the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

What Matters, the Content or the Container

Posted by Jeff Id on May 17, 2011

It seems that someone has discovered and of course published the name of Deep Climate. It was done to me by the British press, I believe in conjunction with the secret service whom I had been in contact with so I understand the wish to remain anonymous.  Of course, I cannot verify the post linked above but it is no secret that I don’t like DC even before his recent activities.

DC has successfully caused the retraction of a paper by Wegman and Said where the paper apparently didn’t provide proper citation for some of its work.  I believe he is correct that some quotes were improperly cited, however, the lack of citation was discussed here and elsewhere and seems quite probably just overlooked as they relate to basic background paleoclimatology statements.  For those oversights, DC has long accused Wegman of plaigerism in his submission to congress on the McIntyre Mann dustup which led to the initial exposure of the bogus Mannian hockey stick paleo reconstructions.   This is reason for celebration in his circles apparently, as attacking the messenger is acceptable methodology when the message cannot be discounted.  Also, if proper attribution of a quote was such a problem, why isn’t an amended document citation the solution?  It seems our guitar hero must have other motivations.

I don’t like DC much already as he has a history of accusations against people including myself of non-existent crimes.  He still hasn’t apologized for the false accusations even though the evidence has fully supported my statements.

Ironically, I was accused of saying CRU manipulated graphs to tweak their data by DC well before climategate, an accusation I had not yet made.  Although my reply linked above demonstrated that CRU was doing exactly that. Since that time, one of my favorite quotes from the climategate emails though bears out the truth of the matter and always reminds me of the scuffle with Dr. Deep.

From: Mick Kelly
Subject: RE: Global temperature
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2008 09:02:00 +1300

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used
to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a
longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you
might expect from La Nina etc.

Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also.
Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I
give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects
and the recent cold-ish years.

Enjoy Iceland and pass on my best wishes to Astrid.

Mick

I left the full name up of the CRU scientist (for DC) such that proper attribution of the quote could be made and no plagiarism charges could be levied.  My bold of course. Anyway, welcome to the internet DC, you have now achieved infame.


138 Responses to “What Matters, the Content or the Container”

  1. Brian H said

    Is it merely a coincidence that Deep Climate and Dave Clarke have the same initials? Inquiring minds are ROTFL.

  2. steveta_uk said

    Jeff, I assume you meant “you have now achieved infamy”, as in the Kenneth Williams line

    “Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me!”

  3. Jeff Id said

    #2, The spelling was on purpose but the intent was the same. It seems he already had fame.

  4. if proper attribution of a quote was such a problem, why isn’t an amended document citation the solution?

    Jeff, your ‘argument’ is like saying that burglary shouldn’t be a punishable crime because the burglar simply needs to return the stolen — um, borrowed — goods, and all will be well.

    There’s every bit of evidence that this wasn’t just a case of carelessness. Said and Wegman didn’t just quote their sources, they had to change a few words here and there. It’s pretty clear they were trying to pass off their doctored copypasta as their own work. You’re not supposed to do this. Period.

    And Wegman’s response to the retraction smacks of even further moral bankruptcy. Wegman said that the plagiarism was done by an unnamed “student”. But nowhere was this “student” credited, even though this “student” had apparently written 1/7 of the paper!

    What’s your excuse for this? ‘Oops, Wegman merely forgot to include his name, he just needs to add it in’? If that’s your excuse, then your moral compass is similar to that of the burglar above.

    frank

  5. Mark F said

    Diversion, Frank – back to the turds in the paper, not the fine print on the tissue wrapper.

  6. Sorry, MarkF, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t defend Wegman’s misconduct, and then turn around to proclaim that nobody else is allowed to discuss Wegman’s misconduct.

    So Jeff Id, please clarify this: do you still continue to stand by the logic of the burglar? Yes or no?

    frank

    REPLY:

    Frank, I know you have your theory about Climategate, but you have forgotten that it is simply a theory. Wegman made a report to congress in which he used a text to describe the history of paleoclimate. If I recall (because I don’t feel like it is important enough to look up again) the author was cited but the wrong book version was used. The citations and quotes were the most basic paleo stuff. Nothing exciting, just background for a bunch of politicians who didn’t read it anyway. The paper used a few sentences from that report furthering the problem.

    If there are factual errors above, I would like to see them pointed out.

    Now one of those papers has been retracted by a climate science journal for improper citation. Was Wegman contacted to provide appropriate citation or were the authors concerned? Don’t recall any of that but again, it is a silly time wasting topic. I really have more important things to do with my days.

    IMO, the important question is – Did Wegman or Said intend to represent others work as their own. The clear answer is of course not. With a big DUH on the end.

    I would even give Mann a pass on something this obscure, and that dude is the real problem.

  7. stan said

    The problem isn’t DC per se. Foamers at the mouth will always be with us. The problem is those who should know better who give credence to the rantings.

    It has nothing to do with academic integrity or even science. It’s all aout politics and uses the same firebomb techniques which are proliferating on the left in politics. Lie, smear, slander, innuendo, threaten, Alinsky tactics ….

  8. Jeff Id said

    Frank,

    I suggest you study the content of the information in question. It was simple, basic paleo stuff, not the things of revelation. While text was used, no novel work was stolen and certainly no conclusions were based on improperly referenced data. From looking at the references which were given (sometimes the same title but wrong year) it was most likely just sloppy work.

    Give the references and re-submit the same work. Case closed.

  9. Jay Alt said

    It is extremely unusual for journals to withdraw papers due to faults and flaws.
    Yet this is what has happened to Wegman and company.
    Misrepresenting the work of others as one’s own is academic fraud.
    Copying material from wikipedia articles is pathetic.
    And manure is manure whether found in the field or in a defective bucket.

  10. Neven said

    I think some people here need to read the pieces in USA Today on this (1 and 2).

    Deep Climate also has some interesting things to say about it.

    Wegman cheated. Wegman has been caught. You guys have proclaimed yourselves to be skeptics. This is a perfect opportunity to prove it!

  11. AMac said

    I don’t often find myself in agreement with Neven on matters climate-related. This time, I do.

    One standard for everyone. Nobody gets a pass for being on the side of Virtue/The Planet/Our Future/Whatever.

    Wegman et al plagiarized. That’s wrong.

    Doesn’t mean that the findings of the report and the paper are incorrect. They might be all right, or partly right, or all wrong.

    Do I trust authors who play fast and loose? If they are members in good standing of the Pro-AGW Consensus Team? If they aren’t? Either case — not so much.

    Plagiarized paper withdrawn? Plagiarized report discredited? Yep, that’s what happens.

  12. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    I wish I had time to destroy the silly stuff DC wrote. Wegman did get caught doing something but it really looks like a screw up more than intent. If the info were critical to any portion of the analysis rather than the background or were it up to date rather than very old literature you would have more of a case. Still, as I have written before, it appears incorrectly cited. Why the solution isn’t simply a corrected citation is beyond me.

    Enjoy the silly celebrations boys but it has zero meaning regarding content, unless of course you are arguing that the content somehow depended on the history of paleoclimate. If that is the case, please explain.

  13. Mark T said

    For someone with a degree in mathematics DC never impressed me as very competent in the field. Wegman’s citation mess, something that has been known for quite some time, doesn’t change DC’s character flaws nor his incompetence. That he is now publicly known puts a bit of heat on him to make sure he gets everything right in the future, too. He can no longer claim anonymity as a defense.

    Mark

  14. Artifex said

    Generally I dislike plagiarism because it inappropriately deprives some poor soul of due credit. It is good that Wegman withdrew, he should revise and resubmit. Now that we are on a plagiarism jihad however:

    One wonders if DC and his new found righteous fervor are going to pursue the cases in which RealClimate stole “independently discovered” the same technical details as Steve M shortly after ClimateAudit posts going as far as changing data behind the scenes and denying due credit. Certainly we have a definitely aggrieved party in that case. I wonder if the same DC logic applies to RealClimate does this now imply that DC now longer believes anything they wrote due to much conveniently timed theft “independent discovery” of the same material ?

  15. Mark T said

    DC never believed Wegman, so its not like this was really his excuse.

    I need to add, too, that those claiming he intended to pass the work off as his own are laughably stupid. Given that he had cited them in other places is clear evidence that it was sloppiness. You people really do twist yourselves into knots attempting to tar the messengers exposing your idiocy.

    Mark

  16. Neven said

    Thanks, Jeff, I bet with someone for €25 that this would be your answer (just an incorrect citation). You are a very predictable “skeptic”.

  17. Neven said

    If there are factual errors above, I would like to see them pointed out.

    They did not just copypaste text, they also slightly altered sentences to make them sound like the opposite. Some of these alterations show that – as with the heavily copypasted SNA texts – they do not know WTF they are talking about. And even with the statistics, which should be the core of the Wegman Report (ask yourself: why include the chapter on SNA, when these people have no expertise whatsoever?), it is pretty clear that all Wegman did, was cowardly copypaste McIntyre’s work without any critique or attempt at objectivity. Also see Replication and due diligence, Wegman Style.

    What is being proven here, and obviously your filters and circle-the-wagons mentality will forever prevent you from seeing that (except perhaps deep down inside, but I can only speculate on that), is that the Wegman Report already had its conclusion ready before it was even written. It was a custom made report to suit the needs of influential people (the representatives and think tanks, and their sponsors) who do not like or cannot deal with the implications of AGW.

    Because they hardly had (and have) a leg to stand on scientifically speaking, they had to resort to cheating, ie putting up a whole show of Wegman being independent etc. He wasn’t independent, his sloppy cheating proves it.

    Of course now you are afraid the Wegman Report will be shown for what it is, and that this will reflect poorly on Steve McIntyre and more and more people will see through his charade and realize that there is nothing more there than a pathological obsession with “The Team” and a hidden dislike and thus denial of the implications of AGW. I don’t know if this will be part of the outcome, but it would be very good if it did.

    If you think the whole Wegman-scandal is just about incorrect citations, you are wrong. It goes way beyond it. It is about amateur concoctions to smear a group of scientists. No matter how much these scientists deserved it, you just cannot go about it in this way (by cheating and feigning independence). The greatest irony of all is that the whole copypasted stuff on SNA perfectly applies to Wegman and his little web of co-authors and students, who are now being thrown under the bus. Also note how his editor pal at Computational Statistics and Data Analysis pushed this piece past peer-review and gave his approval for publication after just 6 days (“This is a very fast review of a paper. Most take months and require review by two-three outside experts.”- USA Today).

    All you are doing is showing how extremely biased you are. Which to me shows how important this is to you in your PR battle. Well, it’s wrong. The end never justifies the means, no matter what qualities you have projected on your enemies.

  18. stan said

    Jeff,

    The foaming idiots resemble European soccer ruffians (with apologies to the ruffians) in terms of their loyalty to their side. The charges against Wegman don’t impact anything relevant to the climate debate. They don’t in any way possible rescue Mann’s work from the obvious conclusion of incompetence. I don’t think they even reflect anything negative about Wegman’s character. The foamers are celebrating a scalp because they enjoy the sight of blood. Nothing more.

    I am gobsmacked that the same people who refer to the Climategate e-mails as reflecting nothing more than an unfortunate choice of words by scientists talking to each other somehow think that Wegman has committed high crimes and misdemeanors deserving of impeachment. Given their newfound embrace of ethics, I am looking forward to seeing the foamers eviscerate Jones for the use of data from China, the violations of law, and the dishonest manipulations of peer review. I’m sure they’ll be posted any day now.

  19. amabo said

    Nevens comments makes me wonder if there is some kind of disembodied force in the universe that exists only for the purpose of irony.

  20. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    We agree on this.

    “is that the Wegman Report already had its conclusion ready before it was even written”

    That is how papers and reports are written. I do recall the specific sections that were changed for the congressional report. When I read them last year,they seemed to far more accurately represent the statistics of paleoclimatology than the original sentences. Now those changes were specific to the congressional report if I recall, but not to the paper being retracted.

    I feel no need to protect Wegman from anything, don’t care if he’s a Nazi or whatever, he was simply right and I need no expert to explain to me why.

    “Of course now you are afraid the Wegman Report will be shown for what it is, ”

    What does that section have to do with the statistical accuracy of the report. PCA is not that complex that it cannot be grasped. You should study it for a few weeks. You certainly should before you even consider lecturing here on ‘accuracy’ of the Wegman report, not that you ever will. Decentered PCA was an accident by Mann in my opinion, and in response to that mistake which made him famous, a young scientist has spent his life working out ever more incredible ways to repeat the same variance amplifying methods by different maths to hide the error from the slow witted.

    Mann may not have known his first error but since becoming famous for them, he has become corrupted in my opinion. Wegman was right and there is simply nothing any of us can do about it. How the climate community doesn’t chuck it all to the curb is beyond me, but climategate sure showed that Mann is not alone.

  21. Poptech said

    Jeff, I find this odd that more people are not interested in my post. Any ideas why?

  22. Neven said

    That is how papers and reports are written.

    Ah, so you agree Wegman was anything but independent and impartial (like he was presented to Congress)?

    And Mann is evil, so Wegman was allowed to cheat. Nice.

  23. Well said, Neven.

    I’m still waiting to hear what sorry excuse Jeff Id may give for Wegman’s passing all the blame to some graduate student (Denise Reeves), when he didn’t even attempt to credit her work in the paper in first place.

    There are two possibilities: either

    (1) Wegman or Said committed plagiarism, in which case the blame is all theirs, and Wegman’s being a dishonest lying liar by passing the blame to a student; or

    (2) Said and Wegman did indeed use material from Reeves, in which case they were trying to steal credit for work which they did not personally do — which, again, means Wegman’s being a dishonest lying liar.

    Either way, Wegman’s a dishonest lying liar, period. But I’m sure Jeff Id will continue to excuse his actions beyond all reason because he’s fighting imaginary communists in his head or something.

    frank

  24. Oh, and regarding the so-called ‘substance’ of the Said and Wegman crud? From the USA Today follow-up (emphases mine):

    But how good was the [Said and Wegman] study? We asked network analysis expert Kathleen Carley [...] “I see this paper as more of an opinion piece,” Carley says, by email.

    “The authors [Said and Wegman] speculate that the entrepreneurial style leads to peer review abuse. No data is provided to support this argument,” Carley says, by email.

    (Then again, to Jeff Id, no data whatsoever is needed — because he “knows” via extra-sensory means that Wegman is “right”, even if there’s no data.)

    Compared to many journal articles in the network area the description of the data is quite poor. That is the way the data was collected, the total number of papers, the time span, the method used for selecting articles and so on is not well described.

    Ouch. Ouch ouch ouch. But Wegman is fighting phantom communists! So it’s all OK! OK! OK!

    — frank

  25. amabo said

    It would be interesting to have this Kathleen Carley brought in to publish a critique of the Said/Wegman et al. paper. If she is the go-to authority on the methodology employed by Said/Wegman, it might lead to some exciting results.

  26. amabo said

    And also, everyone loves girl-nerds.

  27. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    Wegman was right. It’s not my fault. He screwed up a citation, my belief is that the screw up was accidental as the screw up was regarding background information on paleoclimate presented to congress and then copied into a paper (or was it the other way around).

    I really can’t imagine any reason not to cite that section as not his. Certainly nobody assumed he was an expert on paleoclimate so the work was not in any way presented as his own creation. He was a statistician. I wonder why the simple addition of a citation for the sections on paleo-background isn’t enough to satisfy the attack dogs?

    Frank,

    I have treated you quite fairly here. Your accusations are not fair.

    In 23 you say two possibilities, I say there is a third – human error. You are addressing the paper which was retracted which I have read and is one of several issues. It statistically assessed the relationships between publishing groups in paleo. The intent was to critique the size and limitations of the community which is so critical to the ‘warmest ever’ extremism of the IPCC. The point is that the paleocommunity is lacking statistical skill sets inside their peer group with the UNSTATED potential implication that impropriety could grow in such an environment. I have read the paper, I have read the conclusions, I have read the climategate emails, and I have communicated with some of those involved. The community is definitely small and cliquey with leaders and followers. Wegman was right about that also, but I agree with the critique in your link that this paper is more of an opinion piece.

    Regarding the congressional testimony which dealt with decentered PCA, Wegman was also correct. You have to have the mathematical background to understand that point but over the past several years I have studied it and coauthored a paper using the methods (correctly).

    Your accusation that ‘extra-sensory’ means were used to make these determinations are false and unfair. I have spent years studying paleoclimate now, read many dozens of paleo papers – often full of statistical flaws, and have made my conclusions from real data published here in full with code. Criticize me if you like, but know what you are talking about first.

  28. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    I really can’t imagine any reason not to cite that section as not his. Certainly nobody assumed he was an expert on paleoclimate so the work was not in any way presented as his own creation. He was a statistician. I wonder why the simple addition of a citation for the sections on paleo-background isn’t enough to satisfy the attack dogs?

    Pretty obvious.: Most of them are intellectual cowards…they won’t look behind the curtain because the voice is telling them not to.

    For the rest of us tu quoque arguments got set aside when we left grade school. It’s interesting how many of the “deep thinkers’ (heh) of the climate porn industry regularly start their arguments with attacking people who say unpopular things.

    Yes plagiarism does matter, but who said it and what mistakes they made in saying it, doesn’t matter if what they are saying is true and accurate. Don’t expect any of the true believers to admit that.

  29. Jeff Id:

    I’m not delving into the PCA mess because that’s not really part of the retracted paper. But regarding the stuff that’s in the retracted paper, your defence continues to be bogus:

    The point is that the paleocommunity is lacking statistical skill sets inside their peer group with the UNSTATED potential implication that impropriety could grow in such an environment.

    Where “UNSTATED” is a euphemism for “untested” and “unsubstantiated”, no?

    Again, to quote Carley with emphasis:

    “The authors [Said and Wegman] speculate that the entrepreneurial style [of scholarly collaboration] leads to peer review abuse. No data is provided to support this argument,” Carley says, by email.

    You further say:

    Wegman was right about that also, but I agree with the critique in your link that this paper is more of an opinion piece.

    In other words, Said and Wegman’s network analysis methodology was crap, but that’s OK to you, because you like its conclusions. And so you keep chanting the mantra ‘Wegman was right, Wegman was right, Wegman was right, …’

    And again, what sorry excuse can you offer for Wegman passing the blame for plagiarism to a “student” who work wasn’t acknowledged in the first place? Why do you keep dodging this question?

    frank

  30. Jeff Id:

    In 23 you say two possibilities, I say there is a third – human error.

    Oh. I see. Said and Wegman merely forgot to include Denise Reeves as a co-author of their paper, after including her work in 1/7 of the paper. Yeah, yeah.

    And of course, throughout all the rounds of the anonymous reviewers reviewing and re-reviewing and re-re-reviewing the paper — which supposedly happen before a dog ate the chief editors e-mails! — neither Said nor Wegman ever remembered that they were supposed to include Reeves’s name in the paper.

    And after the paper was accepted, and everything was going swimmingly well, neither Said nor Wegman felt fit to try to rectify the “human error”.

    Of course, now that things aren’t going swimmingly well, Wegman suddenly remembers that the portion was written by a graduate student!

    To Jeff Id, this is merely a “human error” and should be forgiven. Because as the mantra goes, “Wegman Is Right™”.

    frank

  31. Jeff Id said

    Frank,

    I am busy now running a company but my recollection is that the sections in the paper which are copied were after the Wegman report to congress. If that is correct, the paper was copied from his own report to congress which had paleo background written by a college student and improperly cited. The chain goes back then pretty far before the paper you are salivating over.

    “In other words, Said and Wegman’s network analysis methodology was crap, but that’s OK to you, because you like its conclusions. ”

    No Frank, the methodology was a way to demonstrate what was already obvious to an unbiased (or biased if you prefer) observer. I was asked to do a statistical analysis of data which had little correlation once and would have been well paid. The intent was to find the secret problem in the data. I told the individual that if you can’t see the correlations you are looking for in a simple plot, they usually don’t exist. There are good statisticians who read here and know more than I on the subject, but my rule of thumb is, if you don’t already suspect the conclusion from observation of the data, teasing results out with stats isn’t likely to be useful.

    So again I tell you, Wegman’s paper was also correct in my opinion.

    Read the paper and find the error in his statistical judgment, write it up and I’ll publish it here.

  32. Carrick said

    Jeff ID:

    Read the paper and find the error in his statistical judgment, write it up and I’ll publish it here.

    LOL.

    If Frank could do anything besides what amounts to name calling, he’d be doing it already.

  33. Jeff Id:

    If that is correct, the paper was copied from his own report to congress which had paleo background written by a college student and improperly cited. The chain goes back then pretty far before the paper you are salivating over.

    And throughout the entire chain neither Said nor Wegman ever remembered that there was one big chunk that was written by the college student? Yet now that they’re getting into trouble for plagiarism, they suddenly remember?

    Yeah, nice try, Jeff.

    In other words, Said and Wegman’s network analysis methodology was crap, but that’s OK to you, because you like its conclusions.

    No Frank, the methodology was a way to demonstrate what was already obvious to an unbiased (or biased if you prefer) observer.

    So in summary:

    Jeff Id: Said and Wegman’s network analysis shows that the kind of scholarly collaboration network is susceptible to corruption, and our own kind of network is much much cleaner and much much better! Woohoo!

    Carley: The methodology is junk. The data description is unclear, and the analysis is nonsense. Actually, what analysis?

    Jeff Id: Argh, shut up! Wegman is right! Wegman is right! Wegman is right!

    I was asked to do a statistical analysis of data which had little correlation once and would have been well paid. The intent was to find the secret problem in the data. I told the individual that if you can’t see the correlations you are looking for in a simple plot, they usually don’t exist.

    You must be confusing Said and Wegman’s (and Reeves’s) social network analysis work with something else, because I was quite sure Said and Wegman claimed they did see a correlation (between network type and bias).

    Or is this confusion merely another “human error” which should be forgiven? Jeff, perhaps you can add “Extremely forgiving with regard to human error” to your résumé. I’m sure your past and present employers will be quite pleased.

    frank

  34. Jeff Id said

    Frank,

    I really thought you were more of a thinker than this. Not the first time I’ve been surprised on the internet.

  35. Jeff Id said

    Carrick,

    It seems so.

  36. Neven said

    Jeff, perhaps you can add “Extremely forgiving with regard to human error” to your résumé.

    Extremely forgiving, depending on the person of course.

  37. Jeff Id:

    I really thought you were more of a thinker than this. Not the first time I’ve been surprised on the internet.

    Projection much, mister?

    To defend Wegman’s shoddy social network non-analysis, you quote a ‘rule of thumb’ except that the rule of thumb actually results in the opposite conclusion (oops).

    But hey, I’m a reasonable guy, you know. I can forgive a bit here and there. I’m willing to compromise. I think we can agree on one thing: that ‘Wegman is right’ for certain extremely loose meanings of the word ‘right’. What say you? :)

    Jeff, perhaps you can add “Extremely forgiving with regard to human error” to your résumé.

    Extremely forgiving, depending on the person of course.

    Hmm… “Extremely forgiving with regard to human errors, when such errors are made in the course of fighting phantom communists”?

    Or maybe Jeff can put “Hobbies: Fighting phantom communists in my head” in his CV? Certainly that sounds like a powerful ninja skill that’ll impress any prospective employer or client.

    frank

  38. Jeff Id said

    Wegman is right for all definitions of the word right and I don’t have a CV because I haven’t needed one in decades. The socialist movement is alive and well and only fools miss it and what it does to people. AGW is being used to further the socialist, global government agenda. Of course if you choose to believe otherwise, there isn’t much I can do about that either.

  39. MikeN said

    I remembered seeing his name at ClimateAudit.

  40. CoRev said

    Other than personal attacks have Frank and/or Neven provided any meaningful information? If none, ignore their valueless rantings.

  41. Bad Andrew said

    This might be the biggest non-story since AGW itself.

    Andrew

  42. Frank has done a justifiably stern assessment of this whole sorry nonsense. All that has been thrown at him is just weak hand wringing.

    AGW is being used to further the socialist, global government agenda.

    Sounds spooky. Very, very spooky.
    When exactly did NASA get taken over by the Kommies?
    Was it during or after they helped win the Cold War? Were Reagan and the two Bushes in on the konspiracy at the time?

    Plagiarism is intellectual theft-pure and simple. “His” report is now retracted and Wegman’s lawyer is the only one answering the phone. It’s retracted. In academic circles, it doesn’t get any worse. This is on the level of Wakefield.

    It was simple, basic paleo stuff, not the things of revelation. While text was used, no novel work was stolen and certainly no conclusions were based on improperly referenced data. From looking at the references which were given (sometimes the same title but wrong year) it was most likely just sloppy work.

    Give the references and re-submit the same work. Case closed.

    Don’t hold your breath. The “report” is toast.

  43. Jeff Id said

    Cedric,

    Any idea where the assertion that the poor citations were basic paelo isn’t true?

    Didn’t read any of the big words in the actual documents?

    Not surprised.

  44. Mark T said

    The fact that Jeff actually let’s the morons post speaks volumes.

    Mark

  45. Carrick said

    Mark T, I agree 100%.

  46. Any idea where the assertion that the poor citations were basic paelo isn’t true?
    Didn’t read any of the big words in the actual documents?
    Not surprised.

    Well, you will have the last laugh when Wegman proudly gives the references and re-submits the same work. Should be a snap. Then the case will be closed.
    Any minute now.
    Just you wait.

  47. kuhnkat said

    Frank and Neven,

    you are running around spouting quite a bit. I am only somewhat familiar with the report to congress. What was different between it and the paper that has been withdrawn by Wegman’s people NOT the publisher?

    You are making it sound like the whole paper was about the 1960’s era background information on social networks. Is that really all the paper was about?? I note you mention that the Reeves information was only 1/7 of the paper so it would appear that you are ignoring the real work and conclusions in the rest of the paper.

    Finally, when you call someone a liar you really need a little more information. If Dr. Wegman said the student did it I would expect you to have some solid evidence before you start slandering him!!! By the way, you apparently do not have much familiarity with how big names do things in any field. A student, unless they are very good and Doctoral, simply isn’t going to get their name on a big time paper with the big time author be he Mann, Curry, or Wegman unless they make substantive contributions to the main issues in the paper, and sometimes not even then!!!

    Take a deep climate breath and get over it. The world just isn’t fair at times!!

  48. kuhnkat said

    Mark T,

    yes, I appreciate Jeff allowing us to post!! 8>)

  49. Jeff Id:

    The socialist movement is alive and well and only fools miss it and what it does to people.

    Yeah, Jeff, just like only fools will fail to see that the Emperor was wearing clothes, so to speak, eh?

    The only reason you’re claiming that ‘Wegman is right’ is because in your heat-oppressed mind, he’s fighting phantom communists. There’s nothing else to excuse Wegman’s numerous errors throughout all these years leading to this fiasco.

    * * *

    Kuhnkat:

    A student, unless they are very good and Doctoral, simply isn’t going to get their name on a big time paper with the big time author be he Mann, Curry, or Wegman unless they make substantive contributions to the main issues in the paper, and sometimes not even then!!!

    Speak for yourself, Kuhnkat. I used to do some gruntwork which ended up as part of a scholarly paper, and the authors did mention my name as part of the “Acknowledgements” section. That’s the least I expect, and that’s the least I’ll do if and when I get around to using other people’s work.

    And what’s more… Said, Wegman, et al. categorically wrote this in their paper:

    Acknowledgments

    [...] The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism or the National Institutes of Health.

    Right there in black and white. Hoist by their own petard, indeed.

    Take a deep climate breath and get over it. The world just isn’t fair at times!!

    Then take your own advice and stop whining about the supposed ‘injustice’ that ‘poor’ Wegman is facing. (I just love such self-refuting garbage from supposed ‘skeptics’.)

    * * *

    Cedric Katesby:

    Sounds spooky. Very, very spooky.
    When exactly did NASA get taken over by the Kommies?
    Was it during or after they helped win the Cold War? Were Reagan and the two Bushes in on the konspiracy at the time?

    Heheh. Another question I’d like to ask is, ‘OK, suppose we are at war with phantom communists. how will you goons be able to tell when we’ve finally won the war?’ I suspect that even if they’ve convinced themselves that there are no more communists on Earth, they’ll be trying to find communists elsewhere in the universe to defeat — on Mars, say.

    frank

  50. If Dr. Wegman said the student did it I would expect you to have some solid evidence before you start slandering him!!!

    The Statistics Forum, brought to you by the American Statistical Association and CHANCE magazine.

    Money quotes from the editor:

    “Wow–that’s really bizarre that they would have the chutzpah to attribute plagiarism to a student who was not even listed as a coauthor? I mean, who allows a non-coauthor to add huge chunks of material to the paper?

    If true, this really is disgraceful. What’s their rule for coauthorship: if you contribute original material, we’ll list you as a coauthor, but if you plagiarize, you only get “thank you” credit?
    I wonder what the rules are on revoking that Founder’s Award?
    (…)
    I agree that Azen’s review was a mistake in this case and that where there is doubt it is good to get a subject matter expert. I was just saying that I don’t in principle object to a review by the journal editor alone, if that editor is willing to consider himself enough of an expert to make the call. Editorial judgment is a form of peer review if the editor himself is a peer.
    But I’m still reeling at the idea that Said and Wegman blamed the plagiarism on a student who wasn’t even listed as a coauthor. None of the credit, all of the blame, huh?”

    So beautiful.
    So very beautiful.

    But not to worry. Wegman will fix everything very soon and clear up any silly misunderstanding. Any minute now. Then the shoe will be on the other hand. His Founder’s Award is perfectly safe.

  51. jeff id said

    Frank,

    The only reason you’re claiming that ‘Wegman is right’ is because in your heat-oppressed mind, he’s fighting phantom communists. There’s nothing else to excuse ?Wegman’s numerous errors throughout all these years leading to this fiasco.

    I’ll try again for you Frank, What errors? Can you name any single error in Wegman’s logic? I’d really like to know, in what way does improper citation of a short section on paleo-history create ‘numerous errors’?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

  52. Jeff Id said

    As a student, I worked math for a professor and did quite a lot of data collection for his dissertation. No expectation of co-authorship was anticipated. I don’t think it would be at all unusual for a grad student to collect background paleo material for a professor without credit. In this case, it is simply a job which needed to be done and didn’t require a high level of competency as it was simple paleo background. Again, I do believe Wegman/Said screwed up by not monitoring or asking for more references but it really seems like just adding a reference to the ancient text would be more than enough. If the copied text came from their own congressional report, my guess is that they were as surprised to find out as DC was.

    As Real Climate would say, it doesn’t affect the conclusion. Of course they would be referring to screwed up data and math rather than un-cited text.

  53. Jeff Id:

    Which part of

    “The authors [Said and Wegman] speculate that the entrepreneurial style [of scholarly collaboration] leads to peer review abuse. No data is provided to support this argument,” Carley says, by email.

    (emphasis mine) don’t you understand?

    Your argument that ‘oh, Wegman hasn’t actually analyzed the data to derive any conclusions, and he really should analyze the data, but his logic is still perfectly sound’ is just bizarre and dumb.

    Maybe you can add “Can produce logical findings from data without actually looking at data” to your CV as well. I guess that’s another of those powerful ninja skills that come to you when you keep fighting phantom communists.

    frank

  54. Neven said

    Jeff, you are of course aware of the fact that of the 91 pages of the Wegman Report “35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning“.

    With regards to the statistiscs that were not impartial or independent, but a cowardly und uncritical copypaste of McIntyre’s work, you might want to read what Lazar writes over at Collide-a-scape. It starts with this:

    The analysis in the Wegman report was superficial.
    And they missed things a half decent statistician should pick up on.
    Obvious targets like model selection and validation.
    The report is mostly famous for the talking points it provided.
    Those talking points are mostly iterated by individuals who share a shallow grasp on the methodological intricacies involved in the hockey stick dispute.
    The shoddiness of the Wegman group is reflected in the plagiarism issues.

    And also this:

    1) Pal review
    2) Failure to release code
    3) Failure to respond to questions about methodology
    The irony is almost unbelievable.

    Around comment 85 is when the discussion concerning the statistics starts.

    And good luck with fighting the commies. It’s amazing to me that such a smart guy as you are can still have such a simplified black-and-white view of the world.

  55. Jeff #52,
    “it was simple paleo background”
    There was nothing about paleo in this paper, at least according to the abstract.

    Abstract

    Social network analysis has proven to be a useful tool in analysis of many situations. We begin by giving an overview of social network analysis. We then illustrate the concepts by examining the social networks of co-authors of scholarly publications. Scholarly publication is in many ways the lifeblood of academic institutions and there are strong incentives, both in terms of prestige and financial compensation, for faculty members to publish. Different disciplines and individuals have evolved distinguishable mechanisms for coping with the publication pressures. We examine the co-authorship networks of a number of prominent scholars. Based on the clustering within the co-author social network, we distinguish several styles of co-authorship including solo models (no co-authors), mentor models, entrepreneurial models, and team models. We conjecture that certain styles of co-authorship lead to the possibility of group-think, reduced creativity, and the possibility of less rigorous reviewing processes.

    “Less rigorous reviewing processes”? This paper was accepted within 6 days of submission.

  56. Jeff Id said

    I read the paper something like 8 months ago. My recollection was that sections were taken from the Wegman congressional report on basic social networking which matched wiki and I thought a few sentence section on basic paeleoclimate from a book made the jump. The wrong book was cited in the congressional report and no book was cited in the paper. All of this is based on a long time ago.

    It’s funny though that you are the only one who caught the difference and none of the alarmists have made a comment. It sure shows the level of investigation they have put into the issue.

  57. Neven said

    Any comment on the last sentence in Nick Stokes’ comment?

  58. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    Yup, it didn’t go through a rigorous process. That does happen sometimes and the irony of it is not missed.

    I wonder if you think anyone would have caught the poor citations in review or if anything was in error? I see that you haven’t pointed out any of the errors either.

    Frank keeps saying there was no data, however, the data was simply the names of coauthors from my recollection. What more is needed? Again, it was more of an opinion piece in my opinion but it is damaging in that it points out the true nature of the ‘consensus’ in paleoclimatology.

  59. Jeff Id said

    Neven and Frank,

    Nick picked up on a critique which you both completely missed. I kept referring to a paleo section copied from a book. I don’t have time to review the paper now to see if my memory was accurate but shouldn’t you have read it yourselves at least once before critiquing me so strongly here?

    It’s like arguing with children when you don’t take the time to look at the work at least one time.

  60. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Jeff, you are of course aware of the fact that of the 91 pages of the Wegman Report “35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning“.

    That analysis you linked is just garbage. If this is your idea of the level of scholastic studies needed to confirm ones prior belief, then that explains your fevered imagination about many other things.

  61. Carrick:

    That analysis you linked is just garbage.

    Well, then let us defer to ‘skeptic’ Carrick in-depth explanation instead. Um, wait…

    * * *

    Jeff Id:

    don’t have time to review the paper now to see if my memory was accurate but shouldn’t you have read it yourselves at least once before critiquing me so strongly here?

    Hey dude, I did point out that the retracted paper doesn’t deal with the PCA stuff. It’s your own fault that you didn’t try to understand what the paper was on about even as you argue that its ‘logic’ is impeccable.

    the data was simply the names of coauthors from my recollection. What more is needed?

    So apparently is your understanding of Wegman’s ‘logic':

    Premise: Here’s a list of papers and their co-authors.
    Premise: We’re fighting evil commies.
    Conclusion: BIAS!!!!!!!!!

    And you still wonder what’s wrong with this ‘logic’?

    Here’s a hint: if someone offers the following proof of Pythagoras’s Theorem:

    Premise: Here’s a right-angled triangle.
    Premise: We’re fighting evil commies.
    Conclusion: PROVED!!!!!!!

    what will you say?

    Will you say, ‘yeah, it’s a bit like an opinion piece, but the overall logic is sound’?

    Or will you say, ‘verily, this proof is a crock of utter tosh’?

    Here’s another hint: as one might say in grade school, you’re supposed to do the sums and show the working. Wegman doesn’t get a free pass just because you think he’s fighting phantom communists in your own mind.

    frank

  62. Carrick said

    Frank:

    Speak for yourself, Kuhnkat. I used to do some gruntwork which ended up as part of a scholarly paper, and the authors did mention my name as part of the “Acknowledgements” section. That’s the least I expect, and that’s the least I’ll do if and when I get around to using other people’s work.

    I’ve seen plenty of papers where the student’s contributions were acknowledged in a conference talk, but later omitted in the published paper. For all of your bellicose rhetoric, you know nothing.

  63. Carrick said

    Frank:

    Well, then let us defer to ‘skeptic’ Carrick in-depth explanation instead. Um, wait…

    It’s been throughly fisked before, Neven has seen the fisking, I see no reason to repeat it here.

    You accept idiotic garbage as fact, you make absurd assertions that you can’t back up with anything more than silly little anecdotes, and oddly I’m not a skeptic, just had my fill with malicious assholes.

  64. Neven said

    Carrick, so you mean to say that it isn’t true that of the 91 pages of the Wegman Report 35 are mostly plagiarized text?

    So Wegman can plagiarize, he can fabricate, he can be proven to be completely incompetent and biased when it comes to SNA and paleoclimatology, he can let his editor buddy review his paper in 5 days, he can be the mentor of a whole group of plagiarizing students and still – after almost 6 years – fail to release code and fail to respond to questions about methodology…

    …but we still think he has “independently, impartially and expertly” conducted “an independent verification of the critiques of Mann et al. (1998, 1999) [MBH98, MBH99] by McIntyre and McKitrick (2003, 2005a, 2005b)”?

    And you dare accusing climate scientists of a circling-the-wagon mentality? Every accusation seems increasingly to be a severe case of ‘ill-doers, ill-deemers’. Apparently the end justifies any means. Amazing, simply amazing. Jeff Id and Carrick, you scare me. You will stop at nothing. You are pure hatred, intolerance and violence. I really hope for you guys that AGW is the hoax you portray it to be, because if it isn’t, you’ll have blood on your hands.

    You are winning. It’s on your shoulders now.

  65. Carrick:

    I’ve seen plenty of papers where the student’s contributions were acknowledged in a conference talk, but later omitted in the published paper.

    Which is actually a more correct thing to do than the nonsense that Said, Wegman, et al. is engaging in — and you’ll know that if you had any idea how the conference presentations and papers were prepared in the first place.

    You see, the paper is actually completed before the talk, even if as part of the audience you merely get the big bulky volume after the talks are finished. Here’s how it works: First, the paper is written. Then the conference organizers decide to accept the paper. Then finally the authors prepare the presentation slides and get their airplane tickets.

    So if a published conference paper — either due to a (genuine) human lapse, or due to space constraints — fails to acknowledge the part of a student, the presentation is a second venue where the authors can get to give a proper nod to the student’s efforts.

    Contrast this to what Wegman is doing: he mentions the part of the student, coincidentally at a time when he’s getting into hot soup for plagiarism.

    frank

  66. Jeff Id said

    “Hey dude, I did point out that the retracted paper doesn’t deal with the PCA stuff. It’s your own fault that you didn’t try to understand what the paper was on about even as you argue that its ‘logic’ is impeccable.”

    The PCA stuff was in context of the congressional report. Have you even read the Wegman/Said paper?

    Neven,

    Wegman’s report to congress was correct. I still haven’t seen either of you point out a single factual error in either paper.

  67. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    Jeff Id and Carrick, you scare me. You will stop at nothing. You are pure hatred, intolerance and violence. I really hope for you guys that AGW is the hoax you portray it to be, because if it isn’t, you’ll have blood on your hands.

    Science is winning slowly, but you come here make one false accusation after another, now including intolerance and even violence. I am getting tired of being lied to, misrepresented and generally treated with no respect from both yourself and Frank. You have expressed your opinions, you have had the errors in your opinions pointed out to you, and this is the return on our invested time and patience.

    Nice.

    Grow up, relax and realize that others opinions are not evil. If AGW is true, then we will need to see some evidence and you will be right. Then you will need to listen to the engineers and realize that renewable energy doesn’t exist and the only thing we can do to make even a tiny dent is build hundreds of nuclear plants. Even at that point the result will not be enough. All this crap just because Mann published (and continues to publish) bogus math.

  68. I wrote,

    It’s your own fault that you didn’t try to understand what the paper was on about even as you argue that its ‘logic’ is impeccable.

    Jeff Id replies,

    Have you even read the Wegman/Said paper? [...] I still haven’t seen either of you point out a single factual error in either paper.

    Ugh… I see that Jeff Id has just learnt a powerful new ninja skill… the Wingnut Fractal

    *facepalm* *sploosh*

    frank

  69. Neven said

    Jeff, you believe the Wegman Report was correct because it echoes McIntyre’s conclusions. This may be so, I cannot judge it (although many people whose competence and integrity I trust, don’t think it is as clear-cut as you do). Also the fact that Wegman doesn’t release his code or explain his methodology, is highly suspect IMO.

    My problem with this whole thing is that the Wegman Report was presented to Congress as independent and impartial, whereas it cannot be any clearer that the aim of the report right from the start was not to independently verify anything, but to echo McIntyre’s conclusions without questioning or context.

    This is cheating, it lacks all transparency and smacks of propaganda, pure and simple. if you think this is justified because it is actually anti-propaganda, then just say so. But don’t act as if it isn’t propaganda. It clearly is, and Congress was misled.

    It would have been different if Wegman had stepped forward and said he agreed with McIntyre. But he was specifically selected by Barton’s team to do what he did, and he did it mightily sloppily.

    This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth and makes me suspect McIntyre’s conclusions weren’t spurred by honesty and love of the truth either. I wouldn’t be surprised if this was propaganda as well (and did McIntyre know that the not so independent and impartial Wegman would just echo his conclusions?).

    But either way, even if Michael Mann and his Team are frauds and criminals and propagandists, I don’t think this justifies showing the exact same behaviour as alleged. If you think it does. If you believe your end justifies any means, then all you will get in your life is misery.

  70. Carrick said

    Neven, see the comments made on Lucia’s blog. If you read Mashey’s actual report (instead of just the title, lazy person), you’ll find quite a bit prevarication in it. Truth is, Mashey’s report is a jumbled mess, much worse than the Wegman report. You rely on Mashey’s dreck because you like the results, and you piss on Wegman because you don’t like what he wrote.

    That’s really the bottom line here.

  71. Jeff Id:

    Science is winning slowly, but you come here make one false accusation after another, now including intolerance and even violence. I am getting tired of being lied to, misrepresented and generally treated with no respect from both yourself and Frank.

    Sorry, your attempt at playing the ‘Help! Help! I’m being repressed!’ card doesn’t work, because it was I who first proposed a compromise — and it was you, Jeff, who refused to accept a compromise.

    Second, you can’t pretend to merely want compromise and respect while maintaining that anyone who disagrees with you is an agent of evil communists.

    So, please carry on, keep fighting your phantom communist enemies.

    And while we’re at it:

    Number of papers co-authored by Mann which have been retracted: 0
    Number of papers co-authored by Wegman which have been retracted: 1

    There’s a reason for this, but you won’t find it through wingnut reasoning.

    frank

  72. Carrick:

    So are you now abandoning your previous stance that’s it’s OK for a professor to acknowledge a student’s work in a paper only when the professor’s getting into trouble for plagiarism?

    Or are you merely throwing out one bogus argument after another in a frantic attempt at a Gish Gallop?

    frank

  73. CoRev said

    Neven’s true feelings are finally presented: “Jeff Id and Carrick, you scare me. You will stop at nothing. You are pure hatred, intolerance and violence. I really hope for you guys that AGW is the hoax you portray it to be, because if it isn’t, you’ll have blood on your hands.

    You are winning. It’s on your shoulders now.”

    Fear and loathing that his deeply held beliefs are being proven wrong, he has been duped, and others’ beliefs may be more correct?

    Neven, Frank, you are both wrong in your AGW beliefs, and on the value provided by Wegman’s papers. Sad. Really, really sad that you are motivated by your own self doubts and feelings.

  74. Carrick said

    Frank:

    Which is actually a more correct thing to do than the nonsense that Said, Wegman, et al. is engaging in — and you’ll know that if you had any idea how the conference presentations and papers were prepared in the first place.

    LOL. I’ve done my share of research presentations, Frank and am at least as familiar as you are with the process.

    I didn’t say I liked the practice of not including grad students. Some (mostly older professors) won’t include grad students who “don’t understand the full problem” (paraphrase), even in acknowledgments—I have an older colleague who does that. I’ve even seen examples where the student did most of the work, including the most substantive findings, and their name got put in fifth and last place in the author list.

    I don’t do this myself with my own graduate students (I try and get them publications so they are hirable, I don’t put them on papers if they don’t do work), but you are trying make hay from this, I guess with the assumption we’re too ignorant to know how things work in academia. That makes you come across as being dishonest in what you are trying to argue to me.

    I agree with Jeff ID that the substance of Wegman’s report, as far as it went, was factual. Neven will never agree to this because, as far as I’ve seen him comment on the blogs, he’s incapable of being intellectually honest about things that conflict with his previously held beliefs.

    That said, I don’t think it was very original, creative and yes even very sloppy. Because of the forum in which it was presented, I put very little weight on it when it came out, and I still don’t. Wegman should have avoided that circus, it’s just another example of poor judgement on his part that he didn’t.

  75. Neven:

    But either way, even if Michael Mann and his Team are frauds and criminals and propagandists, I don’t think this justifies showing the exact same behaviour as alleged. If you think it does. If you believe your end justifies any means, then all you will get in your life is misery.

    Well said. Jeff Id continues to believe that every moral lapse, every wrongdoing, of Wegman can be shrugged off as merely an innocent ‘human error’, because he’s fighting phantom ‘communists’.

    * * *

    Carrick:

    If you read Mashey’s actual report (instead of just the title, lazy person), you’ll find quite a bit prevarication in it.

    Sorry to break your bubble, but John Mashey didn’t retract the paper. Stanley Azen (the journal editor) did.

    frank

  76. Jeff Id said

    “Jeff, you believe the Wegman Report was correct because it echoes McIntyre’s conclusions.”

    No, I believe the Wegman report because I understand PCA. I realize you won’t put the effort in to learn and I also realize you don’t have a clue either way except to call to higher authority. I need to make no such call. Wegman likely realized immediately that you cannot use decentered data in PCA and get an appropriate result. He probably ran the code asked a few questions and the rest was filler because he already knows what happened. Half a day’s work. Ian Jollife also concluded the same thing – ” What are you trying to look for some peculaiar set of means and variances” – paraphrased. It’s obviously bad math and changing/correcting the math gives a different conclusion. Nothing we can do about that.

    Wegman providing data to congress would be stupid, the idiots can’t understand anything except the summary in most cases and I believe the data was freely available for those who would check. McIntyre published it. Hell it’s probably still available at CA.

    You suspect McIntyre because you don’t like the result. I suspect Mann because he keeps finding new forms of demonstrably bad math to create similar problems. Your ignorance is compounded by your bias. Ignorance is not name calling, it is a factual statement of your understanding of the math. Just do me/us a favor and learn before calling us biased, stupid, communist hunters, propagandists or whatever because bad taste or not, you are on the wrong side of the Wegman ‘correctness’ issue.

    Frank,

    You do live in your own world don’t you.

  77. Carrick said

    CoRev, it is an unstated belief of people like Neven that anybody who disagrees with him must be evil or “on the other side”. It’s a perfect example of how ideology makes people stupid.

  78. kuhnkat said

    Cedric,

    I expect you think innuendo is evidence. Try it in a court of law with an unfriendly Judge.

  79. Neven said

    Fear and loathing that his deeply held beliefs are being proven wrong, he has been duped, and others’ beliefs may be more correct?

    I don’t give a f*ck about my beliefs. I know enough about myself not to trust myself. But that doesn’t mean I have to trust you. In fact it is your and your fellow pseudo-skeptics’ behaviour that makes me ‘believe’ AGW is a serious thing.

    I’ll be the happiest man in Austria if AGW turns out to be a false alarm. For me the end doesn’t justify the means, ever. But if you guys aren’t right, you’re not only wrong, you’re incredibly dumb and irresponsible assholes to boot. And if that wasn’t enough, you’ll have a very serious problem on your hands that no engineer can save you out of (not just AGW). The engineers should have started working on this two decades ago, when your pseudo-skeptic grandpas began the Long Delaying that you so proudly continue.

    I know you will never feel responsible for any of your actions, but I’ll be there to remind you. Incessantly.

    You suspect McIntyre because you don’t like the result.

    No, I can’t judge the results. I suspect McIntyre because of his dubious behaviour.

    Your ignorance is compounded by your bias. Ignorance is not name calling, it is a factual statement of your understanding of the math.

    Sure, I’m ignorant when it comes to math. We all have our ignorances and biases. What are yours? Or don’t you have any?

  80. Carrick said

    Frank:

    Sorry to break your bubble, but John Mashey didn’t retract the paper. Stanley Azen (the journal editor) did.

    Half truth often?

    First how does Azen’s that burst my “bubble” (I never said I had any regard for Wegman to begin with), and secondly can you demonstrate that Mashey’s mashed up mess had much to do with it?

    The legal team for the journal made the recommendation to retract after reviewing complaints of plagiarism, and the journal editor made the decision based on their recommendations:

    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.

    Does this change the substance of the paper? That’s the question Jeff keeps trying to get you to answer. As an extra credit follow-up, perhaps you can explain why you accept confirming evidence without any attempt to validate it, and seem to consider yourself one of the “smart guys” at the same time.

  81. Carrick said

    Neven:

    I’ll be the happiest man in Austria if AGW turns out to be a false alarm

    AGW doesn’t have to be a “false alarm” for your deepest fears to turn out to be unfounded. (It could still be a serious problem that, if not dealt with in 40 years, could lead to problems for example.) The world is a gray place, not black and white the way foam-at-the-moutheres like you want it to be.

  82. kuhnkat said

    Well Frank and Neven,

    If Wegman hadn’t made his presentation to Congress would you even know about the paper much less its problems, or care??

    What has this particular paper to do with whether the Science of the Hockeystick is bad or not?? It would seem from the sparse information in your histrionics that it applies to the reasons why such garbage could be published. How well or poorly he makes that case has absolutely nothing to do with the Hockeystick and the FACT that it was garbage.

    Please do try to keep things in perspective. Such angst will shorten your life. If I were like you I might be screaming on all the blogs about why Jones, Hansen, Mann and a cast of others are STILL living off our tax dollars while supporting politics that are reducing our net and freedoms!! It’s life bud.

    Of course, are you really trying to say that the social networks aren’t there and they have nothing to do with who and what gets published??

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  83. Jeff Id:

    I now see your twisted strategy: projection, projection, endless projection. You simply deflect any criticism of your ‘methods’ and ‘arguments’ by throwing the same criticism back, except without the facts.

    But no matter how many mind tricks you play on yourself, no matter how much you spin things all in the name of ‘fighting evil communists’, at the end of the day there’s one thing you still can’t deny:

    Wegman’s paper has been formally retracted.

    Now put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    frank

  84. Carrick:

    Does this change the substance of the paper? That’s the question Jeff keeps trying to get you to answer.

    And we’ve answered it: There’s no substance whatsoever in the retracted paper. There never was.

    But you don’t like the answer, so you just keep ignoring it.

    frank

  85. kuhnkat said

    Frank,

    please tell us what Big Name author(s) you coauthored with so I can admire your abilities and congratulate him/her for being one of the few fair ones.

  86. Jeff Id said

    “But if you guys aren’t right, you’re not only wrong, you’re incredibly dumb and irresponsible assholes to boot.”

    I have to tell you Neven, there isn’t any technology which will stop CO2 production. I just love the idea that we should all just ‘do something’, when NOTHING exists to do.

    We need different technologies if AGW alarmists are right. The best way to develop technologies is to allow the freedom and wealth to continue. I fully believe that if we do nothing now, not one damned thing, we will produce less CO2 than if we choke industry with taxation and fake solutions. And I think the leftist morons of the world who believe that fuel economy rules, regulation on oil drilling and coal burning, wind turbines, biofuels and PV arrays are solutions or will in any way help are the true idiots.

  87. Neven said

    Well, Jeff, if your sociopathic laissez-faire leads to societal collapse, you will turn out to be right, just not the way you intended.

  88. Jeff Id said

    My opinions are based on math. There is only one solution to the problem as positied which can make any difference at all. Nuclear energy. And that won’t stop CO2 from increasing. Better batteries (read storage) will come around in 30 years, that will solve much of the problem. Until then, you had better pray for Mr. Fusion and that the idiots in charge don’t strangle the global economy for their own pet projects.

  89. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Well, Jeff, if your sociopathic laissez-faire leads to societal collapse, you will turn out to be right, just not the way you intended.

    Your idiotic dump-of-a-government run solutions are a lot more likely to lead to societal collapse than the “let’s get the science and engineering right before we try selecting a solution” approach. The probability that we are at the threshold of being too late is in the noise floor.

    What you and people like you are advocating is frankly just plain dumb. That’s why nobody buys into it, not because of some nefarious collective of deniers funded by big oil.

    I don’t have enough time or patience to even explain all of the ways that it is wrong, and you won’t listen anyway because, in spite of being a complete science noob, you think you have a full grasp of the facts, or at least enough of a grasp of the facts to make the sorts of outrageous nonsensical statements you make in your blog comments.

  90. Carrick said

    Frank:

    And we’ve answered it: There’s no substance whatsoever in the retracted paper. There never was.

    This just proves you never actually read the report.

  91. Neven said

    I wish I could just trust you and Jeff Id, Carrick, because you’re very smart. But you betray an incredible lack of wisdom, and intelligence is nothing without wisdom. So it would be extremely dangerous for me to trust you.

  92. Carrick said

    Neven, I never asked you to trust me. That would be a betrayal of my own principles. II think you are extremely naive though in trusting the people you do trust.

    You don’t have to be an expert in order to learn how to critically think.

  93. Neven said

    Well, Carrick, I envy your certainty.

  94. curious said

    91 – Neven, Frank: What did you make of Jerry North and the NAS panel saying they found the same problems with the stats as Wegman?

    Accessible and thought provoking article on PCA here;

    Not followed this thread closely so apologies if this has been covered.

  95. Carrick said

    Neven:

    Well, Carrick, I envy your certainty.

    I’m certain of nothing, I question everything. (Well everything that it is reasonable to question.) This makes me very hard to live with, I will be the first to admit.

    I’m just encouraging you to do the same. You don’t need to listen to people who speak with voices of authority when they can’t back up their rhetoric with evidence.

    It’s been real as always. I have to jump ship (data collection calls).

  96. Carrick said

    Curious, both of them have ignored the substance of Wegman’s report, other than to claim it didn’t have any substance, or in Neven’s case to say he wasn’t in a position to judge the merit of the science, so he judges (rephrasing him) based on whether they give him a willy or make his stomach turn.

  97. Neven said

    Curious, I’m the wrong guy to ask. I’m just here to say that Wegman cheated, and that he was falsely presented to Congress as “independent, impartial and expert”.

  98. Neven said

    Carrick, apparently the retracted paper (not a small thing) didn’t have any substance, or not much. As for the report to Congress: the chapters on palaeoclimatology and SA were heavily plagiarized and fabricated, the chapter on statistics was not the independent verification it was purported to be, but a simple copypaste of McIntyre’s criticisms. The report was a custom-made PR ploy.

  99. curious said

    96 – Neven – Do you know what the NAS panel was? Invest 15 mins reading this thread and pay attention to the comments of Dr North and Mr Bloomfield under oath:

    http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Social/HS%20evidence.htm

    NAS report is available on line in its entirety if you want to read it first hand. A couple of Googles should pull it up.

    Re: the maths and you being the wrong person to ask … Not wishing to be harsh but by extension that sort of means you are the wrong person to have an opinion on it. Read the link I gave in 92 – not too heavy on the maths IMO. Worth 30 – 45 mins. If nothing else it’ll mean you are better informed on the argument you are engaging in.

  100. Ruhroh said

    With this accusation, Nevin goes over the line.
    <<" the chapter on statistics was not the independent verification it was purported to be, but a simple copypaste of McIntyre’s criticisms. The report was a custom-made PR ploy."

    No need for Nevin to understand math/science to offer proof of this allegation.

    Copy/paste is readily shown nowadays with common internet tools.

    For example, here is an example of how to examine copypaste;

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/

    Here is some (BTW, copy/pasted, bolds added)
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_house_hearings&docid=f:31362.wais }
    Contemporary sworn testimony at the
    congressional hearings that seems relevant;
    " CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
    DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
    DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
    DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
    CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
    MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman. "

    So, Nevin, you've got time to make defamatory posts.
    Do you have time to back up this allegation with anything?
    These guys were testifying under oath…

    RR

  101. Jeff Id said

    Neven,

    Don’t trust me either, I’ve been wrong plenty of times and on this blog there is a different dynamic, Carrick, Roman, Lurker, SteveM, John Pittman, Nick Stokes, on and on don’t mind telling me so. Quite often, they have been right. If you can’t figure something out yourself though, then it is better not to have an opinion.

    I’ve made that comment here quite often actually, although it is usually someone asking – why should I trust you.

  102. Carrick:

    And we’ve answered it: There’s no substance whatsoever in the retracted paper. There never was.

    This just proves you never actually read the report.

    Then tell us, Carrick, what method of analysis did Wegman and others use to try to determine whether “certain styles of co-authorship lead to the possibility of group-think, reduced creativity, and the possibility of less rigorous reviewing processes”?

    Can you even describe the supposed ‘substantial’ material in your own words?

    * * *

    Jeff Id:

    We need different technologies if AGW alarmists are right. The best way to develop technologies is to allow the freedom and wealth to continue. I fully believe that if we do nothing now, not one damned thing, we will produce less CO2 than if we choke industry with taxation and fake solutions. And I think the leftist morons of the world who believe that fuel economy rules, regulation on oil drilling and coal burning, wind turbines, biofuels and PV arrays are solutions or will in any way help are the true idiots.

    Well, it figures, doesn’t it? Jeff Id is fighting phantom communists in his mind, and all of Jeff’s ‘facts’ spring from there.

    How Jeff Id’s ‘math’ works:

    Premise: We’re fighting evil communists!
    Conclusion: Any project that requires me to fork money to the government is obviously ‘government waste’! Unless, well, it’s explicitly stated that it’ll be used to fight communists.
    Conclusion: Wind power doesn’t work! Biofuels don’t work! Solar panels don’t work!
    Conclusion: And, Wegman right! Wegman right! Wegman right!

    Note, however, that in Jeff’s world, oil and nuclear are obviously good things, even though both are heaviliy subsidized by his very taxpayer money — because the oil and nuclear tycoons are claiming to fight phantom communists, which to Jeff is the only thing that matters.

    — frank

  103. Carrick said

    Neven:

    The report was a custom-made PR ploy.

    Coming from somebody who admits he is ignorant of the underlying science, this is more of an indictment on you, for making a statement you have no way of knowing is true or not, than it is the Wegman report. You are incompetent to have any opinion on it, you admit that yourself.

    As far as Wegman goes, it is consistent with other reports of the day. This has been repeated pointed out here and other places.

  104. Jeff Id said

    Wow, ‘kay.

    Fossil fuel and nuclear are the only available options. The rest is pure lies which require massive subsidies to operate. BTW, the oil company subsidy is a myth. Sure they get breaks on tax but they also are forced to jump through huge fake environmental hoops.

    Didn’t shell just lose 4 billion because the government didn’t have proper reporting on how the emissions of a single ice breaker would affect the air quality of a less than 300 person town.

    Frank you are way way off the deep end.

  105. Ruhroh said

    Contemporary summary from
    the American Statistical Association
    Section on Statistics & the Environment
    Newsletter
    Spring 2007 http://www.pnl.gov/statenvi Volume 9, No. 1

    The author of this summary is a skilled statistician, and did not dispute Wegman’s analysis of Mann’s Mathematical missteps…

    “The three speakers were Ed Wegman, J. Michael
    Wallace of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences,
    University of Washington, and myself
    [ Richard L. Smith
    Department of Statistics and
    Operations Research ].
    Ed and Mike both
    talked about the hockey stick reconstruction. Ed focused
    on statistical flaws that, in his view, render much of
    the current literature on this subject of doubtful validity.
    Mike presented the broader findings of a recent NRC
    panel that, while acknowledging the statistical issues of
    Wegman’s report, defended the hockey stick curve based
    on a broader scientific context.”

    and later,
    ” Ed Wegman’s talk was entitled “The Kyoto Accord, the
    2001 IPCC Third Assessment Report, and the Academic
    Papers Underlying Them.” In this talk, Ed described his
    work as part of a pro bono committee (the other members
    were David W. Scott of Rice University and Yasmin
    H. Said of Johns Hopkins University) that had been
    commissioned by Representative Joe Barton (R-Texas),
    at that time chair of the House Committee on Energy
    and Commerce.
    The background to this committee’s report was a
    series of papers authored by Michael Mann, Raymond
    Bradley and Malcolm Hughes that used paleoclimate
    Features methods to reconstruct a curve of the earth’s temperature
    for the millennium from 1000 –2000 AD.
    The first IPCC report (1990) included a graph that
    depicted a “Medieval Warm Period” from about 1100-
    1400 AD, followed by a “Little Ice Age” from 1600-1800,
    followed by a rise during the twentieth century. By the
    time of the Third IPCC Report in 2001, this had been
    replaced by the curve derived by Mann, Bradley and
    Hughes, which showed steady or slightly decreasing
    temperatures from 1000-1900 followed by a sharp rise
    in the twentieth century, widely called the “hockey stick
    curve” and, in Ed’s own words, “a poster child for theories
    of human-induced climate change.” However, critiques
    by Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick (2003-2005) had
    raised questions about the Mann et al. methodology, and
    the main purpose of the Wegman, Scott and Said report
    was to make an independent assessment of the statistical
    assumptions underlying this controversy.
    Ed began his talk by referring to various newspaper
    reports in the 1970s that presaged a major cooling of
    the earth with the possibility of another ice age. He then
    described some of the basics of paleoclimate reconstruction.
    Numerous sources of proxy data have been assembled,
    the best known being tree rings, ice cores and corals.
    These have been assembled into a large data matrix, each
    column representing one time series of proxy data. Mann
    et al. used “climate field reconstruction” (CFR), a variation
    of the method of principal components, to reconstruct
    the earth’s temperature average over the millennium.
    At the core of the controversy is an incorrect use by
    Mann et al. of principal components (PCs). Ed gave a brief
    overview of PC analysis, which uses the eigenvalues and
    eigenvectors of the sample covariances of a data matrix
    X. However as most commonly applied in large data
    sets, the actual calculation begins with a singular value
    decomposition of X itself, after subtracting the sample
    mean vector. A typical analysis by Mann et al. used a complete
    data record from 1902-1980 as a training data set
    to reconstruct temperatures from proxies for 1400-1995.
    However, the sample means they subtracted were based
    only on the data from 1902-1980, instead of the full series
    1400-1995. This induced a bias in the first PC, and also
    biased the variances in a direction which gave greater
    weight to the first PC than a correct analysis would have
    done. To illustrate the point, a number of simulations
    were performed in which the true temperature series was
    represented by a stationary time series with no trend but
    red-noise autocorrelations, and the Mann et al. technique
    applied to estimate the trend in these series. There was
    a strong tendency for the simulations also to show the
    hockey-stick shape, mimicking the actual curves produced
    by Mann et al.
    A number of other commentators have acknowledged
    the flaws in the Mann reconstruction but have argued
    that this does not matter because the answers have been
    verified by other analyses. Ed’s own response to that was
    given in the equation:

    Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.

    In other words, the fact that the answer may have been
    correct does not justify the use of an incorrect method in
    the first place. ”

    The social network aspect was a minor aspect of Wegman’s talk.
    Here, the summary devotes a two-sentence paragraph to the topic;

    ” Ed then went on to a different aspect of his analysis,
    the “social network” of researchers in paleoclimatology
    that Mann worked with. The central finding here was the
    existence of a network of just seven researchers (including
    Mann, Bradley and Hughes) who largely collaborated
    with each other and, by implication, were likely responsible
    for reviewing each others’ work. ”

    RR

  106. Jeff Id:

    Fossil fuel and nuclear are the only available options. The rest is pure lies which require massive subsidies to operate.

    Why? Because you’re fighting phantom communists?

    BTW, the oil company subsidy is a myth. Sure they get breaks on tax but they also are forced to jump through huge fake environmental hoops.

    Didn’t shell just lose 4 billion because the government didn’t have proper reporting on how the emissions of a single ice breaker would affect the air quality of a less than 300 person town.

    Ooh, nice, so 300 people are “fake”, while your phantom communists are “real”, and therefore the oil subsidies are perfectly patriotic, eh?

    Or do you mean to say that the health of 300 real people are nothing compared to your imaginary epic battle against phantom communists that’s raging in your head?

    Sure, go ahead. You defend liars, defend plagiarists, defend buck-passers, defend air polluters, defend tax non-payers, while rubbishing the real needs and real rights of real people — all in the name of fighting phantom communists.

    * * *

    Ruhroh:

    The social network aspect was a minor aspect of Wegman’s talk.

    We’re talking about the retracted paper, Ruhroh. Please stop blowing smoke by talking about other things.

    frank

  107. Jeff Id said

    “Or do you mean to say that the health of 300 real people are nothing compared to your imaginary epic battle against phantom communists that’s raging in your head?”

    Frank, you have to be an idiot to think that an icebreaker will harm the air quality of a town. Is that the crap you are selling or are you willing to admit that perhaps, just maybe, the EPA had other motives?

  108. Jeff Id said

    Frank,

    here’s a link on biofuel

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/what-about-algae-biofuel-hype/

    Read the commentary in linked threads as well, some interesting experts stopped by.

    Here’s a link on PV

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/07/09/greenthink/

    Here’s one on wind farms:

    http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/10326/

    I know you won’t read any of it, but that’s why green solutions are crap. It is just basic engineering Frank, the math is simple and conservative. You work out for yourself where my numbers are wrong, write it up nice and I’ll post it here.

  109. Or do you mean to say that the health of 300 real people are nothing compared to your imaginary epic battle against phantom communists that’s raging in your head?

    Frank, you have to be an idiot to think that an icebreaker will harm the air quality of a town.

    Then why wouldn’t Shell simply do the proper air quality study? Shouldn’t that be a walk in the park for such a large corporation? Oh, I forgot, you think that oil companies are fighting communists, so they should get a free pass on everything.

    Just like you think Wegman should get a free pass on everything, because — wait for it — you think Wegman’s fighting communists.

    I know you won’t read any of it, but that’s why green solutions are crap.

    Oh, I have read it, and your ‘methodology’ is crap because basically what you do is to pull some numbers out of your butt, and then once more apply the following logic:

    Premise: Hmm, my numbers seem to disagree with those from other studies.
    Premise: But wait… I’m fighting communists!
    Conclusion: Therefore, I’m right and they’re wrong! Death to greenism!

    Which, again, is the same reasoning that you use to ‘justify’ Wegman’s shoddy lack of science or ethics. Wegman’s fighting communists, so it’s all excusable, eh?

    frank

  110. Jeff Id said

    I give.

  111. RomanM said

    #65 Frank makes it up as he goes along:

    You see, the paper is actually completed before the talk, even if as part of the audience you merely get the big bulky volume after the talks are finished. Here’s how it works: First, the paper is written. Then the conference organizers decide to accept the paper. Then finally the authors prepare the presentation slides and get their airplane tickets.

    That’s not the way it works at Statistics conferences. The organizers only ask for an abstract of the presentation, not a completed paper (which for most conferences would not be published by the conference organizers anyway). Some may indeed present a portion of a completed paper, but I have attended numerous sessions which were “works in progress”. The authors would then benefit from the discussion with others of like interests for advancing their subject matter before publication. But, of course, from your vast experience you would have known that, only it must have momentarily slipped your mind …

    Despite your admitted inability to understand the relevant scientific aspects (Math is Hard!), you should still be aware that the “commies” are an AGW advocate’s best friend. All you have to do is check out their web pages. Hey, now that former AGW supporter, Osama Bin Laden, is toast, you will need all the help you can get to impose all of the inane non-fixes you and your comrades are advocating for. ;)

  112. Carrick said

    I don’t.

    Just like you think Wegman should get a free pass on everything, because — wait for it — you think Wegman’s fighting communists.

    a) Nobody is giving Wegman a free pass.
    b) Nobody is supporting him because he’s fighting combat.
    c) I do think that Frank is a sophomoric idiot.

  113. RomanM said

    #65 Frank makes it up as he goes along:

    You see, the paper is actually completed before the talk, even if as part of the audience you merely get the big bulky volume after the talks are finished. Here’s how it works: First, the paper is written. Then the conference organizers decide to accept the paper. Then finally the authors prepare the presentation slides and get their airplane tickets.

    That’s not the way it works at Statistics conferences. The organizers only ask for an abstract of the presentation, not a completed paper (which at most conferences would not be published by the conference organizers anyway). Some may indeedpresent a portion of a completed paper, but I have attended numerous sessions which were “works in progress”. The authors would then benefit from the discussion with others of like interests for advancing their subject matter. But of course, from your vast experience, you would have known that only it must have slipped your mind …

    Despite your admitted inability to understand the relevant scientific aspects (Math is Hard!), you should be aware that the “commies” are an AGW advocate’s best friend. All you have to do is check out their web pages. Hey, now that former AGW supporter, Osama Bin Laden, is toast, you will need all the help you can get to impose those inane non-fixes you and your comrades are advocating for. ;)

  114. Carrick:

    a) Nobody is giving Wegman a free pass.

    Then why do you and Jeff keep insisting that ‘Wegman is right, Wegman is right, Wegman is right’ when you don’t even understand his supposed social network analysis ‘methodology’ to describe it in your own words? Why do you keep insisting that his plagiarism, his lame attempt at buck-passing, and his lack of rigour are merely ‘human errors’ which should be forgiven in great magnanimity?

    That sure sounds a lot like giving Wegman a free pass, doesn’t it?

    b) Nobody is supporting him because he’s fighting [communists].

    I don’t know about you, but Jeff Id has certainly been railing on and on about communists since, well, since he started railing on and on about communists, and he’s desperate to ‘prove’ — using circular logic if need be — that the world’s being attacked by phantom communists. The only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that Jeff’s defending Wegman because he thinks Wegman’s fighting communists.

    c) I do think that Frank is a sophomoric idiot.

    Nothing but name-calling, I see.

    * * *

    Jeff Id:

    I give.

    Oh come on, get up, be a real man. You’re fighting those evil commies, remember?

    Or did you just realize that there’s actually more to life than fighting phantom communists in your own imagination? If so, congratulations. ;)

    * * *

    frank

  115. RomanM:

    That’s not the way it works at Statistics conferences. The organizers only ask for an abstract of the presentation, not a completed paper (which at most conferences would not be published by the conference organizers anyway).

    I’m pretty sure those aren’t the kind of conferences Carrick was talking about.

    Despite your admitted inability to understand the relevant scientific aspects (Math is Hard!),

    I don’t see any math here. I requested Carrick to describbe Wegman’s social network analysis in his own words, and he responds by calling me a “sophomoric idiot”. So where’s this “Math” I’m supposed to understand?

    Hey, now that former AGW supporter, Osama Bin Laden, is toast, you will need all the help you can get to impose those inane non-fixes you and your comrades are advocating for.

    Wow, your ‘logic’ gets even better. So you’re saying that Osama bin Laden was a Muslim fundamentalist, which is merely a different sort of communist. Seriously, are you crazy?

    If that’s the quality of your ‘logic’, then why should anyone care for your judgement of Wegman’s supposed ‘morals’ or supposed ‘math’?

    frank

  116. Jeff Id said

    Frank, come on. I’ve treated you with respect for far too long considering the abuse I’ve taken. Get over yourself man, you don’t have a grasp of any one of the issues. You can’t discuss the technical detail well enough to converse. Instead all you can do is tell me that socialists and communists are phantoms which is clearly just BS trying to paint me as an extremist. IOW, You are not qualified for this discussion.

  117. Carrick said

    Frank also can’t understand the difference between criticizing the source and criticizing the content. (If a think is true, it is true regardless of who uttered it, and regardless of what worldly sins that person committed.)

    That’s not the same as giving a free pass, but thinking it is, is certainly very sophomoric and frankly just as boring as Frank’s lame attempts at belittle other people’s political beliefs.

    I also agree with Roman here, when Frank wrote this:

    First, the paper is written. Then the conference organizers decide to accept the paper. Then finally the authors prepare the presentation slides and get their airplane tickets.

    I think it’s pretty clear from this description he’s never actually proposed an abstract to a conference. You write an abstract, they accept your talk based on that (or who you are more commonly). Sometimes you’re required to write a paper but that’s usually for workshops not regular conferences. I happen to have a requirement of completely my talks 30-days in advance (that’s because my sponsor requires prior approval of anything I present…and this is a contractual arrangement, not a generic one with that sponsor), but I have colleagues who are still working on their talks for next Tuesday (the day they are presenting).

  118. Carrick said

    Sighz… if a thing is true …

    Also

    I don’t see any math here. I requested Carrick to describbe Wegman’s social network analysis in his own words, and he responds by calling me a “sophomoric idiot”. So where’s this “Math” I’m supposed to understand?

    Your asking me to describe social network theory is intellectual laziness on your part, and not the reason why I described you (appropriately) as a sophomoric idiot. Since you can’t read very well, that was in response to this stupid comment of yours:

    Just like you think Wegman should get a free pass on everything, because — wait for it — you think Wegman’s fighting communists.

    Sophomoric, moronic, making up straw men arguments, pick the label, it’s actually hard to go to over the top in criticizing your puerile nonsense.

    You obviously came here gunning for a fight, don’t start crying if you get one.

  119. Jeff Id:

    Get over yourself man, you don’t have a grasp of any one of the issues. You can’t discuss the technical detail well enough to converse.

    You ‘skeptics’ keep yammering about “grasp of” the “issues” and “technical detail” and stuff, but when I press you, it’s you yourselves who can’t even describe Wegman’s supposed social network analysis ‘methodology’ in your own words.

    What’s more, you admitted that you didn’t read Wegman’s retracted paper at all — not even the abstract — and that you didn’t know what it was actually about (though bizarrely you blamed me for it!).

    And now you have the gall to say that I am “not qualified for this discussion” and that you’ve treated me “with respect”?

    Instead all you can do is tell me that socialists and communists are phantoms which is clearly just BS trying to paint me as an extremist.

    Then again, ‘I’m not an extremist’ is exactly what an extremist would say, no?

    As shown again and again, your twisted ‘logic’ has nothing to do with actual deduction, and everything to do with a single-minded desire to Fight Those Phantom Communists; and your twisted ‘morals’ have nothing to do with fair play, and everything to do with — guess what — fighting phantom communists.

    You’re merely defending Wegman’s numerous lapses in morals and science because you think he’s fighting communists. And you full well know that.

    frank

  120. RomanM said

    #114

    I’m pretty sure those aren’t the kind of conferences Carrick was talking about.

    Well, you quote Carrick as saying “I’ve seen plenty of papers where the student’s contributions were acknowledged in a conference talk, but later omitted in the published paper” which you turn into a “published conference paper” based on an uninformed view of what happens at statistics conferences (where a reasonable person might actually assume that a statistics presentation might be presented).

    But you get even better in your reply to my comment:

    Hey, now that former AGW supporter, Osama Bin Laden, is toast, you will need all the help you can get to impose those inane non-fixes you and your comrades are advocating for.

    Wow, your ‘logic’ gets even better. So you’re saying that Osama bin Laden was a Muslim fundamentalist, which is merely a different sort of communist. Seriously, are you crazy?

    If that’s the quality of your ‘logic’…

    “Former AGW supporter” means just that, no more, no less. However, in some sort of non-sequitur haze, you interpret this as stating that a Muslim fundamentalist is a communist!!!

    The last phrase does indeed say it all. You should look at getting your meds adjusted.

    By the way, if want real evidence that “that the entrepreneurial style leads to peer review abuse”, you need look no farther than the climategate emails. Pal reviews, misrepresentation of results, requests for deletion of information to avoid FOIA exposure, side-stepping IPCC rules, etc., for the good of the “team”,it’s all in there. All you have to do open your eyes and read the emails, Frank.

  121. Jeff Id said

    “What’s more, you admitted that you didn’t read Wegman’s retracted paper at all — not even the abstract — and that you didn’t know what it was actually about (though bizarrely you blamed me for it!).”

    Read more carefully Frank, I read it 8 months ago. You aren’t even following my replies. I’ve read so many climate papers now you wouldn’t believe it. Of course even reading one would be amazing for you.

  122. Carrick:

    Your asking me to describe social network theory is intellectual laziness on your part,

    No, I requested you to describe the particular social network analysis method that was used in that particular retracted paper — something which you apparently can’t do, even though you were totally convinced that the paper did have ‘substance’.

    Sophomoric, moronic, making up straw men arguments, pick the label, it’s actually hard to go to over the top in criticizing your puerile nonsense.

    You mean you can’t stop dishing out epithets to disguise your failure to actually describe the “technical issues”?

    It’s certain that Jeff Id is defending Wegman merely because he thinks Wegman’s fighting phantom communists. I don’t know what your motivations are, but there’s one thing I know: your motivations have nothing to do with the supposed ‘substance’ or ‘technical issues’ of his social network analysis, because you can’t describe this when pressed.

    frank

  123. RomanM:

    By the way, if want real evidence that “that the entrepreneurial style leads to peer review abuse”, you need look no farther than the climategate emails. Pal reviews, misrepresentation of results, requests for deletion of information to avoid FOIA exposure, side-stepping IPCC rules, etc., for the good of the “team”,it’s all in there. All you have to do open your eyes and read the emails, Frank.

    Oh wait a minute. All these high crimes are perfectly excusable as ‘human errors’ when they’re committed by Wegman, right? Because Wegman’s fighting communists and that’s all that matters, right?

    Pal review? Check.

    Misrepresentation of results? Check.

    Unwillingness to provide details on data and methods? Check.

    Side-stepping the normal anonymous peer review process? Check.

    All for the good of … Joe Barton? Check.

    frank

  124. Jeff Id said

    Can’t quit blogging, can’t quit explaining to this guy where he’s wrong. Check.

  125. Ruhroh said

    Frank;
    The one thing you can’t/won’t touch is Wegman’s deconstruction of Mann’s errors.

    RR

  126. The one thing you can’t/won’t touch is Wegman’s deconstruction of Mann’s errors.

    The ones in the retracted paper?
    Not much in the way of innuendo there.
    It’s retracted.

    Don’t worry about it. No doubt they will come back in a couple of weeks when Wegman whips out a revised report.
    Any minute now.
    Child’s play.

    AGW is being used to further the socialist, global government agenda.
    (…)
    …you should be aware that the “commies” are an AGW advocate’s best friend. All you have to do is check out their web pages. Hey, now that former AGW supporter, Osama Bin Laden, is toast…

    Yeah, sure.

    NASA: a hotbed of sekrit kommunists whose sympathies lie with Bin Laden.
    Even the US Navy has been taken over by the sekrit kommunists.
    Oh woe.

    Konspiracy theories are for suckers.
    Seriously, going off about Kommies in the 21 century and and a dead terrorist is silly.
    If you have to twist yourself into such paranoid knots to justify completely ignoring every single scientific community on the planet…then it’s over. You have a total disconnect with reality.

  127. Jeff Id said

    Cedric,

    All you have to do is read. It isn’t like they are hiding their intent. Of course reading is far more difficult than writing.

    http://noconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/23831690-091127copenhagen.pdf

  128. Mark T said

    Hence the point of this thread…

    For what it’s worth, wasn’t the original report part of the congressional testimony?

    Mark

  129. All you have to do is read. It isn’t like they are hiding their intent. Of course reading is far more difficult than writing.

    You are not getting this. There is no “they”.
    It’s paranoid nonsense.

    The US Navy is not controlled by the kommies.
    No, really. Go ask ‘em.

    NASA is not controlled by the kommies.
    It’s just silly.
    It’s as silly as saying that NASA didn’t make it to the moon.

    A conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy theory is just a conspiracy theory.
    Birthers, 9/11 troofers, creationists etc. They are all in denial.

    Every single scientific community on the planet is not magically controlled by kommies.
    It’s 2011. The Cold War is long over. The Soviet Union collapsed.
    Deal with it.

  130. Mark T said

    Warmists have no other argument but “his paper was retracted because of something irrelevant to the piont it made, therefore it cannot be true.” Gotta wonder how that is any more intellectually honest…

    Mark

  131. Jeff Id said

    Cedric,

    The world is full of fools so that is no surprise, however I dislike stupid.

    I’m sick of the stupidity and the resulting stunning ignorance of the few trolls here so one more comment off topic from Wegman’s paper and I’m snipping it. Considering that I have snipped only one person in the past year and a half, you have reached the limit of my patience. If you cannot comment on the content of this thread, then you have no business writing here.

    You must be this smart to write here ^—-^, if your head doesn’t reach the line, you may read but do not write.

  132. Mark T said

    I don’t have to point out who the morons are, they do that themselves, but yes, kkuhnkat, I am glad he let’s me post, too.

    Mark

    PS: drunk, and not concerned about the double letter issue my phone imposes upon me at times. Freaking droid2.

  133. Poptech said

    OT, a true example of failure is naming your blog after something the average person will have no idea what you are talking about (Swifthack) yet conceding you lost the re-branding battle with your better choice of a domain name. Perpetuating this failure says a lot about the character of the individual, including their completely irrelevant obsession with the 2004 U.S. presidential elections. Just an observation.

  134. Poptech said

    Just an idea, maybe Frank wants to rename “CopyGate” to “SwiftCopy”.

  135. Carrick said

    Frank:

    You mean you can’t stop dishing out epithets to disguise your failure to actually describe the “technical issues”?

    Oh please! You haven’t dealt with anything technical, and the only thing close to technical you’ve done (other than completely botch the explanation of how conference talks get accepted) is ask me to do your homework for you…. As to the epithet part, unlike you I don’t hid the intent of my comments behind a passive aggressive veil. Nor really, do you have any leg to stand on, unless it’s your theory it’s OK to unleash epithets only if the target (Wegman in this case) isn’t around to defend himself. Weird theory that.

    As to social network theory…sorry, but I’m really not interested. Not in the social network theory (at all) nor in being your puppet.

    As far as Wegman goes, I’ve already told you: I never had a great opinion of Wegman’s report, but I do agree with Jeff that his comments on PCA are completely relevant. I don’t see any reason to attack the character of the author of a paper in order to critically examine its technical contents.

  136. kim said

    Omigod, Neven lecturing Carrick on wisdom. It’s a good thing I’ve been too busy to follow this thread.
    ======

  137. kuhnkat said

    Well Frank, you are standing up to this well. After days of being asked for evidence you write:

    “All these high crimes are perfectly excusable as ‘human errors’ when they’re committed by Wegman, right?”

    yet you have offered no more evidence than anyone else on the net that Wegman either himself did the alledged dirty deed or was even aware of it. Y’all are quick to slander and defame with no evidence. So then you go down the road to a new accusation that he treated his assistant poorly by not putting her name on the report. This assistant may very well have done portions or all of your claimed crimes and you want her to have her name on it?? I also note that Said was the lead on the retracted paper so should be catching the flack for not catching the problems.

    Lord it must suck to be you!!

  138. kuhnkat said

    Cedric,

    you are years behind on your geopolitical view. Us right wing radical nutjobs blame it all on the Islamists now with assistance from the commies and their NAZI collaborators!!! And don’t forget the CIA helped develop the Islamists!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

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

«
 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: