on it by calculating how long some of the data would take to collect…over a year! Once the student reported the made up data, the professor disappeared…literally overnight. I believe he may not even be in the country now.
Looks like he’s here:
http://primetprecision.com/primet-forms-battery-research-team/
So how is some missed citations in a single paper worse than the fraud perpetuated by this guy?
Well the evidence is that Wegman is a serial plagiarist and that his supervision of his students was lax and such behavior permeated his group. I have seen undergraduates suspended for a year for far less than this.
Joel Shore asks: “Can you describe for us EXACTLY what he hasn’t released in this regard?”
Shore I can: Mann won’t release his code, for one thing. Or his metadata, even though they were paid for by the public. See, it’s what he doesn’t want people to see that matters. Thirteen years of stonewalling and counting…
When Steve McIntyre states that he’s satisfied that Michael Mann has provided full and complete disclosure per the scientific method, that will be good enough for me.
Until then, I consider Mann to be a self-serving, devious charlatan who takes payola disguised as “malaria” studies, and who crows about being “exonerated” when no such thing ever happened. IMHO Mann is an Elmer Gantry with none of Gantry’s redeeming features, and I really wonder about anyone who defends someone so lacking in professional ethics.
Go, Cuccinelli!
Phil. says:
May 18, 2011 at 11:31 am
I wasn’t aware that the e-mail was a fake. Is that e-mail fake and not the others? When was that found out? Now, if you’re refering to their success or not, does it matter if they were successful? Anyway, with some help (thanks James) and reading, I did find in the Climategate e-mails where there is evidence of direct tampering of a journal’s peer-review process (as asked earlier by Rob). The answer comes in the Kamel paper, which was looking at temp trends in Siberia. This is likely one of the papers that Jones “went to town” on. I do suppose one could argue that he was just being an honest reviewer though… So what about when there was discussion to get Saiers booted as an editor of GRL because he was in the “greenhouse skeptics camp”?:
http://www.climate-gate.org/email.php?eid=484&s=kwSaiers
Saiers did get the boot later in 2005…don’t know how related it was to the e-mails. And of course there’s the dodging of FOIA requests…is that unethical? I would certainly say it beats out plagiarism from a single paper…
Absolutely it’s an ethical violation. My first post on this thread made it clear that I don’t agree with said violation. The question now is whether it’s a larger violation than manipulating (or trying to) both journal’s and the IPCC’s peer-review process to remove dissenting papers. Clearly I disagree with you and Rob and think that international manipulation is worse than manipulation towards the U.S. congress.
Thanks for finding that, I have some friends who would be interested to know that. Funny that the website doesn’t mention his time at CSU (probably why I failed to locate him), LOL. Also, I’d be interested to know if he’s located at the NY site or in Japan.
He’s a serial plagiarist? What are the other instances of his plagiarism? I’m glad you’ve seen ugs suspended for such. My experiences are the opposite…I’ve seen cheaters, data fabricators, and thieves get through graduate school with barely a slap on the wrist, if any punishment at all.
-Scott
Really? We actually have people here still obsessing about a missing footnote in a report to Congress? Really? You know it isn’t that I’m surprised by DC’s obsession. I’m not. He’s a moron and has to grasp at the smallest of straws to allow himself to believe he’s relevant. But I am surprised by what seem like otherwise intelligent people that run around with the belief that a report to Congress should be held to the same standards as an English paper.
Did you people bother to read the report? It is quite clear that Wegman wasn’t trying to pass that off as work of his own. Do you think Congress asked Wegman for information because they wanted to grade papers? You people are insane! You engage in character assassination because of a missing footnote? Do you really care? You want to talk about character? Let’s talk about hypocrisy. There is a plethora of evidence in the e-mails that the precious peer-reviewed process was subverted. The team colluded to do so. You’re worried about a missing footnote that holds no relevance to Congress. More to character, we’ve got e-mails essentially saying “Great news!!!! So and so died today!!! Yea!!!!” FREAKING SCUMBAGS!!!! More about character, we’ve got other e-mails saying, “we’ll keep it out even if we have to redefine what peer-review is.” Turns out the IPCC simply ignored that rule, so it wasn’t a problem. Worse though, then they were going to pretend the writer of the e-mail wasn’t familiar with the IPCC process when it is blatantly clear nothing could have been further from the truth. More about character, we’ve got other e-mails from one member of the team asking for help as a reviewer to find a way to block a paper from being published. And you dolts are worried about a missing footnote.
Alarmists, the only group of people with less scruples and brains than the U.S. Congress. What scares the hell out of me is that I believe you people actually participate in the democratic process and vote. God help us all. And thank God Canada is stuck with that imbecile DC.
And now someone is saying they did the social networking part wrong? WTF? The e-mails prove that the report to congress was exactly correct. Guys and gals, this may come as a shock to you, but most of the American people really only want reports to Congress to be true. They don’t care about a missing footnote or academic standards. While you’re at it, look up the word academic. FREAKS.
REPLY: Why not learn to spell my name correctly when you insult me from the cowardly safety of the shadows? – Anthony Watts
Yea, yea, I’m sorry Mr. Watts, those pesky typos.
But, that’s nothing compared to the double standard displayed throughout your blog.
Why no indignation at manipulation of information…
~ ~ ~
“Of 91 pages, 35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.” John Mashey
PS. I’m not hiding in any shadows.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com
REPLY: Sure you are, just another alarmist blog where the proprietor does not have the courage to put his/her name to the words they write. Dime a dozen these days, and have your really looked at what John Mashey writes? It’s full of conspiracy theory. I don’t cover that sort of thing here. Be as upset as you wish, but your opinion is worthless. – Anthony
James, they have nothing else which is why they are hysterical over this but this is so easy to deal with. Just rewrite the report with proper citations and include a large supplement dealing with everything since then, including Climategate.
Poptech says:
May 18, 2011 at 7:06 pm
James, they have nothing else which is why they are hysterical over this but this is so easy to deal with. Just rewrite the report with proper citations and include a large supplement dealing with everything since then, including Climategate.
===============================================
You’re right, and I probably could have used less vitriol, but its gobsmacking for them to pretend to have some moral high-ground. Anyone paying attention knows that ship sailed years ago. I really do hope they do re-word and re-submit. I guess I shouldn’t expect more from people that so obviously put form over substance. They have the prettiest conjecture but almost none of it is correct.
http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/
Hey look another clueless individual spouting off nonsense about the Hockey Stick debate. Where are all these clueless individuals getting their nonsensical information from?
Before you people embarrass yourselves further I suggest some light reading,
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/APEC-hockey.pdf
http://www.klimarealistene.com/Holland%282007%29.pdf
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/commentaries/caspar_and_jesus.pdf
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/mcintyre.2008.erice.pdf
Get back to us when you have some REMOTE clue about ANYTHING you are talking about.
Please, please stop embarrassing yourselves.
Smokey : “Michael Mann was forced to issue a retraction”
After inquiry :
“The Robster is upset because of unimpeachable evidence that Michael Mann was forced to issue a Corrigendum – the equivalent of a retraction of deliberate errors in his original paper”
Smokey, [snip – play nice now ~ac]
Here are your “the equivalent of a retraction” :
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_nOY5jaKJXHM/SxWG-qlVrHI/AAAAAAAAASI/tw7KwdZjLfg/s1600/Fullscreen+capture+1212009+125715+PM.jpg
Now, for your information, a ‘retraction’ is what happened with the Wegman publication. The paper is declared null and void.
A ‘corrigendum’ is what you see above. A correction of minor omissions and typos (in this case only in the Supplementary Material) which explicitly do not affect the published results.
Please provide evidence where “Michael Mann was forced to issue a retraction”.
Being skeptical is good, but ignorance and unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing are NOT a sign of skepticism.
This thread has become tedious – well below the usual standard, and I’m not going to bother reading further. But, before I go, let me say this:
Wegman seems to have erred. But his error pales into insignificance when compared with suppressing inconvenient results in a file labelled ‘Censored’. If the trolls here who have come out from under the bridge really want to engage with the Billy Goats Gruff, the least they can do is read something on both sides of the debate instead of taking their lead from RealClimate, which was established by Al Gore’s mate Arlie Schacht and his mates at Fenton Communications and Environmental Media Services to run interference when Mann got into trouble.
Until they at least read and understand the basics (have a look at Hans von Storch if you want an established scholar largely outside the blogosphere), I do not have the time to waste reading their attempts to rehabilitate Mann because one of Mann’s critics might have erred.
I took the trouble to visit http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/
Despite endless sycophantic posts like ‘Ben Santer: This is what a scientist sounds like’, there seems to be nil interest, even from those that are being flattered. A sample:
‘It begins with an introduction from the late great Stephen Schneider where he takes the time to explain what happened at the infamous IPCC plenary where-after Ben Santer was slandered with false charges of having manipulated Chapter 8 of the 1995 IPCC report.’
This is an account of Santer rewriting the text of the account of the science to align it with the Summary for Policymakers that had been agreed among the government and NGO representatives. ‘What happened’ was that he was able to do so because the IPCC rules permitted this, which tells you more about the IPCC than ‘what a real scientist sounds like.’
And keeping research out of peer-reviewed journals and IPCC reports is just robust behaviour from ‘real scientists’!
But I can see why he’s come here. It seems to be awfully lonely on his blog:
Posted by Peter at 10:11 AM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 3:17 PM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 1:14 AM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 12:25 PM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 1:23 PM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 1:00 PM 0 comments
Posted by Peter at 3:10 PM 0 comments
A single comment will produce a hockey stick there — and he won’t need any fancy PCA or inverted proxies to produce it.
[snip -policy violations – link bombing for traffic for your website, plus the d word – see the about>policy page – Anthony]
Citzenchallenge tried to link bomb to one of the worst sites I have ever read? He rants ignorantly on about the Hockey Stick debate, uses Greenman (another cartoonist) to “analyze” hide the decline and the best one yet – he believes government ownership of roads, municipal water treatment plants and warfare has remotely anything to do with the free market! He then commits the #1 progressive cardinal sin of ignorantly confusing social conservatives with fiscal conservatives!!! ROFLMAO!!!! I seriously cannot stop laughing.
Smokey says:
Mann released the code during the time when Barton was on his witch-hunt…even though the NSF had made it clear before that to McIntyre that Mann had provided McIntyre with all that the NSF requires those who they fund to release.
You and McIntyre aren’t the ones who get to decide what Mann is required to release. The NSF, which funds him, is (along with the journals he publishes in). And, the fact that Mann released the code (which is going beyond what the3 NSF requires) doesn’t stop you from continuing to spread the falsehood that he hasn’t. (Mann has also gone above and beyond any requirements in his more recent [2009?] paper on this subject.)
I noticed that you still haven’t defended the others claims that you made against Mann (that I discuss in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/16/wegman-paper-retraction-by-journal/#comment-662964 ); I assume that means we will never see you make those again since you seem unable to defend them against the counter-evidence that has been presented?
It seems that most of your arguments against Mann are, to put it kindly, at variance with the facts.
http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/correspondence-with-the-university-of-virginia/
“The request for computer code was partly satisfied in summer 2005 without reference to the University of Virginia when Mann placed code online that had been supplied to the House Energy and Commerce Committee. However, the code was incomplete as I reported at the time. The code for the critical and controversial retention of principal components, the battleground issue, was withheld.
Mann’s actual procedure for retention of principal components remains unknown to this day. This has not stopped Mann and others from saying that anyone doing it differently from them was “wrong”. (The procedure advocated at realclimate in December 2004 for the North American network was not used in other networks and appears to have been developed after the fact…”
Joel we are well aware you are for withholding and/or making excuses for withholding all code, data and methods not allowing anyone to reproduce their work.
Nature Admits Widely Cited Global Warming Graph Was Erroneous
“Erroneous” = wrong.
That’s why the IPCC cannot use Mann’s debunked Hokey Stick chart any more… because it’s wrong. The IPCC absolutely LOVED Mann’s alarming chart. But it has been falsified by the ultimate authority: planet Earth.
So the alarmist crowd clings to a missing footnote like a drowning man clings to a toothpick – and from the number of his wild-eyed posts, it looks like Joel Shore is obsessed with moi. Should I get a restraining order?☺ [Just kidding, Joel. You gotta play the hand you were dealt, right? It’s just a missing footnote.]
That’s cool, I don’t fit in here anyways.
But, if anyone is curious that post is at my blogspot.
[Snip. You know why. ~dbs, mod.]
Cheers all
I find it interesting that Smokey here is free to express unsubstantiated allegations, falsehoods, ad hominems and slander including :
“Michael Mann was forced to issue a retraction”…”having been caught out in a lie”
“Robbie’s naive bubble”
“The Robster is upset”
“The “Team” wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit ‘em on the butt”
“The IPCC really, really loved Mann’s debunked chart”
“it has been falsified by the ultimate authority: planet Earth”
“outright corruption endemic to the climate pal-review process”
“So the alarmist crowd clings to a missing footnote”
“stealing money from the public trough based on their debunked CAGW pseudo-science”
and numerous other unsubstantiated statements and slander.
But when I find such statements “hilarious” then WUWT finds it necessary to replace that word with a “snip – play nice now” remark, as if I had just been cursing.
By firing a constant barrage of attacks on science and scientists and anyone supporting them, the Smokey entity avoids having to actually reason and provide actual evidence for his statements rather than spin already spinned opinion pieces.
And the truth is, I find that behavior “funny” (to use a different word which may be more acceptable to WUWT moderators) since it so clearly shows the irrelevance of his statements and opinions.
Wegman’s publication is retracted for plagiarism, and none of Mann’s publications are. That’s the truth (sorry if that hurts, Smokey).
Let’s leave it at that.
[Twas I who said “play nice” – we are all volunteers here, and perhaps have differing standards – we are merely human after all. I do try to be consitent and regret if you feel my moderation too severe compared to others – but I do the best that I can ~ac (note I have not snipped your citations)]
[Reply: There are more than a half dozen volunteer moderators at WUWT. I have no idea of why your comment was snipped, but there is no doubt that it was for a good reason; read the site Policy. Differences of opinion are not snipped. ~dbs, mod.]
Thanks ac. That shows integrity.
dbs: Thank you for your perspective, but ac already indicated that the snip of my “hilarious” remark was a minor oversight, and subsequent post of that opinion was acceptable.
I appreciate and understand the daunting task of WUWT volunteers to keep discussions civil and respectable with expressions of unsubstantiated opinions being standard practice amongst posters here. Still, it must be difficult to be “consistent” (as ca mentions) when the site-policy explicitly mentions “denier” and “denialist” as name-calling, but, as Smokey’s posts prove, “alarmist” seems to be an acceptable rethoric here on WUWT.
For example, I wonder how quickly my posts would be eliminated from WUWT if I regularly start mentioning rethoric as Smokey does, but would turn the subject around, even when I stick to the subject of this thread, with exclamations like :
“Wegman was forced to issue a retraction”…”having been caught out in a lie”
“Smokey’s naive bubble”
“The Smokey entity is upset”
“The McIntyre/Wegman “Team” wouldn’t know the scientific method if it bit ‘em on the butt”
“The fossil-fuel funded Think Tanks really, really hated Mann’s iconic and 12 times re-affirmed chart”
“it has been confirned by the ultimate authority: planet Earth”
“outright corruption endemic to the Wegman pal-review process”
“So the science-denialist crowd clings to a footnote in a private email”
“stealing money from the public trough based on Wegman’s debunked pseudo-science”
with the side-note that it is much easier for me to provide solid evidence of the above statements, than it has shown to be for Smokey to sustain his statements.
Bottomline, it would enhance the quality of your site if the cite policy would apply to all posters, irrelevant of their opinion.
Poptech says:
No…I am just for a little bit of balance. Science relies on good faith: Both good faith of the authors in making truly necessary materials and information available and good faith of requesters not to just go around demanding that people to give them every last bit of code that they have but only request it if they have a very specific reason and there is no other way to resolve the point of contention.
In my 30 years of doing science, I don’t think anybody has ever requested my code…nor have I ever requested theirs…even though there have been times when others were trying to reproduce my work or I theirs. It certainly would have made my life either just to demand their code but it never occurred to me that this was an appropriate thing to do.
In many cases, papers are published using code that is proprietary; there are in fact many papers I have published while working in industry where my employer would have had grounds to fire me if I released the code to anyone outside the company.
The point is that there is a balance…and even if the work was produced with government funds, the author still maintains some intellectual property rights. NSF and the other organizations make these rules, and they respect the need for a balance for good reasons.
In recent work, like his 2009 paper, Mann went well beyond the norms that I see at least in physics in terms of makingthe code and data so readily available. Such openness should be encouraged, but it cannot be demanded because under current rules and laws it is not required.
The issue with the Wegman Paper Plagiarism is that there is no way to use material copied from papers reporting global warming / climate change to argue against the observed fact of global warming / climate change unless Wegman et al included reasoned arguments to disprove them. That was not done.
The “global warming is not happening” folks shouldn’t feel too bad. That retracted 2006 “Register” story claiming NSIDC got it wrong is still being cited by the “not happening” faithful even though the Editors, and Steve Goddard himself, added a retraction at the bottom of the web page:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
The rushed 2008 paper citing uncorrected 2006 Argo ocean buoy data as showing ocean cooling was still being cited in papers after the publication of a retraction based on instrumental errors.
wattsupwiththat readers should be familiar with the concept of instrumental bias or error.
When NOAA removed the data from “poorly sited” ground stations identified by Anthony Watt et al from USA data records the remaining data showed a higher increase in temperature readings. Mr. Watt should be acknowledged for his role in improving the quality of NOAA temperature observations, and strengthening the observed evidence of Climate Change within the USA.
That is, the “poorly sited” ground observation stations had older equipment which had a bias toward cold readings, like the Argo buoys.
Joel Shore, “No…I am just for a little bit of balance. Science relies on good faith: Both good faith of the authors in making truly necessary materials and information available and good faith of requesters not to just go around demanding that people to give them every last bit of code that they have but only request it if they have a very specific reason and there is no other way to resolve the point of contention.”
No, science has NOTHING to do with faith. Science is not a religion. At any time a dispute is raised about reproduction of a scientific process, all code, data and methods should be made available to reproduce said science. If not you have no interest in true science.
“In my 30 years of doing science, I don’t think anybody has ever requested my code…nor have I ever requested theirs…even though there have been times when others were trying to reproduce my work or I theirs. It certainly would have made my life either just to demand their code but it never occurred to me that this was an appropriate thing to do.”
Who cares about your personal experience? Science is not religious and if someone is unable to examine your code then they have no reason to take your science seriously. I am well aware many natural scientists put false faith in their computer code, largely because they are computer illiterate but this is actually my area of expertise and I can say with 100% certainty NO ONE should.
“In many cases, papers are published using code that is proprietary; there are in fact many papers I have published while working in industry where my employer would have had grounds to fire me if I released the code to anyone outside the company.”
Then it should not be accepted for publication in a science journal. No science journal should publish a science paper were all code, data and methods are not available.
“The point is that there is a balance…and even if the work was produced with government funds, the author still maintains some intellectual property rights. NSF and the other organizations make these rules, and they respect the need for a balance for good reasons.”
There is no “balance” in science, either you work can be reproduced or not. Failure to allow reproduction means you are not practicing science and your work should not be taken seriously.
Mann has not gone beyond the norm and has done everything he can to prevent reproduction of his earlier work. The only reason is because he has something to hide.
Poptech: Well, you clearly want to radically change how all science is done in most fields. I suppose that is your right but to define science in such a way that it excludes nearly all science as it is currently practiced is…how should we say…interesting.
This seems to be an element of religious faith for you, so far be it from me to challenge with things like fact and evidence.
Unlike you I am not religious and do not have faith in science, I need reproducible results based on empirical evidence. It is not surprising the number of people who treat science like religion, this is not my problem.
Poptech : “I need reproducible results based on empirical evidence”.
Good to hear that you support Prof. Ritson’s effort to obtain reproducible results from the Wegman, specifically on how to reproduced Mc.Intyre’s “red noise hockey sticks”.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/10/24/david-ritson-speaks-out/
Unfortunately, Wegman hides behind the excuse that his work was not “federally funded” and that code cannot be released without approval from the Naval Surface Warfare Center (who were they funded by?), and that he “will create a website that fully discloses all supporting material related to our report”. That was 4 years ago.
Meanwhile, the Wegman report results are not reproducible, while Mann’s results have been re-confirmed 12 times over.
Only the truely religious still believe Wegman and his copy-and-paste of McIntyre’s cherry-picked red-noise graphs.