Where's John Mashey and "DeepClimate" when we need them?

From Steve McIntyre on Climate Audit:

Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim

In case readers think that Trenberth’s outburst discussed yesterday represents an isolated and unfortunate climate scientist incident, this is not the case. In fact, some of Trenberth’s most objectionable language was lifted verbatim from an article in Nature Geoscience earlier this year. Trenberth here; Hasselmann here.

Trenberth summarized the UK whitewashes as follows:

Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010)

Trenberth’s entire paragraph is actually word-for-word identical to the corresponding paragraph in Hasselman’s Nature article. (While Hasselmann was cited in this paragraph, the fact that the text was lifted verbatim was not shown – something that John Mashey will no doubt weigh in on.)

Three recent investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee[1,2], a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh[3], and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell[4] — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists, dependent on their credibility for their livelihood, have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues, working independently on similar data sets, can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans.

Trenberth continued:

Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

Hasselmann’s corresponding text was virtually identical:

Scientists can, of course, err. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.

Steve has much more here.

========================================================

I just know those two defenders of plagiarism in climate science, John Mashey and the shadowy figure known as “DeepClimate”, will rush to lodge a complaint with NOAA/NCAR as they’d done with Wegman.

Raymond Bradley’s academic misconduct complaint against Wegman at George Mason University was based on this same sort of (partially) unattributed copying behavior for presentation delivered in a public forum, so I’m sure Dr. Bradley will move to file a similar complaint against Dr. Trenberth to maintain the standards and integrity of climate science.

/sarc

Of course, I’ve shown these fellows a way out here. If only they could pile themselves into the clown car and drive themselves there.

WUWT’s discussion of Trenberth’s address to AMS continues here, now approaching 300 comments.

The question is, would he verbally cite that the words he just read in the speech to AMS were written by Hasselman? He will probably do so now.