See SSWR, pp.54-60, regarding the “reviewers” of the Wegman Report. In particular, look at p.58, where (eminent, more than Wegman) statistician Grace Wahba is mentioned by Gerald North: “Grace Wahba, who some of you may know at Wisconsin, she sent me an email and she says: Hey they used my name and they said I was a referee. He sent it to me about 3 days beforehand and I sent him a bunch of criticisms which they didn‘t take into account.” I don’t know what she wrote, but if you look at the next on p.58, Noel Cressie, who kindly forwarded his comments to me, posted for me by DC @ here. As described, the timing made it irrelevant to the actual WR, but Wegman certainly had it before the hearings, but you would never know that. Read the whole thing, but the part that bears on this is: “3. In Figure 4.4, MM showed the hockey stick to bend upwards in all their (well chosen) realizations. In fairness, you should show some realizations where it bends downwards too.”
http://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/06/effect-of-selection-in-wegman-report.html?showComment=1307840917736#c5486395307016742830 So I guess that depends what one means by “peer reviewed”. Must be a vocabulary thing.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
You provided no evidence that either Ogletree or Tribe were “reprimanded”.
Wegman's "red shirt defense" is worse than the Gremlins defense [1]: not only is he claiming innocence because he was not doing his job, but he's blaming real persons, over whom he had ascendancy.
[I]t is helpful to see other examples
One more to make sure our room service is top notch. In Nick's link, there's this other one [2]:
Almost a week after admitting to having plagiarized large parts of a graduation speech, Philip Baker has resigned from his position as dean of the University of Alberta’s medical school, effective immediately, the university president announced Friday.
Baker did not need any reprimand. (As if a “reprimand” meant much for the price of tea.) He did not waste any red shirt while doing so. He did not ask if there was a precedent, nor did he wondered where he could find official conventions for plagiarism in speeches.
So your charge or implication that Wegman was (grandiosely) seeking to arrogate credit that belonged to juniors [...]
That's how he treated Denise Reeves, at the very least. And there's little evidence Wegman did anything tangible in his report, which means he just "winged" it. But not only Wegman is using the red shirt defense, he's "arguing the alternative" [3]:
In litigation, people often argue alternatives, but there’s a risk in it. For example, it’s a risky strategy to argue: I didn’t kill him, but, in the alternative, if I did (which I deny), it was self-defence. If you want to argue self-defence, you have concede the act and argue the justification.
So thus far, if memory serves well, we went from Wegman is owed an apology to: let's not talk about the Wegman report; but Bradley; but it was not Wegman; life's unfair; I dare you produce one similar example, and now we have:
The incident was subsequent to the Wegman decision [...] [T]he example is from Canada and not from the U.S. [...] The actual plagiarism [...] seems much more serious than the plagiarism in the CSDA paper [4].
A racehorse of alternatives, notwithstanding gems like "you seem to have a mental disorder" [5].
But the most beautiful aspect of it all has not escaped the statistical community, e.g.:
Beyond the details, the case is completely bizarre, as noted by John Timmer. In the now-retracted CSDA article, “certain styles of research were suggested to be prone to ‘groupthink, reduced creativity and the possibility of less-rigorous reviewing processes.’ . . . the paper was accepted five days after submission by an editor who was a personal friend of Wegman’s, an irony given that the study was about the nefarious influence of social networks.” [6]
Perhaps Wegman's clique wanted to provide another data point to their results.
Your comment doesn’t refute my point that the social network analysis was an academicizing intrusion for the purposes of the requested report.
There's no need to do so. Neither would this "academicizing" disprove that it mimicks the same argument promoted on CA at the time. The contractual matter of these "purposes" have never been clearly established, as far as I know. Wegman seems to have "winged it" in more than anything.
So what. There are dozens of topics at CA which would not have been relevant to the reports to the congressional committee.
What kind of argument is that. As if we'd have to show Granger causality between everything on CA and what Wegman "wrote" in "his" report. Here's a paragraph published on the 2006-02-09 on at 13:06 ADT [1]:
Nor are Osborn and Briffa independent authors. Both are members of a group of scientists, self-identified as the Hockey Team. They have both recently co-authored a reconstruction with Mann, Bradley and Hughes [Rutherford et al, 2005], and their close associate, Philip Jones, has co-authored still other studies with Mann. Rutherford et al. [2005] is cited, but footnote (13) fails to disclose their co-authorship.
Auditors ought to search for "independent" and "team" between February 2005 and June 2006 on CA to see lots of paragraphs like that one. There are 120 hits for the word "independent" in the Barton Hearings [2].
Philosophizing about "academic intrusion". So what indeed.
Speaking of co-authorship, it seems that Wegman and McKitrick signed the same Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations [3]:
It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.
Should we conclude that Wegman and McKitrick are not "independent" regarding AGW. I guess it depends upon how the concept of "clique" is defined. Maybe it’s just a vocabulary thing [4].
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
✓ Live Streaming✓ Interactive Chat✓ Private Shows✓ HD Quality✓ Free Actions
Free to watch • No registration required • HD streaming
The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report: “Actually fairly shocking,” says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. “My own preliminary appraisal would be ‘guilty as charged.’ ” ”If I was a peer reviewer of this report and I was to observe the paragraphs they have taken, then I would be obligated to report them,” says Garner of Virginia Tech, who heads a copying detection effort. “There are a lot of things in the report that rise to the level of inappropriate.” ”The plagiarism is fairly obvious when you compare things side-by-side,” says Ohio State’s Robert Coleman, who chairs OSU’s misconduct committee.
Add to this Andrew Gelman, whom you have yet to challenge directly. After all these years, there is still no misconduct finding against Mike. If the auditing clique now believes that committee findings are, on reflection, sufficient to decide it’s “end of story” [6], then apologies are owed to Mike. *** Definitions of plagiarism is an ongoing concern of this blog: there’s a tag for it. So far very little ascertainment has been given regarding Wegman’s plagiarism. Sure, there was the suboptimal tu quoque regarding Bradley, recycled by the GMU investigation on [Wegman]’s report. And yes indeed, there have been many speculations to put the blame on red shirts, repeated yet again on this thread. Mike’s social network has been an ongoing concern on this blog since the beginnings [7]. Perhaps also in its predecessor, climate2003.org, also mentioned in the Wegman Report, now vanished. How it was decided that SNA fell within Wegman’s mandate remains a mystery that has been conspicuously eluded by the auditors. *** [1] http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2012/02/george-mason-university-reprimands-edward-wegmand-/ [2] http://deepclimate.org/2012/02/22/gmu-contradictory-decisions-on-wegman-plagiarism-in-csda-but-not-in-congressional-report/ [3] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-bradley-tree-rings-v20.pdf [4] http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals-v3.pdf [5] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2010-11-21-climate-report-questioned_N.htm [6] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/13691877650 [7] http://neverendingaudit.tumblr.com/post/5874729706
