I have a Wegman report time-line question for readers. The wikipedia dates indicate things happened in 2006 but I’m hoping to pin things down to the day or month. Also, some information I’d like to find isn’t the type that would likely end up in wikipedia or news reports, but people who have been following this a long time might know time stamps on blog posts that show when certain things happened.
Here are my questions about a time line
- When (date or month) did Rep. Barton appoint Wegman to head the team that wrote the report?
- When was the full team assembled? (Day or month.)
- Wikipedia says Wegman says 6 people acted as informal peer review. Do we know when they might have received drafts? (Day? Month?)
- Did anyone else see drafts (copy editors? Barton’s staff? ) If yes, what month or day?
- JohnA posted Wegman report released on July 14, 2006 at climate audit. So, I figure I’ve got that date closer than any other.
Anyone who knows, and can provide links, thanks! 🙂
Try following for some info
http://web.archive.org/web/20060726081232/http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006_Wegman_fact_sheet.pdf
#1 This appears to have been the initial contact re the congressional hearings:
“Dr. Edward Wegman was approached by Dr. Jerry Coffey on 1 September 2005 concerning possible testimony in Congress about a statistical issue associated with paleoclimate reconstruction.”
Coffey connects to Peter Spencer, who was tapped by Rep Barton.
This and lots more on the timeline at Deep Climate:
http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-part-2-barton-wegman/
clivere–
Thanks. But the only date in that pdf is “On June 23, 2005, following reports of a dispute surrounding two key historical temperature studies prominently used in the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2001 assessment report, the Energy and Commerce Committee wrote the three authors of the studies,”
That seems to be a letter to Mann etc. It’s not Wegman.
Robert, I’d seen that Deep Climate article and timeline. As a timeline, it seems to be rather vague about actual dates. The date when Coffey discussed the possibility of testimony to Wegman doesn’t interest me very much.
I would be more interested in when Peter Spencer started sending information. My main interest is to know when text in the Wegman Report might have first been written. It sounds as if it might have been written as early as Nov, 2005! If it was, an example of supposedly clear plagiarism suggested by Boris looks becomes less unlikely to stand up to scrutiny. (So much so that any attorney who needed that in court would be wise to quake in fear that it might boomerang!)
Is it possible any text had been written as early as Nov 2005!? Or even Jan 2005?
If you are willing to accept deepclimate as a source until something better comes along. Here is a link from this past February.
About 10 or so pages into the post. Deep says he is quoting Said.
About two pages further down still quoting Said.
Reviewing the information over 9 months implies they started working almost immediately around September 2005.
Bob– I would like confirmation on the September 2005 date (as well as other key things I mention in my post.)
The reason is: it affects my interpretation of one particular accusation of who plagiarized whom. If Wegman started writing in 2005, and lots of writing was finished before.. oh… month ‘n’, then one of the accusations of plagiarism probably falls apart. (Rest assured “month ‘n'” is not January. It’s pretty far along in the year. There is other information I will be trying to get. 🙂 )
As far as the draft “reviewers” goes, the congressional testimony (July 2006) suggests that it was a pretty much last minute thing:
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, David Banks, who is at Duke University, Rich Schareen is the immediate past president of the American Statistical–
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.
MR. STUPAK. Well, when was your report finalized?
DR. WEGMAN. I think we dated the final copy about 4 days ago.
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 han 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.
Nick–
Do you know whether that email was the response from Ender or the request? For the issue that I’m currently curious about, when drafts were sent out is more important than when they got responses.
(All information is interesting– but I’m interested in when drafts were sent out.)
Lucia,
It was a comment from Enders Robinson, apparently on the final version of the report.
Nick– Drat! Still, thanks! Any information is useful.
I had never heard of congressman Joe Barton before. Is it true that he has received over 1.7 million dollars from the fossil fuel industry? Oh my.
.
And he asked Wegman to write that report? Oh my, oh my.
.
Am I too quick in connecting the dots?
Neven
“Am I too quick in connecting the dots?”
Not if you’re a conspiracy nut.
Neven, UEA’s CRU was created with funding from Shell and BP. Your point is?
Atomic Hairdryer, you are being a big edgy. There is good funding and there is bad funding. The funding you mention for UEA’s CRU is for climate research and there is no nudging by Shell/BP to get the results look one way or another.
However, the other, dirty, funding which goes to politicians is not for research but are part of lobbying. They expect something back from it.
Therefore, please refrain from repeating your mantra.
Watching or reading committee proceedings is frustrating. For instance, in Nick Stokes’ excerpt Stupak really comes off as dishonest.
He has a talking point in mind: this report isn’t peer reviewed. He wants to get that on the record, so he deliberately creates ambiguity by pursuing certain follow up questions that frame the responses a certain way and cutting off the respondent.
In this particular case, Stupak presents a false dilemma, the idea that it must either be that it was reviewed earlier or later.
Really disgusting. At least this guy was forced to resign (for other Machiavellian maneuvers) and won’t be in the next Congress.
Neven conveniently forgets that Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars from his espousal of AGW, but Gore is obviously, to Neven, a ‘good-guy’ so that’s alright then.
Neven conveniently forgets that Al Gore has made hundreds of millions of dollars from his espousal of AGW, but Gore is obviously, to Neven, a ‘good-guy’ so that’s alright then.
.
Nope, also a bad guy, AFAIAC. But not nearly as bad as Barton, it seems. 🙂
.
Off-topic: If you have the time, Dave, could you answer my question regarding Adam Curtis in the ‘Age of Stupid’-thread?
Mann: 3 x 3 = 10
Wegman 3 x 3 = 9
Mann’s trolls : “Wegman plagiarized!!”
Neven: Big Oil *will* make money, whether it’s from one or the other side. Your argument is both worn out and futile.
Big Oil *will* make money, whether it’s from one or the other side.
.
But first they make it from one side until it’s completely drained. For that they need Barton and some more of his ilk, a few think tanks, a few Singers, a few McKittricks, a few McIntyres, and a whole army of contrarian zombies who do it for free.
.
Costs a lot less than sponsoring universities and R&D to keep up appearances, but is incredibly effective.
You see, the profits on one side is incredibly profitable. What with all the subsidies and tax cuts, and all.
.
Either way, the oil industry decides, not us. Dangerous thing that, when you realize that profit is more important than people, and that it is expected of multinational corporations to operate that way.
Nonsense Neven, and you know it. Now pretty please show the links of McKittrick, McIntyre with Big Oil, put up or shut up.
Neven (Comment#53852) October 10th, 2010 at 2:22 pm
Costs a lot less than sponsoring universities and R&D to keep up appearances, but is incredibly effective.
= = = = = == = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = =
Actually I think the reason is less about PR, back in the 50s and 60s the CO2 concerns were getting a lot of traction in the scientific world, oil companies have very high capital cost long pay off on investment type projects, given the business implications of CO2s influence on climate it would be almost insane for them not to try to be getting as much info as they can on the impact of their byproducts on the enviroment so they can make decisions on long term capital intensive projects.
Over the past two decades Exxon Mobile has been an outlier in among the ‘seven sisters’ in terms of funding overt campaigns against CO2 legislation, the others have been a lot more circumspect. IMO its been more smaller oil interests and coal that have given the big pushes against legislation.
Among other reasons a large portion of the shares of big oil is owned by pension funds and other long term institutional investors who are more interested in retaining long term value than week by week profits so this does influence many large oil companies decisions. (Witness BP beyond petrolium, not exactly going to sell petrol on the forecourt so who do you think that was aimed at?)
That makes sense, dorlomin. I noticed when looking at where Barton got that 1.7 million from, that there were a lot oil and coal companies I had never heard of.
Hoi Polloi:
What I was wondering too.
Where’s your links Neven?
I would hope in a comment thread dedicated to “academic integrity” you’d be able to show substantive proof for these accusations!
There is also a timeline on the other side, early in 2007 Mann wrote an email to Jones (with a c.c. to Bradley). Mann and Jones agree that The Wegman Report should not be referenced as a formal publication (no peer review). Jones answers and says it “could be referenced as a “criticism” commissioned by Joe Barton (R, Exxon)”. 3 and a half years later, and the Hockey thugs have a new approach. I nicked this from poster Mac on BH, comment 19, link follows.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/10/10/media-coverage-of-wegman.html
Neven, since you seem to be so anit-profit, it’s interesting to note that (from one of the silly wabbit’s comments today) it appears these are the guys behind the Wegman complaint to GMU.
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2008/08/reed_elsevier_is_stealing_my_w.php
Where’s your links Neven?
.
You’ll have them as soon as I finish my hacking course at the local library.
Oops sorry about that, It was of course… Mann who came with the Exxon connection
Isn’t Ross McKittrick more of a lobbyist anyway? He’s not a politician or an academic at an institution, so he’s just getting on with his job. I read bias as being a moot point in his situation. Steven McIntyres work is very public and Climate Audit seems to fulfill a useful function, in his case the data speaks for itself. As far as the “contrarian zombies”, go they obviously have no choice in the matter. I think a little bias is good if the funding is out in the open, but I’m not to sure it’s a good thing with the politicians. Am I OT or just biased?
MikeA (Comment#53877)-Ross isn’t an academic? That must be news to the University of Guelph.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
Sadly relevant to Neven’s comments…
National Journal: “The GOP is stampeding toward an absolutist rejection of climate science that appears unmatched among major political parties around the globe, even conservative ones.”
Climate Progress (title)(Oct 10, 2010)
From Comment #1, by Mike Roddy:
“…By becoming lockstep skeptics, GOP candidates ensure financial support from oil and coal and other major sectors such as utilities and banking. This enables them to cling to their seats in Congress…:”
http://climateprogress.org/2010/10/10/national-journal-gop-rejection-of-climate-science-ron-brownstei/#more-34697
MikeA: You’re just biased. Also off the mark on McKitrick, he’s certainly an academic – he’s a professor at the University of Guelph.
Hoi Polloi (Comment#53849) October 10th, 2010 at 2:03 pm
It’s called uncertainty and research. I don’t know how many researchers are accused of fraud for not getting the answer perfectly right the first time. Usually they are praised for getting on the right track.
so Hall Lewis resignation means nothing here obviously be forewarned…
Stephan (Comment#53915) October 11th, 2010 at 5:49 am
Physicists are doing physics today for the piles of money they can get their hands on? What a jerk.
Ah well bugsy, since you choose to selectively quote my message (seems normal in climatology?) it shows you evade the real message. Some use uncertainties to create (incorrect) centring certainties. And who mentioned “fraud”? Not me.
Re: Neven (Oct 10 14:25),
When you develop alternative fuels cheaper than fossil fuels and in sufficient volume to run the entire global economy without economic damage, then your argument might be credible.
‘Till then, your political advocacy is harming not just my economic future but most importantly the 2,000,000,000 living on less than $2/day, and more importantly the 1,000,000,000 living on less than $1/day.
Wow. Three posts on Wegman. About plagiarism. Eight or nine thousand more posts and it might grow into something that matters. Or maybe not.
A quick question for Neven. Do you ever, or have you ever, used oil or any material derived from oil?
Neven, I read a number of places after the oil spill that Obama received over $1 million from BP in the last election cycle. Someone with access to the donor databases could verify this. If true, and accepting money from “Big Oil” makes Barton corrupt, then what does it make Obama? BP also apparently gave large amounts of money to various environmental groups. What does this make them? When you “follow the money”, follow all of it – not just selecting those you want to diminish.
I want to save the planet. Giving a pass to BPs large number of safety violations is not my way of doing it. The present version of biofuels is not either. IMHO the ecological cost of windmills is far too high.
Hey Neven, it costs 6.07 for a gallon of bottled Evian water. It costs 3.05 for a gallon of premium gasoline. How dumb are you? What do you think the textbook industry’s profit margins are? You know that it is a billion dollar industry? Oil companies are taxed at 40%, idiot.
Vice President Joe Biden during the election debates stated :
“We know what the cause is. The cause is man-made. That’s the cause. That’s why the polar ice cap is melting.”
Joe Biden’s plagiarism problem:
“Political insiders have long known about Joe Biden getting caught plagiarizing almost word-for-word a speech given by British Labour politician Neil Kinnock. In fact, that killed his 1988 presidential campaign.
But a more serious plagiarism charge has been out there even longer – that he plagiarized in law school. That is something that can get you thrown out if proven.
Sweetness & Light remembers this 1987 New York Times article:
Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., a Democratic Presidential candidate, was accused of plagiarism while in his first year at Syracuse University Law School, academic officials familiar with Mr. Biden’s record said today. [….]
According to the people familiar with the record of the 44-year-old Senator from Delaware, he was called before the disciplinary body at the law school during his first year because of charges that he had committed plagiarism on a paper. Mr. Biden entered the school in 1965 and graduated in 1968.”
I don’t believe him.
Bugs, I would not have a problem with global warming scientists getting tons of grant money, except your side sits here and beats on the oil companies all day long. Let me ask you the blockbuster question. The textbook industry is worth billions of dollars. Their profit margins are far, far greater than the oil companies’. Why doesn’t anyone complain about that? Oil companies are taxed at 40%…maybe if the government didn’t take such a fat slice of pie from them, they could build safer oil rigs.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/11/05/news/companies/exxon_oil/index.htm
Its too bad the government doesn’t take their big sack of oil tax money and use it to help the oil companies improve safety. If I worked for Shell, there’s no way I would want to work in Nigeria and get shot by some crazy guerilla faction. In my opinion, there is a massive lack of logic and critical thought going on in this country. I must agree with the earlier comment, it is amazing that the Hal Lewis resignation receives no attention here. I mean, it’s not like a rift in the scientific community is important when we’re dealing with a scientific issue. Oh no no no. Instead, lets build some stupid timeline about the cheapest low blow claim I’ve seen in a while.
Guillame Tell, thanks for alerting me to that big secret, I never would have known. Let’s see, some stupid idiot shuts down my business for months and I don’t want his political party to win in the next election cycle. BP FUNDS GLOBAL WARMING RESEARCH! HELLLLLLLO! Guillame, wait till I tell you what I just found out:
CIGARETTE COMPANIES ARE MAKING FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO TRICK PEOPLE!
Lucia, you need to post an introduction with the following:
1. Michael Mann is a cheat. (Post MWP and Mann graph for comparison) Anyone that doesn’t think so is an idiot.
2. Nobody cares about funding. The amount of money global warming research far outweighs contrary research.
3. If you write on this website, don’t tell us how much you care about the environment. This makes you a fraud as you are probably using coal to power your computer. This is equivalent to smoking a cigarette in front of someone while telling them they can’t do it also.
One of the big things on the left is legalizing marijuana. I’ve always wondered, is marijuana smoke somehow less cancer causing than cigarette smoke? Is second hand marijuana smoke less toxic? Or are those people who call climate skeptics equivalent to the tobacco industry, turning around and hiding their own ill doings?
Re: MikeP
Many libertarians are for legalizing marijuana; they are often considered to be on the “right”. I lean libertarian without actually being full boar libertarian. I think marijuana ought to be legal too. Just like booze and cigarettes.
FWIW: I do drink booze; I particularly like red wine. (On my diet, I cut out all wine from M-Th, but still drink Friday evening, and on Sat and Sun.) I don’t smoke but took a puff when I was around 5 yo. Surprising given my age, I never smoked marijuana.
The whole “left/right” thing is a bit odd.
Wegman didn’t plagiarize anything, you stupid ignoramus. He cited work he was analyzing, dope. You chicken little global warming hystericist are such liars and confabulaters. Real science is about critical thinking not group think. These climatologists are doing sham science which is really motivated by politics, leftist politics.
Brian Macker,
You made that last swig of my coffee taste that much better with your comment.
I’m waiting for any/one of the High-Profile Warmers on this blog to re-evaluate their position on Global Warming and honestly comment on it.
It’s gonna happen any day now… 😉
Andrew
Any day now, when your restless eyes meet someone new
Oh, to my sad surprise
Then the blue shadows will fall all over town, woah
Any day now (any day now)
Love will let me down (any day now), whoa-oa-oa-oa-oa
-Ronnie Milsap
Lucia, I grew up near Arcata, CA, now home of the green party and home of an annual smoke out pot day. You can get physically sick walking down the street because of all the second hand smoke. These people are not libertarians.
I personally think that anyone should be able to do what they want, as long as they respect others while doing it. So to that extent I agree with you. However, I feel that most people who want to legalize marijuana are not concerned about respect for others.
To me it’s hypocritical to compare others to the tobacco industry while sending out your own cloud of cancer causing chemicals. That was the point of my previous post.
MikeP–
I didn’t say everyone who wants to legalize pot is a libertarian. Some are; many label libertarians as “right” not “left”.
Maybe or maybe not. I don’t know. I’m only saying that libertarians, many of whom are concerned about preserving individual civil liberties are for legalizing pot.
The left/right distinction doesn’t work all that well for libertarians unless you restrict it to just the fiscal side. Libertarians want a smaller, less intrusive government for all facets of life. The rest of the political spectrum fails to see the contradiction of having a large government for any reason and still having personal freedom, whether its for having a cradle to grave nanny state or whether you want to ban a lot of activities that people want to do like drug use and immigration but still have minimal interference in the market place. Where I part with many libertarians is foreign policy. They seem to have a child-like faith that if we leave other countries alone, they will leave us alone in spite of all historical evidence to the contrary.