By Deep Climate
John Mashey has suggested a new thread for general talk about various aspects of the Wegman Report, and I’m happy to oblige. Of course, the immediately preceding Replication and Due Diligence, Wegman Style will remain open for discussion of Wegman et al’s, ahem, statistical analysis. But other Wegman Report discussion should happen here for now, pending further posts (and there are a few in the pipeline).
To get us started, here are excerpts from some interesting comments that came in over the last few days, comments which clearly show that the emerging expert assessments of plagiarism in the Wegman Report are showing just the tip of the iceberg (sounds like a good title for a future post).
First here are Andy S and dhogaza on Barton staffer’s Peter Spencer’s role in the Wegman Report and the supposed independence of the panel.
Andy S | December 1, 2010 at 1:56 pm
Whether Peter Spencer sent them x or y papers seems rather moot. What astounds me is why a team of scientists asked to review research findings should be provided reading materials by a political staffer in the first place and why that group of scientists felt obliged to use that list as the basis for their inquiry, as if this were a high school research project with a prescribed reading list.