An influential 2006 congressional report questioning the validity of global warming research was heavily plagiarized, lifting sections from textbooks, Wikipedia, and even one of the scientists it criticized, according to experts contacted by the USA Today. A year-long analysis by one of the experts found that 35 of the report's 91 pages "are mostly plagiarized text, but often injected with errors, bias and changes of meaning." The cribbing doesn’t invalidate the report’s complaints about climate statistics, but “it kind of undermines the credibility of your work criticizing others’ integrity when you don’t conform to the basic rules of scholarship,” said one plagiarism guru.
The report, which was led by George Mason University statistician Edward Wegman, has become a central touchstone for climate skeptics since its release. “The matter is under investigation,” a George Mason spokesman said. Wegman wouldn’t comment, but in the past has called plagiarism charges “wild conclusions that have nothing to do with reality.” But plagiarism experts disagree. “If I was a peer reviewer … I would be obliged to report them,” said one, while another called it “fairly shocking.”