This is the last in a series of posts on scholarship issues in Donald Rapp’s Assessing Climate Change. Previously we focused on extensive passages in common between the Wegman Report critique of paleoclimatic reconstructions, and Rapp’s section on various temperature proxies (see “A Divergence Problem” – part 1 and part 2).
Now I’ll look at other problems associated with Rapp’s use of extensive passages from “grey literature” (i.e. that found outside the peer-reviewed scientific literature), as well as one case of apparent distortion of other scientist’s work. In the latter case, a key adjective was changed transforming a reference to “large assumptions” to “speculative assumptions”.
Recent posts on the Wegman Report and Donald Rapp’s Praxis-Springer text book Assessing Climate Change have generated much comment. In A Divergence Problem, part 1, I noted that the sub-section on dendrochronology (tree ring-proxies) in Rapp’s book was based in large part on nearly verbatim material found previously in the Wegman Report. That in turn was a somewhat distorted summary of material found in Raymond Bradley’s seminal text book, Paleoclimatology: Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary.
In this follow up post, I”ll examine the Wegman’s treatment of other proxies, which were also derived from Bradley. I’ll also take a closer look at the three proxy sub-sections in Rapp that are derived in turn from Wegman. In all three cases, divergences are slight, but do include some interesting changes in the references.