Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report - Get a Free Blog

Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report V1.0 09/26/10
Activities 16
The WP worked directly with McIntyre on code, and it seems very likely
that he provided the work for WR Figures 5.8 and 5.9, and maybe even the
figures themselves, W.5.8, W.5.9.
Activity 17
The NAS panel offered another chance for some of the people to meet.
Attendee list is not generally known.
Activities 18,19
Barton and Whitfield make their announcement, working with WSJ.
The hearings are held.
Step 20 (a 2010 event)
Wegman and Said invite Singer , Kueter, and Don Easterbrook to speak.
At some point, the WP must have gotten the idea of doing SNA to pursue
mission #2, Meme-b❶. Rigsby may have been recruited then, as he at least
had familiarity with some of the tools. His analysis is straightforward, the
problem is in the interpretation and words around it.
It is very likely that Said read and summarized the paleoclimate papers. It
is unlikely Wegman spent much time on that, except for the MM papers.
When I first started, I was puzzled by the poor quality of Summaries, and
how often they were ignored. I was puzzled by the mass of irrelevant
references. Most people do research and then reach conclusions. I started
by looking at the Summaries and Bibliography, then following to WR
original work and conclusions. But with every additional page considered,
the WR departed further and further from a credible assessment effort.
This originally was going to be a quick 30-page examination of the
Summaries and Bibliography. But each new issue unearthed more threads
to follow elsewhere, including testimony contradictions and the various
related activities.
32
3.4 Strategy behind the façade, evidence
From all this analysis, the evidence is consistent for a strategy by Wegman,
implemented by him and Said, with some help from others who may have
not really known the real missions #1 and #2, not the claimed ones. 14
� Do everything possible to promulgate MM+TT+CO views.
Is there anything at all in the WR that Barton or Inhofe would dislike?
� Start with the uncited McK05 and especially MM05x as guides.
Read MM03, MM05a, MM05b carefully and agree with everything.
� Work closely with MM, especially with McIntyre, not just for code. In
particular, McIntyre seems very likely the direct source for several
pages, WR §5.8. WR §5.9, for the reasons described, W.5.8, W.5.9.
� Write Summaries and Bibliography to provide an illusion of scholarship.
That is done by junior person(s), perhaps edited by Wegman, perhaps
not, given the pervasive issues.
� Attack MBH98/99 on narrow statistical grounds, essentially ignoring
later MBH studies and others, mission #1.
� Avoid Wahl, Amman (2006), ignore other critiques of MM05b, W.8.4.
� Try to discredit not just MBH, but the rest of paleoclimatology, mission
#2, following ideas of Michaels in 2003�MM (McK05, MM05x). Use
SNA, known slightly to the team, but apply the tools and terminology to
draw impressive graphs and make baseless claims of poor peer review in
paleoclimate, followed up with [SAI2008]. Make that rub off on IPCC.
� Never admit that recent GW is AGW.
� Do not answer basic science questions, Meme-h❶, but still speak
confidently about nitrates, bristlecone pine, obscure proxy issues and
other ―confounding factors.‖
� Do everything possible to create doubt and confusion for a general
audience, and provide quotes for TT+CO.
� Follow up for several years, usually with talks to non-expert audiences.
� In 2010, Singer and Kueter get to speak at Interface 2010. Perhaps
Wegman and Said knew them well by then.
14 For instance, [SAI2007, p.5] mentioned a 4 th person who dropped out, for which
many reasons are plausible. An intriguing possibility is that it was described to
them as an objective, unbiased assessment, and after a while, he or she realized
that it was not. I cannot know, but the question should be asked.