Wegman plagiarism scandal heating up

 

Courtesy of Flickr user TalkMediaNews

 

I’ve been a little unsure how or when to discuss John Mashey’s and Deep Climate’s yeoman’s work on uncovering the depths to which Edward Wegman stooped in attempting to discredit the work of Mike Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes.

But the ScienceFair blog at USA Today has posted on it, so it’s probably going to reach “mainstream” status soon. Wegman’s university is formally investigating him for plagiarizing (at the very least) Raymond Bradley.

I’m curious to see how far this will go. There’s certainly enough circumstantial evidence to consider investigating the full extent of Reps. Barton and Whitfield’s offices involvement in this farce.

For those of you who don’t have a clue what this is all about, DeSmog Blog has a good backgrounder here.

As an aside- many of the champions of the Wegman Report (e.g Steve McIntyre) took up Wegman’s claim “Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science” as a sort of incantation, chanting it as though it might somehow dispel the fact that reality appears to have a hockey-stick-shaped bias. I am sure that these same people will maintain their integrity and immediately disavow the Wegman Report and its conclusions.

—-

 

I’ve been an outspoken critic of Keith Kloor, but please give him deserved respect for at least covering this, unlike so many other “climate journalists”.

About these ads

6 responses to “Wegman plagiarism scandal heating up

  1. Nature (Great Beyond) and the Washington Post (Virginia politics blog) have picked up on the story, the latter pointing out that Cuccinelli’s latest CID attempt against Michael Mann relies heavily on the Wegman report. Hopefully, other MSM outlets will be joining the dots and noticing how many seem to keep coming back to spell G…M…U.

    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/10/gmu_investigating_climate_chan.html

    http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/10/old_claims_of_bad_climate_scie.html

  2. Pingback: The Blackboard » Copygate vs Skepticgate: New words coined?

  3. Hilarious. The WaPo blogger says that “other scientists have been posting analyses” and then links to Deep Climate! Deep Climate is an anonymous conspiracy monger, not a scientist. This is pathetic. It’s grasping at straws by a dying cult. By all means, let’s get this story on MSNBC.

    • John Mashey did much of the analysis, and he’s a scientist.
      The “dying cult” consists of those worshipping the Wegman Report as anything but partisan shoddy work. People like you.

  4. Mike, assuming you haven’t read carefully – the complete analysis was done by John Mashey, and attributed to him. The attributions are pretty widespread over multiple websites; Googling John Mashey Wegman might be helpful for you if you want to know more. It’s also worth noting that this is of a piece with similar evidence for plagiarism by several of Wegman’s students (again, see Mashey’s work).

    It will be interesting to see how this turns out. The evidence for both plagiarism and misrepresentation of sources is unfortunately strong.

  5. Note: just to clarify:
    a) My undergrad degree was BS math (and 1 course short of 2nd BS in physics), but then I switched to computer science, which is often more engineering than science. Sometimes we do science, as in performance analysis, but it is not study of the natural world.

    b) I did use to be a Chief Scientist at Silicon Graphics, and I spent a lot of time with customers who were scientists and engineers, which requires one speak the languages.

    c) and I have background in psychology and used to manage cognitive scientists.

    But generally, I would not usually label myself a scientist.
    In this case, it’s fairly irrelevant, as this task was more:
    a) Investigative journalism.
    b) Knowing enough climate science to recognize errors.
    c) Knowing enough statistics to recognize BS (having had several stats courses, a good statistician in-law, been exposed to a fellow named John Tukey, and having introduced some improved statistical methods into one part of computer performance analysis).
    d) Time available to do it and
    e) An 8GB laptop with a big screen, and 3 more displays, the most important items.

    Anyway, Grumbine is a scientist, but I wouldn’t call myself that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s