Mashive attack

John Mashey and friend have been given space in the Chronicle of Higher Education to respond to Peter Wood's articles about Mashey's antics.

Comments

[Mike Jackson]

John Whitman
I wonder if one way if dealing with AAAAs would be to demand sight of a birth certificate before allowing them to post. At the very least we could keep the self-opinionated adolescents at bay until they've actually learnt something.
There's very little as tedious as a sixth-form debater who thinks he's scored a clever point.

[James P]

>Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State”

That's humour, not libel. It's also not libel if it's true...

[Shub]

"My opinion is based on the results."

Ah. I see. Thanks.

"That guy got killed? He must have been week. This guy is beating his wife? She must have cheated on him".

I wont waste my time anymore.

[John Whitman]

Aug 9, 2011 at 9:24 AM | Mike Jackson said,

""""John Whitman

I wonder if one way if dealing with AAAAs would be to demand sight of a birth certificate before allowing them to post. At the very least we could keep the self-opinionated adolescents at bay until they've actually learnt something.
There's very little as tedious as a sixth-form debater who thinks he's scored a clever point."""""

-------------

MIke Jackson,

Thanks for the comment.

I am compiling suggestions for independent thinker strategies to address AAAA’s. I will make references to the strategies on a case-by-case basis as we encounter individual AAAAs, such as the dominate one in the current thread.

Since the current dominate AAAA on this thread is already making a strategy mistake, I suggest we do not need to address strategies for responding to her/him further. She/he is making the ‘Dance with the Devil’ mistake; where she/he thinks we are the Devil. That makes her/him look intolerant of independent thinkers. THAT doesn’t go well with the people in the real world. So, just keeping discourse going with this particular AAAA plays toward her/his exposure to the layman.

Note on your suggestion: Thing is the third A in AAAA; anonymous. So we won’t get verifiable details. Also, perhaps physical age is not a reliable indicator of intellectual development. As to a good indicator of intellectual development, we already see they are AAAAs.

I am still looking for additional strategic suggestions to address AAAA’s.

Keep good cheer!

John

[James P]

Michael

"empty rhetorical flouish"

Don't type faster than you can think.

[Michael]

Shub,

"Ah. I see. Thanks.
"That guy got killed? He must have been week. This guy is beating his wife? She must have cheated on him"."

That doesn't even rise to the level of pathetic.

Individuals who desperately, and stupidly, miscontrue others' argument to avoid dealing with the substance of it, aren't fooling anyone.

It's awfully simple - charges of academic misconduct can be evaluated on the outcome of the investigations into those charges.
Case 1 - Mann. Outcome - dismissed as having no substance
Case 2 - Wegman. Outcome - paper retracted by journal due to plaigarism. Academic misconduct proven.

And this is what the flock here are running away from at a great pace - why does Wood use the CHE to criticise someone who exposes academic misconduct, rather than the perpetrators?

150 posts - not a single one of the faithful have put their incredible 'independant thinking' to this question.

[James P]

Michael - we all make typos, but it gets wearisome when you keep ignoring the spellchecker. It also betrays a certain arrogance.

sentance
happended
specifc
demonstate
menaing
crticism
miscontrue
independant

[John Whitman]

As the softly murmuring ‘flock’ serenely shamble down the mountain pass at the end of a beautiful summer day to their local pubs below, as they have done since time immemorial, we reflect appropriately upon these words:

Maximus-"They say no."

Quintus -"A people should know when they've been conquered."

Maximus-"Would you Quintus ? Would I ?"

(thanks to the movie ‘Gladiator’)

Suddenly there arise multiple strong voices echoing up from the rocky crags of the pass, “Did you hear the one about NAS, Anna Hayes and Mashey? Ha Ha Ha . . . ”

John

[Mike Jackson]

How lyrical!
Not related to Walt, by any chance?!

[John Whitman]

Errata: That should have been Anna Haynes in my post at Aug 9, 2011 at 3:56 PM. I send my apologies to her for misspelling her name.

Aug 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM | Mike Jackson said @ John Whitman,

“””””How lyrical!
Not related to Walt, by any chance?!”””””

---------------------

Mike Jackson,

Don’t we all have elderly spinster aunts who have spent inordinate amounts of time and money to show their family’s connection to famous people? Well, I was blessed with a generous number of those aunts. Their efforts showed only that a tie to Walt Whitman is ambiguous given the incomplete records in the mid to late 19th century in the northeastern part of the USA.

Cheers.

John

[Shub]

You are a strange person. That last analogy of mine hit home, didn't it? Ponder (i.e., use your brain) over why that must have been, instead of spluttering. We already have Mashey to contend with, in the first place.

argumentum ad consequentiam: Arguing from consequences.

Michael Mann brings lots of funds to PSU, therefore he must be a good researcher.
Tinpot dictators are exonerated in their kangaroo courts so they must be good people.

Argument from consequence: "...is an argument that concludes a premise (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences."

"This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a form of logical fallacy, since the desirability of a consequence does not address the truth value of the premise. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view."

( Wikipedia, bold added, so the stuff hits home)

For those wondering why this big deal about the Chronicle of Higher Education talking about Mann, there are some clues. It is always the same pattern: you can say anything true - it won't trouble Michael or Mashey or Anna or Tenney or anyone else at the guild. Say the same thing at a prestige venue - in a newspaper, or a prominent mass-media outlet and the rickety machine will suddenly spring to life.

More to the point, Chronicle of Higher Education, was not too long ago, considered one of the captured sites. It was seen as being on this side of the boundary, so to speak. From Andrew Gelman's blog, on a post titled: 'Why no Wegmania': (http://andrewgelman.com/2011/05/why_no_wegmania/)

Basically, plagiarism is exciting to academics but not so thrilling to the general public if no celebrities are involved. I expect someone at the Chronicle of Higher Education

That is the basis for Michael's "...why does Wood use the CHE...". From their possesiveness, one would think the world has to line up at the guild to ask their permission to print anything, at venues that don't even belong to them.

"Dear Sir, Grand Guild Poobah Sir,
I know you think our newspaper belongs to your side, in the climate issue. But, unfortunately sir, we've stumbled across some funny stuff, and it sounds like it would make a lot of sense to publish it out wide. Would you please, sir, allow us to do so, sir?"

[Jonas N]

"Individuals who desperately, and stupidly, miscontrue others' argument to avoid dealing with the substance of it, aren't fooling anyone"

Well, Michael. I though you were defending Mashey? Now you throw him and yourself under the bus. No real loss, but not the greatest of stretegies. I don't think that anyone, except you/Mashey and a very few more, think that your attempts here somehow strengthened his position or arguments. It would take quite serious delusion to do so, to think that wild accusations of scientific fraud, misconduct and exclamations of 'anti-science' against everything will sway anybody (not already deeply stuck there) towards that side ..

Possibly you might feel the contrary, but even then your arguments for that case have been extremely poor. Plain stupid, and on every checkable point misinformed.

Yes, and do not try to use 'semantically loaded words, to support your particular viewpoint' or I will take you up on that too ...

;-)

[diogenes]

Michael is hilarious....we could keep him spewing bile for ever while he asserts that various reports and publications have demonstrated byond doubt that Mann's hoceysticki is junk. The fact that the journals have not retracted Mann's papers or Steig's paper is for the journal editors to explain. The Mashey "victory" was, as demonstrated earlier, about an extract from Wegman without significance for the statistical analysis of Mann's incompetence. Every time Mann produces a statistical paper, the world will now assume it is junk.

[Alexander K]

Having run school camps for senior students in the past, I am utterly appalled that any group could be so casual about risk as the organisation that 'organised' the Svalbad adventure.. Polar bears are very large, strong, fast and incredibly aggressive carnivorous predators; I consider anyone reckless enough to organise student camps in their vicinity to be responsible for the very sad death of such a promising young man and that said organisation should be sued out of existence.
The BBC's perverse reporting of the causes has demonstrated the utter fatuity of BBC 'science' reporting.
And Michael, shouting quite rudely at the thoughtful and intelligent people who form the bulk of the responders on this blog is not very productive.

[Michael]

"Now you throw him and yourself under the bus. No real loss," - Jonas

Does anyone have any idea what Jonas is talking about?

[Michael]

"argumentum ad consequentiam: Arguing from consequences." - Shub

Misapplying logical fallacies is pretty standard on the intertubes. They are only logical fallacies when they are not used in the correct context. Ad hom being the common misappellation.

At least Shub is trying something new.

What the best test of whether someone is guilty of a charge - being found guilty, or not, is a pretty good one.

Wegman: Charge - plagiarism. Found - guilty.

If you think this is a logical fallacy, you need help.

[Michael]

James P,

That's a devastating critique of my...... typos.

Consider me suitably chastened.

[Michael]

So, now we're approaching 170 comments and still no one can explain why Wood prefers to focus on those who expose academic fraud and not on those guilty of committing it.

Maybe there is no palatable explanation?

[John Whitman]

I thought I saw somebody mention guilt. I noticed that Dr Wegman will receive the investigation results from George Mason University at the end of September 2011, according to George Mason University. I also noticed by rule upon receipt of the decision Dr Wegman has right of appeal that starts another hundred day clock for George Mason University by due process. So we wait but interestingly it looks like the Virginia court's judgment on release of Mann's emails/docs could be out this fall too, I believe they are soon to be looked at by attorneys on both sides in camera. So we might get another batch of emails to evaluate wrt to potential integrity of climate scientist issues. We can see how justice is decided in both cases. I expect both will show an even non-emotional treatement.

John

[Michael]

A post at the NAS blog says the burning issue in this case of academic misconduct, is that the individuals who have uncovered the fraud are guilty of......wait for it......"bad manners".

Get my smelling salts!

[shub]

Exhibit: A series of Mashey comments, submitted at different blogs (over the years).

June 2011

Well, actually the beetles have worked their way North, through British Columbia on their way to Alberta and the boreal forests. A few years ago I sat in ski lodge in mid-lower B.C., having flown there over forests with big patches of dying trees (and B.C. takes lumber *very seriously*). I was talking to two lumber guys bemoaning the beetles. They had zero doubts about the cause of increasing spread North of beetles. I’ve suggested that people who disbelieve AGW might visit these guys and debate them, although they were big guys, and I think they still remember how to use axes…

April 2011

...
For anyone who doubts AGW, I suggest doing as I have, sitting with B.C. lumber guys in a ski lodge, who had zero doubts about AGW, given what the spread Northward of bark beetles has done to them. Feel free to tell them how wrong they are, but note that they also seemed big guys who likely still knew how to use axes.
...

Jan 2011

Since we’re up in B.C. every year, I’ve sat with lumber guys in ski lodges. People could tell them it’s all in their imagination, but I wouldn’t advise it:

1) They see the evidence around them.
2) Even ex-lumberjacks tend towards begin big.
3) And I think they still know how to use axes.

September 2009

Maybe some lumber folks can be induced to attend and ask Monckton what he thinks of the beetles.

April 2008:

A month ago, we were taking our lunch break from skiing at Big White, and talking with a couple guys who were in the lumber business, and beetles were the #1 topic.

[Aynsley Kellow]

Shub,
Here sure is dining out on his encounter with the lumberjacks, who are clearly such skilled entomologists that they know stuff. Me thinks Mashey is just a little TOO taken with them. All those beefy Canadians! Not that there's any implied threat. No pressure, as they say in the exploding children schlock videos.

I can't keep out of my head a new Monty Python skit: Lord Monckton answers his front door to a chorus of 'I'm a lumberjack and you're not OK, I sleep all night and count beetles all day...'

I think the BIsh should end this thread here, and mint a new Law to parallel Godwin. Mashey's Law: 'Sooner or later in an internet discussion, someone will threaten people with violence by lumberjack, and at that point the discussion has become farce. Nobody much wins, but the Trolls can go back to sleep under the bridge.'

[Chuckles]

Wood used the pages of CHE to take exception to someone exposing academic misconduct.

Let that sink in for a minute - not the misconduct itself..... but the person uncovering it.

So, now we're approaching 170 comments and still no one can explain why Wood prefers to focus on those who expose academic fraud and not on those guilty of committing it.

A bit like the difference between focusing on a particular approach or the person using it, and focusing on whether it is wise or productive to use that approach to advance a point of view or achieve a goal?

Let that sink in for a minute, not the use of a particular approach or the person using it, but the wisdom of using it to achieve a desired result.

[Jonas N]

Michael confuses the 'claim of academic fraud and misconduct' with 'proof of the same' ..

Previously he confused '(selfpro-)claimed expertise' with 'actual, definitive and final expertise on a particular matter' ..

Or 'checking claims very very carefully' with reading blogs ascertaining that others have done so and found some excuse for diverting the discussion towards person (claimant) instead ...

I remeber that he somwhere also claimed to be more interested in the scientific matters than in the bickering. Strange ..

No wonder the guy is so confused in other matters too ..

[Michael]

"Michael confuses the 'claim of academic fraud and misconduct' with 'proof of the same' " - Jonas

Gee Jonas, let's see if we can work out this perplexing problem together.

Wegman is accused of plagiarism. Journal which has published Wegman's paper looks at the claim and goes - 'that's right, there is clearly plagiarism in this paper we published, we're retracting the paper.'

Let me know which bit you can't follow.

[John Whitman]

There is emotion from the persistent strong purveyors of guilt on this matter toward Wegman. It looks like a personal issue with the purveyors. Instead, let's look at it with no emotion.

The 'pre-press' wording of the CSDA retraction notice:

This article has been retracted at the request of the Editor in Chief and co‑Editors, as it contain portions of other authors' writings on the same topic in other publications, without sufficient attribution to these earlier works being given.

The principal authors of the paper acknowledged that text from background sources was mistakenly used in the Introduction without proper reference to the original source. [JW emphasis]

We know that this is a response made concurrently with the PR pressure led by Mashey et al. What we do not know is the internal CSDA discourse on this matter. We may have that yet, journalists love that kind of drama. We will see.

Still pending is the George Mason University investigation due out end of Sept 2011. That is going to be very interesting in that, in my opinion only, after whatever the decision is made thenWegman should demand transparency of the investigation process. :^) That would be eye-opening in my view in that it would reveal if there was pressure on GM Univ from outside groups/individuals.

My prediction is, for what it is worth, that George Mason University will take the approach, that since Wegman agrees it was simply a mistake which he has/will publically state, and if he is willing to make the corrections to the paper and resubmit THEN there will just be a public notice to that effect . . . done. I suggest the correction to the paper is simply to put the references in, the substance of the paper is not in dispute by CSDA or GM Univ.

In parallel with all that we will have the equally interesting legal procedures currently in process for release of Mann email/docs from UoVa . . . lawyers seeking Mann doc release look at the emails/doc in camera. That will potentially yield new info on integrity of AR4 contributing climate scientists. We must wait.

John

[Sam]

@John Whitman

You forget that the CSDA paper is not the only instance of plagiarism by Professor Wegman. There is still a federal investigation in progress, there is the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students, and of course, the Wegman Report itself, which appears to contain falsified data.

Much more to come, for sure.

[John Whitman]

Aug 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM | Sam says:

@John Whitman ''''''You forget that the CSDA paper is not the only instance of plagiarism by Professor Wegman. There is still a federal investigation in progress, there is the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students''''''''

--------------------

Sam,

For the record, Sam, please provide your source in the US federal government who is officially stating it is fact that there is a Wegman "federal investigation in progress".

For the record, please provide the names of the universities that you (Sam) say are inquiring into "the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students".

Thank you.

John

[Michael]

John,

Students around the world wil no doubt be emboldened to try the 'Wegman defence' - opps, I just forgot to cite the source. It will no doubt go down as a classic alongside others lame excuses such as 'the dog ate my homework', and 'the cheque is in the mail'.

[Sam]

NIH

source: me

Universities: GMU and Purdue University

There is NO excuse of a missing source. You can't take words and ideas from someone and represent them as your own. Period.

[Sam]

@John Whitman

How is Wegman's friend Donald Rapp doing? Did he get reinstated at USC?

[John Whitman]

Aug 12, 2011 at 12:58 AM | Sam said @ John Whitman

""""""NIH

source: me

Universities: GMU and Purdue University

There is NO excuse of a missing source. You can't take words and ideas from someone and represent them as your own. Period."""""""

--------------

Sam,

Thank you for your allegation that GMU and Purdue are the universities which you (Sam) said are inquiring into "the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students". Verification of your allegations is now in progress.

OPEN ITEM => Sam I respectfully request again your source in the federal government that is the basis for your statement asserting there is a federal investigation of Wegman. See attached below a copy of my original request to you.

Thank you.

John

==================

John Whitman original request to Sam follows:

Aug 11, 2011 at 9:52 PM | John Whitman @ Sam

Aug 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM | Sam says:

@John Whitman ''''''You forget that the CSDA paper is not the only instance of plagiarism by Professor Wegman. There is still a federal investigation in progress, there is the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students''''''''

--------------------

Sam,

For the record, Sam, please provide your source in the US federal government who is officially stating it is fact that there is a Wegman "federal investigation in progress".

For the record, please provide the names of the universities that you (Sam) say are inquiring into "the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students".

Thank you.

John

[Sam]

@John Whitman

Good luck on the verification. I know that neither institution will provide you with confirmation. What are you going to do, call GMU information and ask? Who [snip] do you think you are that you can get someone at Purdue or GMU to verify that doctoral theses are under investigation for plagiarism? Every heard of FERPA?

The source as to exactly how I know that the NIH has an ongoing investigation into Wegman? Is that what you want? Why don't you call the Office of Research Integrity and ask? I told you it is a fact. Why don't you believe me? http://ori.hhs.gov/ Ask for John E. Dahlberg. Need the phone number?

[Sam]

@John Whitman

clue: http://deepclimate.org/

[Jonas N]

But I don't think Bradley is at all concerned with any 'plagiarism' (and neither is Mashey).

The supposedly 'plagiarized' book by Bradley, quite generously makes use of both figures, captions and text exerpts from other textbooks, whithout beeing too much concerned about proper attribution. He also offered to withdraw the 'complaint' to GMU, if only some conditions were met.

I think those 'conditions' are somewhat closer to the real motives. Also Mashey's real motives are likely much closer to silencing criticism of Mann and climate scares, than his pretence Don Qixote - crusade for upholding academic standards.

I suffices to read his 'reports' (and eg do a search for 'anti-science', Exxon, tobacco ... even Dunning Kruger) to get a good overall picture of his own 'standards'.

By the way: Whereever the phrase 'anti-science' was used, it did so whithout a proper reference, and also it grossly misrepresented the entities it referred to. In every instance I checked!

[Shub]

What an idiot. Play your little games, with your little {snip] guild. The truth will out.

[Sam]

@Jonas N

Research Misconduct

Scientific Ethics

Ask Wegman about these topics. Last I looked, he is the only party under investigation forvResearch Misconduct, not any of this silly blog's obsessions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mann was completely exonerated.

[Sam]

I forget, did Mann hide the decline? Or did Wood screw that one up, too?

[John Whitman]

The source as to exactly how I know that the NIH has an ongoing investigation into Wegman? Is that what you want? Why don't you call the Office of Research Integrity and ask? I told you it is a fact. Why don't you believe me? http://ori.hhs.gov/ Ask for John E. Dahlberg. Need the phone number?

--------------

Sam,

OK, I understand you assert there is a federal investigation of Wegman then cannot produce any actual statement by the federal government supporting your assertion that there is a federal investigation of Wegman.

NOTE: Perhaps you might have been referring to this in USA Today? It does not say Wegman is under federal investigation.

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAYUpdated 5/15/2011 10:54 PM

"Plagiarism can result in research sanctions from federal funding authorities, says federal Office of Research Integrity’s John Dahlberg. He would not say whether ORI was investigating the researchers."

If you have a federal government agency statement that says Wegman is under federal investigation then give it to us please.

I look forward to your answer.

Thank you.

John

[Sam]

Fact.

[Shub]

Proof.

[John Whitman]

Aug 12, 2011 at 2:29 AM | Sam @John Whitman;

""""""Good luck on the verification. I know that neither institution will provide you with confirmation. What are you going to do, call GMU information and ask? Who [snip] do you think you are that you can get someone at Purdue or GMU to verify that doctoral theses are under investigation for plagiarism? Every heard of FERPA?""""""

---------------

Sam,

Thank you for your less than civil reply. But your incivility notwithstanding, you made an assertion that 3 of Wegman's doctoral students are under investigation between two universities; GMU and Purdue University .

OPEN ITEM => I request the basis for your claim. If you know your claim is true then you must have some statement from the universities supporting your claim. Right? What is your evidence?

I am pursuing independent verification of your claim. But note in advance, so far my research shows that you perhaps are confused in your statement "there is the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students" and perhaps are confused that investigations are at two universities. The paper that is subject to the plagiarism dispute is 'Said et al 2008' which has four authors; Wegman and three others who might be current or might have been former students pursuing PhDs at George Mason University under Wegman. One of those coauthors is now at Purdue University. So your claim makes sense only if there one investigation, the one at GMU on 'Said et al 2008' and all authors of it are involved in that investigation. Again, I am still verifying your original claim.

Cheers.

John

[LC]

@shub

Don't rise to the bait mate. You're better than that. Just ignore the two acolytes, they're just two parts of the same brain cell. Who's got the rest of said brain cell and whether we will ever meet him is anybody's guess.

[Bishop Hill]

Can people on this thread please cool it.

[Jonas N]

Sam,

actually I am asking (at least to myself) these questions all the time when extraordinary claims are being forwarded. Regardless of whether it empirically unsupported ascertations that CO2 controls the climate, and water vapor follows as a slave parameter, or if it claims that these feedbacks amplify the initial effect by a factor of 3-5, or if accusations of fraud, misconduct, corruption through fossil funding and tobacco lobby are levelled at named individuals.

You might want to remember that the whole issue emanated from questions arising around Mann's (and IPCCs posterchild-) reconstructions of historic temperatures. People may of course speculate as to why Mann was so unhelpful to enable reproduction of his stick, but at least that part i settled.

But you are right, one could rise questions of 'ethics and misconduct' ... on behalf of quite some of them who claim that the 'science is settled' , 'the data is in' etc ... but who cannot show their work.

As someone noted: If the research is that solid, why can't it be shown för everybody to see?

[Sam]

@John Whitman

I apologize for my tone and words. They were unwarranted.

@Jonas N

Mann was investigated for allegations of Research Misconduct. The charges were found to be without substance, and the charges were dropped.

Each of the following statements is a matter of fact. Wegman is being investigated by GMU for Research Misconduct, and the charges have been found substantive. The work that contained plagiarism was funded by the federal government (NIH and DOD), and these agencies are aware of the allegations. The publication in question has been retracted by the publisher. There was additional plagiarism found in at least three doctoral dissertations from Wegman's group.

[John Whitman]

Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM | Sam @ John Whitman;

I apologize for my tone and words. They were unwarranted.

-----------

Sam,

Thank you for your forthright apology. There will always be protagonists like you and I in the discourse on CAGW at every single point. That is, in my view, a benefit to both sides. It refines our thoughts which will benefit all.

John

******************

Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50 PM | Sam @ John Whitman;

Each of the following statements is a matter of fact. Wegman is being investigated by GMU for Research Misconduct, and the charges have been found substantive. The work that contained plagiarism was funded by the federal government (NIH and DOD), and these agencies are aware of the allegations. The publication in question has been retracted by the publisher. There was additional plagiarism found in at least three doctoral dissertations from Wegman's group.

----------------

Sam,

Again, I respectfully observe that you have not supplied statements from the organizations verifying the following statements of yours:

You initially made these claims,

Aug 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM | Sam says @John Whitman;

''''''You forget that the CSDA paper is not the only instance of plagiarism by Professor Wegman. There is still a federal investigation in progress, there is the issue of plagiarism in the doctoral dissertations of at least three Wegman students''''''''

and
Aug 12, 2011 at 12:58 AM | Sam said @ John Whitman

Universities: GMU and Purdue University

So again, Sam, please provide statements from the organizations conducting the investigations you claim. Here are the requests that I have previously made to you:

First, please provide a federal government statement that says there is a federal investigation of Wegman.

Second, please provide a statement from the two universities that you claim are investigating “additional plagiarism found in at least three doctoral dissertations from Wegman's group”.

You say you know those to be fact, if so then the fact can only have support by statements from the applicable organizations themselves. N’est ce pas?

Cheers.

John

[Sam]

John,

Surely you realize that neither of these statements exist. Neither the Federal Government nor GMU/PU can discuss confidential investigations.

The dissertation plagiarism is a matter of public record. See deepclimate for the details. By Federal Law, funding agencies MUST be notified when a university investigates a faculty member for research misconduct, when that person has/had federal funding. Now, I doubt GMU would do this of their own accord.

Now, John, think about it. Given that there is no acknowledgement from the NIH ORI, there is only one other way that someone can know factually that a complaint has been filed and an investigation is active. I'll leave it to you to deduce how that can possibly be true.

[Jonas N]

Well Sam, we've heard it more than once before. If the wrongdoings are as severe as the accusers actually document. Then a slap on the wirst is warranted. The retraction of a paper (whose results are nowhere questioned) looks a lot mor like politics.

And as I said, the questions of ' ethics and misconduct' always linger when one notices such exrtaoridnar behavior from both Mann, his fellow team mates, the ICCP, and the 'plagiarism' -diatribe of late. It is of course always difficult to determine true motives. But observing actions goes a long way (keepuing in mind that lots can be perfectly well explained by sheer incompetence).

But the moment it comes to poltics (especially, the left leaning variety) I would never presume that there is any 'higher ethics or good conduct' involved.

Not that I'd expect dishonesty and foul play in every instance. But I'd certainly never rely on 'ethics and proper conduct' anywhere, where politics are involved.

[John Whitman]

Aug 12, 2011 at 4:26 PM | Sam @ John Whitman

Surely you realize that neither of these statements exist. Neither the Federal Government nor GMU/PU can discuss confidential investigations.

----------------------

Sam,

By your own argument then you cannot know that your claimed investigations actually exist.

John