Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report - Get a Free Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report V1.0 09/26/10 They did not work independent of Barton‘s committee, because much of their reading material was provided to them by Barton staffer Peter Spencer, [SAI2007, p.5], Theme-N❹. Pro bono was possibly true at the time, arguable later, as government research grants were later acknowledged for work that was done a part of this effort. Other than not getting directly paid, the meaning of this is quite unclear for professors and part-time graduate students, A.7. The ASA has good ethical guidelines, not obviously followed, A.8 Here, Wegman‘s role in NAS CATS is mentioned, correctly, but an unwary reader might be forgiven for thinking there was some NAS involvement. There was none. However, in the testimony, Whitfield goes even further . A.1.3 WR Testimony [BAR2006a, p.5] ―PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ED WHITFIELD, … Dr. Wegman is Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics. At the Committee request, Dr. Wegman assembled an ad-hoc committee of statisticians to examine the hockey stick studies and related articles.‖ [BAR2006a, p.4] ―MR. WHITFIELD: … Dr. Wegman is Chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, and at the committee's request he assembled this ad hoc committee of statisticians … … and I can tell you right now that his document has been peer reviewed also, and we will get into that later.‖ Wegman indeed was the Chairman of NAS CATS (2004-2007) but the WR was not requested by CATS and had no connection with it. 16 The peer-review claim is clearly wrong, A.1, Theme-N❹. Whitfield seems to have told 2 clear untruths to Congress, A.10. 16 Whitfield might claim that the ―Committee request‖ meant the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. The reader may decide if that is reasonable, given that the House Committee is not mentioned in Whitfield‘s prepared statement until the next page. The NAS idea has persisted. 50 [BAR2006a, p.147] ―MR. STEARNS. Okay. Dr. Cicerone, you are the President of the National Academy of Science. Dr. Wegman is an appointed member of the National Academy of Science Board of Mathematical Sciences and Their Application. He is chair of the NAS Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, highly credentialed in math and statistics, wouldn't you say?‖ NAS CATS is a legitimate part of Wegman‘s background, but the thoughtful reader might wonder about the repetition of this, although Stearns did not go as far as Whitfield. [BAR2006a, p.7] ―MR STUPAK: … But we note that Dr. Wegman's work is not yet published or peer reviewed so it is very difficult for us to evaluate his work. Dr. Wegman's criticism of Dr. Mann should have been interdisciplinary and include a statistician can also be said of Dr. Wegman's work. ― ―DR WEGMAN: … Because of this apparent isolation, we decided to attempt to understand the paleoclimate community by exploring the social network of authorships in the temperature reconstruction area. … Although we have no direct data on the functioning of peer review within the paleoclimate community but, with me having 35 years of experience with peer review in both journals as well as evaluation of research proposals, peer review may not have been as independent as would generally be desirable.‖ This idea was espoused in MM05x, Meme-b❶. The Wegman team went off into a new area, for whose introductory material they had to plagiarize textbooks, W.2.3, W.5. As for Wegman‘s long experience with peer review, he may wish to explain [SAI2008], W.5.6, Theme-N❹. [BAR2006a, p.36] MR. STUPAK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Wegman, in your report you criticized Dr. Mann for not obtaining any feedback or review from mainstream statisticians. In compiling your report, did you obtain any feedback or review from paleoclimatologists? DR. WEGMAN. No, of course not, but we weren't addressing paleoclimate issues. We were addressing— Yes, they certainly were addressing paleoclimate. The Page tally, §2.7, identifies 47 of 91 pages devoted in whole or part to paleoclimate.
Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report V1.0 09/26/10 Reasonable people might disagree with some of those, but any way one counts, the WR spends much of its text on paleoclimate, Theme-N❹. MR. STUPAK. But you said you had difficulty understanding some of the terms of art that Dr. Mann used and you had to call your social network to figure it out so wouldn't it have been helpful to have paleoclimatologists? DR. WEGMAN. To say that I didn't contact any climate people is not entirely accurate. We have— MR. STUPAK. But they weren't used in compiling your report--that was the question--correct? DR. WEGMAN. Well, I am not sure how to answer that. I certainly— MR. STUPAK. Well, yes or no is probably the best way. Did you have any paleoclimatologists when you compiled your report? DR. WEGMAN. Not on our team, but that doesn't mean I didn't talk to any. [WEG2006c, p.7] says: ―Ans: I spoke with no one in paleoclimate studies. To the best of my knowledge neither have my colleagues.‖ This is either a different answer, a week later, or Wegman mis-answered the question about ―paleoclimatologists‖ as ―climate people,‖ Theme-N❹. Many people might be called ―climate people‖ of whom only some are paleoclimatologists. [BAR2006a, p.36] MR. STUPAK. Did anyone outside your social network peer review your report? DR. WEGMAN. Yes. MR. STUPAK. Who was that? DR. WEGMAN. Well, Enders Robinson. MR. STUPAK. Is that the e-mail we were talking about earlier? DR. WEGMAN. Pardon? MR. STUPAK. Is that the e-mail that was-- DR. WEGMAN. Yes. So-- MR. STUPAK. When you do peer review-- DR. WEGMAN. Let me answer the question. Enders Robinson, Grace Waba, who is a member of the National Academy, Noel Cressy, who is at the Ohio State University, Bill Wasorik, who is at Buffalo State SUNY, 51 David Banks, who is at Duke University, Rich Schareen is the immediate past president of the American Statistical— Wegman has a strange idea of his network, A.1.5, A.6, W.5, Theme-K❹. [BAR2006a, pp.36-37] MR. STUPAK. Let me ask you this question. If you had a peer review, when are peer reviews usually done? Before a report is finalized or after? DR. WEGMAN. We had submitted this and had feedback from- MR. STUPAK. No, no, I am talking about general peer review. If you are going to have a peer review, don't you usually do it before you finalize your report? DR. WEGMAN. Yes. MR. STUPAK. Well, your peer review was after you finalized it? DR. WEGMAN. No, it was before. We submitted this long before. It was not peer review in any sense, but Wegman does not correct that. The meaning of ―long before‖ is unclear, A.1.5. Theme-N❹. MR. STUPAK. Well, when was your report finalized? DR. WEGMAN. I think we dated the final copy about 4 days ago. ―Finalized‖ and ―dated‖ are not the same. The final report was dated 07/14/07, but the PDF was last modified 07/12/06, A.5, Theme-N❹. MR. STUPAK. Four days ago, so that would be about July 15. This e-mail sort of indicates it is July 17 that you asked for this peer review. DR. WEGMAN. I had feedback from Enders much earlier than that. We had asked him to send material to us for purposes of coming here. MR. STUPAK. Well, the e-mail read into the record is Tuesday, July 18, so that would be 3 days after you finalized your report. DR. WEGMAN. I am sorry. We-- MR. STUPAK. Have you seen this e-mail, the one that-- DR. WEGMAN. Yes, of course I have. Dr. Robinson saw our material before the 18th, before the 17th, before the 16th. He gave us feedback. We incorporated that. He gave us feedback verbally. We incorporated that because there was some interest in getting this report to the committee…. MR. STUPAK. In doing peer reviews, do scientists who do the report, do they usually submit to people they want to do the peer review? Isn't that sort of an independent review? DR. WEGMAN. This is basically the same mechanism that was used at the National Academy. The national--you know, this is not a— No, it is not, A.1.1, Theme-N❹, Robinson‘s email can scarcely be called a review in any normal sense.
Page 1 and 2: Strange Scholarship in the Wegman R
Page 49: Strange Scholarship in the Wegman R
Page 101 and 102:
Strange Scholarship in the Wegman R
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
show all

Strange Scholarship in the Wegman Report - Get a Free Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?