Matt Wingard plagiarizes his entire global-warming diatribe

Kari Chisholm FacebookTwitterWebsite

Over the weekend, we had a lot of discussion here at BlueOregon about the speech on Friday by Rep. Matt Wingard (R-Wilsonville) in which he claimed that "the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming is dead."

As I listened to Wingard's speech, it struck me as being a little odd. On the floor of the Oregon House, he talked about the winter in Scotland, a professor at the University of Victoria, the Russian view of some British research. It was all a bit curious.

So, I got to Googling, and now we know why: Matt Wingard's entire speech was plagiarized. Well, all of it except for a single six-word sentence - and a bunch of minor wording changes designed to hide the plagiarism.

Make no mistake: it's those minor wording changes that are the most damning of all -- if he'd been merely reading an article and forgot to mention that, the text would have been verbatim. He was covering his tracks.

Wingard's speech is entirely lifted from an editorial published in the Washington Times on February 2nd - except for one paragraph, which was lifted from a column by Margaret Wente, published in Toronto's Globe and Mail on February 5th.

Here's a few of the highlights. On the left, Wingard. On the right, the matching sections from the original sources. (Below, after the jump, I've posted the entire transcript of Wingard's speech - with a sentence-by-sentence comparison.)

WINGARDWASHINGTON TIMES
This is why true believers abandoned the "global warming" brand name in favor of the more ambiguous "climate change", which is something the rest of us call "weather." ... This is why true believers abandoned the "global warming" brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label "climate change," which is something the rest of us like to refer to as "weather." ...
It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of careful research but on anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student's thesis. ... It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of patient observation and research but anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student's master's thesis. ...
Scientists must come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. Among them, average world temperatures refuse to rise as carbon emissions continue. Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is near normal. Antarctic sea ice is exactly normal. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. ... Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. ...

By the way, did you catch that? That one six-word sentence - "Antarctic sea ice is exactly normal." - is the only entirely original sentence in Wingard's entire speech. Not sure why he felt the need to toss that in there.

Keep in mind that Wingard's speech wasn't made in the context of an argument about a particular bill. It was made during "remonstrances" - a period during each floor session when legislators can claim the floor and speak on any topic they like, for the education of their colleagues.

In short, by going on about global warming, Wingard was showing off. It's sad enough that he felt he had to show off, but then to learn that it was all lifted, well, that's just pathetic.

Why should we care if Matt Wingard plagiarized his entire speech? Well, for starters, it's theft and copyright infringement. He's stolen the work product of someone else. And while that's bad enough on its face (and hypocritical for a guy that goes on and on about property rights), that's not the only reason it's bad.

The most damning aspect is that Wingard's plagiarism undermines his role as a legislator. The currencies of the Capitol are hard work, intelligence, and credibility. (And power, but that flows from the other three.) But Wingard's plagiarism betrays the truth: He doesn't work very hard, he's not very intelligent, and he has no credibility.

Having passed off others' ideas as his own, Wingard gives his colleagues no reason to listen to and trust him further -- and, thus, no reason for voters to continue to send him to the Legislature.

I don't have any idea if the Legislature has a mechanism for censuring members for this sort of intellectual ethical offense, but I suspect some young staffer will get thrown under the bus, valiantly claiming that it was his or her fault. That's irrelevant. "My speechwriter did it" is not an acceptable excuse. The words came out of Wingard's mouth. They're his words. And he clearly lifted them.

On the jump, the entire transcript of Wingard's speech - and the lifted passages from the Washington Times and the Globe and Mail.

Matt Wingard, Oregon House, February 12, 2010Washington Times editorial, February 2, 2010
Colleagues, the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming is dead and it needs to be buried. The hitch is that the man-caused catastrophic global warming theory is dead, and it needs to be buried.
Evidence has been mounting for years that there were problems with global warming models, most telling was that the earth refused to warm up as human carbon dioxide emissions continued. Evidence had been mounting for years that there were problems with the global warming model; most telling was that the globe refused to warm up.
This is why true believers abandoned the "global warming" brand name in favor of the more ambiguous “climate change”, which is something the rest of us call “weather.” This is why true believers abandoned the "global warming" brand name and tried to shift the debate to the more ambiguous label "climate change," which is something the rest of us like to refer to as "weather."
The dam broke with Climategate when hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit revealed that global warming advocates had for years hidden conflicting data and attempted to discredit critics. The dam broke with Climategate when hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit revealed that global warming advocates had for years attempted to hide conflicting data and silence their professional critics.
British authorities have determined that the university broke freedom-of-information laws by refusing to release information to other scientists seeking to replicate their work. British authorities have determined that the university broke freedom-of-information laws by denying information to scientists seeking to check claims that global warming was caused by human activity.
Evidence is emerging that the data was rigged all along. Evidence is emerging that the data had been rigged all along.
Russian analysts noted that British temperature calculations excluded data from 40 percent of Russian territory, much of which showed no increase in temperature in the last 50 years. Russian analysts noted that British temperature calculations excluded data from 40 percent of Russian territory, much of which showed no increase in temperature in the past 50 years.
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also cherry-picked data, cutting Canadian data sources from 600 to 35 and relying on only one monitor for all of the Canadian arctic where there 100 monitors available. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also cherry-picked data, cutting Canadian data sources from 600 to 35 and relying on only one monitor for all of Canada above the Arctic Circle. This was done even though Canada operates 1,400 weather stations, 100 of which are in the Arctic.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having its own scandal regarding a finding in its Nobel Peace Prize-winning 2007 report that glaciers in the Himalayas are rapidly disappearing. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is having its own scandal regarding a finding in its Nobel Peace Prize-winning 2007 report that glaciers in India were rapidly disappearing.
It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of careful research but on anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student's thesis. It is now revealed that this dramatic claim was based not on years of patient observation and research but anecdotes from a hiking magazine and a student's master's thesis.
IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri knew about the erroneous information before December's Copenhagen climate summit but remained silent. IPCC Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri knew about the erroneous information before December's Copenhagen climate summit but maintained the falsehood.

Margaret Wente, Globe and Mail, February 5, 2010
Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labeled as a climate skeptic or worse. Until now, anyone who questioned the credibility of the IPCC was labelled as a climate skeptic, or worse.
But many climate scientists sense a sinking ship, and they’re bailing out. But many climate scientists now sense a sinking ship, and they're bailing out.
Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy. Among them is Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at the University of Victoria who acknowledges that the climate body has crossed the line into advocacy.
Even Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation. Even Britain's Greenpeace has called for Mr. Pachauri's resignation.

Washington Times editorial, February 2, 2010
Scientists must come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths. Climate scientists have to come to grips with some highly inconvenient truths.
Among them, average world temperatures refuse to rise as carbon emissions continue. World temperatures continue to decline as carbon emissions increase.
Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century. Chilly Scotland is facing its coldest winter in a century.
Arctic sea ice is near normal. Arctic sea ice is not vanishing.
Antarctic sea ice is exactly normal. BRAVO! Original sentence!
Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom. Polar bears are experiencing a baby boom.
Water vapor plays a far greater role in our climate than does carbon dioxide. Water vapor appears to play as important a role in the climate as carbon emissions.
And solar activity is hugely important to our climate. Sunspot activity may be more important than both combined.
Meanwhile, climate alarmists seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, too little snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haitian earthquake. Meanwhile, climate change fanatics seek to blame capitalism and productivity for global warming, global cooling, too much snow, not enough snow, hurricanes, tornadoes and even the Haiti earthquake.
The simplistic and discredited hypothesis of man-made global warming needs to be discarded. Scientists who obtained government grants by using scare tactics and by squelching skeptics must be disciplined. The simplistic and increasingly discredited theory of carbon-based, man-caused global warming needs to be discarded, and the scientists who sought to squelch skeptics and artificially inflate their own reputations must be disciplined.

Note: This post is about Matt Wingard and plagiarism. It's not about the substance of the controversy. Comments about global warming, for and against, will be off-topic. You can argue that over on the earlier post.

Comments

  • Capitolguy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    One more fun fact about Wingard's speech - in the end he states that all the climate conspirators should be disciplined.

    Mr. Wingard, should discipline them with screwdrivers like you do your children?

    http://www.blueoregon.com/2008/08/the-coronation.html

  • steve (unverified)
    (Show?)

    and he used to work for a "think tank". He should stick to what he does best, it involves a screw driver and his son. The guy is a thug and a goon.

  • self storage (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh wow why would he do this? Maybe he didn't write that speech and someone wrote, I mean, copied and pasted it for him? He could be the victim here too...

  • TheT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    He may have plagiarized his speech to make a point about the global warming myth. The real issue is how our state has spent our resources to prop up this myth.

  • (Show?)

    the "climate-gate fraud"? turns out, not so much: review by Penn State finds no evidence of fraud. the science is good, as we know from all the other science that has been done.

  • Rob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Climate change is real. It's called weather

  • JP (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It took exactly four comments to break the rule Kari laid out. This is why God hates the internet and everyone on it.

  • (Show?)

    No actually, the real issue is why a duly elected State Representative is committing intellectual theft of someone else's work.

    Whether or not you are a bleeding heart denier of climate change or a hardcore believer, this is completely out of line on Wingard's part. He owes an explanation to his colleagues, the people who elected him and frankly, everybody else.

  • (Show?)

    OK, folks, let's stay on topic. As I said, no discussion about the merits of the global warming argument. There's another thread for that.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Doesn't the first 5 seconds of this video sound a little off. He doesn't even take a breath between "speaker" and "colleagues" and his voice level on "colleagues" is significantly higher.

    Are there any other recordings of this speech out there?

  • (Show?)

    MP, I think that's someone else talking. I'm not sure what you're driving at, but I've been assured that this is the entire recording. In any case, video is available from the legislature's audio/video office.

    Audio of the entire day's proceedings is here (realplayer audio)

  • Rob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari thanks. It's is not surprising, in fact, it's likely an emerging trend. Republicans at a national level have been disciplined to stress "talking points". They have also carefully used psychological testing to phrase them. (see Frank Luntz).

    This is simply remix culture, found in music, applied to politics. Politics 3.0 will have closed online communities dedicated to exchanging talking point samples. It shouldn't be difficult for a machine to write the first draft of a speech from an outline.

  • George Anonymuncule Seldes (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Funny that someone mentions Luntz, because the current canard being passed butt-to-mouth among the wingnut set that Wingard typifies is that "Liberals have started calling it climate change rather than global warming because it's actually cooling." But if you look back at Luntz's memo to Gingrich et al. on how to deal with reality's well-known liberal bias, you see that HE, Luntz, advised the GOP to start using the term "climate change" rather than global warming.

    This is in keeping with industry practice in every area, where Satan's agents in the PR industry work hard to sanitize language and to replace any meaningful term that creates a clear mental image with a deceptively neutral term that creates a mental blank. Thus, sludge became "biosolids," to name just one famous example.

  • (Show?)

    It is quite clear that he isn't reading his own work. People read articles much differently than a speech prepared by themselves. He sounds like a news reporter in this clip, not someone who wrote and then recited a prepared speech. We should expect better of all of our representatives on any and all issues. It's not that hard to cite the true author at the beginning of his speech. He chose to mislead and that calls into question his credibility and everything he has ever said on the floor.

  • Satchel (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nicely done, Kari.

  • (Show?)

    Wait, isn't this the same thing Obama was accused of doing during his campaign when he copied lines from Patrick Duval's speeches?

    And wasn't there a Demcratic U. S. Senator forced out of his campaign for President in 1988 for plagiarizing lines in a speech? Who was that anyway? Oh, yeah, Joe Biden. What ever happened to that guy?

    And, Kari, if arguing about global warming is off topic, why isn't referencing to Matt Wingard as a child abuser? I guess because smearing Matt Wingard is the topic of this post.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Wingard did not decide to make a floor speech about the hypothesis of catastrophic man-made global warming without the usual quid pro quo from the energy industry. The fact that he plagiarized his entire speech just shows that he is too lazy to sit down and re-write the copy provided to him by his paymaster.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "He may have plagiarized his speech to make a point about the global warming myth."

    The right-wing ability to rationalize unethical behavior truly knows no limits.

    If he had wanted to "make a point" he could have quoted the editorial WITH ATTRIBUTION. Quoting from it WITHOUT ATTRIBUTION is plagiarism.

    Could it be he didn't think his rant would have much credibility if people knew he lifted it from the MOONIE TIMES?

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic discussion of Al Gore removed. -editor.]

  • Scott in Damascus (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD of Corbett, Oregon USA states in another thread:

    "If people are really interested in science, they need to learn something about it. Representative Matt Wingard obviously took the time to learn something about Global Warming and should be commended for a scientifically accurate presentation."

    Anything to add Gordo?

  • (Show?)

    Wait, isn't this the same thing Obama was accused of doing during his campaign when he copied lines from Patrick Duval's speeches?

    And wasn't there a Demcratic U. S. Senator forced out of his campaign for President in 1988 for plagiarizing lines in a speech? Who was that anyway? Oh, yeah, Joe Biden. What ever happened to that guy?

    You know, I'm actually kind of disappointed to read your comment Jack. You're usually one of the most thoughtful, least partisan people around the site, and that sounds a lot like something one of the many anonymous party hacks who comment here would say.

    Wingard plagiarized an entire 3 minute speech from two columns word-for-word. There was literally only 1 sentence that he didn't copy nearly verbatim in the entire speech. Obama borrowed a few lines that his friend Deval Patrick specifically recommended he use. Biden frequently used a line from a British MP and forgot one time to attribute it, and as you yourself point out he paid a pretty heavy price for it by being forced out of the campaign. Did the Washington Times Editorial board and Margaret Wente specifically point out their articles to Wingard and ask him to use them? Is he going to be forced to resign?

    There's borrowing a line or two, and then there's repeating verbatim an entire article under the guise that it's your own original ideas. You're smart enough to know the difference.

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "and he used to work for a "think tank""

    What you must understand is that to be part of a right-wing "think tank" one does not need to actually think.

  • Sven (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic trolling removed. -editor.]

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nick Wirth: There's borrowing a line or two, and then there's repeating verbatim an entire article under the guise that it's your own original ideas. You're smart enough to know the difference.

    So then, what does this say about our President, given that it's been forensically proven that he failed to acknowledge Bill Ayers as his "Dreams From My Father" ghost writer?

  • (Show?)

    I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the words "forensically" or "proven". Funny link though.

  • DJ (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nick, anyone with an ounce of curiosity would have to admit that my "funny link" is a rather fascinating read. That you could dismiss it in less than six minutes says more about you than about its credibility.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "And wasn't there a Demcratic U. S. Senator forced out of his campaign for President in 1988 for plagiarizing lines in a speech? Who was that anyway? Oh, yeah, Joe Biden. What ever happened to that guy? "

    Jack, this comment is so snarky it is either your true colors or beneath you.

    That turned out to be lifesaver that Biden dropped out of the race. He said if he'd been campaigning, he might have ignored the headaches, but since he wasn't on the campaign trail, he went to see a doctor. The doctor sent him to the hospital. He had a brain aneurysm resulting in brain surgery.

    He was later asked why he didn't get angry at some remark and instead responded in a civil tone.

    "I would hope that when they opened up my head they cut the angry wire while they were doing the surgery", he said.

    Yesterday on one of the Sunday talk shows, he was asked who to blame for something and he said blame was less important than moving forward.

    BTW, a baby born the year Biden dropped out of the race would now be 22 years old. Would that story be relevant to such a young person?

    Jack, the Republicans have a decision to make. Either they believe in affirmative ideas (Gingrich has said "angry may win a few seats but only a positive agenda wins the majority") as the way to win in November, or else they believe snarky wins. Can't have it both ways!

    "Democrats did this wrong" or "but the Democrats..." won't win the votes of people looking for a positive agenda.

  • Differences Count (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Why should we care if Matt Wingard plagiarized his entire speech? Well, for starters, it's theft and copyright infringement. He's stolen the work product of someone else.

    Kari proves why Blue Oregonians should shut up when they are ahead. There is a big difference between plagiarism, theft, and copyright infringement. You can plagiarize without committing the legal violations of theft or copyright infringement (which is what appears to have happened here). You can infringe a copyright without that being plagiarizism. (which did not appear to have happened here).

    But the mental midgets on the left, just like the mental midgets on the left, never let reality get in the way of a good partisan jerk-off, right Kari?

  • Robert Harris (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Apparently someone from Oregon Catalyst must be a reader of BO. Someone just posted there the same video of Rep Wingard with the note that he was "Sharing a Washington Times" column.

    Too funny.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You get more middle school every day. How shocking! Duped BlueOregon is attempting to smear their way out of the mother of all corners.

    How laughable.

    Plagiarism? Covering his tracks? What a pathetic embellishment.

    Even so it can't strike a good enough tone of faux outrage unless your screw driver bit is piled on.

    Anything but face facts that Matt's message was spot on.

    The fact that he read material from elsewhere to make his point is of course entirely meaningless.

    And there's no doubt Matt could care less what your smear machine does.

    Since there isn't anything of substance concerning Oregon for BlueOregon to be addressing I say keep up your global warming march.

    You couldn't do anything to make yourselves look more foolish in this election year.

    Well, if you could get your legislators to pass a cap and trade bill this special session, that would be good too.

  • Differences Count (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nick, anyone with an ounce of curiosity would have to admit that my "funny link" is a rather fascinating read. That you could dismiss it in less than six minutes says more about you than about its credibility.

    DJ - you are as much as pathetic partisan pud-puller as Kari, so I'll dismiss this even faster. There are reasonably credible attempts developing at scientifically assessing the true authors of documents whose authorship is unknown or possibly misattributed. In that one piece, WND crank Cashill demonstrates he lacks the training and skills to understand the science (or the logic behind the science.)

    It's amusing that he starts of his rationally-challenged piece with what he claims is a "B-level" match is the "same" misquote of

    "hog butcher for the world"

    as

    "hog butcher to the world"

    Yes, substitution of a single preposition. Now if one does a Google search on the latter, one will get about 129,000 hits. Everyone of them plagiarizing Bill Ayres, including many pre-conceptionally! Amazing! Shocking! A Communist Conspiracy!

    And before you try to argue but the rest of may have been random accidents but Obama IS plagiarizing Ayers, you'll have to explain how the rest of the quotes Cashill cites have absolutely nothing in common.

    So DJ you've gotten some rebuttal here. Cashill like most of the WND freak show is mentally off-balance. And so are you if you listen to people like that most of the time for news, rather than knee-slapping hilariously entertaining insanity.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The link provided by Differences Count above is as funny as Dr. Orly Taitz "Birther" litigation.

    Good on you Diff. Without comics like you and Taitz the world would be very boring...

  • (Show?)

    Facts are so rare coming out of the right wing, that whenever I see a conservative trying to present something actually factual that supports their "position", I immediately go off and read it.

    Alas, I always come back disappointed. In this case, the Daily Mail spun the actual words of the scientist to pretend that he said something he did not.

    These are the actual quotes:

    H - If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

    The fact that we can't explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing - see my answer to your question D.

    Wow. What a "stunning" admission! Overall climate is affected by several large factors, the sun (which is at a minimum right now, which should cause the planet to be cool), volcanic forcing, and man-made global warming. Every other trend for warm periods in the past have been accounted for by natural causes, except this one.

    Further, the supposed revelation that there is no "statistically significant" global warming, is also incorrect. While it is true that 1998 was an overwhelmingly hot year, making all others look cool by comparison (if you start your measurement right around then), when you go off and read mathematical blogs, you find that the actual statement (based on statistical regression analysis) is that it still is "somewhat more likely than not" that there has been a warming trend rather than a cooling trend over that time period.

    This, of course, is during a solar-minimum, when the earth should be cooling. Instead we still seem to be getting warmer, though just barely.

    When I went off and read the piece in American "Thinker" (what an oxmoronic title for that publication), I read a whole article that appears to spend a lot of time noting that Barack Obama picked up a few ideas from William Ayers, who was the pastor of the church Obama attended. Really? How shocking! It then goes to conclude, "Bill Ayers was no one's ghostwriter", along with making a bunch of wharrgable-type statements.

    This, an anonymous right wing troll on blueoregon, equates to a copy and paste of an entire published editorial. I'm not sure he even read the article he quoted.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bob T:

    Good detective work, Kari. Again! There are so many ways to check/see/discover things nowadays that doing such things as Wingard has done, or writing key words on your hand, or impregnating a campaign worker while you're running for President, reveals greater lack of judgment (among other things) than in earlier times.

    Having said that...

    Jack Roberts:

    And wasn't there a Demcratic U. S. Senator forced out of his campaign for President in 1988 for plagiarizing lines in a speech? Who was that anyway? Oh, yeah, Joe Biden. What ever happened to that guy?

    Nick Wirth:

    You know, I'm actually kind of disappointed to read your comment Jack. You're usually one of the most thoughtful, least partisan people around the site, and that sounds a lot like something one of the many anonymous party hacks who comment here would say.

    Bob T:

    Perhaps all he's doing is pointing out that Wingard is now qualified to be Vice President.

    Nick Wirth:

    Biden frequently used a line from a British MP and forgot one time to attribute it

    Bob T:

    You know, Biden made that claim almost immediately (the MP was Neal Kinnock), but has never, ever produced a single audio or video clip of one of those earlier speeches in which he tells the audience that he's quoting Kinnock. This despite the fact that I doubt that from the 80s onward there's rarely a speech by one of these guys that's not recorded by someone and available in an archive somewhere. If such an audio or video clip was ever produced, I missed it.

    Bob Tiernan Portland

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Who is Gordon J. Fulks, Phd.? Who is John Gault, or is he real?

    I know this might be off subject, but I was curious about the climate change deniers arguments and read the letter to the UN that included the letter from a Gordon J. Fulks, Phd. in Astrophysics, and of Gordon J. Fulks and Associates. When I did a name search for his LLC or Corporate standing, I came up with nothing. I went to the clearinghouse for his degree, and it's a $12.00 charge, and as it happens the school is closed today. The only thing I see that separates this possible La Center, Wa resident is that there was the Op-Ed article in the Oregonian, and a Corbett Water Distict Commissioner apparently recalled in 2004? He is not listed as an advisor, or expert with the University of Chicago. Which is ussually very odd if a PHD in Astrophysics that is published, and peer reviewed, and assumably would carry such weight on an vital international issue like Global Warming? So, who is he? Tell us something about him, please. I would like to know more about the man behind the opinion, the same way I would like to know more about the other side of the issue. Al Gore seems to have all of the peer reviewed studies, and scientists in the world speaking for them, not to say that is a deal closer, just what's the other side's science? Who are the otherside other than a bunch of bought and sold hacks that wouldn't dare publish any comprehensive studies for their peers to review?

  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts: The excuse "But Joey did it too!" never worked with my mother, and I doubt it worked with yours.

    Am I saying that it's a capital offense? No. But it's wrong. And we're talking about cribbing an ENTIRE speech, not just a few turns of phrase or a sentence or two. (Which, btw, is enough to get a journalist fired.)

  • Jonathan Radmacher (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone please explain to me why there are so many right-wing trolls commenting on these posts?

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Kari,

    Are you certain that Rep. Wingard made no mention that he was reading or sharing a Washington Times article? You might want to look into that.

    Bob Tiernan Portland

  • (Show?)

    DJ, using an uncredited ghostwriter is different than plagiarizing someone without their consent. (And I have no idea whether your allegations have any merit.)

    Nonetheless, the provenance of Obama's writings is off-topic. Please stay on topic.

  • (Show?)

    Tim,

    For more information on Gordon Fulks, Ph.D., look up that recent op-ed in the Oregonian (from last fall), and then look up Reed professor Julie Fry's response.

    Fulks makes a number of baseless assumptions, while Dr. Fry explains complex climate models and actual science. Very clearly, I might add.

  • (Show?)

    Can someone please explain to me why there are so many right-wing trolls commenting on these posts?

    My assumption is that this is an organized effort to disrupt conversations about energy policy. By incessantly mouthing this crap in blogs, newspapers, legislatures, etc. the energy industry and its allies exact a high nuisance cost even to discussing the issue - thereby hoping to discourage proponents of change.

  • (Show?)

    Perhaps all he's doing is pointing out that Wingard is now qualified to be Vice President.

    Well I'll give you a 10 on snark Bob, but whether you yourself have seen him attribute the quote in other speeches is totally meaningless. Media Matters notes that at least one reporter in Biden's speeches prior to the incident took notes that he credited Kinnock, and that The Times and Boston Globe both stated that Biden had attributed the quote. A quick google search shows a Time article that says the same thing. I didn't personally attend Obama's birth in Hawaii, nor have I seen a video of it, but I still accept that he was based on all of the evidence.

    And even if Biden hypothetically didn't credit Kinnock for the line in previous speeches, my point stands. In that case, 1 line out of Biden's speech was copied from someone else, and it blew up into a campaign-ending scandal. In Wingard's case, everything but 1 line of Wingard's speech was plagiarized. Is the same thing going to happen to him?

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic discussion of Al Gore removed. -editor.]

  • (Show?)

    Bob, you can listen to the entire day's proceedings here (realplayer audio).

    If you'd like to fast-forward to Wingard's speech, jump to 2:17:45 and you'll hear the tail end of Rep. Greenlick's comments on health insurance - and then Wingard picking up.

    He does not credit the Washington Times or the Globe and Mail at any point. The YouTube clip on this post includes every single word of Wingard's comments.

    (One note: I've listened to it again carefully. My earlier note to MP was incorrect. The "Thank you Mr. Speaker" was Wingard, muttering under his breath.)

  • Zarathustra is my real pseudonym (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Posted by: Dan Petegorsky | Feb 15, 2010 12:16:20 PM

    Can someone please explain to me why there are so many right-wing trolls commenting on these posts?

    My assumption is that this is an organized effort to disrupt conversations about energy policy. By incessantly mouthing this crap in blogs, newspapers, legislatures, etc. the energy industry and its allies exact a high nuisance cost even to discussing the issue - thereby hoping to discourage proponents of change.

    And, as I asked on another thread, would "no" on M66 have been allowed to paste a flier into every discussion?

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Can someone please explain to me why there are so many right-wing trolls commenting on these posts?

    For the same reason that left wing trolls comment all the time at conservative sites.

  • mp97303 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I listened to the entire audio of his speech and there were no verbal indications of him reading someone else s work.

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    [Off-topic discussion of John Gault and Gordon Fulks removed. -editor.]

  • Jake Leander (unverified)
    (Show?)
  • Brian Carter (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bash the man! Typical "progressive" reaction. You can't refute what he says so don't even address it, just attack.

    The bottom line is, he's correct. AGW is a demonstrated fraud. We've known this for years, and now the proof, not just evidence, is all around. Even Phil come-on-baby-light-my-fire Jones, admits it. You people need to deal with reality.

    And the reality is, the 'right' as you call us, is o-r-g-a-n-i-z-i-n-g! The progressives' worst nightmare.

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Brian, who are you talking about? The plagarizer? And what makes you think the Right was not organized?

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    By the way, my spelling should be no reflection on Dr. Frey's insights. Science, not Sciense. Sorry.

  • Contrarian (unverified)
    (Show?)

    At the very least, it's common courtesy to identify the source(s) of your information so that your audience might better judge its credibility. The Representative should merely make his next remonstrance a clarification about the source of his recent remonstrance and learn from his error.

    Plagiarism certainly isn't unique to any one particular party or ideology.

    One thing that is evident, the means both to plagiarize and to detect its occurrence have been strengthened with the omnipresence of online discourse.

    Nice catch by Blue Oregon.

  • Kurt Chapman (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Good catch Kari. By now the queation regarding the 'facts' of the message are lost because he took the message from others without giving credit. that's wrong and stupid. He should suffer the same as any othe rpolitician (Biden and others) who have done the same.

  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts: The excuse "But Joey did it too!" never worked with my mother, and I doubt it worked with yours.

    I don't know, if Joey was President or Vice President of the United States it might have helped.

    The point here is that you are blowing this thing entirely out of proportion. If you Rep.Wingard is reading other people's published opinion pieces without attribution, that's a perfectly fair subject for criticism and even mockery. But this is over the top.

    And, Nick, what's partisan is pretending that you can go apoplectic over this and not expect Republicans to point out that our folks don't have a monopoly on plagiarism. And remember, Joe Biden didn't just steal Neil Kinnock's speech, he stole his life story!

    But I never believed that disqualified Joe Biden any more than Obama's helping himself to some good lines from his good friend and supporter Governor Deval was a serious mark on his character or his record.

    You guys don't like Matt Wingard. We get it. But unless the original authors complain about the so-called "theft of intellectual property," this is not a big deal.

    I were a Democrat, I'd be more worried about bye-bye Bayh than about Matt Wingard.

  • (Show?)

    But Jack, the fact remains that many Democrats in this state are far less concerned with the fate of the national Democratic Party than with the very important decisions made in the Oregon State Legislature.

    Finding a replacement for Sen. Bayh is someone else's task. Ensuring honesty and professionalism in Salem is something I believe to be very important. What Rep. Wingard did was stupid, illegal and something every high school kid in the state knows is wrong.

    It shouldn't "disqualify" him from anything, but it certainly paints a pretty solid picture to me of how he conducts himself in a legislative body.

  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts wrote: The point here is that you are blowing this thing entirely out of proportion.

    Really? A single blog post is blowing it up out of proportion? Not really. It's not like I'm airing TV ads or something. Just a blog. If we're not going to talk about the misbehavior of Oregon legislators on Oregon political blogs, where else would it get discussed?

    But unless the original authors complain about the so-called "theft of intellectual property," this is not a big deal.

    Jack, are you arguing that it would be perfectly OK to plagiarize a dead person?

    I don't understand the instinct to defend this behavior. You like Wingard's politics, I get it.

    But shouldn't you be disappointed in his inability to actually articulate a coherent point of view all on his own?

    I'm trying hard to keep this conversation about the plagiarism, rather than on the subject matter, for precisely this reason. It's not about whether he's right or wrong on the substance - that's for another discussion - but whether we should expect more from our legislators than claiming someone else's words as their own.

  • (Show?)

    Andrew, you probably shouldn't throw that word "illegal" around too loosely if you're going to sit in judgment on someone else's missteps.

  • John Silvertooth (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Well I don't agree with jack Roberts much but that's pretty typical in my experience working down there in ancient times- The Majority and Minority offices both used to gin out weekly columns for members to sign with their by line and send them out to the locals and weeklies- I recall once someone I know took one of the House Majority Office (Dem) copies to the members and sent it to some locals in one members district where they always ran the representatives column under their by line- well they weren't to amused and after the rep copped to it well there were no more columns- Some of that crew do not have original ideas and they have to get their copy from somewhere... both parties. Helps their credibility though of they understand the facts...

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari:

    Bob, you can listen to the entire day's proceedings...

    If you'd like to fast-forward to Wingard's speech, jump to 2:17:45 and you'll hear the tail end of Rep. Greenlick's comments on health insurance - and then Wingard picking up.

    He does not credit the Washington Times or the Globe and Mail at any point. The YouTube clip on this post includes every single word of Wingard's comments.

    Bob T:

    Okay, Kari, you've cleared this up. So the guy on Oregon Catalyst was embellishing.

    Nick Wirth:

    but whether you yourself have seen him attribute the quote in other speeches is totally meaningless. Media Matters notes that at least one reporter in Biden's speeches prior to the incident took notes that he credited Kinnock, and that The Times and Boston Globe both stated that Biden had attributed the quote. A quick google search shows a Time article that says the same thing.

    Bob T:

    Okay, that's a start. But what I need to see are the texts of the speeches, or even better, I need to hear the audio of ant one of these earlier speeches or the video of same.

    Nick Wirth:

    I didn't personally attend Obama's birth in Hawaii, nor have I seen a video of it, but I still accept that he was based on all of the evidence.

    Bob T:

    BBBZZZZTTTTT!!!! Hardly the same thing. I don't doubt that Twinkle-Toes was born in Hawaii, but all we're talking about here is getting the audio or video/audio of one of these earlier Biden speeches instead of taking someone's word for it. Recordings of one sort of another are made of just about every talk or speech a US Senator gives. Biden himself couldn't even produce one in the immediate aftermath of the plagarism charge.

    Bob Tiernan Portland

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari Chisholm commented: I'm trying hard to keep this conversation about the plagiarism, rather than on the subject matter, for precisely this reason. It's not about whether he's right or wrong on the substance - that's for another discussion - but whether we should expect more from our legislators than claiming someone else's words as their own.

    Hmmm... so then we can all be confident we would see a similar virulent blow-by-blow detailed exposé if a Democratic legislator made plagiarized comments on the side of a topic that Blue Oregon favored? I wonder... Seems to me more an attempt to gleefully score political points than a pained expression of great overarching patriotic concern about the honesty and integrity of our legislators.

    Nothing wrong with the former, mind you - just be honest about it. Otherwise you aren't being any more intellectually honest than Wingard.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "But shouldn't you be disappointed in his inability to actually articulate a coherent point of view all on his own?"

    Come on Kari, you're piling on more crap.

    You know Wingard is very cappable and has articulated many coherent points of view all on his own.

    You know that to be the case.

    Yet here you are misrepresenting that he cannot?

    And you're adding to your misrepresentations with more fabrications.

    Now you declare that we can't "expect more from our legislator" Wingard than "claiming someone else's words as their own".

    The truth is we've expected and gotten far more from Wingard than most legislators and he DID NOT "claim someone else's words as his own"

    Yeah you hate Wingard and have nothing better to address.

    As for the subject matter Joe Romm at ClimateProgress.org is inviting help to re-package the AGW message to help explain it better.

    http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/14/the-climate-science-project-with-your-help-part-1-why-increasing-co2-is-a-significant-problem/

    Imagine that? We haven't had it explained well enough?

  • progressive doll husband (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, can I - can I pet your monkey?

  • (Show?)

    Alcatross --

    I'm quite happily a partisan hack. I don't think there's ever been any question about that.

    But yeah, I think I'd be pretty irritated if a Democrat did the same thing. Got an example?

    I love how when we call out some R on bad behavior, the Rs all jump up and say "But everybody does it!", we ask for examples, and none are forthcoming.

    If you have an example of a current Oregon D legislator doing the same, let's hear it. (You can bet the House GOP office is scrambling to find one. If one exists, they'll surely let us know.)

    But here's the thing: IT DOESN'T MATTER.

    What Wingard did is wrong. And whether someone else committed the same ethical violation doesn't make what he did any less wrong. Remember "two wrongs don't make a right"?

    And whether someone would or would not post about another instance on BlueOregon is also irrelevant. What Wingard did is wrong. Just because he's being called out on it by someone who writes on a partisan site doesn't make it any less wrong.

    The evidence is right in front of you. Watch the video. Read the article in the Washington Times. Is there any doubt that what Wingard did is flatly wrong?

  • GOP hits rock bottom (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You know the GOP has hit rock bottom when one of their most reasonable members is defending trash like Wingard.

  • (Show?)

    I'm not sure what you're driving at, Jack, but that comment did not respond to anything.

    I wasn't throwing "illegal" around "loosely." Rep. Wingard presented language as his own, without citing a source. That information happened to have been published for profit by the Washington Times, which--unlike plagiarism per se--constitutes copyright infringement, a crime.

  • alcatross (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari- You missed my point completely. I'm not trying to defend the indefensible with Wingard - I know next to nothing about the guy and what he did here was stupid... I didn't say anything about two wrongs making a right nor do I support someone just because they have an (R) behind their name.

    I'm just questioning your anguished claim that this is at bottom about your supposed concern over the honesty and integrity of all our legislators, that's all. And nothing in your reply counters that.

    You're better off just to leave it at what he did was wrong - okay... Things like this have a way of falling in the old 'what goes around, comes around' pattern.

  • (Show?)

    So Kari's motive for posting is more important than a duly elected State Representative stealing someone else's work?

    I recognize that some righties are deeply entrenched in trolling here...but c'mon, Wingard either stole someone else's stuff or he didn't. Pretending to not defend it by going after Kari for posting it all is lameness of the highest magnitude.

    At the very least, Wingard owes an apology. Even the most partisan rhetorician should be able to cop to that.

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    There are several comments above which seem to imply that Matt Wingard's plagiarism is no big deal. But here is the problem.

    Wingard has a BA in Broadcast Journalism from the University of Southern California. He has been a working journalist in Yakima as well. Plagiarism is an absolute no no in the world of journalism. Matt has been trained not to plagiarize but he did it anyway.

    Second, he knows how to attribute properly. Posted on his own website is a perfect example: Matt Wingard essay

    I'm looking forward to Mr. Wingard's appolgy on the house floor.

  • (Show?)

    Andrew, reading something aloud on the floor of a legislative body without attribution is not the same as printing it and selling copies as if it were your own.

    And Kari, what's disproportionate is the way you are characterizing it. This is one of those situations that calls for more John Stewart and less Keith Olbermann.

  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sorry Kari, I don't mean to fall off subject, but I think this ?Dr. Fulks, or Phd is held up as authority. I don't think it's too much to expect to have some backround. His op-ed on this very subject underlying the issue being plagiarized, Global Warming.

    Peace, Out.

  • Jimbo46 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    <ahref=http: www.leg.state.or.us="" wingard="" pr_021510.html="">Wingard site Rep. Wingard's web site now says he "rose on the House Floor to share a Washington Times editorial", with a link the the Times site. Do you suppose he monitors BO or did someone else clue him in? ;>)

  • Jimbo46 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    http://www.leg.state.or.us/wingard/pr_021510.html My html skills suck.

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I second Pedro's demand:

    Rep. Wingard should acknowledge his misconduct, and apologize on the floor of the House for this dishonorable act. He deserves further discrediting and disapprobation until he has the honor to admit that he conducted himself outside the norms and traditions of Oregon's Legislature.

  • SF (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I am just glad that Rep. Wingard has a superb democratic challenger. Check out Sandy Webb here http://www.electsandywebb.com/issues.html. If you already know about her and want to help unseat Rep. Wingard this November, click here http://www.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/22843.

    I'm pretty sure Sandy Webb believes in both climate change and weather, not to mention intellectual property.

  • Julie (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Off-topic comment removed. -editor.]
  • Tim McCafferty (unverified)
    (Show?)

    All this to noise for a Moonie Times article on the record as though it were his own.

  • (Show?)

    Posted by: Jack Roberts | Feb 15, 2010 4:30:07 PM

    Can we assume from your non-answer that you approve of plagiarizing a dead person? Excuse me, that you think plagiarizing a dead person would be "not a big deal" as long as they didn't complain about it from the grave?

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rep. Wingard's web site says he "rose on the House Floor to share a Washington Times editorial", becasue that's what he did.

    All your foolish blue fun and games doesn't alter it one bit. I'm sure he is laughing at you.

    You people obvioulsy don't even know the guy.

    "Plagiarizing" is something he has zero interest in or need for. It's ridiculous. Just because you pile up your micharacterizations and other BS doesn't mean squat.

    Your entire phony reaction has been as if he had posted or published it as his own.

    If that had been the case I'd be joining you.

    But the people more likely to engage in that kind of behavior are your pals in the legislature and running various goverment agencies.

    But then your ethics detectors always seem to be just out of range of all those activities discussed elsewhere.

    So let's summarize.

    You tried to smear the very qualified Chuck Wiese with your nonsense, you're smearing Wingard with contrived BS and you're now targetting Mr. Fulks.

    Swell.

    Now just keep chanting the AGW mantras.

  • Bob Tiernan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    t.a. barnhart:

    the "climate-gate fraud"? turns out, not so much: review by Penn State finds no evidence of fraud.

    Bob T:

    I doubt that they've settled this at all, and you're too quick in grabbing this one. Anyway, there are loads of "-gates" on this one, as this article shows.

    Bob Tiernan Portland

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Jack Roberts: "But unless the original authors complain about the so-called "theft of intellectual property," this is not a big deal."

    Whether the original authors complain or not is irrelevant, and whether it was technically theft of intellectual property or violation of copyright or whatever is also irrelevant. The point is that it was dishonest and unethical and slimy.

    It's comical to hear Republicans maintaining Wingard's wholesale plagiarism is "no big deal" while making a major issue out of Biden lifting a couple of phrases. What's the line in the Bible about pointing out the speck in somebody else's eye while ignoring the log in your own?

  • dartagnan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "Actually IT IS STUNNING. It verify s the skeptic's claim that the whole case rests on the "we can't figure it out, so it must be man caused" fallacy."

    "When you eliminate all other possible explanations, the one remaining, however improbable, must be the correct explanation." -- Sherlock Holmes

    It's called deductive reasoning, dude.

  • (Show?)

    Can we assume from your non-answer that you approve of plagiarizing a dead person? Excuse me, that you think plagiarizing a dead person would be "not a big deal" as long as they didn't complain about it from the grave?

    Why don't you ust assume I didn't answer your question because I thought it was stupid.

  • Jimbo46 (unverified)
    (Show?)

    In point of fact Richard, that is NOT what Rep. Wingard did. He read a document as if it was his own, lifted almost vebatim from a Wahington Times piece and a Globe Mail piece. Big diff. (I find it interesting he didn't link the Toronto paper on his site.) (I think he was too clever by half using the wiggle-word "share" instead of "read", since "read" would have compounded his dishonesty. Sorta' reminds one of "I didn't have sex with that woman". That line didn't work for Willie and "to share a ... Times editorial" won't work for Rep. Wingard.

  • (Show?)

    Nick Wirth: 

    but whether you yourself have seen him attribute the quote in other speeches is totally meaningless. Media Matters notes that at least one reporter in Biden's speeches prior to the incident took notes that he credited Kinnock, and that The Times and Boston Globe both stated that Biden had attributed the quote. A quick google search shows a Time article that says the same thing.

    Bob T: Okay, that's a start. But what I need to see are the texts of the speeches, or even better, I need to hear the audio of ant one of these earlier speeches or the video of same.

    Jack W. Germond and Jules Witcover,two journalists who covered many presidential campaigns including 1988, note in their book "Whose Broad Strips and Bright Stars: The Trivil Pursuit of the Presidency (Warner Books, 1989) that Biden referenced Kinnock during all but that one speech and mention that: "In a television interview with David Frost taped on September 3 but never broadcast, Biden also quoted Kinnock extensively, with appropriate attribution (pg. 231-232)." If you want a video tape, check with Mr. Frost's offices.

    Of course, this isn't about the current vice-president.

    Here were talking about a state representative in Oregon whose morals and integrity have already been questioned - and stealing someone's material without attribution is a form of theft - when he pleaded guilty to beating his child with a screwdriver in 2002.

    Those of you defending Rep. Wingard might consider how you would react if a Democrat had read an editoral from The New York Times as if it was his or her own speech.

    Democrats in 1988 forced Joe Biden out of the race.  He paid a very heavy price for a simple mistake. It took a generation for him to climb back.  Of course, he never beat up his children.   

    As a minister, I would likely be - at the very least - removed from my pulpit and perhaps stripped of ordination if I ever plagiarized another person’s work.

  • Richard (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Nice jargon Jimbo.

    In point of fact it's only your silly embellishment which casts Rep. Wingard as reading a document as if it was his own.

    The fact that you admit he was reading a document is telling. oops.

    Your contortions in search of misbehavior is some pretty silly stuff. "Interesting he didn't link the Toronto paper" "using the wiggle-word "share" instead of "read",

    What about the paper it was printed on? Did Matt lift that from another legislator's office?

    Honestly if you folks put half this much effort into grapsing the collapse of AGW you wouldn't be looking so friggin dumb.

    Take a waltz through wattsupwiththat.com and catch up.

  • Roy McAvoy (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Update 7:50 p.m.: Wingard contacted The (Wilsonville) Spokesman via e-mail Monday night saying that he read the editorial during the Remonstrance time Friday and was planning on sending out a press release citing where he got the information. The press release went out Monday with a link to the video and an explanation that it came from a Washington Times editorial. "I guess, if you're afraid of the substance of the debate, you attempt to distract from it as much as possible," Wingard said. "I had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it. I stand by the substance of the statement. Everything else is just political games."

  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Richard did you even bother to read Kari Chisholm's post at the top of this page? If you had you would have noticed that plagiarist Matt Wingard actually read from a prepared text that included two parts of the Washington Times editorial sandwiched around part of the Globe and Mail column with an unrelated line that was added. Other words from both sources were changed or omitted. The simple fact is that Wingard didn't think anyone actually fact checks his "essays" and floor speeches. The Oregon Catylyst added the attribution to the Washington Times editorial after Kari published this post.

    Face the facts: Wingard was caught with his pants down.

  • Kari Chisholm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • Kari Chisholm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • Pedro (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hey Kari - some immature teenagers are using your identity make cute comments. Please fix!

  • Kari Chisolm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • Glen Geller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Two things: 1) Someone has been spoofing as Kari in a couple posts just above this one, very childish, very uncool.

    2) Visit Elect Sandy Webb and learn more about Sandy and her vision for House District 26, and make a donation to her campaign.
    Support Sandi Webb for OR26!

  • Glen Geller (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hyperlink malfunction, switching to copy/paste mode: http://www.electsandywebb.com Support Sandy Webb for HD26!

  • Kari Chisolm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • Chuck Wiese (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, isn't this a case of if you can't attack the message then attack the messenger?

  • Kari Chisolm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • (Show?)

    Jack Roberts: Why don't you (j)ust assume I didn't answer your question because I thought it was stupid.

    It wasn't my question, it was Kari's. And it directly responded to your assertion. I simply rephrased the question, incorporating your quoted assertion to help clarify the point of the question.

    Essentially what you are now saying is that you can't or won't defend the logic of your own assertion. Oh sure, you're trying to pretend that you don't understand the question by misattributing it to me, but I don't think anyone is buying that notion.

  • Kari Chisolm (unverified)
    (Show?)
    [Impersonation removed. -editor.]
  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Now Wingard is apparently moving from the plagiarizing stage to the cover-up stage.

    1. Plagiarizing on Friday

    2. Issue a press release 3 days later finally giving the citation. From the press release "I had a number of scientists review my speech before I read it. I stand by the substance of the statement." (BTW, Rep. Wingard, any time you want to disclose the 'scientists' who reviewed the Washington Times' editorial you read without attribution, please feel free to post their names here on Blue Oregon.

    3. As of Monday 9pm, the Portland Mercury is reporting Wingard is not responding to press inquiries.

    Someone once said, it's always the cover-up.........

  • (Show?)

    Essentially what you are now saying is that you can't or won't defend the logic of your own assertion. Oh sure, you're trying to pretend that you don't understand the question by misattributing it to me, but I don't think anyone is buying that notion.

    I didn't pay attention to whose question it was because I thought it was stupid. I still do. Plagiarizing a dead person isn't relevant because these people aren't dead. And they aren't complaining. And there is no way they will complain.

    This wasn't a nationally televised address. It was a piddling little statement read on the floor of the Oregon legislature that wouldn't have received any notice at all if Kari hadn't posted it on his blog.

    While Rep. Wingard didn't attribute it to the authors, he didn't start by saying, "As I was "coming here today, it occurred to me . . ." as Joe Biden did in the statement he purloined from Neil Kinnock. This is really much ado about nothing.

    And Reverand Currie, you might want to check out the charges of plagiarism made against Martin Luther King, Jr. in his doctoral disseration at Boston University before you get too high and mighty about the standards to which clergymen are held.

  • (Show?)

    And, Nick, what's partisan is pretending that you can go apoplectic over this and not expect Republicans to point out that our folks don't have a monopoly on plagiarism.

    I'm not apoplectic, I'm just honestly disappointed to see that we apparently can't even hold our elected officials to the same level of academic honesty that we would expect of a high school (or college) student. If I had plagiarized a few lines of an editorial for a college paper, I would have instantly failed the class. If, like Wingard, I had plagiarized the entire paper and changed a select few words to hide my tracks, I would have been kicked out of the school. But I would be surprised if anything serious comes of this in the long term, and that's just a sad reflection on politics these days.

  • Joey Lyons old friend of Kari (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Uh, what did I do Kari? LOL

  • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Rep. Matt Wingard should be commended for reading a speech of high quality into the legislative record. He made no pretense that he wrote the material. Even the President of the United States normally uses speeches written by others without attribution.

    As a non-scientist speaking about a scientific subject, he is best not write his own material. Too many amateurs try their hand and fail miserably because they don't appreciate the nuances that are so important to scientists.

    Rep. Matt Wingard did a great job of presenting accurate material on Global Warming. That is what is important and what is almost unheard of in Oregon.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

  • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Note that Rep. Wingard improved upon the Washington Times comment about the arctic sea ice, CORRECTLY stating that it is "near normal" (0.859 million square kilometers below normal) while the Antarctic sea ice is "exactly" normal (0.049 million square kilometers above normal). The WT comment that arctic sea ice "is not vanishing" is also correct but leaves out the important fact that the Antarctic has been largely normal to above normal when the Arctic has behaved oppositely. See:

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    He also improved upon the WT call for disciplining scientists who were caught cheating in ClimateGate. Matt understands that one of the underlying problems is that these guys were obtaining large government grants by fanning a scare that they themselves help create. That's dreadfully bad behavior for scientists. Matt is correct: the global warming scare will not end until the scientists involved have been disciplined.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

  • Gordon J. Fulks, PhD (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Someone asked about my scientific background. I have a BS, MS, and PhD all in Physics and all from the University of Chicago. My PhD work was done at the Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research of the Enrico Fermi Institute under the late Professor Peter Meyer. That makes me more of an Astrophysicist, although my degrees are in Physics.

    I mentioned in another post that Nobel Laureate in Physics, Professor Ivar Giaever had joined with me to write to President Obama urging an end to Global Warming hysteria. I should point out that other left-of-center scientists did so also. Professor of Advanced Physics Antonio Zichichi of the University of Bologna in Italy signed the open letter. He is President of the World Federation of Scientists. Not signing that particular letter but also supportive of our efforts is geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre who was Minister for Education in a French Socialist Government and is a member of both the French and US Academies of Science.

    It is very hard for political types to understand that a scientist's primary allegiance is to his science, not his politics. If the Republicans were doing something really stupid scientifically (like supporting climate hysteria), we would be on their case just as fast (and probably have the assistance of many other scientists of all political persuasions). We like to defend the integrity of science against ALL who abuse it.

    We appreciate the assistance of all lawmakers who care enough to present accurate material and support objective science, whatever their party affiliation.

    Gordon J. Fulks, PhD

  • Dave McK (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'm not apoplectic, I'm just honestly disappointed to see that we apparently can't even hold our elected officials to the same level of academic honesty that we would expect of a high school (or college) student."

    This appears to be displacement behavior. After all, we are discussing climategate - the hoax perpetrated by politicians who hired academics to justify a fear franchise, right?

    Are you proposing now to hold these fraudsters and criminals to a similar standard to which you say you would collectively expect of Wingard openly speaking his mind about them?

    Interesting what you resolutely oppose and how you go about doing it.

  • (Show?)

    He made no pretense that he wrote the material. Even the President of the United States normally uses speeches written by others without attribution.

    No, that's not true. He absolutely claimed those words as his own.

    As for the President, he uses speechwriters who work for him and are compensated for their labors. There is clearly a social norm whereby politicians use speechwriters to help them craft their comments. Nothing wrong with that.

    That's not what Wingard did. He used an editorial from the Washington Times without their permission and claimed it as his own.

    It is just as bad if a scientist copied and pasted another scientist's work into an article for publication. Plagiarism, pure and simple.

  • Bill Wilkinson (unverified)
    (Show?)

    It really is all about speech. The climate trolls here have proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the time for talking is over. It's time for direct, targeted action. What will you do to counter human arrogance? Would you have helped John Brown and possibly prevented the greater bloodshed of the Civil War? The time has come to decide. Many of these trolls have left enough information to identify them. Knowledge is power. Use it or face the consequences!

  • Unrepentant Liberal (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Ah of course global warming is a hoax..... it snowed in Washington DC in the winter. Anyway, I wish they would send some of their extra snow out here-our snow pack for this year is way, way, way below average so far.

    But, that as we know, of course, proves absolutely nothing.

  • jim (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Dr. Fulks, what I find really pathetic is when a scientist waves his degrees around, makes claims that are unsupported by peer-reviewed data, and then tries to engage in the political arena and expects to be respected.

    CBC News, Feb. 2, 2010 The head of the largest climate change study ever undertaken in Canada says the Arctic sea ice is thinning faster than expected.

    "It's happening much faster than our most pessimistic projections," said University of Manitoba Prof. David Barber, the lead investigator of the Circumpolar Flaw Lead study. A flaw lead is the term for open water between pack ice and coastal ice.

    The study aboard the Canadian Coast Guard research ship Amundsen began in July 2007 and involved 370 scientists from around the world.

    Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html#ixzz0ficCZ2pH

    P.S. Any time you want to engage in a serious discussion, feel free to provide us with comprehensive data demonstrating that the 3 year, 370 scientist Circumpolar Flaw Study drew erroneous conclusions.

  • harry demarest (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kari, your accusation that Wingard changed the original article is unwarranted. It is more likely that he plagiarized someone who modified the Washington Times editorial, or that he plagiarized from the same source that the Washington times plagiarized (and modified) from. With such a large universe of plagiarizers, it is risky to accuse anyone of having an original thought.

  • (Show?)

    Wow...the "defense" of Wingard on this thread is now something that The Onion would recognize.

    The guy read a speech on the floor of The Oregon House that directly steals from other people's work with absolutely no credit. Then he tries to lie about what he did.

    There is no way around this. Making excuses or obfuscating this behavior is ridiculous. We should be able to expect a basic level of behavior from our elected officials. Hell, people are recalled for less than this from other posts around this state.

    There is no credible defense for Wingard's behavior. He should explain his actions and apologize, at the very least.

  • Kitty C (unverified)
    (Show?)

    AlGore may not have invented the internet like he claimed to have.

    But I don't doubt for a second that he invented global warming.

    Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK#ixzz0fkRWlQEr

  • Ct Lostaglia (unverified)
    (Show?)

    What is "Fair Use" and what are the guidelines for it? Does the application of copyrighted material for non-profit or educational purposes have protection under our Fair Use rules? Is this really intellectual theft, or any kind of plagiarism? Does one have to attribute an idea to its originator when not seeking a profit? I know Olberman et al, are required to reference quotations since they are in "the business"...and often times the punditry mask their references and attributions in mockery and masked dialogue, thereby avoiding committing "plagiarism". Is a congressman in "the business" and adherent to these rules?

    Just asking.

  • Anonymous (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I love how BO would rather obsess over HOW something was said rather than the substance -- since the substance is damning to the leftist agenda.

    Brilliant distraction campaign here. Shame it won't work outside of BO.

    But hey, good luck with that. And do keep up the personal attacks. They really poison the public discourse.

  • yo (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Listen global warming is real, But it is not caused be carbon emissions. PLAIN AND SIMPLE ITS THE SUN

  • Zarathustra (unverified)
    (Show?)

    yo, listen up!

    <h2>Even IF you accepted that CO2 isn't related to contemporary changes in climate, I have to wonder if you deny a) there is more in the atmosphere than there has been in the last 10,000,000 years, b) CO2 doesn't dissolve in water, and/or c) the pH of the oceans doesn't affect what lives there. Which one? It gets pretty old watching ocean pH drop, corals die- right in lock step with global production of CO2- and hear people say that our crapping CO2 into the tiny shell of atmosphere around the planet isn't a problem. Do you really think you can live with barren oceans or that the food chain will continue without lower organisms? You're like a smoker with emphysema, throat cancer, hypertension, and can't get a job because of your chain smoking, and because you aren't sure about the link to your throat cancer, go on smoking.</h2>

connect with blueoregon