Wegman exposed: Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report requested by Joe Barton (R-TX)

Meanwhile, evidence grows that recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause

An influential 2006 congressional report that raised questions about the validity of global warming research was partly based on material copied from textbooks, Wikipedia and the writings of one of the scientists criticized in the report, plagiarism experts say.

Review of the 91-page report by three experts contacted by USA TODAY found repeated instances of passages lifted word for word and what appear to be thinly disguised paraphrases.

The evidence has become overwhelming that recent global warming is unprecedented in magnitude and speed and cause (see “Two more independent studies back the Hockey Stick and below).  Indeed, as WAG notes, within a few decades, nobody is going to be talking about hockey sticks, they will be talking about right angles or hockey skates (see chart above).

The disinformers (and the confusionists who Curry favor with them), however, are not merely oblivious to the multiple, independent lines of scientific investigation that lead to that conclusion.  They have for over a decade tried to discredit one small piece of that underlying analysis, the Hockey Stick graph developed by Michael Mann, Raymond S. Bradley & Malcolm K. Hughes — continuing their obsession even after that analysis was largely reaffirmed by a 2006 report from the National Academy of Sciences, the “Supreme Court of science.”

A cornerstone of the disinformer’s ultimately self-destructive attack on climate science is a 2006 report, commissioned by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) and Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-KY), and led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, who is now himself under investigation by GMU.  You can find all the details you could want about the shoddy analysis of the report at Deep Climate — including his “methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics” in the report, as John Mashey puts it in the comments.

Here’s more from the stunning USA Today piece:

It kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others’ integrity when you don’t conform to the basic rules of scholarship,” Virginia Tech plagiarism expert Skip Garner says.

Led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, the 2006 report criticized the statistics and scholarship of scientists who found the last century the warmest in 1,000 years.

“The report was integral to congressional hearings about climate scientists,” says Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C. “And it preceded a lot of conspiratorial thinking polluting the public debate today about climate scientists.”

But in March, climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts asked GMU, based in Fairfax, Va., to investigate “clear plagiarism” of one of his textbooks.

Bradley says he learned of the copying from a year-long analysis of the Wegman report made by retired computer scientist John Mashey of Portola Valley, Calif. Mashey’s analysis concludes that 35 of the report’s 91 pages “are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning.” Copying others’ text or ideas without crediting them violates universities’ standards, according to Liz Wager of the London-based Committee on Publication Ethics.

“The matter is under investigation,” says GMU spokesman Dan Walsch by e-mail. In a phone interview, Wegman said he could not comment at the university’s request. In an earlier e-mail Wegman sent to Joseph Kunc of the University of Southern California, however, he called the plagiarism charges “wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.”

The plagiarism experts queried by USA TODAY disagree after viewing the Wegman report:

“¢ “Actually fairly shocking,” says Cornell physicist Paul Ginsparg by e-mail. “My own preliminary appraisal would be ‘guilty as charged.’ “

“¢”If I was a peer reviewer of this report and I was to observe the paragraphs they have taken, then I would be obligated to report them,” says Garner of Virginia Tech, who heads a copying detection effort. “There are a lot of things in the report that rise to the level of inappropriate.”

“¢”The plagiarism is fairly obvious when you compare things side-by-side,” says Ohio State’s Robert Coleman, who chairs OSU’s misconduct committee.

The report was requested in 2005 by Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, then the head of the House energy committee. Barton cited the report in an October letter to The Washington Post when he wrote that Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann‘s work was “rooted in fundamental errors of methodology that had been cemented in place as ‘consensus’ by a closed network of friends.”

The Wegman report criticized 1998 and 1999 reports led by Mann (Bradley was a co-author) that calculated global temperatures over the last dozen centuries. It also contained an analysis of Mann’s co-authors that appears partly cribbed from Wikipedia, Garner says….

A 2006 report by the National Research Council (NRC), which examines scientific disputes under a congressional charter, largely validated Mann, Bradley and the other climate scientists, according to Texas A&M’s Gerald North, the panel’s head. The NRC report found the Wegman report’s criticism of the type of statistics used in 1998 and 1999 papers reasonable but beside the point, as many subsequent studies had reproduced their finding that the 20th century was likely the warmest one in centuries.

Indeed, the Nature article on the report was headlined, “Academy affirms hockey-stick graph.”

The Wegman report called for improved “sharing of research materials, data and results” from scientists. But in response to a request for materials related to the report, GMU said it “does not have access to the information.” Separately in that response, Wegman said his “email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,” and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the “work was done offsite,” aside from one meeting with Spencer….

Here is an example of passages Bradley believes were plagiarized with “substantially close” wording from his textbook, Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary. Sentences in bold italic represents sections he believes were paraphrased:

“¢Bradley text: “A cross section of most temperate forest trees will show an alternation of lighter and darker bands, each of which is usually continuous around the tree circumference. These are seasonal growth increments produced by meristematic tissues in the tree’s cambium. When view in detail (Fig. 10.1), it is clear that they are made up of sequences of large, thin-walled cells (earlywood) and more densely packed, thick-walled cells (latewood). Collectively, each couplet of earlywood and latewood comprises an annual growth increment, more commonly called a tree ring. The mean width of a ring in any one tree is a function of many variables, including the tree species, tree age, availability of stored food within the tree and of important nutrients in the soil, and a whole complex of climatic factors (sunshine, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, and their distribution throughout the year). The problem facing dendroclimatologists is to extract whatever climatic signal is available in the tree ring data and to distinguish from the background noise.”

“¢Wegman report: “A cross section of a temperate forest tree shows variation of lighter and darker bands that are usually continuous around the circumference of the tree. These bands are the so-called tree rings and are due to seasonal effects. Each tree ring is composed of large thin-walled cells called early wood and smaller more densely packed thick walled cells called late wood. The average width of a tree ring is a function of many variables including the tree species, tree age, stored carbohydrates in the tree, nutrients in the soil, and climatic factors including sunlight, precipitation, temperature, wind speed, humidity, and even carbon dioxide availability in the atmosphere. Obviously there are many confounding factors so the problem is to extract the temperature signal and to distinguish the temperature signal from the noise caused by the many confounding factors.”

Bradly tells USA Today: “They should just retract or withdraw the report as you would any scientific publication that has these sort of problems.”

Michael Mann, in an email to ClimateProgress, says

I thank John Mashey and “DeepClimate” for their hard-nosed investigative work that ultimately led to this news piece. I also thank veteran USA Today science reporter Dan Vergano for making sure that this deeply troubling story is heard by a wide, mainstream audience. The photo that appears with the article shows an iceberg. I wonder if it’s a metaphor–for, indeed, I think we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg so far with this story. I expect there will be more developments to come.

While it’s good to see attacks on climate science discredited in the media, the most important job is communicating climate science.  In this regard, the real story is how many independent analyses have supported (and expanded) the original Hockey Stick analysis.

Regular CP readers can skip the rest of this post, but I want to end with a focus on the science, not the discrediting of the disinformers.

There are now more studies that show recent warming is unprecedented –  in magnitude and speed and cause “” than you can shake a stick at!

As with a pride of lions, and a delusion of disinformers, perhaps the grouping should get its own name, like “a team of hockey sticks” (see “The Curious Case of the Hockey Stick that Didn’t Disappear“).

  1. GRL:  “We conclude that the 20th century warming of the incoming intermediate North Atlantic water has had no equivalent during the last thousand years.
  2. JGR:  “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1600 years.” [figure below]

Hockey SA small

Reconstructed tropical South American temperature anomalies (normalized to the 1961-1990AD average) for the last ˆ¼1600 years (red curve, smoothed with a 39″year Gaussian filter). The shaded region envelops the ±2s uncertainty as derived from the validation period. Poor core quality precluded any chemical analysis for the time interval between 1580 and 1640 AD.

Yes, the 39″year Gaussian filter appears to wipe out over half of the warming since 1950 as this NASA chart makes clear:

The rate of human-driven warming in the last century has exceeded the rate of the underlying natural trend by more than a factor of 10, possibly much more.  And warming this century on our current path of unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions is projected to cause a rate of warming that is another factor of 5 or more greater than that of the last century.  We are punching the climate beast “” and she ain’t happy about it!

The evidence mounts every year that unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions threaten multiple catastrophes (see “A stunning year in climate science reveals that human civilization is on the precipice“).

For the record, even a moderate MWP (even if it were global, which remains unproven) does nothing whatsoever to undermine our understanding of human-caused global warming.  The temperature trend in the past millennium prior to about 1850 is well explained in the scientific literature as primarily due to changes in the solar forcing along with the effect of volcanoes, whereas the recent rise in temperature has been driven primarily “” if not almost entirely “” by human activity (see Scientist: “Our conclusions were misinterpreted” by Inhofe, CO2 “” but not the sun “” “is significantly correlated” with temperature since 1850 and a post to be named later).

The Geophysical Research Letters paper, “Twentieth century warming in deep waters of the Gulf of St. Lawrence: A unique feature of the last millennium” concludes:

“¦ irrespective of the precise mechanisms responsible for the temperature variations reconstructed from core MD99″2220, it is unquestionable that the last century has been marked there by a warming trend having no equivalent over the last millennium.

For those keeping score at home, here are a few more members of the team of hockey sticks (although the last two aren’t actually independent, as discussed here).

From Human-caused Arctic warming overtakes 2,000 years of natural cooling, “seminal” study finds (2009):


From Unprecedented warming in Lake Tanganyika and its impact on humanity (2010):

Lake Tanganyika lake surface temperature

From Sorry disinformers, hockey stick gets longer, stronger: Earth hotter now than in past 2,000 years (2008)


And from McShane and Wyner (2010):


And yes, McShane and Wyner has been debunked in the blogosphere “” see I went to a statistician fight and a hockey stick broke out “” and is currently being eviscerated in the original journal itself.

For more on Wegman, see Wegman-gate by Scott A. Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences.  He notes:

John Mashey answers that question in his 250 page dissection of the Wegman Report.  Please view the six page Executive Summary and the full report.  Arthur Smith has an excellent summary of Mashey’s Report on his blog:

Among Mashey’s findings:

  • Of 91 pages, 35 are largely plagiarized text, often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning. 3 pages are a mathematical appendix that seems to be the only contribution of the report’s 2nd author (David Scott). 7 pages are a padded bibliography (see below). That leaves barely half the report as actual original material from Wegman and Said.
  • A sketch of central England temperatures for the past 1000 years from the first (1990) IPCC report was highlighted in the Wegman report, but the report’s version was altered, at least by shifting the time axis and truncating the recent temperature rise (already truncated at 1975 in the original). An unaltered version of the same sketch can be found in the NAS report; until now nobody seems to have noticed that Wegman (or a source or associate) had distorted the graph.
  • Of 80 references in the bibliography, 40 are never cited in the report.
  • Many of the science papers in the remaining 40 are, while cited and sometimes summarized, otherwise ignored in the analysis
  • Wegman sent the report to a few statisticians; all known to him. Some were given only a few days to comment. Some gave strong advice that was simply ignored. This was claimed as peer review by Representative Whitfield
  • Some commenters were surprised to be listed as reviewers
  • Wegman and Said promised to publish their analysis in the peer-reviewed literature, but other than one paper in a journal where Said was associate editor (accepted 6 days after receipt), none have appeared
  • Incriminating documents associated with Said have disappeared from websites in recent weeks

31 Responses to Wegman exposed: Experts find “shocking” plagiarism in 2006 climate report requested by Joe Barton (R-TX)

  1. MosesZD says:

    I am, of course, not surprised. It’s tobacco/asbestos science all over again…

  2. Esop says:

    The McShane & Wyner graph is clearly the most scary, as it shows that not only are we warming at a great rate, but we have overcome a long term cooling trend (Milankovich cycle, etc), indicating that the anthropogenic component of the observed warming likely exceeds 100%.

  3. harvey says:

    The problem in the USA is that amazing amount of propaganda being spewed by some group of people. Who is it that is funding the “news reporting” on FOX (remember news reporting does not need to specify factual items) and is promoting multiple blogs and who has convinced a number of people to attack blogs/websites they do not like? I am concerned that the USA is being mis-guided by a Nazi-Gobbels like media manipulation…

  4. Chris Brown says:

    The ironing is delicious.

  5. James Crabb says:

    “Wegman said his “email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,” and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the “work was done offsite,” aside from one meeting with Spencer….”

    Sweet justice…who like’s FOI now? surely as this is public funded work everything should be available, it would be great to have the deniers shady backroom dealings exposed.

  6. Nick Palmer says:

    I don’t want to support the denialosphere at all, but any plagiarism does not necessarily discredit the arguments in Wegman as to whether Mann et al were legit.

    It does obviously call Wegman’s academic integrity into question but, for example, if I was writing about relativity and I plagiarised Einstein’s papers, the discovery of my plagiarism would not discredit the arguments that I had made…

  7. John Mashey says:

    Thanks (and thanks again to Deep Climate for finding this stuff in the first place; too bad mainstream media editors don’t give anonymous bloggers credit).

    1) This is only the first show to drop. Vergano is very, very thorough, and this had to be kept short enough for print.

    2) There are one or two nits in the story, but not many. Email actually went to Donald Rapp, not Joseph Kunc (it got forwarded to Kunc, and ther email chains get confusing). And of course, the March complaint was based on DC’s stuff, not my later material.

    3) Meanwhile, look in on DC’s methodical demolishing of any hint of statistics in the WR, starting with the amazing cherry-pick that started with bad statistics, then cherry-picked from the 1% of the result that produced the most positive hockey sticks.

    4) And as for McShane&Wyner, well, read SSWR A.12.

  8. John Mashey says:

    Please read SSWR. The Wegman Report does not have any useful, meaningful statistical analysis. If you think it does, please stop in at Deep Climate and explain why you think so.

    Likewise, it’s social network analysis is junk.

    How much of it has to be wrong? … because it was hard to find anything both meaningful and right, which is how I ended up with a 250-page report.

  9. Nice roundup, JR. It is always good to show how the hockey stick is pervasive in the literature. As I blogged recently:

    The hockey stick-shape temperature plot that shows modern climate considerably warmer than past climate has been verified by many scientists using different methodologies (PCA, CPS, EIV, isotopic analysis, & direct T measurements from boreholes).

    To believe Rep. Joe Barton and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli one must also believe in magic. Consider the odds that various international scientists using quite different data and quite different data analysis techniques can all be wrong in the same way. What are the odds that a hockey stick is always the shape of the wrong answer?

    The only reasonable conclusion is that Barton and Cuccinelli are
    shooting the messenger with blanks.

    It is time for these two gentleman to do some constructive work.

  10. BillD says:

    Yes, the plagiarism does not necessarily discredit Wegman, although I would hardly feel compfortable about accepting the findings of someone who has been so dishonest. Now you can read on Deep Climate, that Wegman did not, in fact, conduct the orginal statistical analysis that he and his coauthors claimed to have conducted. They only duplicated the analysis of another so-called skeptic, McIntyre. He did not do the analysis that he claimed to have done. Of, it was not a peer-reviewed publication, it was just testimony before the US House of Representatives.

  11. luminous beauty says:


    Read a little closer and I think you’ll find plagiarism is the least of the problems here.

  12. Lou Grinzo says:

    A question and a suggestion:

    If someone on “our side” had done something this shoddy (some would say sleazy), what do you think the deniers would have done with it? That’s right — they’d be screaming “Plagiarist!!!” louder than an air raid siren for months, simply because it’s the aspect of this mess that would resonate best with lay people. Everyone has the same visceral reaction to that level of cheating.

    As for the suggestion: I think we should push all aspects of this train wreck (especially the plagiarism) just as hard and relentlessly as the deniers would if it were our screw up. If you don’t like that suggestion, consider how pleased the deniers would be to know that we still have our ever-so-convenient knack for unilateral disarmament… and then get to work.

  13. Mike Roddy says:

    I agree, Lou. It won’t be enough when George Mason gets around to censuring Wegman, since few members of the public even know who he is. The fact that an incompetent outside his field has been the go-to analyst for people like Beck, Limbaugh, and Boehner needs to be brought to light. Remember, these are the ones who accuse people like Mann and Jones of “junk science”.

    It’s time to go on offense here, and scientists with media access should lead the charge. They should receive financial and moral support from their professional organizations. Wegman, McIntyre, Michaels and the rest of them need to be shown for what they are: bullshitters.

  14. Paul K2 says:

    I have been reading Deep Climate on this issue, and there is a long way to go with this story. Plagiarism is simply the tip of the iceberg.

    The congressional committee set Wegman and his team to evaluate the statistical basis behind the hockey stick, particularly in lieu of McIntyre’s criticisms. But Wegman and his team never did that… it appears that they simply copied McIntyre’s work, and never independently verified the work was correctly done. They copied McIntyre’s conclusions and criticisms as well.

    When it came time to write the report, they copied Bradley’s text, as well as others, and modified the text in places to change the meaning to be more consistent with the denialist point of view. For example, in the bit of text shown above, note how Wegman’s team, who were statisticians and not a climate scientists, and certainly not dendrology (tree ring) experts, inserted the text about atmospheric carbon dioxide levels affecting tree growth. They don’t show any supporting evidence or references that climate affected tree stand growth is substantially enhanced due to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

    So we can see that the report was fabricated to suit a certain point of view, and the fabrication was likely orchestrated by Republican congressman Barton’s staff.

    The next shoe to drop, should be that a complete analysis of McIntyre’s statistical work shows that it is biased and improperly done. Yet Wegman’s team failed to discover this, because they didn’t bother to check the statistics before they copied that work into their report!

    So in fact, Wegman failed in their primary task; to check the statistical methodology behind the hockey stick. The reason this failure wasn’t exposed earlier, is because they covered up their mistakes, and refused to release data, code, and methods necessary for other academics to check their work. Only now are we finding out about the depth of deception in the Wegman Report.

    The entire report needs to be replaced with a critical review of the incorrect conclusions reached in the Wegman Report.

  15. Eli Rabett says:

    Email has been destroyed. Call the auditors.

    Eli eagerly looks forward to pointing this out many, many, many times to our denialist friends.

  16. Sadly it’s not enough to be factually correct any more…

  17. another joe says:

    To Deep Climate and John Mashey: Thank you for your diligence. And kudos to Dan Vergano, for covering the Wegman story when no one else would touch it.

  18. toby says:

    Regarding Edward Wegman, it is both amusing and ironic to remember that this scandal has broken out exactly a year after the alleged “Climategate” scandal when the e-mails of climate scientists were hacked froma computer. It is a LOL moment to read this:

    “But in response to a request for materials related to the report, GMU said it “does not have access to the information.” Separately in that response, Wegman said his “email was downloaded to my notebook computer and was erased from the GMU mail server,” and he would not disclose any report communications or materials because the “work was done offsite,” aside from one meeting with Spencer. ”

    “Spencer” is an assistant to Congressman Joe Barton. Eli Rabetts hints that more revelations are to come.

    Given wall-to-wall coverage of “Climategate” by media outlets like Fox News, the Wall Street Journal (who published the Wegman Report as an op-ed), the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, I suppose we will see them devoting equal time and space to this scandal about the interplay between politicians, big business and academia, as well as plagiarism and data abuse? They should expect equal transparancy from climate critics as they expect from climate scientists, right?

    Yeah, sure.

  19. fj3 says:

    Allianz Warns Climate Change Could Hit Harder than Financial Crisis – Insurance Journal

  20. Prokaryotes says:

    “We are definitely on the high end of the [IPCC] projections and it’s also grim to see that as the growth increases in the emerging economies … the rich countries have to really start decreasing their internal emissions, but that is really not happening, at least at the scale that is needed to limit global warming to the minimum of 2C that the government has pledged,” Professor Le Quéré said.

    The British Government has promised to curb UK emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and has made much of the fact that over the past two decades CO2 emissions have fallen significantly. However, Professor Le Quéré said that this is largely because Britain has exported its problem overseas, mainly to China, where many imported consumer goods are now manufactured.

  21. Esop says:

    The lack of mass media interest in this case is no surprise, considering the extremely slanted picture that the general public is presented through the mass media.
    If this had been a case of similarly questionable behavior by climate researchers, it would have been MSM front page news in a heartbeat.
    No wonder an ignorant public is turning against the science.

  22. Bob Doublin says:

    Is there any way to prove that Joe Barton solicited this sorry affair? Maybe enough to censure him like Rangel or impeach him? Maybe they can strike a deal with Wegman to roll over on Barton (I think that’s how they put it on Law&Order ;-) )?

  23. Chris Winter says:

    Nick Palmer wrote (#6): “I don’t want to support the denialosphere at all, but any plagiarism does not necessarily discredit the arguments in Wegman as to whether Mann et al were legit.”

    That is so. What it does discredit is the incessant calls from Wegman and McIntyre and the Denialists in general for transparency and full disclosure on the part of climate scientists.

  24. caerbannog says:

    Trivia question: Who said this?

    “Let me say that this is one of the most reprehensible attacks on a reputable scientist that I have seen, and the so-called tsunami of accusations made in regards to climategate are nothing in compared to the attack on Wegman.” “To see such a respected academic accused in this way (with the accusations so obviously baseless) is absolutely reprehensible.”

    Hint: Go to and scroll down to the first “Chicken Delights” item.

    (H/T to

  25. Dean says:

    Somebody needs to start compiling a list of double standards, where torch bearers for denialists do everything they accuse climate scientists of doing. Wegman will be the poster boy, not only for the actions mentioned here, but for withholding his data and code for all these years.

    But Lindzen would be in that company as well. Where is his empirical data, or is it all models?

  26. Steve Metzler says:

    14. Paul K2,

    You beat me to it. I just posted essentially the same thing as you wrote above over at Real Climate:

    Wegman Report ‘statistics’ also not original work

    The uncovering of the plagiarised/unverified ‘statistics’ as well as the text should get the Wegman Report *retracted*.

  27. Windsong says:

    This is a little off the subject, but there’s an excellent book called, “Gandhi, the Man– the story of his Transformation” by Eknath Easwaran. It’s excellent! It gives good, practical advice, is very inspiring and informative. In the back is an appendix titled, “How Non-violence Works.” I highly recommend it to all climate hawks who are interesed in using Gandhi’s methods in the Climate Change Movement.

  28. JCH says:

    Well, this one definitely was not plagiarized:

    “1) This is only the first show to drop. …” – John Mashey

  29. Windsong says:

    The challenge of the climate change movement has been how to apply Gandhi’s methods into our movement in order to get the results he got. One line in the back of the book, struck me as perhaps relevant. It states, “the satyagraha knows that the transformation he asks from his opponent will be difficult, so he tries to be aware of any hardships he may cause his adversary and to ease those hardships wherever he can. His object is not to attack or harass persons but to CHANGE SYSTEMS THAT OBSTRUCT THE PUBLIC WELFARE.” How can we fill in the blanks in this “equation” with variables concerning GW?

    Perhaps I’m wrong, but this came to me, the other night: GW is obviously having negative effects on the public welfare but what “systems are obstructing the public welfare”? The first thought which came to me was “the political systems” but we can’t declare satyagraha on the whole GOP. When I went deeper, I realized that Jeff Huggins was right all along. It’s the fossil fuel industry and specifically Exxon Mobile. They’re the ones in charge of the campaign to stop action to mitigate GW. They’re head of the lies and distortions to obstruct meaningful action in stopping GW. They’re the heart of the beast and therefore, in order to declare holy war (Satyagraha) on the system which is obstructing the public welfare, we need to start with them. I’ll write more on this later, but please get the book!!

  30. Charles says:

    To chime in as have others: kudos to John Mashey and Deep Climate. The ironies are beyond rich–plagiarizing Bradley, sheesh! I teach academic writing to first-year students and that paragraph highlighted by Joe would alone have earned a student an “F.” The plagiarism may not be directly connected to the quality of the statistical analysis, but I’ve found that where there is sloppiness in one area, it’s more likely that sloppiness will show up elsewhere.

    I look forward to a public unveiling in the MSM of analyses of Wegman’s statistical work. I’m glad we’re now seeing scientists and others pushing back.

  31. John Mashey says:

    Wegman digs himself deeper yet. Note that the Sept 2007 Said talk (that Wegman says is wrong)is the one that suddenly disappeared in August 2010, just after Wegman (finally, apparently) was told of plagiarism charge and posted on (open) Facebook page:

    “Edward J. Wegman Want to know a bad week? All in the same week. 1) accused of plagiarism, felony, anti-science, misleading Congress because of your climate science testimony, 2) have a rule made up, which only applied to you, that blocks you from mentoring graduate students, 3) have a friend tell you he was not happy with you because you were awarded a patent.
    August 21 at 4:17pm”

    SSWR Appendix A.11, Modified and Disappeared Files has an annotated copy of Said’s 2007 talk.