• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senator Inhofe's commissioned report? Crap. Stolen crap.

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
76,942
Reaction score
33,983
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the*Wegman*Report | Deep Climate


This report offers a detailed study of the “Wegman Report”: Edward J. Wegman, David W. Scott, Yasmin H. Said, “AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION”(2006).

It has been key prop of climate anti-science ever since. It was promoted to Congress by Representatives Joe Barton and Ed Whitfield as “independent, impartial, expert” work by a team of “eminent statisticians.” It was none of those.

A Barton staffer provided much of the source material to the Wegman team. The report itself contains numerous cases of obvious bias, as do process, testimony and follow-on actions. Of 91 pages, 35 are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning. Its Bibliography is mostly padding, 50% of the references uncited in the text. Many references are irrelevant or dubious. The team relied heavily on a long-obsolete sketch and very likely on various uncredited sources. Much of the work was done by Said (then less than 1 year post-PhD) and by students several years pre-PhD. The (distinguished) 2nd author Scott wrote only a 3-page standard mathematical Appendix. Some commenters were surprised to be later named as serious “reviewers.” Comments were often ignored anyway. People were misused.

The original Wegman Report
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Executive summary of the study of this Wegman Report:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strange-scholarship-v1-02-exec.pdf

For the brave, the full study and 200+ pages of appendices:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strange-scholarship-v1-02.pdf

Deuce commentary:

Ok, so what happened is Inhofe and his anti-science crew commissioned a report with the direct intent of attacking Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. The report was done by a team of statisticians. Well, mostly students it turns out. And they plagiarized quite a bit, padded references, and cited internet commentators as "reviewers."

To me, the most damning part of this is that the full report has a few instances where the National Academy of Science offered an independent, unbiased review board but the offers were rejected. Inhofe and co wanted their own guys to do it. Guys they knew would come up with a pre-determined conclusion.
PNAS is considered the gold standard of scientific journals. It's the national science academy of the United States.

edit: Oh man they even copied info from wikipedia.
 
Last edited:

bowerbird

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2009
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
563
Location
australia
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
John Mashey on Strange Scholarship in the*Wegman*Report | Deep Climate


The original Wegman Report
http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_Report.pdf

Executive summary of the study of this Wegman Report:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strange-scholarship-v1-02-exec.pdf

For the brave, the full study and 200+ pages of appendices:
http://deepclimate.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/strange-scholarship-v1-02.pdf

Deuce commentary:

Ok, so what happened is Inhofe and his anti-science crew commissioned a report with the direct intent of attacking Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph. The report was done by a team of statisticians. Well, mostly students it turns out. And they plagiarized quite a bit, padded references, and cited internet commentators as "reviewers."

To me, the most damning part of this is that the full report has a few instances where the National Academy of Science offered an independent, unbiased review board but the offers were rejected. Inhofe and co wanted their own guys to do it. Guys they knew would come up with a pre-determined conclusion.
PNAS is considered the gold standard of scientific journals. It's the national science academy of the United States.

edit: Oh man they even copied info from wikipedia.

What do you expect? At the level that denialist play in Wiki is high academia

Most denialists have trouble following cartoons
 
Top Bottom