Saturday
Oct092010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Some thoughts on Wegman
Oct 9, 2010 Climate: Mann I haven't had time to read John Mashey's report, but from what I can gather about today's excitements over the GMU investigation of Edward Wegman, there are two possibilities in play:
- Wegman et al are guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise
- Wegman et al are not guilty of plagiarism; short-centred principal components analysis is biased and can produce hockey sticks from red noise.
Is this right? Nobody is suggesting that the principal findings of the Wegman report - on the incorrect centring used by Mann - are incorrect, are they? They were, after all confirmed by the NAS panel and apparently also by David Hand during the Oxburgh panel's (brief) deliberations.
So I guess we are looking at quite an interesting investigation about how the norms of academic citation apply in expert reports (no doubt Donna LaF will be checking the IPCC reports over very thoroughly in coming days), but not much else.
Reader Comments (44)
It is worth skimming the Mashey PDF in order to establish that he nit picks and is clearly aligned as an AGW advocate with a huge personal dislike of the Wegman report.
My reading is that he regards any attempt to paraphrase (or copy) the contents of documents in the Wegman report as "plagiarism". However amongst other things the Wegman report is a literary review which cites the source articles so without a much stronger case that currently presented I personally regard the accusation of plagiarism as unreasonable and out of order.
A more legitimate issue would be whether any of the Wegman content misrepresents or misleads. There is too much nitpicking in Masheys document so at present I am not aware of any standout example. Until we get to see any specific objections from Bradley himself or other cited authors then all that will happen is speculation.
"Your reading is!" Thanls for the laugh.
Your job is damage limitation for the other flockers, that's your role.
You guys really do have your own little alternate universe. And pitiful it is.
Maybe that's why reality passes you by, and you don't know that GMU hasn't resolved the case inside its self-specified deadline of 30th September and Weggie feels the need to pull 'no comment' and lawyerize hisself up de ass when questioned. So you might like to actually sober up but probably won't and will cling to your own denierverse bubble as long as you can.
Wait - is that the faint sound of hard drives being scrubbed I can hear coming from Canada and Scottysland?
Suely not ... they can't be stupid enough to think that'll work. Are they?
Is that supposed to make some sort of sense, Bishop Phil?
Because it's pretty meaningless to me. Explanation would be appreciated. If you feel up to it, of course.
Mashey's piece reads like a bizarrely unhinged rant, frankly. That's the nicest way of putting my feelings having skim-read it. It's filled with silly, and in places quite preposterous, inflammatory language. It makes it very difficult to take him seriously at all. And I think, basically, that's why nobody has done so. It's been published for a while - I skim-read it some time ago, and it just read like stupid, vindictive 10:10 tripe.
The news isn't that Mashey's written an off-the-wall rant, it's that Bradley complained and GMU are investigating the complaint. But the news is also, we hear, that litigation is in progress. Since I think Bradley is unlikely to initiate litigation against Wegman while GMU are investigating, I'm suspecting instead that Wegman may be litigating against Mashey for some of the ad hominem attacks on Wegman's character that, frankly, I cannot for a moment imagine Mashey is able to defend.
There's also a big question over whether or not any of Wegman's text actually amounts to plagiarism. I'm not sure where the chips will fall on this (I'm not sufficiently familiar with what amounts to plagiarism) but I understand that Bradley's book - which he complains is plagiarised - is referenced in Wegman's bibliography. It's difficult to decipher, in Mashey's meandering and waffly piece, if Mashey addresses this or if he even really knows what it is he's complaining about, with Wegman. Mashey just reads as if he's "going off on one", and, to me, like he needs to stop picking his own mushrooms.
Bish,
You are correct, sir. The alarmists here are giving us roughly the equivalent to the schoolyard response -- "Oh yeah?! Well, umm, your mom wears army boots!"
So Mashey did not succeed in damaging Wegmans technical arguments but is trying to criticise his methodology. If I have got this right, then Mashey, if successful, still only manages to haul the battered Hockey Stick back into the public eye for a further bishing. Do the Team need the Stick to make its way into their AR5E (Assessment Report 5 Evaluation)
Welcome to the small world of climate semantics.
Why has it taken 4 years for Bradley to make a complaint?
There's a need here to distinguish between academic, conceptual plagiarism, and unattributed quotation of text. It's the latter that Wegman is accused of, although it's not a very credible accusation when the document he's accused of plagiarising is one about which he was writing.
I would note that the use of the words 'Wegman' and 'plagiarism' in this context, held to the same standard, is itself plagiarism.
" I'm suspecting instead that Wegman may be litigating against Mashey for some of the ad hominem attacks on Wegman's character that, frankly, I cannot for a moment imagine Mashey is able to defend."
Simon, Mashey has said on two occasions that the litigation so far doesn't have anything to do with him.
Sam the Slapstick Skeptic sed: "Because it's pretty meaningless to me".
Of course it is Sam, because your poor brain is so pickled with phoney denier gates and sheeite, you don't know what it even means anymore!
This is now BEYOND blogscience so watch and learn, watch and learn.
You're a follower not a leader, remember.
bigcitylib, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have anything to do with Mashey. It may just mean that he's not instigated litigation and hasn't been served with a summons yet. That Mashey doesn't know anything about it is not necessarily inconsistent with my speculation. But it is pure speculation, and I make no pretence about it.
Bishop Phil,
Back to your padded cell - and don't forget to take your medication.
Perhaps Bishop Phil could elaborate on these phoney denier gates so the rest of us have some form of idea what he is referring to?
As the name implies, Bishop Phil is a troll.
Ignore it and it will probably go away. Feed it and it will be back. Again and again and . . . .
I have looked for what was "plagiarized" but somehow missed that detail. Does anybody have the specific list of what was copied from the original document without citation of the original?
Plagiarism is a serious charge, particularly in academia, but the nice thing about it is that there are always two bodies to look at -- the original and the "copy", and you can compare the two.
Bishop Phil
So nice of you to take time out of your busy schedule to drop by and give us a sermon. I hope you don't miss your plane to the Holy Land.
Don Pablo
He looks like a very nice man
Mashey's "report" is total garbage. Entirely content-free and pure speculation. Desperation from an ignorant activist. There is no plagiarism at all. Paraphrasing a reference that you cite is not plagiarism.
Bishop Phil - thanks for dropping by, I was starting to tire of the cogent arguments and common sense I usually find on this blog.
BTW... "Scottysland"... such sparkling wit! What next - nose tweaking?
I am confused. It looks to me that the accusation is not just saying Wegman copied, but allegating that he copied something to a distorted position...?
Steve2
but allegating that he copied something to a distorted position...?
Thank you Steve2. I was worried that I was reading it wrong as well and my expensive new glasses were not working. Maybe Bishop Phil can explain it with Divine Revelation or maybe his Ouija board. I, too, am at a loss at how it all works. I always thought that "Plagiarism" meant stealing other people's original thoughts or words and claiming them as your own. But inverting the meaning? Now that is new.
Oh, the mysteries of Climate Science -- 'Tis all Fog and Inversions, it is. Maybe 'tis jest a Warmist front blowin' through.
Mashey's "report" is total garbage. Entirely content-free and pure speculation. Desperation from an ignorant activist. There is no plagiarism at all. Paraphrasing a reference that you cite is not plagiarism.
Yes. But I’m reminded of the outcome of the original Wegman “vs” North event. North said to reporters (or reporters understood) that the HS had been vindicated, and only in close questioning did North admit he did not disagree with Wegman on key issues – ie the HS was NOT vindicated.
However, that’s not what newspapers reported. They reported victory for North and vindication of the HS over Wegman. And that’s what people remember.
Are these [self snip] squirting mud (and they are, fast and hard) in the hope that some will stick onto the previous cakes of mud?
If Wegman used a specific tract of text and distorted it to incorrectly make a point that cannot be supported by any other real existing source - then that needs to be shown. And if so I would agree it is wrong.
Looking at the deepclimate and Mashey stuff, and maybe because my motivation is low, I still cannot see their work doing anything other than a series of WinDiff gotchas!
Perhaps someone better versed in the field could help me here?
There seems to be a belief that the ethical conventions of academia (academia, not science) are fundamental laws of the universe and trump any other considerations from any other field of activity?
In composing background information for a report in the business world, I don't think I've ever included citations, other than is asides, as it seldom has any relevance to the report's focus. e.g. if I am reporting on a proposal to spend a million pounds on a computer system to forecast the gold price, the board is not interested in references to academic papers on gold refining techniques, or the chemical properties of Au in any background information I provide.
Similarly, we have here a Congressional report on statistics being approached as though it is an academic paper in the field of climate science, perhaps on the basis that the report's author is an academic? Or perhaps Congressional investigations are held to be tied to academia?
To me, the faux outrage seems decidedly misdirected.
My apologies to the sane contributors to this blog. Normally I manage to spot the trolls early enough to avoid feeding them but this time I missed it.
"Bishop Phil's" peevishly offensive reply to my request for enlightenment has lowered the tone of this debate on a site that usually maintains an exceptionally high standard of politeness and consideration for its commenters.
I suppose even the best of sites will occasionally attract the odd brainless prat.
Don Pablo
"I have looked for what was "plagiarized" but somehow missed that detail. Does anybody have the specific list of what was copied from the original document without citation of the original?"
The report has a lot of information, not very well ordered. But there's lots there.
Try this one from Mashey p 119. The Wegman report introduced the new idea of social network analysis to look at the mechanics of climate science. There's lots of mathy talk to impress you with their expertise. So consider this para from Wegman p 18:
"The shape of the social network helps determine a network‘s usefulness to its individuals. Smaller, tighter networks can be less useful to their members than networks with lots of loose connections (weak ties) to individuals outside the main network. More ―open‖ networks, with many weak ties and social connections, are more likely to introduce new ideas and opportunities to their members than closed networks with many redundant ties. In other words, a group of friends who only do things with each other already share the same knowledge and opportunities. Yet a group of individuals with connections to other social worlds is likely to have access to a wider range of information. It is better for individual success to have connections to a variety of networks rather than many connections within a single network. Similarly, individuals can exercise influence or act as brokers within their social networks by bridging two networks that are not directly linked (called filling social holes)."
It's from Wiki, "Social Networks", version 1/2/2006 I've bolded the one word, "yet", which is different.
And no, Wiki didn't get it from Wegman. The same para is there in March 2005.
There's no reference to Wiki, nor any form of acknowledgement.
Chuckles wrote :
Similarly, we have here a Congressional report on statistics being approached as though it is an academic paper in the field of climate science, perhaps on the basis that the report's author is an academic? Or perhaps Congressional investigations are held to be tied to academia?
so your point is that if it's a report for Congress, it doesn't matter if it is substandard ? And it doesn't matter if Congress takes decisions based on substandard material ?
I think the whole affair is "much ado about nothing". (1)
Footnotes:
1. Shakespeare, William, Much Ado about Nothing, London, Wise & Aspley, 1600, Title
"so your point is that if it's a report for Congress, it doesn't matter if it is substandard ? And it doesn't matter if Congress takes decisions based on substandard material ?"
Does copying from Bradley necessarily make the report substandard? Now sure, Bradley has coauthored some very poor pieces of science with Michael Mann, but you should write off everything he has done. ;-)
Antoon DV,
Forgive me that I phrased things so poorly. I was not actually making any point, but asking a question - namely, can someone enlighten me whether a Congressional report is regarded as an academic paper, and if so why? To me, a report and a research paper are two different things, but I am not familiar with the conventions of academia and politics on such matters.
Similarly, if Congressional reports and academic papers are two very different things, must Wegmans report nonetheless conform to the conventions of academia, simply because he is academic?
And I suppose as a overarching statement, are we to conclude that the conventions of academia sufficiently lofty, that they should be applied by default to all similar written documents as a matter of course?
Your reply seems to suggest that if the Congressional report is not an academic paper, it is substandard, or as noted by Harry above, that because it seems to include work by Bradley, it is somehow substandard? I'm not sure this answers my question?
ZT quotes a more exact copy of a Bradley text by another author which is close to word for word verbatim.
If there are other texts loose in public which contain strings which might be characterized as "plagiarisms" is the complainant obligated to pursue all known examples if he pursues one?
What if he's slept on his rights?
Yep old Nick, we're all learning about echo chambered social networks now, in climate science too, and the shabbiness of Mann's Stats. Let there be light.
====================
Nick Stokes - looks like Wegman could have referenced Wiki. Also looks like I'll have to tell my students that they can now cite Wiki in any papers or projects. Previously I said they had to refer to original articles. BTW - where is the text book or paper that the text you quote came from? I can't find any obvious reference to it in the Wiki discussion page. I believe that should have been cited rather than Wiki.
Do you think this will negate Wegman's statistical findings which were the primary purpose of the report? Is the non-reference to Wiki about social networks sufficient to have Wegman's hitherto unchallenged statistical analysis redone, amended or even scrapped?
I'm sure you wouldn't want the latter.
GrantB,
I don't believe the Wiki text came without modification from another source. A clue is the "(weak ties)" in brackets. In the Wiki article, this is an active link to another Wiki article of that name. But the Wegman Report just pastes it in, and it doesn't make much sense without the link.
What Wegman statistical analysis are you referring to?
Nick Stokes - "What Wegman statistical analysis are you referring to?"
From the report P3 (some background) - "Two principal methods for temperature reconstructions have been used; CFR4 (climatefield construction) and CPS (climate-plus-scale). The CFR is essentially a principalcomponent analysis and the CPS is a simple averaging of climate proxies, which are then scaled to actual temperature records. The controversy of Mann’s methods lies in that the proxies are centered on the mean of the period 1902-1995, rather than on the whole time period. This mean is, thus, actually decentered low, which will cause it to exhibit a larger variance, giving it preference for being selected as the first principal component. The net effect of this decentering using the proxy data in MBH98 and MBH99 is to produce a “hockey stick” shape. Centering the mean is a critical factor in using the principal component methodology properly. It is not clear that Mann and associates realized the error in their methodology at the time of publication.
I agree with you; no analysis there, although the reasons why are illuminating. However,
Suggests a little bit of analysis don't you think? There are other similar references in the report. Perhaps you should read it.
Nick Stokes & GrantB
Thank you. It would appear there is some smoke. And Grant, if you even think about letting your students use Wiki as a reference directly ----- Of course, I know you were joking. (I HOPE!)
As for the Mann-made statistics, there are several independent reviews showing just how flawed they are. No need to review them here as they were all topics on this blog for the last several months.
Nick Stokes
Thank you for that incriminating piece of evidence. I have also read part of John Mashey's 250 p essay on the same topic. And as you say, it seems that Wegman both used words and phrases that had been used before. Mostly from the literature he was referencing for the overview and background of his work, and also the details of it. And, which you also seem aware of, sometimes he paraphrased and abbreviated. And most certainly some nuances may have gotten lost in the process. Alternatively, he may have presented things as he perceiced them or even used them as a part in his own counterargument.
Now, if such details may have come lost for a casual reader, that is of course unfortuante. And if he indeed claimed that other peoples results were the outcome of his own efforts, that would indeed constitute plaguarism, And if i indeed were to knowingly completely misrepresenting other peoples proclaimed positions, that would constitute distortion.
But is this really what you are claiming here? Casual, not very controversial, wording found on Wikipedia uncredited?
And if yes, what do you mean that it would imply? You don't need to inform me of that those whose work is criticized, either disagree with his findings, or at least publicly state that they disagree. That is to be expected. Also that they would be looking for an excuse to dismiss the report. But is that what you are alluding to here?
Disregard! Because Wiki was used without proper crediting? Is that really an argument you would like to make as your best objection? Your best counter argument? I personally would not think that this is the best path to tread ... if you indeed disagree.
There is a difference between copying (i.e. cutting and pasting) and paraphrasing. I wonder whether Wegman's Ph.D students will lose their Ph.D.s or job opertunities because their followed in their mentor's foot steps. It's difficult to stop undergraduates from cutting and pasting when professors do the same.
This is one of those instances that almost make me wish we could impose a logic requirement on society (i.e. if you can't master simple logic, you're banned from public comment). The gleeful hysteria over whether Wegman plagiarized is just a headscratcher. It is the ultimate manifestation of the team sport mentality which has completely infected the alarmists (and political left-wingers in general). It's as simple as -- "Wegman plays for the other team. Therefore, his destruction advances our cause."
Doesn't matter that Wegman's destruction does nothing to prove CAGW. Doesn't matter that Mann's work remains exposed as fatally flawed. And it doesn't occur to them that using the same standards, we have seen the credibility of the IPCC, GISS, CRU, et al impugned by repeated examples of incompetence, misfeasance and malfeasance far more relevant and devastating to the claims of CAGW.
Logic be damned. They think they've drawn blood. They love the taste. And they are going to enjoy their meal. They don't seem to understand that demonstrating their failure of logic doesn't enhance their credibility much.
I say we go straight for the "triple-dog" dare!
BH wrote:
I cannot speak for Donna, but as one who participated in her Citizen Audit, I note (with some irony!) that notwithstanding the IPCC's "rules" as they pertain to the citation of non-peer-reviewed literature, AR4 contains a mere 6 (out of 5,587 references cited but not published in peer-reviewed journals) that were properly identified.
By comparison, Wegman's bibliography quite clearly indicates the nature of the material consulted:
Academic Papers and Books
Other Literature Including Articles in the Popular Press
Presentations
Websites
For any who might be curious, "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2001) Climate Change 2001: Third Assessment Report, IPCC" is listed in Wegman's 2nd category.
The IPCC might do well to consider using Wegman's taxonomy; it's more "reader friendly" and certainly adds a note of clarity - which is decidedly lacking in the IPCC report.
For the record, I could find no citation of Wegman in the references to AR4, nor within the comments on the SOD.
Here is my post just expunged from Tim Lambert's Deltoid thread excoriating Wegman:
"Wegman's report sets out to critique Bradley, so why would he plagiarise him? Only an immensely stupid person plagiarises an author he/she disagrees with, and such a person truly does not know whether he/she is Arthur or Martha (ht to my wife).
Note that Bradley does not claim Wegman misquoted him, which is actually worse than plagiarism. He accuses Wegman of plagiarisms, that is, using Bradley's text word for word and then claiming it as his own. Why would Wegman want to claim credit for Bradley's stupidities when his aim is to expose those stupidities?"
Truly, only Australia harbours "academics" like Lambert (of UNSW) of such total ingrained stupidity and dishonesty.
George Mason University expected to complete their investigation by the end of September. Just wondering if the mushy mess is somehow related to yet undisclosed committee findings.
http://i.usatoday.net/communitymanager/_photos/science-fair/2010/10/07/gmuletterx-large.jpg
(h/t Nick Stokes)
For the local record here, Steve McIntyre has exposed some notable similarities, not to say, identities, between a book by Bradley and a much earlier book by Fritts'
'In the original Deep Climate post about Wegman, DC characterized Bradley 1999, a revision of the 1985 edition of Bradley’s textbook, as “seminal”. In respect to the dendro chapter at least, this is flatly untrue. Bradley copied both graphics and language from Fritts’ 1976 textbook, Tree Rings and Climate.
Bradley’s copying is not just incidental. Of the first 13 figures in Bradley’s dendro chapter, 12(!) are either copied exactly from Fritts 1976 or, in a few cases, with negligible “paraphrase” (e.g. Bradley Figure 10.10 combines single-columned Fritts Figure 7.10 and 7.11 into a double-columned figure).
For six of the 12 figures, Fritts cites references other than Fritts 1976 – mostly earlier Fritts articles, but also one Lamarche article. In each case, Fritts 1976 had itself re-used the earlier graphic (with citation) with a fresh caption (often lengthy). However, in each of these six cases, Bradley used the Fritts 1976 in a verbatim or near-verbatim form without citing Fritts 1976.'
....
'In Bradley’s interview with USA Today, he stated:
“Clearly, text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the (Wegman) report.
Something that Fritts could have said about Bradley. As to Deep Climate’s untrue assertion that Bradley 1999 was “seminal”, I presume that this statement was made without any attempt to determine whether it was true or not.'
Text and diagram comparisons here: http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
Like a conscientious archivist, I have scurried back through the dusty shelves to update this thread with more on plagiarism, acknowledgements, attributions, Wegman, and Bradley, from the careful research of Steve McIntyre:
'Reader John McManus observes:
"Bradley , as you have proved, will never have to worry about being falsely accused of plagiarism."
A point on which other readers may agree, though not necessarily for the same reasons.
His other point – that I’ve “documented [Bradley's] meticulous adherence to scholarly convention” is one that would be undoubtedly be very reassuring to Wegman. If Bradley 1985 (and Bradley 1999) can be taken to represent “community standards”, these standards do not seem to preclude the referencing practices in the Wegman Report that have been criticized both here and elsewhere.'
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/20/bradley-copies-fritts-2/