If you don’t know the answer, Scream it as loud as you can!
Posted by Jeff Condon on May 20, 2011
I found a link to Wegman Said’s paper recently retracted by the journal for improper citation. It has created a bit of a stink in the believer world as it shows that Wegman, the man who confirmed for congress the obvious fact that decentered PCA is stupid, was accused of plagiarism by a Canadian guitarist/ global warming groupie.
Since the link is public, I guess we can discuss any part of it we want openly. First, we should look at some of the Earth shattering conclusions and claims as they certainly affect all aspects of anthropogenic global warming.
Here is a doozy:
Wegman et al. (2006) suggested that the entrepreneurial style could potentially lead to peer review abuse. Many
took umbrage at this suggestion. Nonetheless, there is some merit to this idea. Peer review is usually regarded as
a gold standard for scientific publication. Clearly it is desirable that the peer reviewer have three important traits:
independent, unbiased, and knowledgeable in the field. As any hard-working editor or associate editor knows, finding
independent, unbiased, and knowledgeable referees for a paper or proposal is a difficult chore. This is especially true
in a rather narrow field where there are not many experts so that issues of independence arise quickly. Clearly as a
field becomes increasingly specialized, there are not as many independent experts. Thus finding someone who is both
independent and knowledgeable is difficult.
Of course because referees are not identified, getting hard evidence of independence, unbiasedness and knowledgeable
expertise is not readily available. The social network analysis can therefore only be suggestive. It is our contention,
however, that safeguards such as double blind refereeing and not identifying referees invariably lead to the conclusion
that peer review is at best an imperfect system. Anyone with a long history of publication in their heart of hearts knows
that they have benefited or have been penalized, probably both, by imperfect peer review.
The social network analysis of an entrepreneurial style suggests the following. There are many tightly coupled groups
working closely together in a relatively narrow field. It is clear that closely coupled groups have a common perspective.
Thus it is very hard to find a referee that is both knowledgeable and independent. Because of the common perspective, in
addition it is very hard to find an unbiased referee. Thus this style of co-authorship makes it more likely that peer review
will be compromised.
It’s like reading a study as to whether being tired makes you fall asleep.
Indeed, the paleoclimate discussion inWegman et al. (2006), while showing no hard
evidence, does suggest that the papers were refereed with a positive, less-than-critical bias. In contrast, the laboratory
style of co-authorship is somewhat less prone to peer-review problems in that the laboratories themselves, rather than
individual scholars, become the publishing unit, and as such, tend to be somewhat more competitive with each other.
Nonetheless, we note that many discussions of concerns about peer review seem to take place in medical/biological
related journals. Finally, the mentor style of co-authorship, while not entirely free of the possibility of bias, does suggest
that younger co-authors are generally not editors or associate editors. And often they are not in a position to become
referees, so that the possibility of bias is much reduced. Nonetheless, even here, a widely respected principal author has
the possibility of smoothing the path for his or her junior collaborators, while the papers of a high reputation principal
author may not be as critically reviewed as might be desirable.
Definitely controversial stuff. So lets read the conclusions – in their entirity.
Social network analysis of author–coauthor networks at the very least gives an interesting insight into the sociology
of scientific workers. The fact that there are distinct modes of authorship readily identifiable by the block model, while
interesting in its own right, also provides insight into the why certain fields of study may have migrated into a more
politically driven framework.
There, I’ve quoted probably 20 percent of the paper. Most of it qualified opinions and suggestion of problems. It is very much like reading about tired people potentially falling asleep more often than those who are less tired, unless of course they feel some important need to stay awake. Read the whole thing, it shouldn’t take more than five minutes. The paper was retracted due to non-citation of wiki entries on background information. So what do we receive from the AGW believer crowd on this blog’s threads.
Here’s a few quotes:
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.
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.
Then there’s this:
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: 1There’s a reason for this, but you won’t find it through wingnut reasoning.
“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’.
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.
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.
Then my favorite
Cedric Katesby said
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.
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.
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…
NASA: a hotbed of sekrit kommunists whose sympathies lie with Bin Laden.
Even the US Navy has been taken over by the sekrit kommunists.
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.
There is nothing in the retracted paper about anything other than a potential for biased review, something now proven by cliamtegate emails. Conspiracies, communists, Mann’s errors, are simply not the same subject yet jackalopes like these come by pretending knowledge and screaming it from the highest towers.
This is what frustrates me about blogging. How is it that thoughtful people are on equal footing with idiots like these. I’m starting to think Anthony Watts has it right, just snip the stupid.