The Chicken or the Wegman Report
Thinking about the last few posts has brought a very interesting thought to the surface. When Edward Wegman assured Donald Rapp that
By the way, this is what Wegman had to say in a recent email: “It is my opinion that Dr. Rapp has not plagiarized anything and I hold him harmless” and claims that these are “wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality”.he may have provided a key answer to the sources of the Wegman report. Remember, in the previous post we discussed how Dr. Rapp himself, relied on a paper draft which took ten years to be published. For the sake of argument dear Bunnie, how can we reconcile Dr. Wegman's statement with the fact that huge sections of of Wegman report are to be found almost word for word in Dr. Rapp's book
Flip the page for Eli's anwer to this puzzler
Some, certainly not Eli, might say that perhaps, only perhaps, Dr. Rapp had provided Prof. Wegman with an early draft of his book, or draft of a part of his book, and Wegman simply copied portions into the Wegman Report. If Eli was Donald Rapp he would be annoyed at the Wegman folk, because, well you see the problems this is stirring. It also shifts the focus to Dr. Rapp, because now, rather than the tertiary copying of the Wegman Report which arguably had plagiarized Prof. Bradley's book, it would have been Dr. Rapp who extracted the material from Bradley's book and Wegman & Co who copied the materials from Rapp's draft.
You can follow all of this by comparing files that Deep Climate has left about the similarity between the Wegman Report and Prof. Bradley's book and about the similarity between the Wegman Report and Dr. Rapp's book
Eli closes with Deep Climate's plaint: Is your head spinning now?
What if a draft of Dr. Rapp's manuscript was provided to Prof. Wegman by a third party? and remember other material in the Wegman Report was copied and pasted, specifically the social network analysis, so this does not let the Wegman Report off the hook.
Posts
16 comments:
It was Professor Mustard
In the library
With scissors and paste
Eli, how do I contact you? I wish to send you a private email or discuss some concerns outside of the blog world. Thank you for your time.
Or perhaps Said did the deed. Are there any convenient buses around the GMU campus?
Also, I've been thinking about that weird LaRouchite paper in the bibliography. Sabotage by one of the grad students, possibly? Do we know who they were?
It makes me wonder if Wegman actually did anything at all in the Report? Was it ghost written by students and he just put his name to it? It's so bizarre that he would allow such huge amounts of plagiarised material. Surely he'd understand the consequences in Academic circles.
Since Rapp is close to Wegman, the obvious method is to go down the Wegman text that is marked up with Rapp's differences, and compare them to the Bradley original.
"The term 'coral' is generally applied to members of the order Scleratina," is in Bradley 6.8, and has a paraphrase in Wegman. But it is not in Rapp.
Will need more examples to be sure. But this suggests that Wegman came first.
Actually, that was my original theory. But within 36 hours I realized I'd made a big mistake.
At that point I remembered that Keith Briffa had Bradley's chapter on tree-ring paleoclimatology online, and I had a hunch that this was the missing antecedent to both Wegman and Rapp. But because the CRU website was offline at the time (in the wake of the stolen emails), I had to do some serious Google cache sleuthing to get ahold of it.
By the way you should use these updated comparisons:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-bradley-tree-rings-v20.pdf
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals-v2.pdf
The best summary of all the potential plagiarism I found in the background sections can be found in my last post on the subject. The table near the end of that post lists all the discussions and side-by-side comparisons for the three background sections in the Wegman report.
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/wegman-bradley-ice-cores-corals-v2.pdf
Oops - my last link was wrong. Let's try that again:
The best summary of all the potential plagiarism I found in the background sections can be found in my last post on the subject. The table near the end of that post lists all the discussions and side-by-side comparisons for the three background sections in the Wegman report.
http://deepclimate.org/2010/07/29/wegman-report-update-part-1-more-dubious-scholarship-in-full-colour/
BTW, Guillaume Tell has it right, methinks.
Well, well, well... it turns out that "Smokey" Joe Barton (is he the clown who commissioned the Wegman report?) has responded to Michael Mann over at the WP. Link here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105679.html
-- caerbannog the anonybunny
I think Rapp's just cheesed off because he plagiarized a badly plagiarized piece of work, and the cheese-dog is starting to hit the fan. Not knowing any of the mechanics or social network theory that might link places like Texan universities with certain Congresspeople, I'd be reluctant to say Rapp fed Wegman/Said his unpublished chapters. Implausible or improbable, I can never remember which is which...
I would note in passing that Rapp is a "self-plagiarizer", at least on the information autobahn: See his two identical comments at Bishop Hill (here) and Deep Climate (here) on December 19 2009.
Dr. Wegman,
Oh what a tangled web you weave when you try and deceive.
Sincerely,
MapleLeaf
Definition of "tangled weg":
Confused (and confusing) mess of plagiarized, infringed and/or otherwise improperly cited material that shifts focus from the central issue onto subsidiary issues. (See "weg the dog")
Usage: "Oh, what a tangled weg we weave..."
Etymology: Wegman Report (see John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report) The report (rather conveniently) focused on issues of statistical analysis ("centering" of data) and social networking (who Michael Mann's "friends" are) rather than on the reality of the hockey stick shape of the temperature reconstruction.
Rep. Joe (R-BP) Barton has a letter to the editor in today's WaPo rehashing the Wegman Report (although somehow he's conveniently forgotten its name). Some bunnies might want to hop over there and give their respects with some droppings in the Comments.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/11/AR2010101105679.html
I'm sure more rabett pellets will help.
OT, did anybody know that Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine was running for congress? Man, I mniss all the good stuff.
@Boris - um, yes, quite a few of us have been picking apart Robinson and his campaign:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/page/213602_Presenting_the_GOPs_newest_sta
John Mashey has good write-ups about him, and Maddow just did an interview with Robinson last week which is hilarious.
As far as AGW politics is concerned, though, Robinson isn't really much of a player. The kingpins are Inhofe and Barton (as seen by the link above and this whole Wegman affair.)
Link to Maddow interview of Robinson:
'I'm not a politician_ I'm a scientist'
http://videotodaynews.com/9nYh-ePc-jY
He won't say who's paying for $150K of ads.
Post a Comment
Dear Anonymous,
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
Additional space has been added for sensible ramblings.
The management.