Well done DC-- it was worth the wait, quality not quantity I say (hi their Watts and McIntyre) So it took DC to audit the Wegman report and discover plagiarism. Why did McIntyre not audit the Wegman report? ;)
Plagiarism? What plagiarism? If it's not a right-wing talking point that's being mindlessly amplified by clueless journalists, then it doesn't exist.
There was no plag-- wait, there was nothing, nothing at all, simply nothing.
Come on, climate changes. Public opinion changes. I'm merely reporting on the winds of public opinion. There's no deliberate denialist movement. Oh, and here's some linkspam.
Perhaps you meant "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You know, where the "post hoc" bit has always been a key factor in assessing allegations of plagiarism.
"Perhaps you meant "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You know, where the "post hoc" bit has always been a key factor in assessing allegations of plagiarism."
What, you don't think ad hoc could have caused proctor hoc?
a) Al Gore is fat
b) Earth Day was on Lenin's 100th birthday
c) Computer modellers
d) Can't we get back to the science?
e) You warmenistas want to control our lives
f) something with -gate in it
g) Co2 is plant food
h) Beware an ice age
i) It's really cold were I am
j) Calling people deniers is like saying they are Nazis-sympathisers
k) Carbon traders are evil (see how fat Al Gore is?)
l) the MWP, LIA and Mann
m) the world is only 8000 years old
n) climate has been changing for billions of years
o) Warming will be good for us
p) Arctic ice grows in winter
q) Himalayan glaciers won't disappear entirely until 2350
r) I think we should be nicer to deniers
s) They've forgotten about clouds
t) They predicted an ice age in the 1970s
u) The Hockey Stick is bent
v) Big government
w) Scientific grant grubbing
x) Phil Jones is suicidal
y) Those CRU scientists were really rude
z) Rajendra Pachauri looks like a carpet salesman and wants people to stop eating meat ...
OK ... no need for any trolls to add comments now ... I suspect I've covered it.
Fran, you forgot to mention that serial use of the term denier is mob (or should I say 'blog')sanctioned bigotry cloaked by intellectualism.
Call it what it is: heresy.
What, you don't think ad hoc could have caused proctor hoc?
Let's just say on the evidence presented it appears extremely unlikely.
I suggest you take a look at the methods used by any university to establish plagiarism - often routinely used for submissions by undergrad students - and see if the evidence presented by DeepClimate is likely to meet those tests.
Longer SamG: Your use of a noun implies an adjective of my choice, even after it's been extensively explained to me that not only are other adjectives possible and that my adjective of choice is not implied by those using the noun, but that context strongly implies an adjective different to the one I have in mind. But I'm going to keep on harping about it because...well, what else have I got, really?
Kudos to deepclimate on this - I hope this effort gets brought to wider attention some day. Its clear that some pretty damning "cut and paste and move words around a bit without really understanding what they mean" went on.
I figured SamG was a poe. I mean 'bigotry'? If there were any messianic persecution complex I figured even your average wingnut wouldn't melodramatically wallow in, it was that one. At least that's what I figured was the tell- that and heretic, which as Sam correctly posits, would've fit quite nicely in Fran's list.
Apologies for the thread hijack, but the wonderful Professor Richard S Lindzen gets prime opinion column space in The Australian this weekend, humming the same old tune as always.
Maybe time for another part in The Australian's War Against Science?
But wasn't Wegman a Congressional Report and since when do the latter have to be peer reviewed?
Er...this thread's about plagiarism, not peer review.
(Peer review can be sufficient to detect or consider the possibility of plagiarism, but it's not necessary. And plagiarism by an academic is generally considered a very serious matter.)
DC is finding stuff too fast. I have a chart that summarizes all the "striking similarities" and I have to keep updating it :-)
We're now up to 10 pages of the Wegman Report that bear 'striking similarities" to text from 3 textbooks and 2 Wikipediia pages.
Some of the social networks text is condensed into Said, Wegman, Sharabti, Rigsby (2008), ~ (1 page of 7 of text), and the first 3 pages of Sharabati's PhD dissertation. If proved, the middle one is a real zinger, given 3 government agencies ACK'd for support, and they take dim views of such things.
Given that their social networks comments seem to be a multiply-continued attempts to cast doubt on the paleocliamte reconstruction area, with no obvious evidence, some others may have words to say when the dust settles.
When asked about whether redoing the reconstruction with better statistics would make any difference, or about multiple later papers, Wegman always said ~ "we weren't asked to look at that" ...but they did leap off into a relatively-new-to-them turf of coauthor social network analysis to generate doubts about the credibility of the reconstruction area.
The interesting question is: did somebody ask them to do that? Did they get the idea from someone else (I'm thinking of a specific 05/11/05 presentation) or did they just come up with the idea themselves?
Well doesn't DC have a heading " Implications for Peer Review" and say he is going to explore this further in relation to Wegman?
Moreover, DCs comments all pertain to the social network analysis and not the statistical analysis which, of course, was the real meat and investigation of Mann's dodgy statistics.
I take it you did read paras 4 & 5 of John Mashey's post @ 35.
P.S. Could explain the technical aspects of why Mann et al's work was in your assertion, dodgy' and explain why Mann et al's work has been independently reproduced around the world, reproduction of results being a fairly key activity in science.
That's not what it's about, and I won't scoop DC ... but he has found yet more fascinating stuff. I do offer a hint of something worth revisiting: Replies to Stupak questions. Remember, the WP was throwing lots of rocks at paleo* peer review...
Also, remember the earlier round of striking similarity with Bradley.
The social networks stuff is a separate part, with intersting differences.
Since much reading material was provided by Barton Staffer Peter Spencer (meaning: much was probably selected by M&M, unless P.Spencer happens to be an expert), it seems at least possible that the selection and modification of the Bradley text happened earlier than the Wegman Panel, although of course, they knew about Bradley, since they referenced it elsewhere. Among the various possible combinations of copying and making changes, it is hard to find a pleasant one...
But, for the social networking part, it is really hard to find any reason to think that had come from outside. Unlike the Bradley part, the social networking part got reused in Said, Wegman, Sharabati, Rigsby (2008) ... which thanks 3 separate Federal agencies. That has implications, none good.
Of course, who actually did the plagiarism work is unknown, but it would seem slightly surprising if the same person did both the Bradley part and the social networks part.
@ 37, 38, 39. Perhaps my meaning wasn't quite clear when I said:
What, you don't think ad hoc could have caused proctor hoc?
I worked really hard to deepen what was already a non-sensical statement by adding whole new layers of unintelligibility. There is only conclusion I can reach after having my toils trolled:
Now just how often have i come out with "the line".
So for a list of papers showing reconstructions from various data [try this](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari…). Then when you have worked you way through those papers and also checked if the social networks involved are tighter than the one composed of the collaborators on the Wegmen report come back to me.
You just keep moving the talking points Dave, to do that you must be carrying a lot of faith.
"The other papers have all been dealt with on Climate Audit also"
So how did Climate Audit 'deal' with the others?
You haven't answered me why Mann's work is dodgy.
Can answer my questions without resorting to assertions instead working through the material and explain it based on the science, maths/stats etc, like a scientist or engineer would.
Interesting that you are now reflecting my wording back to me.
As DC and I have been careful to say, the similarities in the text are striking, but that does not guarantee that Wegman actually performed plagiarism himself, given that others were involved. Of course he is *responsible* for the report, especially given his central role.
Well, from around 1910 to 1940 there was no reason to beat her and indeed this situation continued from the 1940's to the late 1970's. Then there were occassions from 1979 to the late 1990's when I wondered if I should but things quietened down again after that.
The saga continues... inspired by Deep Climate, I've been examining the Wegman Report in detail. Plodding patience pays off... but the latest is an example of *breathtakingly-bizarre incompetence*.
Many WR references were sourced through Barton staffer Peter Spencer, according to Yasmin Said p.5. I've been studying them, and I find BAD, WORSE, and AWFUL.
__BAD__
Of the ~80 references in the Bibliography, only ~30 are actually referenced in the body. Some are totally irrelevant, a 1.5 page review of Wunsch(2006). That is about Dansgaard-Oscher events, rather irrelevant to Mann's work, since the last occurrence was thousands of years before. Some of the "reviews of impo0rtant articles have yet *more* seeming cut-and-paste.
In normal scholarship, when summarizing an article, one normally paraphrases to show that one understands it, or at least, block-quotes a few key pieces. One doesn't do undergrad-level cut-and-paste. [This isn't publicly written up yet, but will be, and will at least double the number of pages with problems like this. This will likely show up at Deep Cliamte's place.]
But ~50 of the ~80 references aren't even referenced, and some might be OK, but that is a high fraction. There are many more irrelevant or "grey literature" references ...
At best, this is bad scholarship, consistent with someone else selecting many of their sources for people who have little clue about relevance or importance. Some references only seem to appear there to repeat common anti-science memes. This is why seeming plagiarism is just the most obvious hint that something is wrong and makes one dig deeper.
__WORSE__
But, Wegman, Scott, Said's report included the following (unreferenced) "reference," on p.57:
__Valentine, Tom (1987) âMagnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems,â Magnets, 2(1) 18-26.__
Without even seeing the article, it is unclear how a 1987 article about ozone layer in an (offbeat, non-scholarly) technology journal could have *anything* to do with the purported investigation of 1998-1999 papers on temperature reconstructions.
__AWFUL__
It turns out (H/T Michael Tobis & Anna Haynes) that Tom Valentine has written about topics mentioned below, as well as psychic surgery. He was the editor of "Magnets" 1988-1991, a step up from his earlier writing for the "National Tattler," but not a scholarly journal. He later ran a talk show that among other things promoted the dreaded "black helicopters." fuel-less engines suppresion of inventions, H/T MTp his bio, read carefully, H/T AH promoted the black helicopters
While Wegman, Scott, and Said did this pro bono, the salaries of everybody else involved in the House were paid for by US taxpayers ... and we got scholarship of this quality, because NAS was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's concerns."
Please DC attributes claims that are part of the general knowledge of dendroclimatology to one author and claims plagiarism. I could do the same thing with a half a dozen other sources including skeptics.
...DC attributes claims that are part of the general knowledge of dendroclimatology to one author and claims plagiarism...
No, he documents instances of *strikingly similar language* - i.e. makes comparisons of the **expression** of "claims that are part of the general knowledge", not the claims themselves...
Well done DC-- it was worth the wait, quality not quantity I say (hi their Watts and McIntyre) So it took DC to audit the Wegman report and discover plagiarism. Why did McIntyre not audit the Wegman report? ;)
Plagiarism? What plagiarism? If it's not a right-wing talking point that's being mindlessly amplified by clueless journalists, then it doesn't exist.
There was no plag-- wait, there was nothing, nothing at all, simply nothing.
Come on, climate changes. Public opinion changes. I'm merely reporting on the winds of public opinion. There's no deliberate denialist movement. Oh, and here's some linkspam.
[insert linkspam here]
Yeah, it's not plagiarism. Writing just moves in natural cycles. And it's the sun.
Actually, it's not plagiarism, according a fried who has done much expert witnessing. he says, in lawyer-speak, it is:
"striking similarity"
Plagarism is just a socialist construct to stop conservatives from telling The Truth about global warmening.
Yeah, it's not plagiarism. Writing just moves in natural cycles. And it's the sun.
Strikingly similar, ad hoc ergo propter hoc.
Perhaps you meant "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You know, where the "post hoc" bit has always been a key factor in assessing allegations of plagiarism.
"Perhaps you meant "post hoc, ergo propter hoc". You know, where the "post hoc" bit has always been a key factor in assessing allegations of plagiarism."
What, you don't think ad hoc could have caused proctor hoc?
I think El Gordo wins the internets with ad hoc ergo propter hoc ...
This is undoubtedly the iwttiest remark I've seen El Gordo "post". The fact that it was an unintentional own goal merely adds to its lustre.
Is this website a competition in grandiloquence?
Very impressive indeed.
It's not plagiarism because:
a) Al Gore is fat
b) Earth Day was on Lenin's 100th birthday
c) Computer modellers
d) Can't we get back to the science?
e) You warmenistas want to control our lives
f) something with -gate in it
g) Co2 is plant food
h) Beware an ice age
i) It's really cold were I am
j) Calling people deniers is like saying they are Nazis-sympathisers
k) Carbon traders are evil (see how fat Al Gore is?)
l) the MWP, LIA and Mann
m) the world is only 8000 years old
n) climate has been changing for billions of years
o) Warming will be good for us
p) Arctic ice grows in winter
q) Himalayan glaciers won't disappear entirely until 2350
r) I think we should be nicer to deniers
s) They've forgotten about clouds
t) They predicted an ice age in the 1970s
u) The Hockey Stick is bent
v) Big government
w) Scientific grant grubbing
x) Phil Jones is suicidal
y) Those CRU scientists were really rude
z) Rajendra Pachauri looks like a carpet salesman and wants people to stop eating meat ...
OK ... no need for any trolls to add comments now ... I suspect I've covered it.
Fran @ 12: "OK ... no need for any trolls to add comments now ... I suspect I've covered it"
Jeepers Fran, how could you? How could you forget:
(aa)It's a conspiracy!!! ???
;-)
Fran, you forgot to mention that serial use of the term denier is mob (or should I say 'blog')sanctioned bigotry cloaked by intellectualism.
Call it what it is: heresy.
Yeah, Plagiarism, it is not. Writing just moves in natural cycles. And it is also the sun.
:)
Let's just say on the evidence presented it appears extremely unlikely.
I suggest you take a look at the methods used by any university to establish plagiarism - often routinely used for submissions by undergrad students - and see if the evidence presented by DeepClimate is likely to meet those tests.
Fran wins this week's Best Provision of Troll Prophylactic, aided and abetted by SteveC :-)
Longer SamG: Your use of a noun implies an adjective of my choice, even after it's been extensively explained to me that not only are other adjectives possible and that my adjective of choice is not implied by those using the noun, but that context strongly implies an adjective different to the one I have in mind. But I'm going to keep on harping about it because...well, what else have I got, really?
Shorter Lotharsson: SamG is an idiot.
Let's just say on the evidence presented it appears extremely unlikely.
Whatever! It's all just oil of a duck's back with this lot ;)
John, :-), especially since Fran's prophylactic (j) pretty much (ahem) covered SamG's complaint already.
Kudos to deepclimate on this - I hope this effort gets brought to wider attention some day. Its clear that some pretty damning "cut and paste and move words around a bit without really understanding what they mean" went on.
See SamG troll.
Troll, SamG, troll!
You wish you were a heretic. All you really are is ignorant, and not particularly bright.
It's not plagiarism because:
The words just want to be Free!!
I figured SamG was a poe. I mean 'bigotry'? If there were any messianic persecution complex I figured even your average wingnut wouldn't melodramatically wallow in, it was that one. At least that's what I figured was the tell- that and heretic, which as Sam correctly posits, would've fit quite nicely in Fran's list.
Of course, omniscience is a necessary condition to knowing the wingnut brain. Case in point: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZezfjWox5s
Oh and el gordo - I admit I laughed a lot at that one. Ad hoc ergo propter hoc indeed :)
Apologies for the thread hijack, but the wonderful Professor Richard S Lindzen gets prime opinion column space in The Australian this weekend, humming the same old tune as always.
Maybe time for another part in The Australian's War Against Science?
OK, [done](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/04/the_australians_war_on_science_…).
...and two minutes later, there it is. Impressive.
Now that's just creepy, Tim! ;)
But wasn't Wegman a Congressional Report and since when do the latter have to be peer reviewed?
Dave @ 32.
Your point being.......?
Or is it you don't care whether there is any accuracy in the Wegman collaboration?
Er...this thread's about plagiarism, not peer review.
(Peer review can be sufficient to detect or consider the possibility of plagiarism, but it's not necessary. And plagiarism by an academic is generally considered a very serious matter.)
DC is finding stuff too fast. I have a chart that summarizes all the "striking similarities" and I have to keep updating it :-)
We're now up to 10 pages of the Wegman Report that bear 'striking similarities" to text from 3 textbooks and 2 Wikipediia pages.
Some of the social networks text is condensed into Said, Wegman, Sharabti, Rigsby (2008), ~ (1 page of 7 of text), and the first 3 pages of Sharabati's PhD dissertation. If proved, the middle one is a real zinger, given 3 government agencies ACK'd for support, and they take dim views of such things.
Given that their social networks comments seem to be a multiply-continued attempts to cast doubt on the paleocliamte reconstruction area, with no obvious evidence, some others may have words to say when the dust settles.
When asked about whether redoing the reconstruction with better statistics would make any difference, or about multiple later papers, Wegman always said ~ "we weren't asked to look at that" ...but they did leap off into a relatively-new-to-them turf of coauthor social network analysis to generate doubts about the credibility of the reconstruction area.
The interesting question is: did somebody ask them to do that? Did they get the idea from someone else (I'm thinking of a specific 05/11/05 presentation) or did they just come up with the idea themselves?
Well doesn't DC have a heading " Implications for Peer Review" and say he is going to explore this further in relation to Wegman?
Moreover, DCs comments all pertain to the social network analysis and not the statistical analysis which, of course, was the real meat and investigation of Mann's dodgy statistics.
Shorter Ducky: Who cares about respect when u can have attention?
Shorter Ducky: Who cares about respect when u can have attention?
Shorter Ducky: Who cares about respect when u can have attention?
So Dave boy, your comment at @ 36.
I take it you did read paras 4 & 5 of John Mashey's post @ 35.
P.S. Could explain the technical aspects of why Mann et al's work was in your assertion, dodgy' and explain why Mann et al's work has been independently reproduced around the world, reproduction of results being a fairly key activity in science.
Why, yes, it does. But I read that primarily as an exploration of potential peer review issues for the sources cited by the Wegman report.
re: #41
That's not what it's about, and I won't scoop DC ... but he has found yet more fascinating stuff. I do offer a hint of something worth revisiting: Replies to Stupak questions. Remember, the WP was throwing lots of rocks at paleo* peer review...
Also, remember the earlier round of striking similarity with Bradley.
The social networks stuff is a separate part, with intersting differences.
Since much reading material was provided by Barton Staffer Peter Spencer (meaning: much was probably selected by M&M, unless P.Spencer happens to be an expert), it seems at least possible that the selection and modification of the Bradley text happened earlier than the Wegman Panel, although of course, they knew about Bradley, since they referenced it elsewhere. Among the various possible combinations of copying and making changes, it is hard to find a pleasant one...
But, for the social networking part, it is really hard to find any reason to think that had come from outside. Unlike the Bradley part, the social networking part got reused in Said, Wegman, Sharabati, Rigsby (2008) ... which thanks 3 separate Federal agencies. That has implications, none good.
Of course, who actually did the plagiarism work is unknown, but it would seem slightly surprising if the same person did both the Bradley part and the social networks part.
@ 37, 38, 39. Perhaps my meaning wasn't quite clear when I said:
I worked really hard to deepen what was already a non-sensical statement by adding whole new layers of unintelligibility. There is only conclusion I can reach after having my toils trolled:
Margaritas ante Porcos!
Jeremy C
"why Mann et al's work has been independently reproduced around the world"
Like Chris O'Neill you keep coming out with this line but never, apart from PNAS 2008, provide any references to these suppossed supporting papers.
And even if you could I bet they would all involve former collaboraters with Mann, thus reinforcing Wegman's social network analysis.
Dave,
Now just how often have i come out with "the line".
So for a list of papers showing reconstructions from various data [try this](http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Compari…). Then when you have worked you way through those papers and also checked if the social networks involved are tighter than the one composed of the collaborators on the Wegmen report come back to me.
You just keep moving the talking points Dave, to do that you must be carrying a lot of faith.
Jeremy C,
And how often do the same people crop up in those papers and why didn't you notice this?
Bradley, Briffa, Jones and Mann. All there. The other papers have all been dealt with on Climate Audit also.
And still Mann uses dodgy statistics in PNAS 2008, which surprisingly wasn't on your list.
Why do you still "have faith" in what he does?
Dave,
Of course Biffra, Mann et al are there.
"The other papers have all been dealt with on Climate Audit also"
So how did Climate Audit 'deal' with the others?
You haven't answered me why Mann's work is dodgy.
Can answer my questions without resorting to assertions instead working through the material and explain it based on the science, maths/stats etc, like a scientist or engineer would.
Interesting that you are now reflecting my wording back to me.
...and those that don't, share 99.9% of his genes... so there.
kinda makes you wonder what other stuff Wegman may have plagiarized over the years.
Might be interesting to check his PhD thesis.
Some behaviors start early in life.
As DC and I have been careful to say, the similarities in the text are striking, but that does not guarantee that Wegman actually performed plagiarism himself, given that others were involved. Of course he is *responsible* for the report, especially given his central role.
Dave Andrews @ 46:
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Just asking.
Former Skeptic,
Well, from around 1910 to 1940 there was no reason to beat her and indeed this situation continued from the 1940's to the late 1970's. Then there were occassions from 1979 to the late 1990's when I wondered if I should but things quietened down again after that.
BTW, did I tell you my wife's name is CO2?
Dave Andrews @ 52:
things quietened down again after that
Your arm got worn out after all the bludgeoning post 1998, eh? Tsk tsk.
BTW, did I tell you my wife's name is CO2?
I read her emails - she says that you left her for a mistress after your trick of hiding the bruises was exposed in the Torygraph.
Are you beating her as well? Just asking.
The saga continues... inspired by Deep Climate, I've been examining the Wegman Report in detail. Plodding patience pays off... but the latest is an example of *breathtakingly-bizarre incompetence*.
Many WR references were sourced through Barton staffer Peter Spencer, according to
Yasmin Said p.5. I've been studying them, and I find BAD, WORSE, and AWFUL.
__BAD__
Of the ~80 references in the Bibliography, only ~30 are actually referenced in the body. Some are totally irrelevant, a 1.5 page review of Wunsch(2006). That is about Dansgaard-Oscher events, rather irrelevant to Mann's work, since the last occurrence was thousands of years before. Some of the "reviews of impo0rtant articles have yet *more* seeming cut-and-paste.
In normal scholarship, when summarizing an article, one normally paraphrases to show that one understands it, or at least, block-quotes a few key pieces. One doesn't do undergrad-level cut-and-paste. [This isn't publicly written up yet, but will be, and will at least double the number of pages with problems like this. This will likely show up at Deep Cliamte's place.]
But ~50 of the ~80 references aren't even referenced, and some might be OK, but that is a high fraction. There are many more irrelevant or "grey literature" references ...
At best, this is bad scholarship, consistent with someone else selecting many of their sources for people who have little clue about relevance or importance. Some references only seem to appear there to repeat common anti-science memes. This is why seeming plagiarism is just the most obvious hint that something is wrong and makes one dig deeper.
__WORSE__
But, Wegman, Scott, Said's report included the following (unreferenced) "reference," on p.57:
__Valentine, Tom (1987) âMagnetics may hold key to ozone layer problems,â Magnets, 2(1) 18-26.__
Without even seeing the article, it is unclear how a 1987 article about ozone layer in an (offbeat, non-scholarly) technology journal could have *anything* to do with the purported investigation of 1998-1999 papers on temperature reconstructions.
__AWFUL__
It turns out (H/T Michael Tobis & Anna Haynes) that Tom Valentine has written about topics mentioned below, as well as psychic surgery. He was the editor of "Magnets" 1988-1991, a step up from his earlier writing for the "National Tattler," but not a scholarly journal. He later ran a talk show that among other things promoted the dreaded "black helicopters."
fuel-less engines
suppresion of inventions, H/T MTp
his bio, read carefully, H/T AH
promoted the black helicopters
While Wegman, Scott, and Said did this pro bono, the salaries of everybody else involved in the House were paid for by US taxpayers ... and we got scholarship of this quality, because NAS was "unlikely" to address all of Mr. Barton's concerns."
Wegman - the woo that keeps on wowing? ;-)
[Indeed.](http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2888700.htm)
John Mashey's post above promoted to start a new topic:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/05/wegman_and_black_helicopters.php
> (H/T Michael Tobis & Anna Haynes)
Dang y'all are good. Why didn't I think to search the Archive, is that how you found the Valentine pages?
Please DC attributes claims that are part of the general knowledge of dendroclimatology to one author and claims plagiarism. I could do the same thing with a half a dozen other sources including skeptics.
No, he documents instances of *strikingly similar language* - i.e. makes comparisons of the **expression** of "claims that are part of the general knowledge", not the claims themselves...