Reader “pottereaton” submitted this on 2013/04/01 at 2:28 pm
McIntyre/Tamino Feud brewing:
First McIntyre at DotEarth:
Steve McIntyre
Toronto, Canada
Andy,
The ideas in Tamino’s post purporting to explain the Marcott uptick,http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/ which you praise as “illuminating”, was shamelessly plagiarized from the Climate Audit post How Marcott Upticks Arise. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
It’s annoying that you (and Real Climate) would link to the plagiarization and not to the original post.
Then Tamino, (at his blog) although his comment may have preceded McIntyre’s:
UPDATE
Dave Burton, purveyor of foolishness and myths, submitted the following comment:
“Grant, I find it just plain bizarre that you wrote all this and never even mentioned Steve McIntyre, who first figured out what Marcott had done wrong, and whose excellent work is the whole reason you wrote this.”
For your information, Davy boy, McIntyre’s contribution to this was limited to his every effort to discredit the entire reconstruction, to discredit Marcott and his collaborators, and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick, sprinkled literally with thinly veiled sneering.
Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.”
=====================================================
IMHO, Foster’s response to Burton seems to be mostly venom, and it seems that his emotions got the better of his ability to do science professionally when he decided to remove the references. Seems like a clear case of spite to me. – Anthony
UPDATE: This is a comment and response from “Tamino” on that thread at “Open Mind”. IMHO Grant Foster might be suffering from social isolation issues (from what I know, he works from home with his cat) that prevent him from seeing a reality unfavorable to him, and so he is substituting his own. This is just sad. – Anthony
Steven Mosher | April 2, 2013 at 5:03 am |
It’s pretty simple Tamino. You wrote that you had acknowledgements in your post. You wrote that you removed them. What you think of Steve Mcintyre is not the issue. What you think of me is not the issue. Your opinion of what constitutes good scholarship is shown by the fact that you originally included the cites. So, what I think about scholarship is not the issue. Your behavior shows that you understood the right thing to do. Include the cites. For some reason you changed your mind. We will never know what that is. But your own behavior shows that when you first wrote it, you did as you were trained.
[Response: I have repeatedly stated the truth — that the only “acknowledgements” were of his mistaken ideas and his insulting tone. For you to claim that these were owed to him for reasons of “scholarship” is either mind-boggling stupidity (which I doubt) or nothing more than a pathetic excuse to denigrate me in a dazzling display of your ethical shortcomings.
Perhaps you and others are so keen to discredit my insights because it is now obvious that McIntyre was so clueless about the Marcott paper. Cite that.]
Clear-cut case of plagiarism, because Grant Foster aka Tamino admits that he wrote the post with extensive use of McIntyre’s posts, then removed all references to McIntyre before posting! Tamino shot himself in both feet on this one. This is a fine example of the emotional instability Tamino (reminiscent of Michael Mann and some others in the CliSci mafia), who so often lets his rage overwhelm his reason.
[emphasis added]
“Sprinkled literally”?
I wonder how much spittle covered his keyboard and screen when he was finished typing that post?
Foster’s rationale seems to be that if he doesn’t like someone’s work, or the reputed tone thereof, that it’s perfectly all right to plagiarize from that work.
I am sure that I will be joined by many in remarking that SM was crystal clear about the validity of the early part of Marcott. Tamino as usual I’d beyond the pale.
“For your information, Davy boy, Marcott’s contribution to this was only his thesis as I rewrote the entire paper myself.”
Tramino
GOT YA! April Fool’s joke!!!
“Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.””
What the heck sort of justification is that? McIntyre ‘explored the low road’, so Foster can plagiarize him and that’s OK? What does ‘explored the low road’ even mean?
Is this a simple case of ‘he’s a dirty no good gosh darned skeptic and therefore screw him?’
Ah… The honesty that pervades climate science on display.. Wish more people paid attention to this than the fraudulent headline announcing the “Hockey Stick Vindication” a few weeks ago. Oh well. it is what it is.
Glad to see that the honesty and integrity so pervasive within climate science is on full display here. Too bad more people paid attention to the fraudulent vindication of the Hockey Stick than will ever see the miscarriage of science being conducted just behind the curtain.
Revkin’s response to SM:
Note how Tamino doesn’t deny what Burton said in the slightest, just tries to use a whole heaping of invective to misdirect. Shorter Tamino: “Yes, I used McIntyre, I just don’t like the bast@rd and I’m a fan of ad hominems.” Talk about the “low road.”
Lord Monckton did a post on logical fallacies and climate science about a year ago—its applicability has not waned: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/the-illogic-of-climate-hysteria/.
This is getting good. Steve Mc has replied to Revkin:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=73:5
I was for it….before I was against it
….yeah sure
McIntyre is a gentleman, but eminently capable of challenging a crooked fraud. Let’s hope that Grant/Tamino gets his scrawny neck well-twisted on this one.
Skiphil says:
April 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm
—————
Not exactly a legal beagle, is he?
btw, since Tamino has called himself “Hansen’s attack dog” watch out for the possibility of both of them getting arrested together at some illegal action??
He’s just mad that Steve doesn’t need to wear polarized Foster Grants in order to see through the fog.
Doesn’t need to be. Steve M does not care about legal issues (at least, not w.r.t. being slighted himself), he’s more of a “embarrass them with their own work” kinda guy. Admittedly, he does it well, but as I’ve noted in other threads, it isn’t really working. People like Grant Foster continue their questionable behavior unabated.
Mark
History repeats itself, the second time as farce.
No no, I think it was a joke. I think the comment: “the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.”” is a joke. What I believe he means is that he originally had said a number of nasty things about McIntyre in the posting but decided to remove them in order to avoid “the low road.” That’s how I am reading it.
This has been one of the most prodigious April Fool’s Day I’ve seen in years:
Hansen is out on his cold, hard tush.
Tamino bites the dust.
Marcott et all has collapsed.
Real Climate Mafia = Three Stooges in tattered trench coats.
Josh destroys all hockey sticks with his Scythe.
What’s not to love?
Happy April Fools Day, Genocidal Warmistas!
[snip. Please post using only one screen name. — mod.]
The more the hockey teams pulls this sort of crap, the less believable they become. Maybe that’s a silver lining – and the skeptics didn’t even have to hire a “socialogist.”
Skiphil says:
April 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm
“Clear-cut case of plagiarism…”
Somebody needs to look at the definition of ‘plagiarism’. JP
I wonder if they fire tenerured PROFESORS FOR UNPROFESION AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT? They do that to students. Is there a different standard for Climate Scientists following the AWG Agenda party line?
IF he is willing to steal intelectual property what else is he willing to steal? Oh I forgot, for the liberal control agenda the ends justify the means… any means!
Unprofessional… sleeping while typing posts is a serious mistake… Oy! I need a drink!