tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post2393830877920314694..comments2024-03-28T00:54:34.206-04:00Comments on BigCityLib Strikes Back: Mashey on Wegman bigcitylibhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-91900733186512675922010-10-03T10:25:11.192-04:002010-10-03T10:25:11.192-04:00Paul S, the nice thing about this 'hit job'...Paul S, the nice thing about this 'hit job' is that you can all check it out for yourself... plagiarism, once found, is a <em>very</em> unambiguous thing. You don't even need to understand the science! Just read and compare.<br /><br />Seriously Paul, I'll stick with English reading comprehension.Martin Vermeerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04537045395760606324noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-85519976544177553012010-10-02T02:10:16.816-04:002010-10-02T02:10:16.816-04:00Holly illustrates nicely how AGW adherence and min...Holly illustrates nicely how AGW adherence and mindless ad homs go hand in hand.Gerrard787https://www.blogger.com/profile/14313108762970361402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-33880734201202099942010-10-01T15:47:49.492-04:002010-10-01T15:47:49.492-04:00John Cross, Paul S is a denialist commenter who ha...John Cross, Paul S is a denialist commenter who has no scientific credentials and who shows up here and a few other places making stupid claims such as the Arctic ice is growing, etc. He's small beer. My theory is that he is or was an employee of Stelmach's propaganda department.Holly Stickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01137842937086115228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-57411803474341388542010-09-30T17:26:25.883-04:002010-09-30T17:26:25.883-04:00The rest is just a sideshow for those who cant act...<i>The rest is just a sideshow for those who cant actually deal with actual science.</i><br /><br />What's your scientific background, Jerome? Degree? Institution? Where are you working now, and in what field?<br /><br />In other words, what qualifications do you have for making any sort of limiting judgement whatsoever on scientific matters?Larshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07915440101940467640noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-69461396344787635222010-09-30T16:49:17.721-04:002010-09-30T16:49:17.721-04:00So of course this alleviates any need for Paul to ...<i>So of course this alleviates any need for Paul to read the actual documents linked to.</i><br /><br />The only documents worth reading in regards to AGW is the scientific literature which allegedly makes the case for AGW. Not whether someone in some camp did something stupid. Im sure there are tons of people who did stupid things on both sides of the argument.<br /><br />Once you do that, you realize that all the models, and all the predictions are based on more than just the greenhouse effect, but on the feedbacks. The warming effect from a doubling of CO2 is about 1.2 degrees C and this is not really controversial even between alarmists and skeptics.<br /><br />The feedbacks are hypothesized to be strong and positive, which when you put that in the model (surprise surprise), you get massive warming. Problem is there is no evidence that the feedbacks are strong and positive. More likely they are slightly negative.<br /><br />The rest is just a sideshow for those who cant actually deal with actual science.Jerome Bastienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05948692098854718499noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-47011129595556606512010-09-30T16:24:00.973-04:002010-09-30T16:24:00.973-04:00So of course this alleviates any need for Paul to ...So of course this alleviates any need for Paul to read the actual documents linked to.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-64528005348370388552010-09-30T16:09:21.724-04:002010-09-30T16:09:21.724-04:00John C., I've followed numerous AGW zealots fo...John C., I've followed numerous AGW zealots for years. One thing they tend to have in common is their excessive use of character assassination. Mashey appears little different in my opinion.<br /><br />Raising any concerns invariably leads to the person being labelled a denier or a stooge on the payroll of industry. For the record, Wegman performed his work pro bono and I consider his review of aspects of the science to be more credible then anything done by John Mashey.<br /><br />In a country where the Greens can not even win a single seat and in a world where Copenhagen went down in flames and Cancun promises to be no different, people are taking a sober, hard-headed second look at the science of AGW. <br /><br />Call them deniers if you like but you will have to get used to the heightened scrutiny.Gerrard787https://www.blogger.com/profile/14313108762970361402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-28793723587225876762010-09-30T14:09:02.041-04:002010-09-30T14:09:02.041-04:00Paul S: you are entitled to your opinion of Mr. M...Paul S: you are entitled to your opinion of Mr. Mashey (I have been following his posts for a couple of years and he seems to make a lot of sense to me). However you did nothing to show anything wrong with his research. What specifically is wrong with his analysis?<br /><br />Regards,<br />JohnJohn Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02036006173970624026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-14488914355131947592010-09-30T13:48:29.134-04:002010-09-30T13:48:29.134-04:00The hit job on Wegman is coming from a known AGW z...The hit job on Wegman is coming from a known AGW zealot so pardon the rest of us if we don't nod our heads on cue.<br /><br />Seriously BCL, credibility wise, Mashey is about as credible as the kooks over at deSmog. <br /><br />I'll stick with Wegman.Gerrard787https://www.blogger.com/profile/14313108762970361402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-33741758367277991472010-09-30T11:27:34.100-04:002010-09-30T11:27:34.100-04:00Alright, I'll fiddle with text to make that cl...Alright, I'll fiddle with text to make that clear.bigcitylibhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05081538803991095825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23292180.post-43028737620222008922010-09-30T11:22:06.293-04:002010-09-30T11:22:06.293-04:00Minor nit: I distinguish between:
1) The Wegman R...Minor nit: I distinguish between:<br /><br />1) The Wegman Report<br />which certainly contains massive plagiarism, and worse with clear errors and distortions introduced.<br /><br />2) Wegman himself.<br /><br />It is of course, unknown exactly who did the plagiarism, although:<br /><br />a) Wegman certainly signed off on the Report.<br /><br />b) I presented a lot of evidence that argue towards Said as the most likely person to have actually done the original plagiarism, and that Wegman sometimes didn't even seem very familiar with the WR's own Summaries, much less the underlying articles.<br /><br />c) My opinion is that it is very unlikely that Wegman himself did it.<br /><br />3) But in some sense that is worse... as can be seen in section 2.7, Page tally.<br /><br />35 pages of plagiarism, including all of the basic review of literature.<br /><br />7 pages of awful blbiliography.<br /><br />5 pages of Literature Review, mostly consolidating the Summaries of Important Papers.<br /><br />That's already 47 pages, more than half of the 91, not even counting the 11 that are just acknowledged copies of something else, or the 8 pages of Social Social Network Analysis (much of the work doen by Rigsby, but maybe some written by Said). Now, it's possible that some of the SNA plagiarism was done by Rigsby or Sharabati...<br /><br />but it doesn't matter: more than half of the Wegman Report was almost certainly put together by someone <1 year post PhD, with no obvious relevant expertise, whose lack shows, and maybe with help from some grad students ... presented as the work of "eminent statisticians."John Masheyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17786354229618237133noreply@blogger.com