Thursday
Aug042011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Mashive attack
Aug 4, 2011 Climate: other 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.
Reader Comments (300)
Well, John, Sam wants you believe that he knows something that none of us know, and we should just believe him.
Well, Sam, it works like this. What you say, may be true, or it may not be true. But unless you can show evidence, none can take your word for it. You can attempt to flaunt your insider knowledge, gained by membership of your guild, but that is immaterial.
Moreover, and more importantly, it matters to any 'investigation', as to who did the 'investigation' and the quality, honesty and uprightness of their process.
The kangaroo court of the Pennsylvania State University inquiry committee - is not good enough - because their inquiry process was simply not good enough. A similar kangaroo court - made of Dave Clarke, John Mashey, Dan Vergano, applying the rules of academia onto results which have a wider implication, *unaffected by the said violated rules*, is simply not good enough either.
Nor is it acceptable, that one accept mindlessly the results of 'committee investigations', 'inquiries', or 'commissions'. We are neither mindless demagogues, nor politicians, who shake their fists and wave the copy of the next bueareucrat-produced 'report' - in which, more than not, the truth is buried rather than revealed. By the same token, all indicted by the courts of justice are not criminal, nor are those free in the outside world innocent. Only children believe otherwise.
What do the charges of plagiarism mean then, to the substance of Wegman's criticism of Mann's work? Does the cliquish-ness of the dendrochronology field, disappear, because Wegman's social network analysis is brought to question, by people like Dave Clarke?
I don't think the guild has any answers to these questions. Indeed their efforts are wholly to deflect attention from these questions.
Sam,
Because of our recent discourse, I thought of you when I just ran across this WUWT post about a WSJ article about increasing ratio of retractions vs publications in journals.
Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/12/the-newest-hockey-stick/
WUWT says: “The Wall Street Journal reports that retractions of scientific papers have surged in recent years, with the top 3 journals issuing retractions being PNAS, Science and Nature. The graph above shows the increase in the rate of retracted papers.”
Note the mentions about plagiarism and error.
John
Sam,
Ask them why they are silent on the core issue of the post - Woods much greater interest in someone who exposes plagiarism than those who indulge in it.
Michael, you now claim that Mashey's primary motive is 'exposing plagiarism'.
This is quite hard to swallow. In the post's comment he now defends it vehemently, if it is done by Bradley, if the plagiarized textbook's author didn't mind. Even claims its standard procedure.
Double standars are endemic when the climate threat is threatened.
Michael, since you appear not to understand the replies you’ve already been given, let me put in my tuppence worth in the hope that it may make things clearer for you.
Firstly, simple plagiarism in itself is of little consequence outside the academic sphere. There are caveats to that statement of course, but generally speaking (and in this particular case) this holds true. Now, it may well be that Wegman and associates will be found to have committed plagiarism and that the complaint(s?) against them will be upheld. If that turns out to be the case, then Wegman and associates must accept any punishments meted out and you will find little argument against that here I’m sure. However, whilst that will prove the journal correct in withdrawing the Said et al paper, either permanently or at least until the proper references are appended, it will have little effect on the Wegman Report itself. That was a report compiled under the direction of a congressional hearing and subject to different rules and criteria.
Secondly, what Wood is discussing, is the mindset of a person, or group of persons, who, finding themselves unable to refute the findings of a paper which disagrees with their viewpoint, take it upon themselves to microscopically examine said paper in the hope of finding some way of having said paper quashed. He discusses this within the wider context of the issue of the apparent tendency of those who support the IPCC line to take any contrarian view as a personal affront and to mount personal attacks on those espousing that contrarian view as well as attempting to bully the publication or (as in this instance) the blog where the contrarian viewpoint was published. So what happens? Mashey et al immediately start parsing through Woods articles in the hope of finding faults and inconsistencies and the “choir” start demanding to know (in the comment section) why CHE allowed the articles in the first place, all the while throwing out ad homs in all directions and all proving exactly that which Woods was alleging.
Further, I can almost guarantee that, were you to parse just about any paper ever written in the way that Mashey, Clark and the rest do, you will uncover at least some element of plagiarism. Most sane people though, realise what a complete waste of time and effort this would be and don’t bother. Indeed, when it first became public knowledge that Bradley had lodged a complaint with GMU, Steve McIntyre very quickly found evidence of plagiarism committed by Bradley himself. As far as I’m aware though, neither he nor any other sceptic has any interest in pursuing this “line of attack”. The reason being that life’s too short and, in any case, the vast majority of us aren’t actually interested in “winning”, especially at any or all costs. The only winner we want to see is the one called truth, no matter where it might reside. Also, no matter how serious plagiarism might be viewed in academic circles, in the real world it means naff all. It’s the conclusions of a paper that is important. Plagiarism rarely, if ever, has any effect on the conclusions at all. If you have evidence a paper is wrong, then show me that evidence, but don’t tell me it’s wrong simply because the author used a sentence already written by somebody else.
@Aug 13, 2011 at 6:47 PM | LC
LC,
That was well said and done in an even non-emotional tone. Thank you.
John
"Now, it may well be that Wegman and associates will be found to have committed plagiarism..." - John Whitman
"will be"? Are you asleep at the back of the class again? Already has been.
Shorter John: if someone suggests a better stats methods in climate paper, it's biggest fraud of the century. If a climate skeptic commits proven academic fraud - what's the problem?
----------------
Michael,
If you are saying that I said that then you are mistaken.
John
Michael, your reply shows you are unable even to comprehend who writes a comment and further shows that you are also unable to understand it’s contents. That being the case, I will make this my last comment to you.
All through this thread, you have been demanding that someone explain to you why the majority of the people here take the side of Woods as opposed to that of Mashey et al, despite several posters already explaining their position to you. In order to assist you, I attempted to spell out those reasons as clearly as I could. But, instead of responding to that part of my comment, which obviously went straight over the top of your head, you choose now to switch to the part where I mention Wegman and (I’m guessing) the hockey stick papers, which I hadn‘t mentioned other than indirectly when referring to the Wegman Report. As far as Wegman goes, you and your kangaroo court colleagues may have decided he’s guilty, but as far as I’m aware, GMU hasn’t yet done so. If you don’t mind too much, I’d rather wait to hear what they say and I’d rather not pre-empt their decision thank you very much. As for the hockey stick fiasco, if you seriously believe the controversy is simply a case of “someone suggests a better stats methods in climate paper”, then your comprehension and knowledge levels are even lower than I first thought. I have absolutely no idea how you came to the conclusion that my comment equates to your "short" version. That demands a twist in logic that defies all reasonable attempts at explanation. My advice to you, is to go away and do some reading and learning and then come back when you have better arguments to make, because, believe me, you are impressing nobody here.
"Michael,
If you are saying that I said that then you are mistaken.
John"
Apologies, that was LC......oh wait, let me invoke the 'Wegman defence' - I've no need to apologise, it was just a mistake!
"In order to assist you, I attempted to spell out those reasons as clearly as I could. But, instead of responding to that part of my comment" - LC
Was that the part where you said that plagiarism doesn't much matter? If you had some other part of it in mind, let me know.
"As far as Wegman goes, you and your kangaroo court colleagues may have decided he’s guilty"
Oh yeah, he's guilty of plagiarism. No kangaroo court, just a peer reviewed journal that looked at the charges and said- GUILTY!
"As for the hockey stick fiasco, if you seriously believe the controversy is simply a case of “someone suggests a better stats methods in climate paper”, then your comprehension and knowledge levels are even lower than I first thought."
While I'm no expert in stats (just science undergrad level stats work), my experience with the 'climate skeptics' is that they have zero actual experience with stats and just as much understanding. Hence they believe everything they read on blogs about Mann etc, primarily because they like to believe it.
Michael, you've been telling us for quite some time about your 'knowledge and skills', how much you understand of the topics, how capable you are at reading and responding to arguments or just debating issues from different viewpoints. You have also demonstrated how well you master and correctly use various value-laden words words and phrases, and how sound and robust your logically crafted arguments are ...
I'm certain everybody thus understands how qualified you must be to assess not only the skills of those you 'debate' with, but actually all of them. And given that you blindly can assert what is the correct expert position, any prior or existing knowledge of your own is just superfluous deadweight for an intellect like yours ...
Aug 15, 2011 at 6:14 PM | Jonas N
------------------
Jonas N,
Congratulations! You have captured an AAAA in the wild. : )
Unfortunately, we do not yet have guidelines for the care and feeding of pet AAAAs. Be sure to keep extensive notes about the AAAA's captivity.
John
Jonas,
Must be nice to have an advanced degree in piffle.
Was all that just to avoid dealing with the fact that Wegman is a proven plagiarist?
Michael
Wegman is an accomplished statistician. His verdict on the statistical competence of other people is worth accepting.
The plagiarism meme is irrelevant to his assessment of stistical credibity, by definition.
Michael, that was a subtle attempt at makeing you aware of the gaping discrepancy between your words and what you actually deliver. But ùnderstanding subtle irony probably also is expecting too much, I take it ..
But then agian, what isn't
Jonas,
Keep on looking the other way.
diogenes,
Violating basic academic standards is very very relevant to someone's academic credibilty.
Right now Wegman has almost none.
Watching the desperate scrambling here to ignore this is amusing.
Watching the desperate scrambling to make something of it is even more amusing.
Michael ... I'm staring right at your arguments! And can see their value ... Funny that you talk about 'academic standards' when defending 'academic credibility' of the so called climate science.
But then again what would you know about any of that. A blindfolded loop-sided expert-picker without even needing to know or look. There simply must be something in all the Mashey-mash invalidating Wegman (and the NRC-) reports, mustn't there!?
And if nothing else works, shouting 'Fraud, fraud!' repeatedly, must help ... somehow! Historic temperatures somehow, just cannot have been what they were ..
That is your message here, isn't it Michael!?
Jonas,
At it again - you think that I'm the subject here.
"There simply must be something..."
Must be?? - There is!. It's proven. Wegman is guilty of academic misconduct as demonstated by a journal that had the misfortune to publish some of his rubbish.
Wegman is a plagiarist - PROVEN.
Discuss.
just wondering why Michael thinks that behaving like a slapstick clown helps his cause.
He knows nothing himself so takes everything on trust. Wegman, an expert statistician, opines that Mann is statistically incompetent. Michael prefers to believe the testimony of one John Mashey, who is not a professional statistician. His testimony says nothing about Wegman's statistical prowess. Instead, it shifts attention to an assertion that Wegman has plagiarised an article on social relationships.
In other words, Mashey and Michael cannot rebut the statistical assertions.
Can anyone give a defence of Michael's stance here?
Michael, Mashey is in ferroicous favor of what he and you call 'plagiarism' (as long as its carried out by Hockey-stick creators and defenders). That means: His and your 'criticism' amount to zip.
I'm sure this has been discussed before. Probably just didn't register, did it?
And I'm very very certain that the primary reasons for retracting that paper are quite different than the stated ones. As is so much in the CAGW-mudslinging. In your case, the primary reason I'd suspect is sheer incompetence. Proven! All that you are hinging your hopes on is:
"There simply must be something in all the Mashey-mash invalidating Wegman (and the NRC-) reports, mustn't there!? "
So Michael, is your 'contribution' to the 200+ comments above really the best you can come up with?
And not only you, but also Mash in 250 pages, and all the 'team players'!?
Sound like a pretty good endorsement to me. McIntyre, McKitrick and Wegman (and McShane and Wyner) must really have hit a nerve, mustn't they?
But on the other hand, what would you know about any of that?
The future of the planet is hardly going to be decided on whether or not Wegman is a plagiarist.
It may possibly be decided on the basis of whether or not he is correct.
Only a nihilist would so wantonly throw the baby out with the bath water as to say that because Wegman (or Said) failed to make the correct attributions in a paper that immediately nullifies what the coinclusions of that paper were.
No-one with any degree of scientific credibility or with his expertise in statistics has yet argued convincingly that Wegman's conclusions were incorrect. The best we can manage so far (and if you care to back and look at http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/5/16/wegman-paper-retracted.html you can see what was being said at the time the paper was retracted) is a lot of self-serving waffle from an assortment of bottom feeders with a nauseatingly high opinion of their own rectitude.
Diogenes' last post says it all. You prattle like a demented parrot about Wegman's being a proven plagiarist while — like your puppet-master — deliberately ignoring any question as to whether or not the conclusions which he drew were correct. If the good ship AGW is eventually holed below the water-line (I give it about 18 months) you will go down with the ship still claiming that this can't possibly happen because Wegman is a plagiarist.
Give me strength!
"Michael, Mashey is in ferroicous favor of what he and you call 'plagiarism' " - Jonas.
No. It's clearly defined. Quite simple really. The journal that published Wegman's work thought so too.
You and the rest of the flock are the only ones that seem to have trouble understanding this simple concept.
The mumbling, bumbling excuses for plagiarism offered up here are an embarrassment.
"That means: His and your 'criticism' amount to zip."
Tell that to the journal that retracted his paper for plagiarism.
"And I'm very very certain that the primary reasons for retracting that paper are quite different than the stated ones"
Of course, what choice do you have. It's either that, or bow to reality.
"All that you are hinging your hopes on is:
"There simply must be something in all the Mashey-mash invalidating Wegman (and the NRC-) reports, mustn't there!? " "
A little inverse-Wegman there - putting things in quotes that aren't someone else's words. Wegman has the opposite habit.
"..the future of the planet..."
Whoa, easy there. It certainly doesn't rest on one 13 yr old paper, let alone a dodgy politically inspired report written by a proven academic fraudster.
Given the emergence of the evidence of Wegman's antics, it seems increasingly likely that the politicans who avoided going to the recognised national science bodies to terst these claims, but instead sought out a little known stats porf at GMU, knew exactly what they were doing - that Wegman could be relied upon to cut and paste his way to the desired conclusion.
"No-one with any degree of scientific credibility or with his expertise in statistics has yet argued convincingly that Wegman's conclusions were incorrect"
Do you even know what they are and what they meant?
Answer - very little and nothing.
Just to make things clear in case we don't quite grasp the language:
"politically inspired"="Michael doesn't like its conclusions".
"proven academic fraudster"="he is suspected of a bit of plagiarism".
But then in the Alice in Wonderland world of climate science, anything that can be used to denigrate someone who is not a true believer is OK. The facts of the science are irrelevant; if he can be proved not to have lived up to the standards that you demand of others but are never prepared to apply to yourselves then that is sufficient to dismiss all his work out of hand.
On that basis, if I apply the same rules then virtually every so-called climate "scientist" is a charlatan and a "proven academic fraudster".
And while plagiarism might be something that gives academics in their ivory towers attacks of the vapours scientists tend to be a bit more robust so stop trying to pretend that this is anything other than an attempt to divert attention from conclusions that are uncomfortable for those who tried to pull the wool over everybody's eyes by the use of dubious data and crap statistical method, and all because way back in 1998 they thought they could get away with it.
Well Michael, things really aren't going your way, are they?
You desperately try to salvage some of Mann's paper, and more importantly the IPCC:s crediblity, which swallowed it hook line and sinker ... even made it their poster child.
But your screeching simply won't do it for you!
In absolutely no way are you the least concerned about 'plagiarism' or even 'academic fraud' and 'fraudsters'. Or about people making up nonsense facts and accusations (*).
On the contrary, you desperately try to defend the shoddiest science, the most politically corrupted practices, collected and presented by the self-appointed byreaucracy of activists and NGOs .. and all the illegal money funnelling which also wants to profit from this.
And that's of course a losing battle.
No wonder you complain about quotation marks instead, regardless of their presence or absence.
Inconsistency is the only consistent quality you display.
(*) A frequent habit of yours
Mike,
If a report that originates in a politicians office, is then written by someone handpicked by the same politician, is not "politically-inspired", than nothing is.
Though I have to give credit where credit is due; this has been a piece of clever politics. Science? - nah, nothing.
No comment from Mike about what he claims is the issue - the stats - I presume because he doesn't know anything about it. Let me fill you in - it was trivial, insignifcant. All the noise about it has been politics, not science.
Jonas,
You seem to be someoneelse who doesn't understand the issue.
"Shoddiest science"??? - you know the difference in outcome between the Mann's "shoddiest" method and Wegmans? - none.
That's right - a hockey stick.
No wonder you guys want to talk about Mashey's "antics" in uncovering fraud, rather than the fraud itself.
You a statistician, Michael? Wegman is. So I'm inclined to take his word rather than yours.
Oh, I forgot. He's a plagiarist so that means his statistical ability doesn't count. I used to try to teach kids like you 30 years ago. It was an uphill struggle.
By the way, just exactly what are your qualifications?
Well, this makes sense - you have no idea what the Wegman's stats critique was, yet you've been banging on about it. Typical.
It's the fact that it made so much ado about nothing, that makes the plagiarism even more interesting, and casts the whole thing into the purely political light that it appeared to be at the time.
Michael ...
I thought you were in favor of the IPCC-narrative.
You even gave the impression of vigorously defending it, and if nothing else helped, trying to divert attention by crying 'foul, plagiarism, fraud ... ' (about something completely irrelevant)
Now you say that you politically handpicked 'experts', lead, coordinating and other authors, bureaucrats and NGO activists, both writing, editing and finally approving IPCC-reports are to be seen as "politically inspired"!?
I tend to aggre with you there, and "to give credit where credit is due; this has been a piece of clever politics. [But] Science?"
No, it is not science, neither pretends to be. It does however purport to collect and present the best science and understanding available (*). This we know is not true (because it's politics).
If the term 'fraud' (a favourite of your's) is applicable anywhere, there would be a number of instances. Including Mann's shoddy graph of handpicked and lousy proxies, with adverse data removed, instead padded with grafted-on data to create a more visual impression of alarmism (and even hiding the splice in some instances).
As I already said: The scandal, and now embaressment, and soon the laughing stock, was not primarily the sloppy and incompetent collation of proxies, not even the wild speculations about historic temperatures, by a (then) gradstudent Michael Mann ..
... no the embarassment was and still is that IPCC promoted this piece of junk, and hoped to get away with it, and get rid of historical climate change at the same time.
This is also the reason why the activists still try to salvage som splinters. Or at least plant som seeds of confusion and doubt.
Now you are trying the 'it doesn't make a lot of difference'-meme. But you obviously have no clue of neither the difference nor what is relevant (ie fodder for the mindless flollowers)
Has it never struck you that if there had been any value and merit to Mann's stick, the IPCC would have continued to promote and use it? Instead now, the message is muddled and diluted with spagghetti graphs based on same/similar proxies, clearly showing that they absolutely cannot all be true at the samte time.
Ie what sceptics have claimed all along: That you cannot make ascertations of this kind from guessed(!) proxies of one (out of many) parameters. Not even if you refrain from cheating with the statistics.
As I told you before, you are fighting a losing battle ...
My take on the qhole debate (generously including you here somehow) is that people use the best arguments they have (left).
That's why we hear som much about fossil fundning, right wing think tanks, tobacco lobby, and here 'plagiarism' etc.
In you case, I don't even think this is your argument, it is just what you've picked up, desperately clining to it. Using nonsense words like 'proven' or 'fraud' and 'academic fraudster' etc ..
As I said, I am certain that is the best you can come up with (otherwise, you would have tried something with better traction)
(*) The Wegman et report was, as you say, also politically comissioned (as was the NRC-report), but Wegman wasn't asked to carry out science, he didn't pretend to or claim he did. He was merely asked to give his opinion about already presented (and published) science, the M&M05 paper.
You may be unhappy about his conclusions, some say they are (pretend to be) very outraged about quotation marks not being many enough, when referring of the correctly referenced books, but that is all posturing. The real beef is somewhere else, and there you plead no-contest.
Well, how could you do anything else? The NRC-arrived at the same conclusions, phrased it somewhat mor mildly, padded it with some fluffier wording. But in the end, facts remain:
Statistics were flawed (and skewed)
Proxies were few, and poor (and very probably cherrypicked)
Stated certainty was way overblown
Nothing could be said about things with any confidence prior to ~1600
Jonas,
What an avalanche of tripe. You could at least do us the kindness of brevity.
I'll lay it out very simply for you.
MBH(98) -a heavily cited landmark paper that continues to be cited in the scientific literature. M&M(05) - sank without a trace (way too little, way way too late). Wegman - see the rats deserting this sinking ship.
This is an issue to no-one in science - all the noise is in the political realm and among a certain class of keyboard warriors who have political/ideological axes to grind and have nothing better to do than obsess over a 13 yr old paper.
Though at least yourself and Mike and others at least now seem to accept the reality of Wegmans plagiarism and are now reduced to trying to defend it as irrelevant.
"heavily cited landmark paper ... "
Yes, that is how you want to remember it. Possibly even still wanting to believe its core messages, although nobody nowadays denies the MWP or LIA anymore, just quibbles a little .. (and mostly about quotation marks)
In case you still haven't understood it (although spelled out repeatedly): It is the IPCCs credibility and judgement that is the laughing stock here ... Mann just got stuck in the hole he and others had digged.
To 'lay something out, very simple' requires knowledge and understanding of the same thing.
You come across as someone whose pretends that his main concern is the generosity with quotation marks (of a referenced book), wich you want to inflate to first 'plagiarism', then 'fraudster' and even 'academic fraud' .. Someone whose grasp of the word's meaning is that rumdimentary of course cannot understand the issues, and is even less qualified to 'lay it out, very simple' ..
And you aren't even convincing one bit that this is your real concern or primary motive. As you said:
"all the noise is in the political realm and among a certain class of keyboard warriors who have political/ideological axes to grind and have nothing better to do than obsess over [a 5 year old congressional report]" and not even over its contents.
Have you forgotten that the post is about Mashey (perfectly fitting your description)? Yes, I know, it's a frustrationg battle to have fought, expecially if you're losing ground everywhere.
But hey, at least I get some entertainment here: A self procliamed/confessed blind expertpicker, telling me and the world what it really is like ...
Fabulous! I'd love to hear more of your "heavily cited landmark" arguments .. Keep 'em coming!
;-)
Jonas,
Yes, the post is meant to be about Mashey - whining and moaning about the guy who uncovered plagiarism, and making excuses for the plagiarist.
Be a good little sheep and keep bleating as instructed.
Yes Michael, and you've but your best effort into it, and the results can be seen above!
'uncovered plagiarism' ... Bohoo!
You believe that, don't you!? You really want to think that this is what turns the tables ...
;-)
If Mann's paper is "heavily cited", that puts more climate papers in jeopardy, doesn't it? Or is it that they thickly cite each other and attempt to cover up the stench?
The point is, dear Michael, you are dealing with people who know how the academic game is played. You increase the quality of your responses, or else, you convince no one.
By the say, has anyone wondered why Mashey makes so many trips to ski lodge to British Columbia, owns property there, etc? Jim Hoggan was once a ski instructor.
From Realclimate:
That Jim, by the way, is Jim Bouldin at Realclimate. The comment above is from Realclimate.
John Mashey has posted the lumber guys swinging climate axes post - about half-a-dozen times. If environmentalists copy the same thing over and over again, I guess it is called 'recycling in the pursuit of authenticity', whereas if his critics reproduce boilerplate text from Wikipedia, that is 'plagiarism'?
Comment left by John Mashey in 2010 at the Deltoid blog (emphasis inserted)
Tell me, why, should we listen to the global warming imaginations of a wealthy John Mashey, who just as the public-funded Pachauri did on his fossil-fuelled jet trips writing the 'Return to Almora' novel, jets around the world from Canada to Australia on his skiing, canoeing and wine-tasting jaunts, and fills up his available free-time to expunge his own guilt, by fighting his fancied demons?
From a John Mashey comment in 2009.
You don't walk to Southern Vermont from California, do you? Or do you take a plane its tank filled with fossil fuel?
There are vast swathes of people worried about their electricity bills and putting food on their table. And then there some worried about the northward movement of their favourite ski resorts and wineyards.
And it last you seem to have cottoned onto the idea that we do indeed think Wegman's alleged plagiarism is irrelevant.
I'm really not sure how to spell this out for you any more clearly. Plagiarism is not something to be encouraged and neither is it something that any of us here would approve of,
It's just not an issue - all the noise is among a certain class of keyboard warriors who have political/ideological axes to grind and have nothing better to do than obsess over it. I'm sure you get the point.
It doesn't alter the conclusions or the science or the facts.
How are you on Prof Jones and plagiarism, by the way?
nice comments, shub...maybe Michael Mashey will cease the charade now...it does not fool us...he is starting to accept that all the statos have exploded Mann's credibility.
Shub,
Awesome 'gotcha'.
It doesn't matter that Wegman is a plagiarst because......John Mashey takes holidays!
Baaa baaaa.
"It's just not an issue - all the noise is among a certain class of keyboard warriors who have political/ideological axes to grind and have nothing better to do than obsess over it. I'm sure you get the point." - mike
uh-huh. Takes why this post exists and you have been commenting on it, because 'it's not an issue'.
But, of course, for the ideological warriors it very much is - time to circle the wagons. Attack Mashey!
The exposure of Wegmans plagiarism is distracting from its effectiveness as a political tool.
Michael
You still don't get it, do you?
Every comment you make can be turned round and fired straight back at you.
Even your rather pathetic, even infantile, reply to Shub.
"It doesn't matter that Wegman is a plagiarist because John Mashey takes holidays." becomes "MBH98 has been vindicated because Wegman is a plagiarist".
Mashey has a political axe to grind. If you're too dim or too blinkered to see it there is no point in trying to discuss the matter.
"Information cannot communicate with a closed mind."
Michael ...
Completely unintended, I'm certain, but your:
"MBH(98) -a heavily cited landmark paper that continues to be cited in the scientific literature"
is another blow to the edifice of 'climate science' ... And exactly because you are right this time, and for the reason I already told you:
There were so many buying into this, who really wanted it to have been this way (straight hockeystick handle), who were (and are?) in denial of historic climatic variations, and of the MWP and LIA ... and who held up (cited) MBH98 as the token and proof for their beliefs ... and that all those now look rather foolish, having been so gullable and easily mislead to believe in a fairy-tale narrative (or for playing along and pretending to not know better)
As you say, there were many many, and the IPCC (along with many others) promoted its historic revisionism prominently! And now they are either embaressed, backtracking their steps or in denial. And quite some of the latter are desperately looking for different ways out.
I'm sure you've heard the meme 'confimed by many other independent reconstructions' before (maybe even tried it your self). Other attempts are the stupid one by Mashey (and you) about quotation marks.
Well, apart from stirring up a stink, it isn't getting you anywhere. And maybe you've noticed that only the hard liner All-in commited AGW-demagoges are chipping in on your side, and not even many of those (the smarter ones are quietly moving way, looking for new fools to fool ...)
Continuing stirring the stink ... that probably is you best option now .. for everyone to see and watch.
(and signature 'Michael' will in the future never point back at this thread, proudly saying: Look there, that was me! ;-)
Well, if you are worried about global warming, at least be worried about it for reasons other the fact that it'll spoil your ski-ing vacation.
Ah! the Crusade against 'global warming disinformation' to save the winter vacation.
Or if you want to sprinkle anecdotes into your global warming posts to embellish them and make them sound authentic (which is the exact same thing Mashey's chalking up Wegman for), don't post the same ski vacation story, over and over again.
In March 2009
In Jan 2011
In Jan 2008
In March 2011
In September 2008
In March 2011
In Sept 2008
In 2007
Mike,
I get it fine, but you're flailing with this;
"MBH98 has been vindicated because Wegman is a plagiarist".
Who's made this argument? No one.
MBH(98) is vindicated because it's been independently verified many times.
Wegman is a plagiarist, because the peer reviewed journal that published his paper said so, and retracted it.
The truth of each statement is independent of the other.
Jonas,
You should become more closely acquainted with Brevity and Clarity.
Shub,
Oh, now I get it......Wegman is not a plagiarist because Mashey talks about his holidays.
Excellent point.