tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post3761192937200847618..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: Law and order in paleoclimateeduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-22678580368233135542010-10-26T07:23:58.715+02:002010-10-26T07:23:58.715+02:00Eduardo:
Sorry, of course Cuccinelli wants that, b...Eduardo:<br />Sorry, of course Cuccinelli wants that, but I meant "no scenario" around Wegman Report.<br /><br />Although, given that Cuccinelli's latest relies heavily on the Wegman Report, may they are related after all.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87023197362923192672010-10-21T22:41:54.726+02:002010-10-21T22:41:54.726+02:00John,
it now seems that the mysterious Wegman com...John,<br /><br />it now seems that the mysterious Wegman comment ("Some litigation is underway." ) could have something to do with academic misconduct. Look at the email which Bradley is said to have written.<br /><br />http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/21/bradley-tries-to-deal/<br /><br />I thought it was bad manners when Bradley spoke to the press on an issue which a committee had not decided on, but if Bradley did what he said in the email I would call him a fool.haroldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64907184179235071742010-10-21T16:21:38.282+02:002010-10-21T16:21:38.282+02:00@64
John,
I think the Cuccinelli scenario is bas...@64<br /><br />John,<br /><br />I think the Cuccinelli scenario is basically that one.eduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77230774478861089592010-10-21T04:55:56.899+02:002010-10-21T04:55:56.899+02:00Eduardo:
The only potential litigation I am of awa...Eduardo:<br />The only potential litigation I am of aware of is by Elsevier for copyright infringement, i.e., a normal sort of thing in which a publisher decides whether or not to pursue.<br /><br />I think Wegman's comment about litigation confused many, as it has nothing to do with the academic misconduct charges.<br /><br />There might be more, as if any of the other publishers go after copyright issues [for example, of your paper in Science], and DHHS might go after them for mis-use of funds. I'm not sure how that works.<br /><br />But there is no scenario in which I can imagine judges and lawyers deciding the science ... thank goodness.John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19263601960333612042010-10-20T16:23:08.505+02:002010-10-20T16:23:08.505+02:00All in all, the general reaction - with some excep...All in all, the general reaction - with some exceptions- is again along party lines. Although it is by now clear that the Wegman report contained some problematic issues, the 'skeptical blogs' in a knee-jerk reaction mostly highlighted that 'scientist also copy'. It would have been strengthened their credibility if they had also discussed the weaknesses of the report as welleduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83326826665693260992010-10-20T16:02:33.279+02:002010-10-20T16:02:33.279+02:00@48
John,
'1)*Most* of SSWR is *not* about p...@48<br /><br />John,<br /><br />'1)*Most* of SSWR is *not* about plagiarism, which can be seen in first 4 pages.<br /><br />*Most* of this is about the pervasive bad science, anti-science '<br /><br /><br />well, my weblog was about the possible ligation. I have little against criticizing the Wegman report itself. Litigation would only muddle the whole issue, thereby distracting from the substantive problems. Lawyers and judges would act only according to the law but cannot address whether the Wegman report was in some sense 'correct' or noteduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-88080483616788808352010-10-18T21:51:14.098+02:002010-10-18T21:51:14.098+02:00Marco, yes, on the contrary as a matter of fact &q...Marco, yes, on the contrary as a matter of fact "trust" is a key word here.<br /><br />By the time you asked me for another field of science I had posted a longer reply which I cutted in two pieces after I had noticed it was <i>verboten</i> to send it as long as it was. I believe my second part was deleted by a blog handler. Tough!<br /><br />It read just about:<br /><br />• • • <br /><br />Why/When shall we check?<br /><br />The in other circles well known John Ioannidis wrote recently (no emphases needed):<br /><br /> "[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.<br /><br /> [...]<br /><br /> Though scientists and science journalists are constantly talking up the value of the peer-review process, researchers admit among themselves that biased, erroneous, and even blatantly fraudulent studies easily slip through it. <i>Nature</i>, the grande dame of science journals, stated in a 2006 editorial, 'Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.' What’s more, the peer-review process often pressures researchers to shy away from striking out in genuinely new directions, and instead to build on the findings of their colleagues (that is, their potential reviewers) in ways that only <i>seem</i> like breakthroughs [...]".<br />(See David H. Freedman; in: <i>The Atlantic</i> (Nov. 2010): "<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269" rel="nofollow">Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science</a>")<br /><br />I conclude that we should be carefully. Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal <i>The Lancet</i> and recently involved in one relevant "climate(-gate) investigation", warned us once (our emphases):<br /><br /> "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But <b>we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.</b>"<br />(See Richard Horton; in: <i>Medical Journal of Australia</i> (MJA 2000; 172: 148-149): "<a href="http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html" rel="nofollow">Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up</a>")<br /><br />• • • <br /><br />On top: There remain biases. Earlier this year for example over there in Great Britain and here in Germany too there were also some flash mobs supporting -- for example -- the usually "sceptics" of "<a href="http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/07/homoopathie-wissenschaft.html" rel="nofollow">Homöopathie"</a> by shouting "fraud" (cf. 'media hypes'). I couldn't find among the many news equilibrated media coverage on that. In another particular case the media in Germany seem to be rather quiet: Even in America we can watch also an alleged fraud considering side effects from antipsychotic medications (cf. <i>New York Times</i> (October 3, 2010, on page BU1 of the New York edition): "<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/03/business/03psych.html?_r=1" rel="nofollow">Side Effects May Include Lawsuits</a>"). Havn't heard of that news in germany's main stream media.<br /><br />You took up the newspaper: exactly whichsoever point you like to discuss? <br /><br />Shall I write down also what I have seen/heard/read over years? ...certain aphorism of best-known cabals/"team members"/... in medicine or (paleo-)climate?<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-63986801184072222342010-10-18T17:08:53.366+02:002010-10-18T17:08:53.366+02:00Namenlos, "doubt" is a key word here.
N...Namenlos, "doubt" is a key word here.<br /><br />Note also that in medicine you will only find requirements to 'share' data of companies publishing clinical trial data and toxicity data. But that data is not shared with us all. In fact, most clinical trial publications give averages, most certainly not the raw data. Even when I would ask the data, privacy laws may well prevent me from getting that data!<br /><br />I myself also have raw data that I could definately not share with reviewers, because of intellectual property rights. If the journal asks me to hand over that data, too bad, but I'll have to refuse. I also have some data where only part of the available knowledge has been extracted. I do NOT want others to fiddle with my data before I get everything out.<br /><br />Finally, I really don't know what you are trying to say with your questions and various quotations. I do know that quoting Andrew Orlowski, who 'famously' defended Monckton when he was exposed for his error-ridden opinion piece in the APS newsmagazine, is not something that instills much trust in me...Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-9912076814100449682010-10-18T16:57:19.647+02:002010-10-18T16:57:19.647+02:00Hans von Storch:
I'm having some trouble unde...Hans von Storch:<br /><br />I'm having some trouble understanding your comment about boreholes. Could you please add some more information?<br /><br />I must note that I mainly reacted to the use of the word "hegemony", which suggests that facts were completely discarded for power (whatever that power would be). Nastiness in general is nothing new in the scientific community. Ask Rick Trebino about the effort he had to make to get a comment published (and note the political games he had to play).<br /><br />Regarding shattering of trust: sorry to say, but that trust is shattered mostly in quarters that had no trust anyway. GISTEMP shows the same as HADCRU shows the same as JMA shows the same as NCDC. Heck, even the satellite records (apart from UAH) show the same trend. What is there not to trust? I predict that the reworking of HADCRU by the Met Office will not be a re-establishment of trust, but with its likely bugs in the beginning will just become another point of attack. I hope my pessimism is shown wrong, but I have an unpleasantly good record in these types of predictions.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91587013625633514922010-10-17T20:29:33.148+02:002010-10-17T20:29:33.148+02:00Why shall we check the data?
John Ioannidis wrote...Why shall we check the data?<br /><br />John Ioannidis wrote recently:<br /><br />"[R]esearchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the peer-review process—in which journals ask researchers to help decide which studies to publish—to suppress opposing views.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Though scientists and science journalists are constantly talking up the value of the peer-review process, researchers admit among themselves that biased, erroneous, and even blatantly fraudulent studies easily slip through it. <i>Nature</i>, the grande dame of science journals, stated in a 2006 editorial, 'Scientists understand that peer review per se provides only a minimal assurance of quality, and that the public conception of peer review as a stamp of authentication is far from the truth.' What’s more, the peer-review process often pressures researchers to shy away from striking out in genuinely new directions, and instead to build on the findings of their colleagues (that is, their potential reviewers) in ways that only <i>seem</i> like breakthroughs [...]".<br />(See David H. Freedman in <i>The Atlantic</i> (Nov. 2010): "<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269" rel="nofollow">Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science</a>")<br /><br />I conclude that we should be carefully.<br /><br />Equally Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal <i>The Lancet</i> and recently involved in one relevant "climate investigation", warned us once:<br /><br />"The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."<br />(See Horton in <i>Medical Journal of Australia</i> (MJA 2000; 172: 148-149): "<a href="http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/172_04_210200/horton/horton.html" rel="nofollow">Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up</a>")<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61789766077271201402010-10-17T20:19:08.278+02:002010-10-17T20:19:08.278+02:00@ Marco,
I don't want to change the subject a...@ Marco,<br /><br />I don't want to change the subject as you did with Mann and the House of Commons or the "so-called value-added data", but I want to focus on practiced science.<br /><br />To your challenge ("Name me a field of science where peer reviewers demand to see the original data."):<br /><br />In every field of science where doubts remain in my opinion peer reviewers have to demand to see the original data (see for example medicine).<br /><br />I don't think that for instance Donald Kennedy, editor of <i>Science Magazine</i>, who is one of the two people which were interviewed in a "climate investigation" (the other were Gerry North of the “North Report”) is right when he claims:<br /><br />"[T]he journal has to trust its reviewers; it has to trust the source. It can’t go in and demand the data books."<br />(cf. for example <a href="http://climateaudit.org/2005/12/28/kennedy-editor-of-science-on-pbs/" rel="nofollow">here</a> or <a href="http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/16/michael-mann-and-donald-kennedy/" rel="nofollow">here</a>.)<br /><br />But I can try to believe Jones (and you) allthough there are a lot of questions:<br /><br />"He [Phil Jones] insisted that he had not lost any original data, but that the sources of some of the data may have been insufficiently clear."<br />(See Roger Harrabin, <i>BBC News</i> (13 February 2010): "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511701.stm" rel="nofollow">'Climategate' expert Jones says data not well organised</a>")<br /><br />"The saga shows that the debates about the hockey stick remain unresolved (even Phil Jones agrees on that now). [...] I [i.e. Fred Pearce] think there were subtantial issues raised about scientific process and integrity -- about sharing data [...]."<br />(See Fred Pearce Interview with Roger Pielke Jr. (12 September 2010): "<a href="http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/09/interview-with-fred-pearce.html" rel="nofollow">An Interview with Fred Pearce</a>")<br /><br />Mann's research relied on different techniques and data than those for example used by Keith Briffa, but considering reproducibility:<br /><br />"Stringer [Graham Stringer, Labour MP, involved in the UK Parliamentary Science and Technology Committee] says the practices exposed at C[limate]R[esearch]U[nit] undermine the scientific value of paleoclimatology, in which CRU is a world leader.<br /><br />'When I asked [Lord] Oxburgh if [Keith] Briffa [CRU academic] could reproduce his own results, he said in lots of cases he couldn't.<br /><br />'That just isn't science. It's literature.'"<br />(See Andrew Orlowski, <i>The Register</i> (10th September 2010): <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09/10/oxburgh_science_select_committee/page2.html" rel="nofollow"> 'Is this science, or literature?'</a>)<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-57033890460243197442010-10-17T18:01:37.955+02:002010-10-17T18:01:37.955+02:00Marco, when I referred to "hegemony" I w...Marco, when I referred to "hegemony" I was thinking for instance of the treatment of colleagues involved in borehole temperature reconstructions. Or the critique of Gert Bürger's submission to <i>Climate of the Past</i>, which can be read by everybody. On the other hand, for some lucky reasons, Eduardo and I got an opening to present our case. <br /><br />"The lost data" case - true, one can build a new data base, and that is what should be done to re-establish the trust, which is shattered in certain quarters (whether you like it or not). But here the demand is that people want to see Jones's work redone - which is a legitimate request. Reproducibility is a key measure of quality in science. On the other hand - we have to be fair: when Phil started this business in the 1980s, nobody knew how important these data would became later; this job was done ad-hoc in the early years (maybe even in the later years). In the process of replacing computers and storage media, moving offices, having new personal some intermittent data sets were lost - who would be surprised about this?<br /><br />Thus, the whole rpocess shuold be redone - and I understand this is presently prepared - not because I expect significant changes or even flaws in Phil Jones' work - but for building trust not by you, Marco, but by the others, namenslos and Yeph and ...Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-10057589321088677552010-10-17T17:41:34.538+02:002010-10-17T17:41:34.538+02:00namenlos:
Name me a field of science where peer r...namenlos:<br /><br />Name me a field of science where peer reviewers demand to see the original data. I know a lot of areas where it is not done, because we scientists indeed have trust in other scientists, until we have a solid reason not to have trust. There is no reason to not trust Phil Jones, unless you are paranoid and believe every single surface station record is being manipulated (GISTEMP and HADCRU are not the only records...).<br /><br />Moreover, the "lost the data" is yet another of those examples of deliberate distortion of the facts by supposed skeptics. The raw data is not lost, it is still present at all the original data owners. Jones has the calculated, so-called value-added data (which in principle would allow him to calculate back the data).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19878006610424656422010-10-17T17:35:31.624+02:002010-10-17T17:35:31.624+02:00Hans von Storch:
I will respectfully disagree that...Hans von Storch:<br />I will respectfully disagree that there was an attempt at "hegemony". I can understand you are not happy with some comments about you, but at the same time there is also significant evidence of discussions and 'controversies' between the various people who supposedly are such a tight network.Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-33943504360657569052010-10-17T16:37:52.349+02:002010-10-17T16:37:52.349+02:00@ Marco,
from everything I have seen and read so ...@ Marco,<br /><br />from everything I have seen and read so far, it is clearly documented that certain scientists were/are able to publish merely because a foundation of trust (which means ultimately nothing else than 'belief' -- what in turn belongs to 'religion').<br /><br />Just look at the House of Commons investigation: Phil Jones incredibly admitted that in all the years of his research nobody of his peer reviewers wanted to see his "data" -- data of these we know now that he lost them.<br /><br />Jones: "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBInhAVeixk#t=3m8" rel="nofollow">They have never asked.</a>"<br /><br />What kind of science shall this be? I do not think this is for the purpose of exoneration.<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-64888057023587627692010-10-17T16:17:09.570+02:002010-10-17T16:17:09.570+02:00A problem with the various
investigations in Brit...A problem with the various <br />investigations in Britain and the US was that they failed to hear the critical voices (except for the US-House committee in 2005). I do not want to imply that these voices are providing a realistic analysis of the situation. But for creating trust into the procedure, and the resulting assessment, a balanced list of witnesses is certainly required. It seems that nobody invited Steve McIntyre (apart of US Rep. Barton).<br /><br />The Mann case was certainly more than a discussion about methodology. It was an attempt for hegemonizing in the social process called science. This one case is certainly demonstrated by the ClimateGate mails.<br /><br />Nowadays, it is clear that the MBH (hockeystick) curve was an interesting approach, which suffered from a number of limitations, some of which are now overcome. In the times of IPCC-TAR it was used as a means for convincing decisions makers about the seriousness of man-made climate change, as well as a tool to claim hegemony in scientific circles.<br /><br />Interestingly, it seems that a substantial numbers of people became skeptics - because of the hockeystick (see Rob Maris's survey here on Klimazwiebel, to be published soon). Overselling the hockeystick gave a number of short term "advantages", but eventually backfired.Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-77753087497426297572010-10-17T15:29:37.707+02:002010-10-17T15:29:37.707+02:00Namenlos:
From everything I have seen and read so...Namenlos:<br /><br />From everything I have seen and read so far, it is clear to me that a lot of people would ONLY call an investigation "independent" when it decides that Mann, or any other climate scientist who says something certain people don't like, is "guilty". Just look at the House of Commons investigation: open to the public, not performed by a few 'flagship' scientists, but oh dear, it managed to exonerate UEA of wrongdoing...immediate cries of "whitewash" followed.<br /><br />What we know is that the "Mann case" is nothing but a general scientific discussion on methodology and data, blown hugely out of proportion by a group of people who will do everything to sow doubt. All under the cover of "public interest!"Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-34929472894258242902010-10-17T14:09:36.965+02:002010-10-17T14:09:36.965+02:00@ Marco (cf. above, comment #37),
truly, after a...@ Marco (cf. above, comment #37), <br /><br />truly, after all I would be kinda eased, if I would have seen a really thorough investigation for instance into the "Mann case" so far, which means a transparent and an open investigation -- at best independent. An investigation that is not closed to the public and which is not carried out by a few (two or three?) well-known flagship scientists.<br /><br />namenlosAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-7190077856884795472010-10-16T12:16:42.676+02:002010-10-16T12:16:42.676+02:00Ghost / 32 - What do mean by "Why do you alw...Ghost / 32 - What do mean by "Why do you always think the Internet will forget? It never forgets."? How do cou come to the idea that I do not only <i>forget</i> but even <i>always forget</i> that the inter net never forgets? You can see my testimony on the video documentation (Eduardo gave the URL). What is your point?Hans von Storchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08778028673130006646noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-43266108105574215182010-10-16T08:41:59.667+02:002010-10-16T08:41:59.667+02:00Eduardo:
1)*Most* of SSWR is *not* about plagiari...Eduardo:<br /><br />1)*Most* of SSWR is *not* about plagiarism, which can be seen in first 4 pages.<br /><br />*Most* of this is about the pervasive bad science, anti-science memes, undergrad-level errors, and biases, in some cases likely fabrication. The first page has *one sentence* on plagiarism, but the reason it gets the early press is:<br /><br />a) It is the easiest problem for anyone to see. This applies to people who actually know something about the plagiarism, like university {provosts, VPs of Research, most professors}, key US funding folks like the Office of Research Integrity, or people who do expert witnessing for copyright trials. Alternatively, reading 10-20 academic policies is more than enough, since they are pretty similar. SSWR p.189 cites some and even quotes some from George Mason U. <br /><br />35 of 91 pages are mostly plagiarism. That isn’t sloppiness.<br /><br />b) 10 pages are from Deep Climate, introductory material. Why was PCA material plagiarized? Didn’t this team know it well enough?<br /><br />c) The other 25 are the Summaries of Important Papers, which include one by you and Dr von Storch, but somehow omitted your critique of MM<br /><br />See pp.242-243 for the one included. Yours was fairly typical:<br />57% (cyan) exact words, in order, i.e., cut-and-paste.<br />+23% more trivial changes (yellow, likely done to foil plagiarism checkers), minor rephrases, movement of a few words.<br /><br />So ~ 80% of the text was something that could be done with little understanding of your paper. MOST of the summaries look like this. MBH98/99 were really perfunctory, since they were unimportant.<br /><br />d) This much plagiarism shows massive incompetence, at best.<br /><br />e) The WR authors were Wegman, Scott, and Said. Who did 35 pages of error-prone plagiarism?<br />It was *not* Scott, who wrote only the straight math Appendix A, different from anything else.<br /><br />Wegman was *responsible*, but I do not believe he actually did the mechanics of the plagiarism.<br />The evidence points to Said, who was at that time a lecturer at Johns Hopkins, with little relevant experience, and who had gotten her PhD Spring 2005 (with 5 pages of similar plagiarism).<br /><br />f) In effect, literature review/bibliography was done by a new PhD with minimal knowledge, as easily shown by the ludicrous errors, as bad or worse than McShane/Wyner. (See “phonology” on p.117 for fun.). In some cases, it is very likely that Wegman never read some relevant papers, their Summaries or even the WR's Literature Review.<br /><br />g) See the Tally on p.22. It is pretty easy to find about half or more of the WR almost certainly done by Said (in one chunk with help from a grad student), even ignoring the 11 pages that are just Ack'd copies of text from elsewhere.<br /><br />h) This was repeatedly presented to Congress as "expert" work by a team of "eminent statisticians." <br /><br />The non-plagiarism problems are *pervasive*. An undergrad would flunk or be expelled ... and then, they didn't even do any relevant new statistics. Of course, the social network analysis was junk, and I showed why, also quoting an expert who whacked it.<br /><br />i) The review process was a joke, covered in some detail.<br /> <br />2) pp.114-250 are in effect an annotated WR, spending as little or much discussion as seemed needed. Of those, pp.118-128, and pp.200-249 show side-by-sides, simply because this stuff had to exist so people could check, given how bad it is.<br /><br />Some people want to focus only on the plagiarism in the 10 pages of introductory text. Ho-hum, most of that (except the fabrication embedded in the Bradley plagiarism) is just simple plagiarism. There's worse elsewhere.<br /><br />SSWR covers much more than plagiarism, if people actually bother to look, rather than reading N-th hand accounts, and then saying it doesn’t cover some topic (that it does) or says something (that it does not).<br />Acrobat search works well, if one actually opens the file.<br /><br />It has been quite amusing to see the amazing fantasies about plagiarism though. Some are old, but some are wonderful new inventions! People should send those to Wegman or GMU. John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-76788049840508180372010-10-14T13:46:12.420+02:002010-10-14T13:46:12.420+02:00@ itsi
You said "Well, it's obvious that...@ itsi<br /><br />You said "Well, it's obvious that the Mann Army is going for the disqualification of Wegman on these grounds, because there's nothing else ,..... lots of politics and smear, very little real science."<br /><br />Would you say that all climate skeptic circles behave honestly in this respect and are just interested in science ? I dont think so.<br /><br />We all have still to learn to listen to each other, I guesseduardohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-33089473343660841552010-10-14T10:37:33.122+02:002010-10-14T10:37:33.122+02:00Yeph (and Eduardo), There is really not very much ...Yeph (and Eduardo), There is really not very much difference between Eduardo's statements and McIntyre's. Eduardo says that Wegman should have included a sentence explaining that the background section of the report is largely based on certain standard texts, and McI agrees with that. Both agree that the alleged plagiarism is mostly in the background section where standard material has to be set out, and it is not a big deal.<br /><br />Eduardo is certainly not saying 'we should not trust McIntyre'. What he is saying, avoiding technicalities, is<br />* McI identified one problem with the Mann et al hockey stick<br />* More problems with it were identified later by others, including Hans and Eduardo<br />* Wegman's investigation was rather narrow because it focused on the McI issue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-56872252687435976972010-10-14T10:28:47.770+02:002010-10-14T10:28:47.770+02:00Dear Eduardo,
let me first apologize for me askin...Dear Eduardo,<br /><br />let me first apologize for me asking for von Storchs opinion on a paper written by both of you - in your blog! <br />It had to do with my selective reading and I do value your answer as much as one from von Storch!<br /><br />With that, thank you for your answer and the clarification!<br />You wrote<br />"In our response we argued that, whereas this is true, the MBH method would tend to produce temperature reconstructions that are artificially too flat even when the UPCA is not included in the algorithm. Therefore, this effect, though possibly real in the MBH reconstructions, was not all too relevant. In other words the MBH method would be deficient with or without UPCA."<br /><br />This doesn't look like the contradiction to McIntyre I believed to have found! Arguably S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick might have a point saying that you could have picked a higher noise level, which would give a higher result for "their" effect, but you were up for a different "feature" of Mann's method, the flattening of curves which is seen for other methods as well.<br /><br />Please allow me a small clarifiaction about Wegman CO2-comment, which seems to pop up again and again. It is correct, that CO2 is one of the heavier molecules in air and thus can concentrate for example in wine cellars. However it is also found in the high atmosphere and increasing the concentration down here increases the concentration everwhere. And the IPCC wrote about the saturation:<br />"It has been suggested that the absorption by CO2 is already saturated so that an increase would have no effect. This, however, is not the case. Carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation in the middle of its 15 mm band to the extent that radiation in the middle of this band cannot escape unimpeded: this absorption is saturated. This, however, is not the case for the band�s wings. It is because of these effects of partial saturation that the radiative forcing is not proportional to the increase in the carbon dioxide concentration but shows a logarithmic dependence. Every further doubling adds an additional 4 Wm-2 to the radiative forcing."Laws of Naturenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-83334183177330885122010-10-14T10:11:06.344+02:002010-10-14T10:11:06.344+02:00"Would that change the conclusions of the rep..."Would that change the conclusions of the report on the hockey-stock? Not really. It would only disqualify him in the view of the general public, but technically the UPCA would be as correct or incorrect as before."<br /><br />Well, it's obvious that the Mann Army is going for the disqualification of Wegman on these grounds, because there's nothing else left. People will eventually be aware that Bradley has been quoted by many other scientists within the AGW circles without being disqualified by their peers. So that's how climate science seems to work, apparently: lots of politics and smear, very little real science.itisi69https://www.blogger.com/profile/00601918913188476920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-50587395526836212252010-10-14T08:04:19.015+02:002010-10-14T08:04:19.015+02:00Eduardo,
The social network analysis is ALSO fill...Eduardo,<br /><br />The social network analysis is ALSO filled with plagiarised sections from several unacknowledged textbooks. Worse even, Wegman also published the social network analysis in a journal, in which the introduction also contains large sections that were copied from textbooks, one of which was not even in the reference list (the other poorly referenced); also, it appears Wikipedia(!) was partly copied, although that could be an indirect plagiarism of yet another textbook (which Wikipedia copied).<br /><br />To make things worse, Mashey's report contains the comment of an expert in social networks, noting that the conclusion on the social network does not follow from the analysis (see page 151).Marcohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07262670367947223521noreply@blogger.com