Mashey Report Reveals Wegman Manipulations

Mon, 2011-05-23 23:35Richard Littlemore
Richard Littlemore's picture

Mashey Report Reveals Wegman Manipulations

Strange Tales and Emails: Said, Wegman, Sharabati, Rigsby (2008)

The discredited Dr. Edward Wegman tried to blame a student for the plagiarism in a paper that has since been retracted from the journal of Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, according to emails released in a new report by computer scientist Dr. John Mashey (attached below).

The emails, originally obtained by USA Today reporter Dan Vergano, reveal that Wegman and his friend, CSDA Editor Dr. Stanely Azen, both tried to convince the publisher Elsevier to allow the discredited paper to stand, perhaps with an errata sheet attached as what Azen described as “punishment” for the Wegman team’s academic misconduct.

Mashey and the Canadian blogger DeepClimate have been the two most effective forces at discovering, analyzing and revealing the incorrect, plagiarized and academically incompetent work generated by Wegman, his collaborator and former student Yasmin Said, as well as other students including Walid Sharabati and John Rigsby in their ongoing attacks on climate scientists who contributed to the iconic “hockey stick” climate reconstruction graph (inset).

Earlier Mashey reports include Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report and Crescendo Climategate Cacaphony, both of which leverage DeepClimate’s research and then canvas in extraordinary detail the connections and manipulations that mark the Wegman campaign. The retraction of the CSDA paper is the first obvious result of Mashey and DC’s painstaking scholarship. This new report is yet more evidence that more dramatic punishments may still be in store for the Wegman team and for the Republican legislators (such as Joe Barton) and functionaries (including Barton’s staffer Peter Spencer) who originally engaged Wegman to launch the hockey stick attack.

 
AttachmentSize
strange tales v 1 01.pdf1.66 MB

Previous Comments

its completely outrageous what Wegman and crowd have gotten away with. Where is the outrage? Where is the New York Times coverage? What about Scientific American? Oh sorry, they are too busy lionizing discredited climate change denier Richard Muller.

http://climateaudit.org/2011/05/23/climategate-documents-confirm-wegmans-hypothesis/

McI wouldn’t know the truth if it jumped into bed with him.

He’s never once audited, for example, Wegman.

If he had, maybe the plagiarism would have been seen sooner.

Tell me, why is the warming effect of CO2 evident in the past but cannot do the same thing now?

Does it know that capitalism requires no AGW?

its even worse than what anonymous said above. McIntyre is directly implicated in the Wegman deceptions. He was caught cherry-picking thousands of simulations to find a subset of ‘hockey sticks’, using a statistical routine that was rigged to produce them, and then lying about it and claiming that Mann’s algorithm produces such results. It is likely that McIntyre engaged in criminal conspiracy w/ Wegman, Peter Spencer, and Joe Barton. Read John Mashey’s earlier reports (search this site). McIntyre may end up suffering criminal recriminations for his involvement here. Stay tuned! We may eventually see that McIntyre perp walk after all!

…half of the “hockey sticks” generated from red-noise (per McIntyre) are upside-down. But Mann’s critics conveniently ignore all those “upside down” hockey-sticks. How’s *that* for “hiding the decline”?

Some followup material: For anyone familiar with the SVD algorithm (the algorithm that generates “principal components”, it’s quite easy to distinguish a “noise” hockey stick from a genuine “Mann” hockey-stick. All you need to do is look at the singular value magnitudes.

If the leading singular values are small, with the remaining singular values declining slowly in magnitude, then you know that you have mostly “noise” (i.e. little correlation amongst the different tree-ring sequences). That’s what you see if you apply the SVD algorithm to “red noise”. If this is the case, then you know right off the bat that you aren’t going to be able to extract a common temperature signal.

However, if you have just one or a few large leading singular values, with the rest dropping off close to zero very quickly, then you know that you have a lot of correlation amongst the tree-ring sequences, and that you will have a very good chance of extracting a common temperature signal those tree-ring sequences.

Give any competent analyst the full outputs of Mann’s “hockey stick” procedure applied to random noise vs. tree-ring data, and he/she will be able to tell them apart in two seconds.

If Mann’s tree-ring data-set produced singular values similar to what you get from “red noise”, he would have said to himself, “there’s nothing in this data to work with here – all I have is noise”. And then he would have “circular filed” that data-set and gone off to do something else.

hey loser. read the National Academy of Sciences report, or the most recent IPCC report, or any of a dozen or more recent studies. Not only has the Hockey Stick been “validated” dozens of times over, it’s been extended and strengthened. Here is some summer reading for you:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/21/hockey-stick-global-warming/
http://climateprogress.org/2008/09/03/sorry-deniers-hockey-stick-gets-longer-stronger-earth-hotter-now-than-in-past-2000-years/
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Proxy-Reconstruction-Comparison-Uncertainty6.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-Past-Present-and-Future.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/compare_recons_with_crutem_1.png

take your Koch-headed propaganda somewhere else, idiot.

Hi Rob, While we appreciate your comments and engagement, petty name calling is against of Comment policy so please refrain from those terms in the future or we will have to deactivate your account. Thanks, The DeSmog Team. Comment Policy: DeSmogBlog does not censor comments based on political or ideological points of view. However, we will delete comments that are abusive, off-topic or use offensive language. When speaking to the state of climate change science, we encourage commenters to include links to supporting information as this helps enrich the conversation. Users who make unsubstantiated claims can expect their posts to be deleted and, if they persist, their account to be deactivated. Petty name-calling and/or a pattern of disrespect towards other DeSmogBlog users will also result in account deactivation.

Actually, Defending the most completely discredited Fraud in recent Scientific history on a propaganda site is quite appropriate….

It just confirms that AGW is a religious Faith rather than any form of science.

And it give the rest of the world something to point at and laugh.

Keep the faith…. The more you defend obvious fraud the more people will turn to real science.

Thanks Actually.

Note how there’s nothing of evidence in either the post or that the poster has noticed on this site.

It’s all faith to them.

The blindly religious make all their decisions based on it and can’t see why anyone else does.

Irrationality rules them.

Sooner or later the sordid truth behind the Wegman Report will come out. Deep Climate has thoroughly analysed McIntyres archived code from M&M05, which Wegman used directly without vetting any of the statistical rigour (or lack thereof) behind it. You must read this:

http://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/

Tells you everything you need to know about how the likes of McIntyre and McKitrick operate. The Wegman Report was a pure stitch-up of MBH98, and needs to be retracted!

Good morning Micaela, nice to see you’ve woken up!

Yes, this site needs moderation. Perhaps you haven’t had your morning coffee yet, or you would have noticed the libelous nonsense against some fine scientists that ‘Rob’ responded to.

I blame it on the coffee. Get some and start moderating!

Good luck,

Half-brain Martin

Which “fine scientists” ?
What was “libelous” ?

The good news is that you frankly admit your ignorance… nothing a little homework cannot fix.

So at least 50% of what you would have had could be working.

Attorney General Cuccinelli cites this Wegman Report in his CID against UVA/Dr. Mann.

If the Wegman Report is finally judged by the professors at George Mason to be a big hoax, maybe people should ask Cuccinelli who helped him write all that trash in his CID.

I am constantly emailing Cuccinelli’s deputy W. Russell questions, but he never answers.

The Vatican, the Pentagon, the CIA, our scientific agencies, and all the recognized scientific academies of science accept that there is man-made climate change.

Perhaps Cuccinelli would like to call the Vatican a bunch of liars who are trying to steal our money and take over the world.

Cucinelli’s dad is a career gas lobbyist. I read on the Internet a brief comment that Cuccinelli used to work as an advocate for fossil-fuel interests, but there was nothing specific documented. Maybe this site could find out about Cuccinelli’s previous career.

In my opinion, Cuccinelli has hijacked the office of the Attorney General and has transformed it into a sinister political police/KGB for his family’s private financial interests. Cuccinelli’s AG office runs political operations against Dr. Mann and UVA. He cites academics who are stooges of the fossil fuel industry. He is persecuting Dr. Mann and lying about him. Cuccinelli is not protecting our people. Instead he is destroying people who are warning us of danger.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610

And the MWP has nothing to do with AGW but is repeatedly repeated as if it were some “nail in the coffin”.

IF the MWP were warmer, the planet is more sensitive to forcings than the IPCC reports suggest.

This fruitcake is basically banking on “See! You were wrong! We’re going to fry TOMORROW, not in a hundred years!”.

But actual brain activity has never been a requirement for a denier.

Actually The MWP has as much to do with AGW as the hockey stick.
As a matter science, neither are more than merely interesting.
As a matter of political value to advance an agenda, they are both very important.
The hokey schtick was pure propaganda and the MWP was the obvious flaw that illistrated clearly that the current minor optimum is nothing unusual and certainly not unprecidented.

The attempt was made to lie and wipe out a bit of long accepted factual history.
it failed.

It also wasn’t global.

You see scientists don’t publish on Youtube.

The hockey stick propoganda is the one you’re pushing.

But I guess you know better than the National Academy of Science what science is and how to do it. Moron.

Actually the MWP was indeed Global.

It is merely another AGW Myth that it was confined to Europe.

This site is well referenced and peer reviewed, although the locals will claim it is not because it destroys their credibility.

http://www.co2science.org/data/timemap/mwpmap.html

They have well researched evidence from all over the globe.

Que the reality denial……. 3….2….1…

Go look at the dates on those records.

Go on.

What do you see? The “MWP” there lasts 400 years, but never in two regions at the same time.

I bet you don’t believe in Summer in the Northern Hemisphere since the temperature in the Southern one is colder. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

And you know it’s well-researched HOW?

Because you like it?

What made you think that this research was better than the one done in:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/moberg2005/moberg2005.html

After all, that is just a blog post by a Very Rich family that want to take money from the state (charitable status, allowing avoidance of taxes), whereas that link is to a researched, peer reviewed paper from scientists that George W Bush hired.

From Sherwood B. Idso, owner of the site co2science.org:

Because we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them

This is such an entertaining little echo chamber.

Take me back to when I used to poke sticks at the creationsists.
Same schtick different agenda.

…we have MODERATION! Hurray!

It seems more “Be polite, lie as much as you want, and we won’t let anyone call you out on it because that’s PERSONAL ABUSE!!”. The sort of attitude that leave truth to be scraped off the road after being run over countless times by liar after liar, I calls it.

That IS moderation.
What you are calling for is censorship.

Censorship is the last resort of a failed agenda.

In exactly the way as a freedom fighter is a terrorist.

PS note how the deniers want moderation to remove posts that burn their house of lies down but scream holy murder (literally) about how they’re being censored in the science journals and use as “proof” of their claims the fact that their ravings don’t get in reputable science journals that honour truth over false balance.

Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No post should be cencored unless it is merely abusive name calling.

all opinions are valid.

Everyone has the right to be wrong.

Warmists exercise that right all the time.

Just the science and the deniers.

And reality doesn’t give two figs for your opinion. If you decide you don’t like sunrise this morning, the sun will not decide to wait until you have a better opinion of it.

It’s funny how denialists complain that they’re entitled to their opinion but demand that any opinion they don’t agree with is proof of a conspiracy.

Denialists have every right to be wrong.

If only they understood that.

But their faith DEMANDS that they never be wrong. It HAS to be AGW that is wrong. No matter what happen.

So they refuse to even recognise when they’re wrong. Just like applesauce did with his “I saw the media” response.

Take a chill pill.
I am not the one that disproved AGW.
I simply point out the fact that it has been disproved, and invite others to go look it up as well.

The evidence is easy to find. And if you dig it up yourselves, you can not accuse me of cherry picking or altering it.

FACT: The more you learn, the less you will worry about it.

Not even that there is an intelligent being on the other side of the keyboard.

FACT: the more people say “FACT”, the less facts they have.

“Evidence” disproving AGW is easy to find in just the same way as evidence of the existence of Ganesha or Jesus is easy to find.

All you have to do is close your eyes and wish hard enough.

You forgot “click your heals three times”….

Yes I am quite sure you could look right at the clear evidence and not see it.
However, not everyone is blinded by their Faith.

They will see and you will go on believing long after the world has moved on.

But thats OK, a few alarmists are alwasy good for amusement value.

Why is it warming?

Oh, forgot, you haven’t got any evidence, if you had, you’d be able to show it and explain why it’s correct and why it fits better than the climate science we already know.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Live with it.

Anon, if you don’t like it here (but it seems you do), I suggest you start a blog of your own, just a few clicks away in WordPress. There you can dump as much toxic libel trash as your dear little heart desires, and not a censor in sight.

Do remember though to sign with your real name, so plaintiffs’ lawyers can find you.

moderation is the process whereby discussion and debate can proceed robustly without being censored by input that is aimed at derailing the discussion/debate.

What do you think should be done to scientists who make up facts?

Should they be investigated, or should they be protected?

Well, Dr. Wegman should be investigated, of course, how right you are… but as the post shows, some folks (like Dr. Azen, and it seems, influential people at George Mason University) feel more like protecting him. Very topical question!

Two people are debating in this thread, but each is posting anonymously - making it look a bit like user “anonymous” is arguing with him or herself.
Could each of you at least pick a pseudonym, and stick to it? We dont need to know your real names, but it would help to have two distinct handles to tell you apart, and to follow which of you is saying what.

The retraction of the CSDA paper is the first obvious result of Mashey and DC's painstaking scholarship.