McIntyre charges Grant Foster aka “Tamino” with plagiarism in a Dot Earth discussion

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.]

About these ads

190 thoughts on “McIntyre charges Grant Foster aka “Tamino” with plagiarism in a Dot Earth discussion

  1. 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]


    “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…”

  2. “Sprinkled literally”?

    I wonder how much spittle covered his keyboard and screen when he was finished typing that post?

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. “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!!!

  6. “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?’

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. Revkin’s response to SM:

    Andy Revkin
    Dot Earth blogger

    I had no idea this was an issue until you commented here just now — which is one reason I blog. As David Weinberger has written, the room is indeed smarter than anyone in the room.

  10. 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/.

  11. 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.

  12. Skiphil says:
    April 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    —————
    Not exactly a legal beagle, is he?

  13. 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??

  14. He’s just mad that Steve doesn’t need to wear polarized Foster Grants in order to see through the fog.

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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!

  18. 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.”

  19. Skiphil says:
    April 1, 2013 at 3:38 pm
    “Clear-cut case of plagiarism…”

    Somebody needs to look at the definition of ‘plagiarism’. JP

  20. 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!

  21. Nothing like taking other people’s ideas and posting them as if they were their own, then dissing the fellow who posted them in the first place. Sadly, this is exactly the type of behavior I’ve come to expect from these so-called ‘professionals’.

  22. The technique being used by Tamino is called ‘othering’.

    http://www.wordnik.com/words/othering

    n. The process of perceiving or portraying someone or something as fundamentally different or alien.

    ““Like related forms of “othering” — racism and its relatives in all their many noxious forms — they serve to bring “us” together — albeit in a misdirected and dangerous way — and make us want to fight the vague but threatening “them.” (ibid)

    Once one feels confident the victim is ‘othered’ and is not perceived as necessarily deserving of rights and privileges, stealing from them, citing their works, remaining civil when referring to them is no longer socially required. Genocidal massacres are all accompanied by othering, Rwanda for example.

    That explains why RC, Tamino et al do not feel any need to respond to logical analyses pointing out “the Team’s” dodgy science and abuses of scientific procedure – a reputation not projected upon them by the common man, but well-earned and rooted securely in their consistent, anti-scientific behavioural patterns.

  23. I asked Tamino to clarify his view on whether he used McIntyre’s ideas without attribution:

    “All I ‘learned’ from McIntyre’s ‘analysis’ is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. It now seems that on the ‘dot earth’ blog he chose to accuse me of having ‘shamelessly plagiarized’ his ideas on why the exaggerated uptick occurs in the Marcott et al. temperature reconstruction. He’s wrong.

    I didn’t read all his posts about the paper, for two reasons: first, there are so many, and I find them so full of sneering and thinly veiled innuendo that they’re sickening; second, there’s really very little to be learned from him. In my opinion he’s just not interested in understanding the science, he only wants to kill hockey sticks.

    I’m hardly ignorant of the effect of station dropout (in this case, proxy dropout) on averaging temperature data, I’ve known about it since long before Marcott et al. was even published. If Steve McIntyre wants to claim that he identified proxy dropout as the reason for the extreme recent temperature uptick in the Marcott paper before I did, fine. It wouldn’t be the first time two different people had the same idea. I congratulate him on his insight. As for his assuming that I got the idea from him and didn’t credit him, he always seems to assume the worst possible motives in others.

    My opinion: perhaps if Steve McIntyre had been more careful in explaining himself, more interested in communicating reality than in demeaning the results, and less indulgent of his own sneering, people might refer to him rather than me when mentioning the impact of proxy droupout, and the “dot earth” blog might be referring to his posts rather than mine as ‘illuminating.’

    Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the ‘differencing method’ himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.

    But that would require him actually to do some science.

    Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott’s reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science.

    Notice also that I disputed the reality of the exaggerated uptick in the Marcott et al. reconstruction without once even hinting that the authors had manipulated the data for nefarious purposes?

    I wouldn’t be surprised if McIntyre prefers to accuse me of having ‘shamelessly plagiarized’ the differencing method from whoever invented it.”

    Two things: 1. I’ve read McIntyre’s work and I don’t see this putative sneering. I see disagreement, but the tone is what I would consider mild. 2. He seems to think McIntyre’s work was not crucial to his own (he doesn’t address the deletion of attribution). I’d like to hear what Steve has to say regarding that.

  24. The technique being employed is known as ‘othering’. Once the outsiders, the ‘others’ are defined as lesser they do not have to be dealt with following civil norms. ‘Climate science’ is replete with examples of this.

    http://www.wordnik.com/words/othering

    n. The process of perceiving or portraying someone or something as fundamentally different or alien.

    “Like related forms of “othering” — racism and its relatives in all their many noxious forms — they serve to bring “us” together — albeit in a misdirected and dangerous way — and make us want to fight the vague but threatening “them.”

  25. atarsinc says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Somebody needs to look at the definition of ‘plagiarism’.

    Indeed. From Wikipedia

    Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,”

    This differs from copyright violation, to which your reply would have been valid, which does not protect thoughts, ideas, or expressions (unless written down, and then only the text).

    Why can’t people like you suck it up and simply consult a reference before making claims regarding things you might not understand? I suppose first it requires admitting you don’t understand something… sigh.

    Mark

  26. I wonder if they fire tenerured PROFESORS FOR UNPROFESION AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT?

    To my knowledge, Grant Foster is neither tenured nor, for that matter, a professor. From what I can gather, he is educated as a civil engineer and works for GISS (or something similar) doing “time series analysis.”

    Mark

  27. Utterly bizarre.
    I am innocent of that offence and anyway the victim deserved what I did to him…

  28. @ Bill H: The short answer is, Yes. Plagiarism is generally regarded by university administrators and faculty as very serious, and the plagiarist is often punished. However, famous professors, especially if well-connected locally and nationally, may escape. You might be able to think of an example among climatologists.

  29. A great side-benefit of Climategate has been the insights into the furious and somewhat desperate email exchanges to provide PR cover for the errors exposed (Gergis and Marcott for just two of the recent ones). Whilst they probably are now hidden/deleted, the long-standing pattern is known.

  30. Mark T says:
    April 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm

    I wonder if they fire tenured PROFESSORS FOR UNPROFESSIONAL AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT?

    To my knowledge, Grant Foster is neither tenured nor, for that matter, a professor. From what I can gather, he is educated as a civil engineer and works for GISS (or something similar) doing “time series analysis.”

    Mark
    =======================================================================

    Then as a professional, who is in the public trust, he should be fired!

    (I fixed my spelling errors in the part you quoted)

  31. Tamino has shown repeatedly that he becomes very emotional which is in stark contrast to McIntyre’s tone in his posts. McIntyre’s tone may have a hint of sarcasm in them, but they are downright robotic when compared to many of Tamino’s emotionally (and often vitriolic) drenched rants.

  32. “Is this a simple case of ‘he’s a dirty no good gosh darned skeptic and therefore screw him?’”

    Not scientific behavior. More what one could expect from politics? The “element” and the “site” that
    Is not to be mentioned by their names?
    Next level will be “the deniers have all accepted our consensus”?

  33. I responded to him: “But you wrote that your original post indeed heavily cited to McIntyre. This presumably was for a reason. When people independently arrive at different conclusions by definition they haven’t been directly influenced by others with the same idea. That’s not to say you couldn’t have come up with the idea independently, but it looks highly dubious to observers not in your mind that you actually did. At the very least the deletion of attribution before posting smacks of impropriety, whether the impropriety is present or not.”

    And his response was: “What really smacks of impropriety is your implication that I engaged in some sort of impropriety. That’s seems like a common tactic from those who want to avoid the truth of the science.”

    Touchy. Guy needs to look up the definition of impropriety.

  34. Tony, your credibility remains unchanged. Keep up the good work!

    Is one to assume that now Pielke Sr has stopped posting on his blog that he’s using his time instead trying to get your “game changing” paper ready for prime time? We must be closer by now, mustn’t we? Looking forward to reading it in Science or Nature.

    Thanks, again.

  35. To the moderator. I have no idea why, nor control over, how my username sometimes appears as ‘atarsinc’ and sometimes as ‘john parsons’. The only clue I have is that it somehow began at the time of the switch to wordpress. I always fill out the registration exactly the same way. If you know how I can remedy this situation I woud be very grateful for any suggestions. I’ve been snipped many times because of this problem. Then, when the moderator becomes aware of the glitch, they have been understanding of the problem and allowed my posts. I have no ulterior motives and will, if necessary, point out the problem in each post; but I think that might be even more confusing. I have no idea in advance which name will appear. I would note that I always sign “JP”. If it would meet your goals, I would be happy to sign each post with my full name (my real name). Thanks for your indulgence. JP (John Parsons)

  36. Tamino dude seems to have issues (projection, among others. A simple “I arrived at these ideas independently” would normally suffice. He sounds like the little brat who is doubling down on the lie to his parents.

  37. JP, you have to be logged into the same wordpress blog each time you comment here. WordPress doesn’t track its users by name, it apparently tracks them by email address. Make sure you have unique user data for every wordpress blog you operate. If you use the same eddress for two such blogs, you may not be able to comment here ever again. {sniff}

  38. I think Tamino’s real problem is that SM has a habit of going thru all the original data as much as possible and testing to see if the actual data matches what is claimed. He also figures out what has been done to the data in order to get the figures/graphs that are the mainstay of what was supposed to be a major, attituge and policy changing, CAGW report. SM has a habit of embarrassing these likes of some very famous (infamous?) CAGW researchers/ supporters when he discovers the data doesn’t support the claims being made and he has the data and detailed analysis to prove it. Since they don’t want to argue with him in public because he is right and can prove it, all they can do is ignore him as much as they can and discredit him as much as possible at every opportunity. What a sense of total, pull-your-hair-out, frustration they must be feeling when it comes to anything dealing with SM.

  39. atarsinc says:
    April 1, 2013 at 7:06 pm

    To the moderator. I have no idea why, nor control over, how my username sometimes appears as ‘atarsinc’ and sometimes as ‘john parsons’. The only clue I have is that it somehow began at the time of the switch to wordpress. I always fill out the registration exactly the same way. If you know how I can remedy this situation I woud be very grateful for any suggestions. I’ve been snipped many times because of this problem. Then, when the moderator becomes aware of the glitch, they have been understanding of the problem and allowed my posts. I have no ulterior motives and will, if necessary, point out the problem in each post; but I think that might be even more confusing. I have no idea in advance which name will appear. I would note that I always sign “JP”. If it would meet your goals, I would be happy to sign each post with my full name (my real name). Thanks for your indulgence. JP (John Parsons)

    *

    Hi John. I would say it has to do with whether you are logged into your WordPress account at the time you post.

    When I am logged into my account, the reply box here automatically fills in my details (A.D. Everard plus link to my blog), and that’s how everyone knows me now, so I leave it. If I am not logged in, this site asks me for my details. Usually what I do is go away, log into my own site, then come back and it fills in the same way as usual. To me that saves mistakes (sometimes I don’t get to log in first time through, which stuffs up my comment). Works for me. :)

    I don’t know if that helps or not. I hope so. Cheers!

  40. Mark T says: April 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    “[ ... ] From what I can gather, he is educated as a civil engineer [ ... ]”
    ———————————-

    That’s an oxymoron … using “civil” and “engineer” together. ;)

  41. Tamino made his own hockey stick indeed, out of the longest real thermometer record of all, so I demolished it by feeding in sample data, in a single glance, here:

    His blog readers ate it up, enthusiastically, and waved it in my face repeatedly back in the day when I was blanketing news sites with info-graphics.

  42. Mark T says:
    April 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    “I wonder if they fire tenerured PROFESORS FOR UNPROFESION AND UNETHICAL CONDUCT?
    To my knowledge, Grant Foster is neither tenured nor, for that matter, a professor. From what I can gather, he is educated as a civil engineer and works for GISS (or something similar) doing “time series analysis.”

    No, surely that cannot be right. He’s a purveyor of sunglasses!!

  43. Mosher scorns his Team-Mate Eli Rabbet for hurting the Cause:

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=63:3

    Steven Mosher
    San Francisco

    Eli,
    While we do have higher temporal resolution proxies (ice cores) they lack spatial resolution. or are you adopting the stupid skeptic pet trick of “it was warm in greenland when the Vikings were there” you need both temporal and spatial resolution. Please dont make skeptic mistakes, it makes our team look bad

    Mosher is to be commended however for implying it may be possible the Vikings did actually live in Greenland 1000 years ago and is not a skeptic conspiracy theory.

  44. Tamino plagiarized, according to the common usage of the word. Used antecedent ideas from others without attribution. Bad form. Worse form admitting it in writing. Steve M is right to take after him in Revkin’s own forum. NYT used to take plagarism seriously. We shall soon learn whether they still do.

    Pielke Jr. yesterday provided a formal definition of scientific/academic misconduct which includes fabrication or falsification of data. Marcott’s re-dated core tops are the former, and nulling published proxy data (Isono) that should have been included in the 1940 bin is the latter. Both are self evident in the SI Excel spreadsheet. No factual dispute is possible.
    The first sentence of the Science abstract is wrong and needs to be withdrawn according to the author’s own new FAQ itself.
    I have written Science editors requesting the Marcott paper retraction/correction on these grounds. Rather than just commenting here, every one should arm themselves with the incontrovertible facts and then do likewise.
    Make it happen.
    Regards

  45. Based on the class of Tamino’s response, I appears that what annoys him is not the sneering he perceives from SM, but rather that it’s “thinly veiled”. The whole Hockey Team seems to feel that sneering, itself, is Good Form.

  46. I posted the following at Tamino in response to a post by Rattus Norvegicus. It’s in moderation and will likely stay there.

    Rattus Norvegicus | April 2, 2013 at 1:56 am | Reply

    You know, he could have been linking to him to refute him… Ever think of that?
    ———————————————————

    Yeah, right. As if Tamino would delete material in a post that would refute McIntyre.

    Keep looking for excuses or explanations. I’m sure you’ll eventually find one that will sell to those who need to believe. You haven’t gotten there yet.

  47. @atarsinc:
    Are you using two computers? I alternate between “John” and “Juan” because at some time in the past I used “Juan” on my machine, and “John” on the wife’s. These stupid machines remember what you did.

    Long as you’re here, I don’t know if you saw my question on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/the-mail-on-sunday-takes-on-the-ccc/ at 8:14 PM. Perhaps the mods will let me repeat and sharpen it here.

    Does the GISS web site enable me to know whether their database has incorporated the record from San Luis Obispo Polytech (COOP 947854) for June, 2005 to September, 2011, when NOAA’s digitized station records clearly show that measurements for that period originated from Weather Underground station KCASANLU4, wrongly attributed to COOP 947854? And if they in fact have incorporated that data, what adjustments have they made?

    See the digitized records here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html?_page=2&state=CA&foreign=false&stationID=047851&_target3=Next+%3E

    I suppose now that I’ve been dumb enough to mention my name alterations, the mods will be after me.
    : > )

  48. Mark T, Thanks for following my suggestion. I simply want folks to be talking about the same thing when they speak of plagiarism. I don’t see plagiarism here whatsoever. Two individuals recognising an idea at roughly the same time is not plagiarism. If you (or Mr. McIntyre) feel differently, I suggest you push for sanctions. However, if your intention is to harangue and berate Tamino, you seem to have come to the right place. John Parsons, aka atarsinc.

  49. “Davy boy” here.

    Here’s the link to Steve’s comment at DotEarth:

    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

    I posted my comment March 22, around 10pm:

    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.

    Tamino simply deleted it.

    I noticed it was gone, and reposted it later that evening, or early the next morning.

    Tamino was annoyed. He still didn’t “approve” my comment, but he incorporated it in his “update,” with his angry reply.

    Tamino heavily censors his blog. Here’s another recent message (about yet another deleted message) that he deleted:

    So, Tamino, you delete the poetry from me, but approve the poetry about me.

    Why does Peter Sinclair seem to be the only alarmist climate blogger who doesn’t censor the folks on the other side?

    I think Tamino often employs censorship out of embarrassment, rather than admitting his errors. Here’s an example from exactly two years ago. I first tried to post this comment (twice):

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/#comment-49972

    By conflating satellite data with tide gauge data, you’ve created the illusion of acceleration where none exists.

    Satellites are measuring higher rates of sea level rise than are most tide gauges, but we only have a little over 15 years of satellite measurements. So, if you average the satellite data in with the tide gauge data you create the appearance of acceleration commencing (of course) a little over 15 years ago.

    You could get the same result by switching tide gauge sets, and it would be just as invalid. Here in NC, you could graph Wilmington’s LMSL to 1990, and then switch to an average of Wilmington and Duck, and your graph would appear to show that sea level rise had accelerated, when it hadn’t.

    In fact, neither tide gauge data nor satellite data alone show any sign of sustained acceleration in rate of sea level rise in response to anthropogenic CO2. In fact, tide gauges records show no sustained acceleration in rate of sea level rise since about 1925 or 1930.

    The significance of that fact is that the last 80-85 years covers nearly all of the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2. Pumping up atmospheric CO2 from ~290 ppm to ~390 ppm clearly has not resulted in any sustained acceleration in sea level rise.

    Remember the Big Question! The Big Question is: does anthropogenic CO2 increase the rate of sea level rise (and by how much)?

    If you’re trying to answer that question, then why confuse the issue by citing an acceleration in sea level rise that occurred when anthropogenic CO2 emissions were very low? Acceleration in rate of sea level rise in the late 19th century and early 20th century, before mankind was much affecting atmospheric CO2 levels, obviously is not evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 cause increasing rates of sea level rise. If anything, it suggests that changes in rate of sea level rise are NOT caused by mankind’s CO2 emissions.

    You also complain about fitting a quadratic to detect acceleration or deceleration. But that is the method that Church & White (2006) used, and when did you complain about their use of the method?

    Their paper, which relied on that method, has been cited by warmists as proof of accelerating sea level rise ever since. Even since C&W released their revised “2009” (really just through 2007) data, in which all the 20th century acceleration had disappeared (though they didn’t mention that fact), their 2006 paper continues to be the basis for claims of 20th century acceleration in sea level.

    Here’s plot of their 2009 data, with a minimum unbiased estimator quadratic fit (i.e., the method they used in their 2006 paper), starting in 1900, and projected out to 2100:
    http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/c-w_1900-2007_weighted2.bmp

    Note the slight deceleration.

    The big picture is simply this: the rate of sea level rise hasn’t exhibited any sustained increase in over 80 years, which means that it has not increased in response anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

    Since anthropogenic CO2 didn’t cause an acceleration in rate of sea level rise in the last 80+ years, it is irrational to expect that it will do so in the next 80+ years.

    Tamino just deleted my entire comment.

    I reposted it, and he then deleted all but the 1st sentence, and added the following response:

    [Response: No I didn't. However you twist the data, there's no deceleration -- and your contrivance to get a negative quadratic slope doesn't alter the fact that the quadratic fails statistical significance, but the cubic (which shows acceleration over the last few decades) passes. And exactly the same thing happens using just the tide gauge data.

    You simply don't want to accept the truth, so you'll mangle it to fit your prejudice. Denialism at work.]

    I then posted the following reply to a comment by “Steve L.,” but Tamino deleted it, too:

    Yes, it does, Steve. Satellites are measuring higher sea level rise than most tide gauges, so conflating the two creates the illusion of acceleration. Tide gauges by themselves show no acceleration.

    I then posted the following complaint, which Tamino also deleted:

    Tamino, you deleted 13 paragraphs of information, leaving just one unsupported sentence. What happened to your OpenMindedness?

    To not permit dissenting opinions to be expressed on your blog doesn’t seem very open-minded, to me.

    So I changed the subject, and made one more try at commenting, which Tamino also deleted:

    Church & White (2006) admitted adding an adjustment (a/k/a fudge factor) which increases the reported rate of global mean sea level rise:

    “An additional spatially uniform field is included in the reconstruction to represent changes in GMSL. Omitting this field results in a much smaller rate of GMSL rise…”

    I asked Church & White why they used the adjective “spatially.” Surely, I assumed, since they were reporting acceleration trends, the “additional field” must at least have been temporally uniform.

    Wrong! I’ve yet to figure out what that “field” is, but Dr. Church told me that it was NOT temporally uniform.

    Finally, I gave up, and went away for a long time.

    Trying to convey anything meaningful at Tamino’s misnamed “OpenMind” is just about impossible.

  50. @wte9 says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm

    —————————————
    Re Tamino’s response:

    Brings to mind the famous quote from Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”

    I also find it amusing that Tamino complains repeatedly about the tone of McIntyre’s posts, when it has always been clear to me that Tamino was the most vicious and irascible blogger in the field of climate science, with the possible exception of Joe Romm. I sure you could compile a large volume of insults he’s hurled at McIntyre over the years, even as McIntyre hardly knew who he was.

  51. atarsinc says:
    April 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Mark T, Thanks for following my suggestion. I simply want folks to be talking about the same thing when they speak of plagiarism. I don’t see plagiarism here whatsoever. Two individuals recognising an idea at roughly the same time is not plagiarism. If you (or Mr. McIntyre) feel differently, I suggest you push for sanctions. However, if your intention is to harangue and berate Tamino, you seem to have come to the right place. John Parsons, aka atarsinc.

    So now you’re policing what others say, define their motives, and require they follow your requirements? How is it you people think you’re right about everything and everybody should follow your script?

    That’s one of the reasons the kind of “climate science” practiced by “The Team” is so far off the rails.

  52. Hmmm, I did not “follow your suggestion,” I simply pointed out that you need a better understanding yourself. This is not a case of two people discovering something at the same time, as evidenced by Grant’s own admission to the contrary… unless you really believe his comments about originally referencing Steve’s work were, what, just a joke? You did read about that, right, or did you just pretend it did not happen like so many of the other “open minded” folks like yourself?

    Mark

  53. Why try, Dave Burton? Tamino has nothing to gain and everything to lose by letting contrary posts get through. There is no win for you, only frustration.

    Mark

  54. atarsinc says:
    April 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    Mark T, Thanks for following my suggestion. I simply want folks to be talking about the same thing when they speak of plagiarism. I don’t see plagiarism here whatsoever. Two individuals recognising an idea at roughly the same time is not plagiarism. If you (or Mr. McIntyre) feel differently, I suggest you push for sanctions. However, if your intention is to harangue and berate Tamino, you seem to have come to the right place. John Parsons, aka atarsinc.
    ——————————————————————————-
    John, what you are saying is that you don’t see provable plagiarism. And you might be right, but you really don’t know. McIntyre says there was and he doesn’t make such accusations lightly. McIntyre knows the kind of work that Tamino is capable of doing having dealt with him over the years. I remember a dispute over something that SM and I posted on at Open Mind back in 2007 or thereabouts. So McIntyre has known of Tamino for a while and I do not think he would have announced in the New York Times that Tamino plagiarized his work without good reason.

    You should be aware that “roughly the same time doesn’t work here.” McIntyre posted his work on the uptick a full week before Tamino posted his. It’s clear that Tamino spent a lot of time studying McIntyre’s post before he posted his work, and he even admits that “the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively.”

    When it comes to who is the most credible on this issue, you are a fool if you choose Tamino.

  55. Correction to the above post: “‘ . . . roughly the same time'” doesn’t work here.”

  56. If a fellow cannot put his own name to his posts or whatever why should anyone pay any attention to him/her/whatever? No name? Bin it.

  57. Davyboy: thanks for the historical context. I posted a few days back on ClimateAudit that I thought that Tamino was a little more open-minded when it came to moderating posts, but your post above suggests to me that I’m mistaken. Certainly he’s always been an authoritarian type who didn’t suffer criticism– or for that matter, opposition– gladly.

    He’s really stepped in it this time. And his excuses, evasions, diversions and insults are not convincing anyone but the most hardened believers that he did not borrow, to use a less damning term, liberally from Steve McIntyre’s analysis.

  58. Grant Foster aka “Tamino” may be compensating for his own lack of formal education by flailing when cornered. I’ve yet to see a single citation of any degree granted to him in any subject by any accredited institution, and I have looked.

  59. I read here a year or so ago that Grant Foster teaches at Howard U.

    REPLY: No, Tamino works out of his apartment in Maine. You are thinking of Eli Rabett, aka Joshua Halpern. – Anthony

  60. The only reason that should matter, Greg, is if Tamino himself is pushing his own authority. Even then, who really cares – nobody is ever correct because of their authority. Only in climate science have I ever seen such importance placed on pedigree.

    Mark

  61. Some my old favorites from former run ins with Tammy

    But waaay beter is his appearence here in total recall

  62. rogerknights, I believe you’ve confused Tamino with the Eli Rabett sock, whose alter ego appears to be one Josh Halpern, a chemistry professor at Howard.

    Mark T, I’ve made no remark in this thread or anywhere else that *anyone* “is ever correct because of their authority”. Where did that get dredged from? What is incredible is that Grant Foster’s education is a blank in every partial bio that seems to be online. Well hidden. Unusual. I’ve heard 3rd party claims that he has a PhD in physics, an intimation he was working on a masters in stats, another that he was self taught in civil engineering. Does anyone know?

  63. Grant Foster is incapable of reasoned debate or scientific discussion. He recently did two whole posts on his laughably ill-named “Open Mind” blog, criticising a graph I had produced

    When I questioned his fourier analysis in the most gentle way he just deleted my comments then blocked further discussion and claimed to have “powned” me.

    The second article called me a liar twice and he banned me permanently without allowing me a right to defend myself.

    Yeah, right. Shout insults, run away and claim to have won.

    Open Mind or Cowardly bigot?

    http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/open-mind-or-cowardly-bigot/

  64. What does 10:10 measure and what if we fail? 10:10 aims to be simple and aspirational rather than punitive. It asks us to track only our heating, electricity, and business travel for one year. It takes account of Hogan
    the need for organisations to grow during that year and is interested durante the commitment to sopravvissuto as much as the actual reductions achieved.

  65. Once again the ‘professionals ‘ in climate science operate at a standard that would be unacceptable for a undergraduate student. And once again I have to ask , are there actual any standards within climate ‘science’?

  66. Greg Goodman:

    re your experience of ‘Tamino’ which you report in your post at April 1, 2013 at 11:46 pm.

    Tamino is a legend in his own lunchtime, and nothing else.

    The man is a liar and a fool. He is in the same league as the guy who posts as ‘Eli Rabbett’.

    Both operate under false names so they cannot be called to account for their lies, misrepresentations and smears. Neither has provided anything constructive to anything. And – as you have found with Tamino – each is a “cowardly bigot”.

    Richard

  67. @ Jimmy Haigh; 10:48am

    Tamino is clearly another climate “scientist” with “issues”…

    and knr @ 12:41am

    Once again the ‘professionals ‘ in climate science operate at a standard that would be unacceptable for a undergraduate student. And once again I have to ask , are there actual any standards within climate ‘science’?

    Little bit hard when Tamino admits himself in his ‘Back to School’ thread;

    And by the way, I’m not a climate scientist.

  68. Rollz4t:

    At April 2, 2013 at 12:07 am you say

    What does 10:10 measure and what if we fail? 10:10 aims to be simple and aspirational rather than punitive.

    “Aspirational rather than punitive”? Are you deluded or simply propagandist?

    10:10 made the disgusting video where anyone – including school children – questioning AGW gets blown up. It was pulled within hours as a result of public outrage but can still be seen here

    http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/10/1/crazy-offensive-10-10-global-warming-video-1925116

    Richard

  69. In reply to the wise crack about civil engineering being oxymoronic. Civil engineers design roads, bridges, buildings etc. Originally engineers were mainly military, and civil engineering arose as the application of engineering to the non-military sphere. Of course the modern military would have many civil engineers. Other branches of engineering arose later, such as mechanical, electrical, chemical, aeronautical, electronic, computer etc.

  70. Tamino writes in a comment over at RealClimate: “In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years.” – which made Eric Steig reply that it is “a very strong statement coming from you, and makes me want to read it again, and your posts again. Very interesting if you are right.”

    I’m puzzled about that myself, but I’ve seen Tamino fool himself with math before. He’s a smart guy, but even smart guys fool themselves every now and then, and if they’re of the kind that don’t want to listen to any objections, they don’t learn from their errors. I tried to discuss with him once, only to get very rude responses and (of course) in the end a ban from commenting on his “closed mind” blog.

  71. So Tamino, by his own admission, demonstrates that the Peter Gleick style of ethics is the preferred method for the AGW fanatic.

  72. As previously mentioned Tamino has shown narcissist tendencies. However, after reading his reply I think he suffers from the more serious condition known as malignant narcissism. The man is quite deluded and really believes he is something special. Some might call it a God complex. This episode shows the true person.

    PS. I had an alarmist I was debating reference Open Mind, so I told him that if I commented there with a factual, considerate comment it would deleted because it disagreed with what Tamino had claimed. Of course, I was proven correct.

  73. Mark T says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:57 pm
    atarsinc says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm

    Somebody needs to look at the definition of ‘plagiarism’.

    Indeed. From Wikipedia

    Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,”
    __________________________________

    Unfortunately, that is not how the law works in the UK. In the UK, republishing thoughts and ideas is NOT plagiarism. Only the verbatim copying of text is plagiarism in the UK. I know, because I went through this whole procedure, and sucessfully prosecuted a case.

    .

  74. @Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta says: April 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm

    The technique being used by Tamino is called ‘othering’.
    ========================================================================

    I’d go one further and call it “dehumanisation”. As used against the Jews in Germany. If someone is no longer classified as “human”, any enormity against them becomes acceptable.

  75. A very entertaining thread. I only heard of Tamino last night for the first time, when reading the interesting ‘Reader Background’ thread on The Air Vent blog (highly rec, to those of you who never read it).

    I’m very glad I never wasted any time on his blog. What a douche. I hope Steve Mc – who is always Mr Good Manners until pushed too far – makes mincemeat of him. Better still, slurry.

  76. I’m not lawyer enough to say if this was a case of ‘plagarism’ or not, and I’m just on my way now to read the DotEarth article, but this seems like an outright admission of premeditation by Tamino:

    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.”

    Ok, now we have an admission from Tamino, in his own word, in a public forum, that he vindictively and willfully rejects ethical behavior when he feels his position [and not even himself personally] has been ‘dissed’. How convenient for him that he feels justified in doing so.

    How unfortunate for us that he is still able to be published. If he is willing to ‘out’ himself in this way, how can anyone trust anything he says when ethical presentation of information is assumed – namely science? What journal editor would be willing to do so?

    W^3

  77. Tamino is working feverishly at comment-cleansing. I’m guessing there were hundreds of comments that were– shall we say–liquidated overnight. The fact that there are only 18 remaining on such a very controversial subject, i.e., scientific plagiarism, tells us all we need to know about our boy Tamino.

    And, SURPRISE! They are all supportive of Tamino! He runs a very tight ship, except for that gaping hole from that nasty ol torpedo Steve McIntyre.

  78. If you compare the two posts Steve links at dotearth, Tamino’s methods seem different than McIntyre’s, and the conclusions are different. Tamino said he referred to McIntyre’s tone in his post before removing those references.

    I notice no one has pinpointed any plagiarism, not even Steve McIntyre. So what is it, preciesly? Seems like an empty accusation to me.

  79. In scholarship, and in the codes of professional ethics that pertain to it, there are two levels of plagiarism:

    (1) Using another author’s actual words and pretending they are your own

    (2) Using ideas or evidence or points obtained from another author, without citing him or her as a source

    In psychology, we teach our undergraduates about both kinds.

    Mr. Foster aka Tamino hasn’t practiced plagiarism on the first level. But he has done it on the second level—and gone on to admit it in a public forum.

    This is grossly unethical, unscholarly behavior.

    There appears to be no professional body to which Mr. Foster belongs that could take action against him. But he deserves to be publicly discredited, as widely and in as many fora as possible.

    I don’t know of any legal basis for prosecuting or suing him. This is simply a case where he has behaved unethically and deserves to be called out.

    His excuse is, unfortunately, familiar. Steve McIntyre, we are told, deserves to be plagiarized, because, as a “denialist,” he must be demonic, subhuman, not of the same species as Mr. Foster. Some on the Left have called this kind of thing “eliminationist rhetoric,” though of course they never notice any, unless it is directed at themselves.

    Anyone who refuses to cite a source for these kinds of reasons ought to be a pariah in his or her profession.

    Unfortunately, the value system in some lines of work has been turned upside down, so that people like Mr Foster get rewarded instead.

  80. Tamino is working feverishly at comment-cleansing. I’m guessing there were hundreds of comments that were– shall we say–liquidated overnight.

    The comments at Tamino’s take a lot longer to build up than here. If you think there should be ‘hundreds of comments’, take a look at previous articles. You have to go back nearly 30 articles before you find one with more than 100 comments in it, and a number have less than 20, even after a month.

    So your supposition is probably wrong. Where’s your skeppticism?

    Probably hiding in the same place as all the others here who blindly accept that there has been plagiarism.

    C’mon, people. you give a bad name to skepticism. Check before you assert!

    Here are the 2 posts McIntyre said evidenced plagiarism. Can anyone substantiate this accusation?

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/

  81. barry, Tamino openly acknowledges he should have mentioned McIntyre but did not out of spite .
    In other words his lower than a snake in his approach and not for the first time . And yes we know full well the idea that all things done in the name of ‘the cause ‘ are justified for some people no matter how bad , we just think of it has a stupid joke of and an idea that has nothing what so ever to do with science.

  82. 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?

  83. “and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick”
    Hypothesis – I don’t believe the Marcott hockey stick is real.
    Proof – provided
    Science – done
    Seems simple.
    Massaging 73 proxies to make a hockey stick, that does take some doing.

  84. I would like to see the *specific* “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” that Tamino is accused of plagiarizing from McIntyre. Has anyone bothered to produce, side-by-side, the *specific* items from McIntyre’s post that Tamino purportedly used without attribution? If it’s true that plagiarism occurred, it ought to be easy to verify.

  85. barry,

    I haven’t tracked the thread in question, so I have no idea whether Tamino has deleted any comments from it.

    Nor, if he has, how many.

    Back to the issue at hand:

    Tamino has admitted plagiarizing. (See his own words, above.)

    He knew of Steve McIntyre’s analyses, he read them, he used points from them.

    And he refused to cite Mr. McIntyre.

    Not because the analyses, points, and conclusions weren’t relevant, or because they hadn’t influenced his own thinking.

    But because, from Tamino’s point of view, Mr. McIntyre is a subhuman with a bad attitude.

    Case closed, unless you want to argue that Tamino has confessed to something he didn’t do.

  86. barry:

    I recognise that all your posts on WUWT are intended to misinform onlookers, but your posts in this thread only serve to make you look silly.

    There are only two posts between your egregious posts at April 2, 2013 at 8:41 am and April 2, 2013 at 9:12 am.

    As you say in your latter post, Tamino’s blog gets the traffic it deserves: i.e. almost none.

    This lack of traffic on Tamino’s blog is because of the history of the behaviour on that blog of the slimeball who operates it. And, in light of that history, it is surprising that anybody would doubt he has performed any professional misconduct.

    Despite that, your posts attempt the silly pretence that Tamino has not plagiarised McIntyre although in this thread several people have posted both evidence and explanation of the plagiarism.

    Please read the post by JunkPsychology (at April 2, 2013 at 8:54 am) which is sandwiched between your two posts. That post provides clear explanation of the matter which even somebody with your distorted views cannot misunderstand. However, your track-record suggests you will try to misrepresent it.

    Richard

  87. JunkPsychology and Richard: so far the only “evidence” that’s been produced is Tamino’s “admission” that “the original version of [Tamino's] post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively.”

    Obviously, mentioning McIntyre, and linking to his posts, is not the same thing as using McIntyre’s ideas, arguments, analyses or words without attribution. Moreover, Tamino clarified that “The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work.” In other words, it sounds like the original version of Tamino’s post might have insulted and criticized McIntyre. That’s hardly plagiarism. But perhaps you think that Tamino is lying, and that his original post did in fact use McIntyre’s ideas, expressions, analyses, etc., without attribution.

    Fair enough. Please identify the *specific* elements (the “ideas or evidence or points,” as JunkPsychology puts it) that Tamino learned/used from McIntyre but did not give proper credit for. If Tamino plagiarized, you should have no problem doing this. It should be apparent which precise intellectual property of McIntyre’s were impermissibly used by Tamino. Please provide this evidence.

  88. McIntyre’s analysis showed that Marcott’s “modern uptick” was an artifact produced by proxy loss in the modern period rather than a “real” event. Tamino presented that insight as if it was his own.

  89. Okay, Barry, at 9:12 am, let me correct that because on second thought, that is probably unlikely number given the normal very light traffic at Open Mind. Let’s just say it’s likely that far more comments have been deleted than have been posted. I had one deleted and I’m sure many others did also. 18 published comments, all defending Tamino and many bashing McIntyre doesn’t indicate comment-cleansing to you?

  90. bmcburney says:
    “McIntyre’s analysis showed that Marcott’s “modern uptick” was an artifact produced by proxy loss in the modern period rather than a “real” event. Tamino presented that insight as if it was his own.”

    Actually, the authors stated this clearly in their paper:

    “Without filling data gaps, our Standard5x5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). *However, considering the temporal resolution
    of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.*”

    (emphasis added)

  91. The effect of “dropout” (e.g. station dropout, or in this case proxy dropout) is a well-known topic – one that Tamino has blogged about many times over many years. So, that general phenomenon is hardly unique to McIntyre, and is something one could reasonably expect multiple critics independently to consider.

    What about the specific application of that phenomenon to the case of Marcott? Well, their (i.e. Tamino’s and McIntyre’s) analyses of the effects of dropout in this particular case are very dissimilar, giving no indication of Tamino “stealing” the ideas(s) from McIntyre. So far, the case for plagiarism looks (to put it very charitably) pretty thin.

  92. Friends:

    Is the letter B a code for plagiarism excusers?

    We now have Barry and Brian trying to pretend Tamino is innocent of the plagiarism he has confessed.

    Will there now be a Bert, a Benjamin, a Bulstrode & etc. joining this list of anonymous trolls trying to pretend the indefensible can be defended?

    Richard

  93. Streetcred says:
    April 1, 2013 at 7:48 pm
    Mark T says: April 1, 2013 at 6:08 pm
    “[ ... ] From what I can gather, he is educated as a civil engineer [ ... ]”
    ———————————-

    That’s an oxymoron … using “civil” and “engineer” together. ;)

    ———————————

    NO – WRONG

    It’s a tautology

  94. Hang on…if you are going to do the business on someone and attemp to destroy their work you don’t leave that persons name out of your article. You will include their name in your article/paper/op ed etc exactly so people can see who you are talking about.

    Foster has already admitted he cited McIntyre extensively but then decided to cut his name out because McIntyre was being a big bad meany to poor little old Marcott (in other words McIntyre was trying to work out whether Marcott was right or not and it turned out to be a whole lot more NOT than right).

    Spare me the crocodile tears people.

    Mailman

  95. “Tamino” called me a liar for claiming to have a degree in physics from a well regarded college that required the same first few semesters from those planning on majors in pure math as those who want to be engineers (easily provable, and there are more than one with similar curriculums, even in little Los Angeles County) and he followed that with a “libel per se” so blatant on the face of it that WordPress locked down his blog until he cleared all possible defamations against me. He complied by deleting the whole thread, blaming me for wanting the deletion (all I wanted was for my defenses be undeleted) and then allowed his peanut gallery to repeat his defamations for him on the following thread.

    A fresh mining of the web brought me to a dead end in 1991, when an “E. Grant Foster” was cited as the last of three authors of a paper whose primary author, the late Dr. Janet A. Mattei, an astronomer and director of the American Ass’n of Variable Star Observers, was thanked by Grant Foster for her guidance in a later paper of his on Fourier series applied to an astronomy issue. Mattei’s job at AAVSO is described in her wiki entry:
    “As head of the AAVSO for over 30 years, she collected observations of variable stars by amateur astronomers from around the world. She coordinated many important observing programs between amateur observers and professional astronomers. She was also keenly interested in education and student science projects.”

    I find it plausible that “tamino”, an amateur star watcher without an academic background, got involved in data collection and reduction under Mattei’s wing, and that’s how he became involved in what passes for climate science as he had a talent for getting numeric results. I can only hope that Mattei would give him a good academic spanking were she still around. Perhaps someday this very public person will actually have a biography that will clear the air.

  96. richardscourtney says:
    “Is the letter B a code for plagiarism excusers?

    We now have Barry and Brian trying to pretend Tamino is innocent of the plagiarism he has confessed.”

    My name starts with B too, but … richardscourtney is mistaken. Tamino has not confessed to plagiarism. Just the opposite.

    Tamino’s analysis of the record drop-out problem (which he has analyzed before in different data) takes a different approach, is more detailed than McIntyre’s, and also is constructive, showing a better way to deal with this problem.

    As for “discovering” the drop-out problem, as noted above that was clearly stated in the Marcott paper itself.

  97. BA:

    Thankyou for your post at April 2, 2013 at 2:12 pm which answers my question.

    Clearly the letter B is a code for anonymous trolls who excuse plagiarism.

    I have another question:
    does the use of the letter B indicate the trolls are ‘acting under orders’?

    Richard

    • Richard, a better use of everyone’s time is to not worry about your numerous posts that go into the SPAM filter. It is regularly checked every hour. Telling us to check it won’t speed that up.

  98. Richard – I’ll repeat my request (again) for your specific evidence of plagiarism, including the specific elements from McIntyre’s work that Tamino used without attribution.

    Or should we all take your fixation with the letter ‘B’ as a tacit admission that you cannot produce such evidence?

  99. Anthony:

    Thankyou for your kindness in providing that advice.

    Some time ago there was a note from a Moderator which suggested such ‘flagging’ and I have been providing it. Your advice means I no longer need to bother.

    Thankyou.

    Richard

  100. barry, brian

    ( I tried to post a comment at the OPEN MIND, it just moderated away. )

    What Tamino “plagiarized” is the whole idea of the post. Mr. McIntyre’s post is titled “How Marcottian Upticks Arise” and in a big table half way down the page shows a table with three rows of proxy data, the last row missing data (NA) for most of the proxies. A quick skim shows the first few paragraphs explain that other problems with the data set (truncations, re-dating) are not the major cause of the up-tick and then the proxy dropout mechanism is explained.

    For Tamino to have even glanced at Climate Audit’s main page would have exposed him to the root cause of the up-tick. Since he claims that Mr McIntyre “took the low road” one must assume he read at least a few of the smaller words in the post, so it is unlikely he managed to miss the big table. As his own post about the up-tick was up a full week later, he had plenty of time to internalize what he should have gleaned from even the most cursory scan of the article.

    I can’t prove Tamino deliberately used someone else’s idea without acknowledgement. He may very well think his later epiphany independent. I don’t know how many other folks had the same idea (JeanS apparently did) or how many others also posted it. What we do know is that Tamino had seen the Climate Audit posts, and then claimed to have independently discovered the cause when posting a week after the CA post went up. Closer perusal of both posts reveals that Tamino clearly did not understand what the full CA post stated, since several of his alleged rebuttals were aimed a points Mr McIntyre was refuting, not proposing.

    It is apparent that he “protesteth overmuch” of his probity. If I was asked for a ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ verdict, I’d have to say NOT PROVEN. If the standard is ‘more likely than not’, I’d say likely, quite likely.

  101. Brian says:
    April 2, 2013 at 10:43 am

    JunkPsychology and Richard: so far the only “evidence” that’s been produced is Tamino’s “admission” that “the original version of [Tamino's] post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively.”

    Obviously, mentioning McIntyre, and linking to his posts, is not the same thing as using McIntyre’s ideas, arguments, analyses or words without attribution…
    ———

    Brian. Be serious. If you’re being serious, go sober up and come back tomorrow.

    Grant Foster also says,

    ‘..But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.’

    Clearly, Foster’s initial position was to attribute to McIntyre. He explains that he decided not to because McIntyre was attempting to discredit the reconstruction. This is obviously an invalid reason to remove the original attribution.

    Better men than you have tried the ‘lets play stupid disingenious with words’ game, see Jan Perlwitz comments and responses in the thread here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims. It doesn’t fly here.

  102. Brian:

    I am replying to your post at April 2, 2013 at 2:34 pm which says in total

    Richard – I’ll repeat my request (again) for your specific evidence of plagiarism, including the specific elements from McIntyre’s work that Tamino used without attribution.

    Or should we all take your fixation with the letter ‘B’ as a tacit admission that you cannot produce such evidence?

    I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.

    I addressed the plagiarism in my post April 2, 2013 at 10:05 am where I cited the explanation by JunkPsychology at April 2, 2013 at 8:54 am. However, since you pedantically press for me to use my own words, I shall be blunt.

    Tamino in his blog stated errors in the paper by Marcott et al. a week after those same errors had been revealed by McIntyre and placed in the public domain on his blog. Tamino admitted that he had considered mentioning the work of McIntyre but chose not to. Hence, the entire report of Tamino was ‘prior art’ of McIntyre which – on Tamino’s own admission – Tamino knew to be ‘prior art’ but chose not to attribute and/or cite to McIntyre but presented using different wording.

    In other words,
    ALL OF TAMINO’S POINTS CONCERNING ERRORS IN THE PAPER BY MARCOTT ET AL. WAS PLAGIARISED FROM McINTYRE AND TAMINO HAS ADMITTED THIS.

    I do not know how the matter could be more clear.

    Richard

  103. Brian says:
    April 2, 2013 at 10:43 am

    Moreover, Tamino clarified that “The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work.” In other words, it sounds like the original version of Tamino’s post might have insulted and criticized McIntyre. That’s hardly plagiarism.
    ———
    ‘The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work.’

    There is a logical disconnect between this statement and your rephrasing; this does not mean ‘it sounds like the original version of Tamino’s post might have insulted and criticized McIntyre.’ It means that McIntyre’s work (his) had an insulting tone, obviously.

    Further, your speculation does not make the slightest bit of sense when we step back and review the entire post, you appear to be arguing that-

    Foster said he McIntyre’s contribution was 1)limited to his effort to discredit the reconstruction, 2)included knee jerk spasms and sneering.

    Foster said he originally attributed McIntyre, according to you insulting and criticizing McIntyre, but then Foster goes on to explain that he removed it because McIntyre was attempting to discredit the reconstruction.

    The Chewbacca defense was entertaining on SouthPark. Unfortunately, watching you attempt to employ it is pathetic. Your interpretation doesn’t strain credulity, it destroys it.

  104. richardscourtney says:
    “I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.”

    Pretty silly if that’s really how you take it, Richard. Who do you imagine is giving all us B names our orders? Why do we obey?

    “Tamino in his blog stated errors in the paper by Marcott et al. a week after those same errors had been revealed by McIntyre and placed in the public domain on his blog.:

    What McIntyre revealed is that he had not yet read the paper. See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.

    “Hence, the entire report of Tamino was ‘prior art’ of McIntyre which – on Tamino’s own admission – Tamino knew to be ‘prior art’ but chose not to attribute and/or cite to McIntyre but presented using different wording.”

    But this is theory about what Tamino knew is no more reality-based than your theory about who controls us B’s. Here is what Tamino actually said about what he learned from McIntyre and what he decided to leave out:

    “All I “learned” from McIntyre’s “analysis” is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.”

  105. I recommend people not try to psychoanalyze Foster, because it is very difficult to do and not relevant.

    He has a problem, as do many climate alarmists and some skeptics, his supporters should be helping him.

  106. BA and Brian,

    1. No one contends that the concept of “proxy dropout” was originated by Steve McIntyre. What McIntyre discovered (among other things) was that Marcott’s modern uptick was chiefly the result of dropout and re-dating of cores. Tamino’s own post presents the idea that the uptick is the result of dropout as though Tamino made this discovery. That is the plagiarism.

    2. Tamino’s admission that he deleted references to McIntyre’s “low road” suggestion of invidious conduct on the part of Marcott et al. is damming because it demonstrates that Tamino read McIntyre’s post before publishing his own. It seems clear that the “low road” suggestion was Marcott’s re-dating proxies, the inexplicable deletion of certain end dates which had the effect of keeping an unfavorable proxy out of the modern period, etc. From Tamino’s own description, it appears that he began his post by attempting to defend Marcott, et al. from McIntyre’s “low road” suggestions. He evidently found, however, that no plausible defense for Marcott’s conduct suggested itself and converted the post to a general discussion of the Marcott uptick being the result of dropout without reference to McIntyre’s comments. Of course, the mere fact that an uptick was produced by dropout does not imply misconduct if the reasons for dropout are legitimate but Tamino could not very well credit McIntyre for finding the fact that dropout caused the uptick without making his evident inability to defend Marcott apparent.

    3. BA’s quote from Marcott et al. does not contain any reference to the dropout problem. It merely reports that the difference between two methods of data analysis is not “robust.”

  107. BA:

    This is a brief reply to your post addressed to me at April 2, 2013 at 3:39 pm because it is midnight here and I am on my way to bed.

    I note that neither you nor Brian denies you are ‘acting under orders’ but obfuscate the issue. Perhaps you would care to say if it is the SkS team, or the Climate Response Team, or etc.which has called for your ridiculous campaign to defend Tamino’s plagiarism?

    The quotation from Tamino which you provide explicitly states that Tamino read McIntyre’s report but asserts Tamino had not “learned” much from it. So,
    (a) Tamino admits he read McIntyre;s work,
    and
    (b) Tamino claims he “learned” little from McIntyre’s work,
    and
    (c) a week after McIntyre’s work Tamino presented ‘his’ study which only addresses issues which were covered in McIntyre’s work.

    Simply, Tamino is saying he did not copy the work of McIntyre which he had read because he has such severe reading comprehension difficulties that he failed to understand what he read.

    As an excuse for plagiarism that is lame.

    Richard

  108. BA says:
    April 2, 2013 at 3:39 pm

    “All I “learned” from McIntyre’s “analysis” is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science.”
    ——-
    This is not consistent with his original explanation, nor is it particularly consistent with the behavior Grant Foster generally exhibits on his blog. In other words, this subsequent explanation is questionable, to use no stronger word. That he needed to offer a subsequent explanation at all is suggestive. I suggest that he realized he damned himself with his initial admission and started trying to dig himself out.

  109. Never wrestle with a pig. You get dirty and the pig enjoys it.

    The funny thing is how old that aphorism is. The really funny thing is that everyone knows it, and everyone does it anyway.

  110. BA says:
    See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.
    —————–
    Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.

  111. bmcburney says:
    “3. BA’s quote from Marcott et al. does not contain any reference to the dropout problem. It merely reports that the difference between two methods of data analysis is not “robust.””

    Read it again, that quote refers directly to the dropout problem:

    “Without filling data gaps, our Standard5x5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). *However, considering the temporal resolution
    of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.*”

    No reading between the lines needed. Marcott et al. state that the steep recent warming under one method (Standard5x5) is not robust because of “the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig 1G)…”

    And what’s in Fig 1G? Well, that’s a graph of
    “Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time.”
    It shows this number of records as an orange line that drops steeply toward zero in the last decades of their reconstruction. It *is* a graph of the dropout problem, and it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.

  112. Reg Nelson says:
    “Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.”

    The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.

    Marcott et al. comparisons of modern with older temperatures are not based on the proxy uptick. Rather, as they state clearly in the paper, their comparison involves the more robustly estimated holocene temperatures contrasted with (also robustly estimated) modern instrumental temperatures.

  113. knr,

    barry, Tamino openly acknowledges he should have mentioned McIntyre but did not out of spite.

    He nowhere says he ‘should have mentioned McIntyre, and says he removed the references because he was talking about McIntyre’s tone and chose instead to focus on the science. You’re making things up.

    It’s telling that virtually no one has attempted to point out where the plagiarism exists, and the only person that has atttempted it has done so after prompting. I doubt many here have even read the two articles in question.

    bmcburney,

    McIntyre’s analysis showed that Marcott’s “modern uptick” was an artifact produced by proxy loss in the modern period rather than a “real” event. Tamino presented that insight as if it was his own.

    Plagiarism is the lifting of text or ideas wholesale. Here is McIntyre on plagiarism:

    ““Plagiarism” is not an issue that arises in business situations. “Boilerplate” is regularly recycled in securities offerings. Lawyers prefer to use proven language rather than take risks with irrelevant paraphrasing. See here for a discussion of the peculiarly academic nature of “plagiarism”. The concern of academics over plagiarism appears to arise primarily out of a desire to stake out a sort of property right, as opposed to protection of the public.”

    By Steve’s own measure, Tamino has not come remotely close to plagiarism. The text is not remotely similar. The methods are not the same, and the conclusions are not exactly the same either. Consider:

    Steve: “Marcottian upticks arise because of proxy inconsistency: one (or two) proxies have inherent signs or quantities than the larger population, but continue one step longer… In principle, downticks can also occur – a matter that will be covered in my next post which will probably be on the relationship between Marcottian re-dating and upticks. ”

    Tamino: “That, I believe, is the reason for such a large “uptick” at the end of the Marcott et al. standard reconstruction. The dropout of “cooler” proxies introduces an artificial warming into the result.”

    Proxy (and station) dropout is “boilerplate” knowledge, and has been discussed extensively, beyond and previous to this snaffle. Even the authors of the originating paper imply it. Steve can’t possibly claim authorship of this notion.

    Nothing is plagiarised. Steve’s complaint is that dotearth cited Tamino and not him. He says so, but then throws a wild accusation of plagiarism into the mix, which obviously is going to set off a sector of the blogosphere.

    richardscourtney,

    a week after McIntyre’s work Tamino presented ‘his’ study which only addresses issues which were covered in McIntyre’s work.

    Tamino introduces a differencing method to address the problem. Steve doesn’t do this. Tamino has other posts on the paper that are also his own work.

    Put your ridiculous conspiracy theory down. No one is prompting me to do my own work. All I did was read all the posts McIntyre and Tamino wrote on the matter and paid sepcial attention to the two posts McIntyre indicated. The case for plagiarism is very shakey.

  114. BA says:

    What McIntyre revealed is that he had not yet read the paper. See quote from the authors above, in which they explain that, due to “the small number of records that cover this interval” [1890 to 1950] the steep warming is “probably not robust.” Much later, McIntyre (also Pielke Jr) treated repetitions of this “not robust” statement from the Marcott paper as if they were dramatic new confessions. But they are new only to people who have not read the paper.

    It’s too bad Tamino didn’t realize this.

    ‘Cause then, instead of taking a week after Steve McIntyre’s post on Marcott et al. to come up with ways of excusing their practices and shielding them from McIntyre’s criticisms, Mr. Foster could have just written, “McIntyre has posted on Marcott et al. What he says is largely worthless, because he obviously hasn’t read Marcott et al. He proceeds as though Marcott et al. never wrote this, this, or this [each point devastatingly illustrated with a pithy excerpt].” QED

    Is the intended lesson that Tamino should be letting BA write his posts for him?

  115. BA also says:

    The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.

    It’s a pity that Marcott et al. didn’t tell their press agents all of this.

    It’s a pity that a couple of the authors didn’t even tell themselves this.

    I suppose we could conclude that the authors didn’t read their own paper.

  116. BA says:

    April 2, 2013 at 5:04 pm

    Reg Nelson says:
    “Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.”

    The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.
    ——–
    If that’s so, why is it that the thesis version of Marcott et al did not exhibit the final uptick where the Science version did?

    Once again, you are being disingenious. The final uptick helped the paper get press and generate headlines – it is despicable precisely because the authors know perfectly well and state openly that it is not robust.

  117. Mark Bofill says:
    “If that’s so, why is it that the thesis version of Marcott et al did not exhibit the final uptick where the Science version did?”

    Most obvious reason seems to be that proxies drop out in a different order when you use simple averaging (thesis) vs. weighted averaging (Science paper). There may be other differences but the newer paper used methods the authors thought better, overall. That’s what scientists try to do. Marcott et al. clearly state in their Science piece that the most recent proxy results can’t be trusted, and they draw a graph to show why: Unlike the Mann et al. 2008 reconstruction which has more proxies as you approach the present and gets less reliable farther back, the Marcott et al. reconstruction has many fewer proxies as you approach the present, and is more reliable farther back.

    An original contribution by Tamino was to replicate the Marcott reconstruction using a third statistical method (method of differences), which seems to give more robust last-few-decades results (less uptick) while also confirming the robustness of the main reconstruction.

    “Once again, you are being disingenious. The final uptick helped the paper get press and generate headlines – it is despicable precisely because the authors know perfectly well and state openly that it is not robust.”

    No, I’m not being “disingenious” or disingenuous either. And no, the proxy uptick was not the basis for headlines. It’s the comparison between the long-term proxy record and the modern instrumental record (which has a quite robust uptick) that generated the headlines. Again, this focus on the proxy uptick is itself a proxy for not having read the paper.

  118. There are two kinds of plagiarism, as I stated upthread.

    One is using someone else’s words, often at length, while passing them off as your own.

    The second is using ideas, points, arguments, evidence, or findings from a source—this may, and often does, include ideas, points, arguments, evidence, or findings that you object to—and not citing or crediting the source.

    In making this claim:

    By Steve’s own measure, Tamino has not come remotely close to plagiarism. The text is not remotely similar. The methods are not the same, and the conclusions are not exactly the same either.

    barry is effectively pretending that deliberate failure to cite sources is not plagiarism.

    “Therefore,” since Tamino didn’t reproduce a bunch of Steve McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it, barry feels we must conclude that no plagiarism could have been taking place.

    No one’s charged Tamino with cutting and pasting a bunch of Mr. McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it.

    So barry is being disingenuous.

    Something all three B’s frequently are.

  119. Hey Grant. Your blog’s entire existence depends on McIntyre and Anthony’s excellent and award-winning blogs. If you didn’t hang on their shirttails acting asinine you wouldn’t get any attention. You’re like the kid in Grade 9 who compensates for his low grades by making scatalogical jokes, leering at the girls and sneering at the teacher. Anthony and Steve show real class, and more generosity than you deserve, by actually noticing you and linking to your screeds.

  120. BA says:
    April 2, 2013 at 5:04 pm
    Reg Nelson says:
    “Why publish the paper then, if major parts of it were not robust? You seem to think that this disclosure in the “fine print” somehow makes up for the fact that the graph they presented was completely misleading.”

    The final uptick is not a major part of the paper. It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting. The belief that it’s a major part is a proxy for not having read the paper.
    —–

    Well, it’s a major part of the graph and the press release. Name one MSM article that says, “It’s a very minor part that the authors (accurately) themselves caution against trusting.”

    You can’t.

    If you truly believe what you claim, press the major media outlets to retract their inflammatory, unsubstantiated “non robust” articles.

    Like you BA, I seek the truth. We seem to be in agreement here that that the uptick is “garbage” AKA “non-robust”.

    Truth will set you free.

  121. Reg Nelson says:
    “If you truly believe what you claim, press the major media outlets to retract their inflammatory, unsubstantiated “non robust” articles.”

    I believe you haven’t managed to read what I wrote, let alone Marcott et al.

    The headline conclusion came from the robust holocene proxy record compared with the robust modern temperature record. It was never based on that uptick in the proxies, which the authors clearly discount. In the interviews I’ve seen as well as the paper itself, the authors remain clear about this.

  122. BA: You can’t compare the “robust” proxy record and the “robust” instrumental record since the former is so coarse grained that it corresponds to a 300-year smoothing of the instrumental record. I have no idea what your credentials are, but Mann and other climate researchers who repeat this over and over again on their twitter feeds these days, should know enough math to refrain from such nonsense. So they’re either lying, not qualified for the work they do, or so blinded by their “cause” that they behave self-deceptive like sect members. I’m leaning to the latter.

  123. Friends:

    It is a new dawn and a new day. I have risen to review what has happened in this thread, and I observe the following.

    BA, Barry and Brian have studiously avoiding my question as to which Climate Attack Team has instructed them to conduct their ridiculous campaign in defence of the indefensible.

    But their campaign has become progressively more ridiculous through the night.

    There is no doubt of the following because the evidence is clear and irrefutable.
    1.
    Tamino plagiarised Steve McIntyre.
    2.
    Tamino is the screen name of Grant Foster.
    3.
    Grant Foster (like some others; e.g. Eli Rabbett) uses a screen name so he can avoid culpability by asserting there is doubt as to whether he personally wrote some falsehood posted on his blog under his screen name.
    4.
    In this case, Grant Foster’s own words demonstrate that it was he – operating under his screen name of Tamino – who plagiarised McIntyre.

    Points 1 to 4 have been demonstrated beyond any doubt including in this thread.

    Additionally, it seems that one of the AGW-activist organisations has mobilised its ‘attack squad’ of anonymous internet trolls in a hopeless attempt to pretend that Grant Foster did not plagiarise McIntyre.

    Richard

  124. The hockey stick sagas have never captured my interest, nor do I expect they ever will.

    My general impression of Tamino is that he is one of the 2 darkest-among-darkest of climate discussion dark agents of ignorance &/or deception.

  125. JunkPsychology,

    instead of taking a week after Steve McIntyre’s post on Marcott et al. to come up with ways of excusing their practices and shielding them from McIntyre’s criticisms

    That works only under the assumption that there was something wrong with their ‘practises’. Marcott et al states in the paper that the proxy-derived uptick is not robust. McIntyre laboured under the illusion that they, instead of the decisions of news media editors, thought otherwise.

    Tamino echoes the author’s criticism of the proxy-derived uptick in two posts:

    The sharp uptick at the end — which the straight average shows even more strongly than the ensemble average of perturbed series — is probably not correct

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

    The large uptick at the end (in 1940) is larger than indicated by the instrumental data — another reason to doubt its reality.

    Tamino is referencing the authors’ comments, by the way, not McIntyre’s. Tamino read the paper.

    Mark Bofill,

    The final uptick helped the paper get press and generate headlines – it is despicable precisely because the authors know perfectly well and state openly that it is not robust.

    The proxy-dierived uptick was not the issue that drove news commenjtary. It was the relation to the instrumental record. But even if it was, do you imagine that the authors have power over the editors of the news media? Your concern should be aimed at the news media. You would find me agreeing with you if you said the press fail to deliver the intricacies and uncertainies in science properly. And you’d find agreement from the mainstream climate community, too.

    JunkPsychology,

    No one’s charged Tamino with cutting and pasting a bunch of Mr. McIntyre’s text without putting quotes around it.

    The charge of plagiarism would not pass muster in any forum. it is absolutely pretentious. Cite one similar example that would corrobarate this claim. there isn’t any! Steve barely discusses proxy dropout, and he doesn’t analyse it in the post he himself cites.

    Let’s be precise. Steve calims plagiarism. There isn’t a case for it under any recognized formula. The notions explored are standard iseas. Steve did not invent the notion of data dropout. He has no claim to authorship on it. None of his notions or methods are original. Plagiarism is, effectively, impossible in this case.

    Did Tamino get the well-known idea of looking at data dropout as a cause of spurious results from reading mcIntyre’s blog? I have no idea, and neither does anybody else. This an assumption being made here. But even if he did, it’s not plagiarism. It happens all the time on blogs and in academia. Tamino is no more required to ‘cite’ McIntyre than Anthomy Watts needs to cite anyone for working with anomalies rather than actual temps. This is “boilerplate” stuff, to use McIntyre’s own wards on what does and doesn’t need citing.

    Unless someone can access the deleted parts of Tamino’s edited post, track which McIntyre posts Tamino read, or can read Tamino’s mind, the accusation is based on assumption.

  126. richardscourtney says:
    April 3, 2013 at 1:33 am

    It is a new dawn and a new day. I have risen to review what has happened in this thread, and I observe the following.

    BA, Barry and Brian have studiously avoiding my question as to which Climate Attack Team has instructed them to conduct their ridiculous campaign in defence of the indefensible.

    I replied to you here:

    Put your ridiculous conspiracy theory down. No one is prompting me to do my own work. All I did was read all the posts McIntyre and Tamino wrote on the matter and paid sepcial attention to the two posts McIntyre indicated.

    But as there is no possible way I can prove this, feel at liberty to retain this specious fantasy if it feels good to do so.

  127. BA says:
    April 2, 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Mark Bofill says:
    “If that’s so, why is it that the thesis version of Marcott et al did not exhibit the final uptick where the Science version did?”

    Most obvious reason seems to be that proxies drop out in a different order when you use simple averaging (thesis) vs. weighted averaging (Science paper). There may be other differences but the newer paper used methods the authors thought better, overall. That’s what scientists try to do.
    ————
    BA, I’m sorry. I can’t pretend I think you really believe this. You suggest that the uptick is explained by the authors using a method they thought better which just so happens to produce a hockey stick blade which they admit is not statistically robust. Then you go on to blame the media; the climate scientists had no idea how this would be received and what the media would make of it. Please.

    Maybe you aren’t being disingenuous, maybe you really are a babe in the woods. I can’t cite off the top of my head my source, and I don’t really care enough to go looking for it (work intrudes), but if you look you can find plenty of evidence that climate science doesn’t work this way; that there is pretty good communication and coordination between important climate papers and the press.

  128. Barry:

    You and your compatriots are achieving nothing true by iterating already refuted points.

    It seems you are trying the ‘Big Lie’ propaganda tactic; i.e.
    keep repeating a blatant falsehood and ignore all statements of the truth with the purpose of repetition hammering the falsehood into the minds of onlookers.

    For example, you conclude your post at April 3, 2013 at 5:28 am saying

    Did Tamino get the well-known idea of looking at data dropout as a cause of spurious results from reading mcIntyre’s blog? I have no idea, and neither does anybody else. This an assumption being made here. But even if he did, it’s not plagiarism. It happens all the time on blogs and in academia. Tamino is no more required to ‘cite’ McIntyre than Anthomy Watts needs to cite anyone for working with anomalies rather than actual temps. This is “boilerplate” stuff, to use McIntyre’s own wards on what does and doesn’t need citing.

    Unless someone can access the deleted parts of Tamino’s edited post, track which McIntyre posts Tamino read, or can read Tamino’s mind, the accusation is based on assumption.

    There is no “assumption”.
    You have pretended the facts are other than they are and – in this case – they are as I stated in my post addressed to ‘BA’ at April 2, 2013 at 4:12 pm. To save others needing to scroll up, I copy the pertinent part of that post here. I wrote

    The quotation from Tamino which you provide explicitly states that Tamino read McIntyre’s report but asserts Tamino had not “learned” much from it. So,
    (a) Tamino admits he read McIntyre;s work,
    and
    (b) Tamino claims he “learned” little from McIntyre’s work,
    and
    (c) a week after McIntyre’s work Tamino presented ‘his’ study which only addresses issues which were covered in McIntyre’s work.

    Simply, Tamino is saying he did not copy the work of McIntyre which he had read because he has such severe reading comprehension difficulties that he failed to understand what he read.

    As an excuse for plagiarism that is lame.

    Also, you assert that Tamino having copied McIntyre’s work without attribution was not plagiarism because Tamino did it on a blog. That assertion is untrue, is risible, and is contemptible.

    Richard

  129. Espen says:
    “BA: You can’t compare the “robust” proxy record and the “robust” instrumental record since the former is so coarse grained that it corresponds to a 300-year smoothing of the instrumental record. I have no idea what your credentials are, but Mann and other climate researchers who repeat this over and over again on their twitter feeds these days, should know enough math to refrain from such nonsense. So they’re either lying, not qualified for the work they do, or so blinded by their “cause” that they behave self-deceptive like sect members. I’m leaning to the latter.”

    How and why you can compare these things is discussed in the paper, especially in connection with the analyses in their Fig 3. It’s discussed again in Marcott’s FAQs. It’s been elaborated further on the science blogs, where people have worked out more explicitly what would be required for high-frequency, large-magnitude, and rapidly-reversed global up-down (can’t be down-up, that would have the opposite effect) variations unseen by either smoothed or high-resolution proxies, and unexplained by physical theory, to substantially alter this conclusion.

    But let’s focus on the source, Fig 3. In your own words, what does it show, and how do you “know” it’s a lie?

  130. plagiarism

    to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source

    Steve McIntyre has no claim of authorship to the notion of data dropoff analysis. He cannot be plagiarised for that. Tamino has posted on that kind of analysis previously (station drop-out) Tamino’s analysis of the issue – his work – is distinct from McIntyre’s and obviously his own.

    Tamino has stated that after reading McIntyre, he thought McIntyre blamed the uptick on redating. It doesn’t matter whether Tamino is taken at his word, the fact remains that alternative views to what he has stated are simply speculation.

    And that’s what the more accurate posts here have said, like this one.

  131. Barry, Brian, BA (and any other members of your team):

    All your points have been refuted in this thread. Some of your refutedpoints are so wrong as to be plain daft.

    I am now withdrawing from the thread.

    I am not ‘running away’. On the contrary, I am content that your baseless assertions and excuses in defence of the plagiarism by Foster (aka Tamino) have been clearly demolished in this thread so further discussion can only give you further opportunities to present your nonsense.

    The information in the thread is clear to all impartial observers. So I am content to leave it at that.

    Richard

  132. As far as I can see, everyone agrees with the following:

    1) Tamino did not use without attribution any *specific* wording, analyses, methods, or arguments from McIntyre.

    2) Tamino did make use of the *very general* idea of “record dropout,” as did McIntyre, but this is “industry standard,” as it were – nothing original to McIntyre. Tamino has blogged about this general phenomenon many times before (as have plenty of others).

    3) Tamino did make use of the idea of analyzing the Marcott uptick in terms of record dropout.

    4) Tamino’s *specific analyses* of how record dropout affects the Marcott findings substantially differ from those of McIntyre. (Again, see #1.)

    It took over 100 comments before someone finally identified the particular elements of Tamino’s post that were alleged to constitute plagiarism, and everyone seems to agree that it is (3), or close to it, that identifies these elements. If there are any other aspects of McIntyre’s work that should be added, please identify them. (I’ll consider another possibility below.)

    Does (3) constitute plagiarism? No. For, as has been repeatedly pointed out here, the authors themselves mention the concern about proxy dropout making the uptick at the end less than robustly supported. That is not something that McIntyre came up with. That is not McIntyre’s intellectual property or product. The authors mention (though they don’t develop) it in their own paper.

    What McIntyre contributed was one particular analysis and development of that problem. Had Tamino used elements of that *particular analysis* without attribution, that would smack of plagiarism. But he didn’t. He performed his own, and different, analysis of a problem initially identified by Marcott (not McIntyre!).

    Indeed, if McIntyre claims to have originated the idea that proxy dropout may explain the uptick, then McIntyre is the one who is plagiarizing – from Marcott et. al! What he originated is a particular analysis – an analysis on which Tamino’s own analysis is not based.

    I suspect there’s another source, however, of the claim of plagiarism. Perhaps some have reasoned as follows: “Tamino read some of McIntyre’s posts about record dropout explaining the Marcott uptick. That seems to have been the inspiration or motivation for Tamino to have done his own (unique) analysis of that same problem. If so, then he should have credited McIntyre for being the reason why Tamino chose to write a post on that general topic. Therefore, Tamino’s post constitutes plagiarism.”

    I hope it’s obvious why that line of reasoning is invalid (indeed, absurd). McIntyre cannot claim credit for (a) the very general idea of record dropout, (b) the more specific idea of how record dropout affects the Marcott uptick (since that’s the authors’ original idea), nor for (c) the idea to write a blog post about something. He can claim credit for his particular methods and analyses (that is, the specific way in which he addressed the Marcott-identified problem of proxy dropout), but Tamino didn’t use those.

    (And for Richard: are you willing to make a bet about your claim that I am “taking orders” from someone else? You name the amount – any amount at all. Put your money where your foolish, childish mouth is.)

  133. To Grant Foster,

    There are better ways to present yourself to the more accomplished auditors of climate science than rancor. Try some other strategy like moderate politeness.

    John

  134. barry says:
    April 3, 2013 at 7:24 am
    ———-
    Wow Barry. You finally got through to me. I get it now. All I needed to see the light was your summary which ignores virtually every contrary point raised over the last 150 posts, which sets up and knocks down a straw man that obviously nobody is talking about, and that reiterates without support that there is no basis for believing anything except what Foster says about it. Thanks so much for demonstrating the amazing utility of ignoring the discussion, keeping your ears shut, and stubbornly sticking to the same line, I would never have come to understand the truth about this without you!
    /sarc

  135. “The headline conclusion came from the robust holocene proxy record compared with the robust modern temperature record. It was never based on that uptick in the proxies, which the authors clearly discount. In the interviews I’ve seen as well as the paper itself, the authors remain clear about this.” (bold my emphasis)

    BA is “clearly” on the “Team” and it is “clear” that the “Team” was involved in the production of Marcott et al from the beginning. They make the “discount” purposely ambiguous to the MSM knowing it will be challenged by SM and others. The fact that RC is providing the FAQs several days after they see how it is received is direct evidence that they are involved. “Clearly” BS thinks Marcott et al and the media interviews are “clear” because he’s a part of this hoax.

  136. Reg Nelson says:
    “Like you BA, I seek the truth. We seem to be in agreement here that that the uptick is “garbage” AKA “non-robust”.”

    No, “non-robust” is not a synonym for “garbage.” As used by scientists and statisticians, non-robust commonly means that a particular result appears sensitive to details of the analysis or data used, so if you did something slightly different (but also reasonable) you might see a different result.

    Specifically, Marcott et al. are contrasting their Standard5x5 and RegEM results, where the former shows a sharper uptick than the latter, so they correctly note that this difference is not robust. They also correctly note that the cause of non-robustness is sparse data toward the end of their series: the record dropout problem.

    Tamino makes a stronger point that the Standard5x5 uptick is wrong, not just non-robust, because the 1920-1940 warming seen by Standard5x5 is sharper than that seen for this period by the (robust) instrumental record. Both RegEM and Tamino’s method of differences give results closer to the instrumental record.

  137. Brian says:
    April 3, 2013 at 8:05 am
    ———-
    Brian, that’s the closest thing to a reasonable argument I’ve heard. And you know, maybe you’re technically correct. Maybe it’s not in fact plagiarism. How about this instead, it’s a crappy thing to do. To look at McIntyre’s work, write the original post referencing McIntyre’s work, and then delete all reference and attribution and claim that he used no part of McIntyre’s analysis and that his was completely different and unique, and that his extensive original references to McIntyre’s work were all solely about McIntyre’s sneering tone and so on, OK, fine. Maybe Foster is telling the simple truth, implausible as that may appear to some, maybe it’s not plagiarism. It’s still a crappy thing to do.

  138. Friends:

    I said I have withdrawn from the debate in this thread. I have.

    Unfortunately, for obvious reasons, I need to respond to this infantile nonsense from ‘Brian’ at April at 3, 2013 at 8:05 am

    (And for Richard: are you willing to make a bet about your claim that I am “taking orders” from someone else? You name the amount – any amount at all. Put your money where your foolish, childish mouth is.)

    If I were a betting man (I am not) then for me to accept that bet I would need to be as stupid as somebody who accepts the AGW scare.

    How could it be demonstrated that an anonymous internet troll is or is not affiliated to any organisation?

    What can be said is that
    (a) Several AGW-activist groups have teams of trolls who are called to action in attempt to hide truth on web blogs.
    (b) Three anonymous trolls appeared on this thread at the same time and with their stated purpose being to defend the egregious Tamino following his exposure as a plagiarist.
    (c) The three trolls each uses a screen name which begins with B and this is consistent with their being called into action from a list of names filed in alphabetical order.
    (d) It is not clear why anybody would want to defend the plagiarism of Tamino.

    So will I accept the bet?
    No, I would need to be as illogical as Brian for me to do that.
    And that is my final word on the matter.

    Brian

  139. BA says:
    “Read it again, that quote refers directly to the dropout problem:
    ‘Without filling data gaps, our Standard5x5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). *However, considering the temporal resolution
    of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.*’
    No reading between the lines needed. Marcott et al. state that the steep recent warming under one method (Standard5x5) is not robust because of “the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig 1G)…”
    And what’s in Fig 1G? Well, that’s a graph of
    ‘Number of records used to construct the Holocene global temperature stack through time.’
    It shows this number of records as an orange line that drops steeply toward zero in the last decades of their reconstruction. It *is* a graph of the dropout problem, and it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.

    Ok, let’s read it again. Marcott et al. do admit that the data is sparse and do use the phrase “not robust” in connection with that comment. However, they do not claim that the “uptick” is not robust and do not suggest in any way that the “small number of records” has created the uptick as a “dropout” artifact. What they say is that the difference between two methods of data analysis both of which produced a large uptick is not robust. Here, they are expressly claiming that they “get” an uptick no matter which way they do the analysis and only the relative size of the uptick up for debate. Worse, since only the difference is “not robust” they are expressly claiming that the uptick is not only real but that the value must be between the two values they found.

    The key to understanding what Marcott et al. are saying is to answer the question “what specifically is ‘probably not robust’ according to them?” You claim “it’s the reason Marcott et al. say in their article that the final uptick (in Standard5x5) is not robust.” But Marcott et al. actually say “this difference is probably not robust.” The difference is not “the uptick” it is the difference between the 0.6 C greater warming found by “Standard 5×5″ versus the “equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack.”

    In fact, you may recally that Marcott’s first suggestion to McIntyre was that the “uptick” was the result of high frequency changes in the proxies.

  140. Barry and Brian,

    Nobody contends that McIntyre discovered the concept that “dropout” can cause spurious changes in time series, nobody contends Tamino plagiarised that concept. What McIntyre discovered is that the Marcott, et al uptick was the result of dropout and redating cores. That is the idea that Tamino plagiarised.

    If you think about it honestly, you will realize that Tamino could not have started a post defending Marcott et al. against McIntyre without reading McIntyre’s post first. Moreover, the most damaging aspect of McIntyre’s post was the (still unexplained) deletion of data which caused some proxies to dropout of the modern period and produced the uptick. Tamino’s post suggests he discovered the uptick was caused by dropout. That’s plagiarism.

    McIntyre’s comments with respect to the Wegman “plagiarism” “controversy” go to the issue of whether, by any sensible reading, Wegman was actually claiming the allegedly “plagiarised” material as his own since that material was only tangential to Wegman’s point. Here, the whole point of Tamino’s post (once he deleted the references to McIntyre and whatever defense of Marcott to the “low road” suggestions he was originally planning to make) was that Tamino had discovered that the uptick was the result of dropout. That’s plagiarism.

  141. richardscourtney says:
    “I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.”

    DCA says:
    “BA is “clearly” on the “Team” and it is “clear” that the “Team” was involved in the production of Marcott et al from the beginning.”

    Paging Dr. Lewandowsky! It’s funny, but I guess you two are serious? I’m part of no “Team” and acting under no ‘orders’, but if your conspiracy was real I’d say that anyway, eh?

    In reality the “Team” might consist mainly of people who have read Marcott et al, so they know what it actually says. I’ve kept close to that paper in my posts above, and got no response on specific points such as Fig 1G or Fig 3, both relevant to main arguments on this thread.

    Fig 1G is where Marcott et al graph the record dropout problem, which they explain is why the proxy uptick is not robust. Yet this is a “discovery” that McIntyre seems to want credit for, and most here (not having looked at the paper) are willing to grant him. Fig 3 graphs multiple proxy, instrumental and model temperature *distributions* (not time plots) that are the basis for their comparative statement,

    “Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5x5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900-1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5x5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.”

  142. Its absolutely hilarious that BA thinks using a coarse proxy dataset with high resolution instrumental temperature data justifies the headlines the paper got. We are throwing out the non-robust proxy data of the 20th century as a viable explanation so that leaves only the instrumental temperature data to create a hockey stick. This means the headlines the authors celebrated is a result of one of the following:

    1. Deception
    2. Incompetence

    Neither is exactly a glowing compliment to the scientists involved.

  143. Friends:

    I really do want to leave this thread because the facts of Tamino’s plagiarism have been exposed and that plagiarism has been established beyond any doubt. All impartial observers can see that. Therefore, further discussion is pointless.

    Unfortunately, for a second time, I am drawn back to answer a personal comment.

    At April 3, 2013 at 11:01 am BA says

    richardscourtney says:

    “I take that as tacit admission that you guys are ‘acting under orders’.”

    [snip]

    Paging Dr. Lewandowsky! It’s funny, but I guess you two are serious? I’m part of no “Team” and acting under no ‘orders’, but if your conspiracy was real I’d say that anyway, eh?

    BA’s quotation of me is taken out of context. However, that issue is moot.

    There is no “conspiracy theory”. But there are facts and inferences which can be drawn from them.

    I stated those facts in my response to Barry at April 3, 2013 at 10:01 am where I wrote.

    What can be said is that
    (a) Several AGW-activist groups have teams of trolls who are called to action in attempt to hide truth on web blogs.
    (b) Three anonymous trolls appeared on this thread at the same time and with their stated purpose being to defend the egregious Tamino following his exposure as a plagiarist.
    (c) The three trolls each uses a screen name which begins with B and this is consistent with their being called into action from a list of names filed in alphabetical order.
    (d) It is not clear why anybody would want to defend the plagiarism of Tamino.

    Anybody can draw whatever inference they want from those facts. In addition, people may want to also consider that BA suggests the ludicrous ideas of Lewandowsky warrant merit.

    Richard

  144. Thrasher says:
    “Its absolutely hilarious that BA thinks using a coarse proxy dataset with high resolution instrumental temperature data justifies the headlines the paper got. We are throwing out the non-robust proxy data of the 20th century as a viable explanation so that leaves only the instrumental temperature data to create a hockey stick.”

    OK, I’m hilarious, and you still haven’t looked at the paper. Fig 3 is no hockey stick.

    Meanwhile, Tamino has gone another step and tested whether the Marcott smoothing (or smearing) approach could hide 1-degree, century-scale spikes (like the instrumental warming but followed by an equal drop) if such existed in the paleo record. Doesn’t look like it can.

    bmcburney says:
    “Ok, let’s read it again….
    The key to understanding what Marcott et al. are saying is to answer the question “what specifically is ‘probably not robust’ according to them?” ”

    OK, let’s read it again, again, only this time the whole paragraph. You’ve parsed it down to the “difference” not being robust, but skipped the part where they explain why that difference occurs. Standard5x5 and RegEM give different results (and are compared in the first place) because RegEM can “statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig 1G).. That is, RegEM is brought in specifically for this problem.

    Their paragraph in full:
    “In addition to the previously mentioned averaging schemes, we also implemented the RegEM
    algorithm (11) to statistically infill data gaps in records not spanning the entire Holocene, which
    is particularly important over the past several centuries (Fig. 1G). Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6 C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5×5 area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust. Before this interval, the gapfilled and unfilled methods of calculating the stacks are nearly identical (Fig. 1D).”

  145. richardscourtney says:
    “In addition, people may want to also consider that BA suggests the ludicrous ideas of Lewandowsky warrant merit.”

    Honestly, I’m no fan of Lewandowsky’s survey paper. I’m not convinced the analysis is robust. But when you launch into reasoning like this, and others here don’t call you on it, it’s as if you’re trying to prove that Lewandowsky’s theory is correct!

    ” (a) Several AGW-activist groups have teams of trolls who are called to action in attempt to hide truth on web blogs.
    (b) Three anonymous trolls appeared on this thread at the same time and with their stated purpose being to defend the egregious Tamino following his exposure as a plagiarist.
    (c) The three trolls each uses a screen name which begins with B and this is consistent with their being called into action from a list of names filed in alphabetical order.
    (d) It is not clear why anybody would want to defend the plagiarism of Tamino.”

  146. BA:

    I am responding to your post at April 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm purely so you know I saw it.

    I recognise that your posts on this thread demonstrate you are logically challenged, but you have now sunk to a new low.

    Admit that Tamino plagiarised McIntyre and leave it at that. Otherwise, provide some explanation of why you are trying to pretend the obvious truth of that plagiarism is other than it is.

    Richard

  147. BA says:
    April 3, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    Honestly, I’m no fan of Lewandowsky’s survey paper. I’m not convinced the analysis is robust. But when you launch into reasoning like this, and others here don’t call you on it, it’s as if you’re trying to prove that Lewandowsky’s theory is correct!

    ————

    The fact that I’m paranoid doesn’t prove nobody is out to get me. I can’t talk about Lewandowsky anymore, the mere mention of his name triggers my recursive fury. My skin turns green, the tin foil hat pops right off my head, and I start reciting conspiracy theories in tongues until I go into convulsions and seizures and wake up three days later with no memory of what happened.

    In case it got lost in translation, I post this nonsense specifically because I couldn’t possibly care less if anyone thinks I’m indulging in counterfactual conspiratorial ideation, and I hope nobody else worries about it either. Mentioning Lewandowsky shouldn’t discourage anybody from making an argument, that was probably what his whole darn conspiracy was trying to accomplish in the first place. :p

  148. BA,

    The paragraph you keep quoting just doesn’t say what you say it says. The paragraph does not admit that the uptick is “not robust” because of a “dropout” problem, it suggests that the difference between two ways of measuring the magnitude of the uptick is probably not robust. Yes, it says the reason for the difference is likely to be the relative sparsity of data but the paragraph does not disclose the thing McIntyre found. What McIntyre found out, and what Marcott eventually admitted, was that the whole thing, not merely the 0.6 C “difference”, was an artifact produced by re-dating some cores and inexplicably deleting “inconvenient” data from others.

    Tamino attempted to save Marcott and found he really couldn’t do it because, although he could sorta kinda “fix” the dropout problem, he not explain the data deletion which caused the dropouts to be an issue in the first place (and he still needs the re-dated cores to get any uptick at all). Therefore, Tamino deletes reference to McIntyre and suggests he found and “fixed” the dropout problem with the Marcott et al. paper all by himself. Suggesting he found the dropout problem without reading McIntyre first is plagiarism.

  149. Among all the points that are claimed to have been overlooked, how about someone finally cites a specific reference to a similar instance of ‘plagiarism’ in the blogosphere?

    Because no one has done so, I take it we’re breaking new ground over this snaffle. IE, the meaning of plagiarism is being extended beyond its usual limits to try and make the accusation stick.

  150. barry,

    You are as wrong regarding your ignorance of what plagiarism is as you are about everything else: totally.

    Plagiarism is simply copying another’s work product without attribution. Everyone else but you understands that simple concept.

  151. daveburton says:
    April 1, 2013 at 8:25 pm
    Finally, I gave up, and went away for a long time.
    Trying to convey anything meaningful at Tamino’s misnamed “OpenMind” is just about impossible.

    There is no use to waste time and energy trying a dialogue with somebody who just does not want to. Time and energy can be much better used on blogs which allow true dialogue. I at least found it being a much better use of my time and the bonus is I learn something still having fun.

    wte9 says:
    April 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm
    I asked Tamino to clarify his view on whether he used McIntyre’s ideas without attribution:
    …..Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott’s reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science.

    Rofl. What a self admiring plagiator!
    And as usual warmist have a problem with reality, they try to deny it, but this is no new news.
    The same denial of reality is shown again when they try to maintain: oh no, the hockey stick was the least important part of the reconstruction.

    bmcburney says:
    April 3, 2013 at 1:40 pm

    Tamino attempted to save Marcott and found he really couldn’t do it because, although he could sorta kinda “fix” the dropout problem, he not explain the data deletion which caused the dropouts to be an issue in the first place (and he still needs the re-dated cores to get any uptick at all). Therefore, Tamino deletes reference to McIntyre and suggests he found and “fixed” the dropout problem with the Marcott et al. paper all by himself. Suggesting he found the dropout problem without reading McIntyre first is plagiarism.

    Exactly

  152. bmcburney says:
    “The paragraph you keep quoting just doesn’t say what you say it says. The paragraph does not admit that the uptick is “not robust” because of a “dropout” problem, it suggests that the difference between two ways of measuring the magnitude of the uptick is probably not robust. Yes, it says the reason for the difference is likely to be the relative sparsity of data but the paragraph does not disclose the thing McIntyre found. What McIntyre found out, and what Marcott eventually admitted, was that the whole thing, not merely the 0.6 C “difference”, was an artifact produced by re-dating some cores and inexplicably deleting “inconvenient” data from others.”

    Are you getting all your info from McI, without bothering to read either Marcott or Taminio? The “difference” is not an artifact of redating, or of inexplicable deletion. It was produced mainly by the facts that (a) these long-term proxies become progressively more sparse toward the present and (b) one of the analytical methods, Standard5x5, was not robust against this problem.

    “Suggesting he found the dropout problem without reading McIntyre first is plagiarism.”

    The dropout problem is “found” in Marcott’s second paragraph, and drawn graphically in Fig 1G and 1H which are called out in the text. Later the dropout problem is cited again (and again, calling out Fig 1G) as causing the different results of two methods, one of them known to be more sensitive to this problem. The different result consists of the more-sensitive-to-dropouts method (Standard5x5) producing a larger recent warming.

    McIntyre and Tamino found two different ways to analyze this further. Tamino’s is constructive in that after describing the problem, he works out a way to fix it so you don’t get that spuriously large warming. There’s still a smaller warming using either RegEM or Tamino’s method, but then again there should be, because it was warming in the real world.

    And the paleo-modern comparisons in this paper aren’t based on the proxy uptick. They are based on the holocene proxy temperatures compared with recent instrumental temperatures. Fig 3 draws a picture.

  153. Dave Burton says:
    “For what it’s worth, Tamino has gotten one climate-related article published (with co-author Stefan Rahmstorf):
    http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

    Yeah, and that paper was a classic, wasn’t it?

    From the Abstract: “When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced.”

    It’s like saying the Houston Astros won the World Series last year “When the scores are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term scoring variations (strike outs, errors, and walks)…”

  154. BA,

    It is certainly true that there are many fewer proxies available in the modern period and the lack of proxies makes the whole reconstruction during that time period less robust. However, without the re-dating and inexplicable data deletions you can’t get any uptick from the proxies which remain. To get any modern uptick you must re-date “warming” proxies into the modern period and inexplicably delete others out of it. Don’t believe me? Read Marcott’s thesis which used exactly the same proxies without re-dating and data deletion and produced a very similar pre-modern curve but did not produce an uptick. Still don’t believe me? Read the Marcott et al. FAQ. The whole uptick is “not robust”, not just the Standard5x5 version, the whole thing.

    Again, the paragraph doesn’t say what you say it says. It just doesn’t. It does not even say the Standard5x5 analysis is not robust. It says the difference between the two methods is probably not robust. That is not the same thing McIntyre found and Tamino plagiarised. If it were the same thing, neither of them would have had to write a post addressing the fact that the uptick was in part an artifact of the dropout problem.

  155. bmcburney says:
    “Again, the paragraph doesn’t say what you say it says. It just doesn’t.”

    I doubt that any scientific paper could survive this level of motivated misreading. But Marcott et al. could have tried by stating things more simply, in short sentences and boldface. And if they had a statistician with Tamino’s acumen on board, they might have better understood and articulated what’s wrong with that Standard5x5 uptick, and graphed it with a dashed line or suppressed it accordingly. They’ll be sadder but wiser when they write their next paper. In the meantime it looks like the main conclusions from this paper are standing up to initial scrutiny well, and will be cited, replicated and improved by other researchers.

    Certainly McIntyre and Tamino went steps beyond Marcott, and Tamino worked out a better way to do things. For McIntyre to imagine he discovered the dropout problem that is plainly stated and graphed multiple times in the paper, or to express surprise when Marcott said “not robust” in an email, are signs that he had not read it.

    daveburton says:
    “For what it’s worth, Tamino has gotten one climate-related article published (with co-author Stefan Rahmstorf):”

    He has two. And other articles involving time series or spectral analysis, some of them widely cited.

    Louis Hooffstetter says:
    “Yeah, and that paper was a classic, wasn’t it?”

    F&R 2011 does something new, and already shown to be robust. It’s been cited in more than 20 other peer-reviewed articles. Who knows, might actually become classic.

  156. BA,

    It is certainly true that if Marcott et al. had written something along the lines of “we think modern uptick produced by the Standard5x5 is probably not robust because of the loss of proxies with values in the modern period” the whole discussion of this paper would have been very different. I also believe that if they had adopted Tamino’s “differences” method of analysis and had used the published proxy dates then they certainly would have obtained a more plausible result in the modern period. As compared to what they actually did, I think they would have had a much better paper. So I guess we have reached a kind of agreement.

    Of course, according to Tamino, if they had done all those things they also would have produced an “modern uptick” of less than 0.15 C. Now, go back and re-read the original press release see if you can think of a reason why they didn’t do exactly what you are now suggesting they should have done. Here is a hint, imagine a press release headline which said: “New analysis by Marcott et al. reveals shocking truth that modern warming is comparable to medieval warm period and current temps are significantly lower than during vast majority of the holocene.”

    Mind you, that still would have left the problem of changing the frequency resolution in the modern period only (which is a problem which really can’t be solved given these proxies). But if you dump all the conclusions regarding comparisions to the modern period, I think you would have a fairly sound paper.

  157. it has always been clear to me that Tamino was the most vicious and irascible blogger in the field of climate science, with the possible exception of Joe Romm.

    It occurred to me a few days ago in one of my LOTR ruminations (based on a bizarre comment thread on Real Science) that in some ways D. Appel resembles one of the giant trolls that burst into the city of Minas Tirith after the gate has been breached. After reading this, I realized who the other two trolls were.

  158. BA says:
    April 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm
    Are you getting all your info from McI, without bothering to read either Marcott or Taminio? The “difference” is not an artifact of redating, or of inexplicable deletion. It was produced mainly by the facts that (a) these long-term proxies become progressively more sparse toward the present and (b) one of the analytical methods, Standard5x5, was not robust against this problem.
    The problem is you are getting your information only from Tamino’s closed mind.
    There have been other reconstructions based on the data without redating and those do not lead to an increase in temperature.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/hockey-stick-found-in-marcott-data/

    But of course you are invited to do your own calculation with the data available online without redating and without truncating data.
    Only with the redating and truncating of some proxies there results an increase in temperature at the end of their chart “the uptick”
    So stop pretending you do not understand, the problem of the redating is there and has nothing to do with ” the very slight recalibration of radiocarbon dates from CALIB 6.0.1 (essentially negligible in the modern period in discussion here), but with Marcott-Shakun core top redating. ”

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/17/hiding-the-decline-the-md01-2421-splice/

    “As noted in my previous post, Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix disappeared two alkenone cores from the 1940 population, both of which were highly negative. In addition, they made some surprising additions to the 1940 population, including three cores whose coretops were dated by competent specialists 500-1000 years earlier. ”

    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/19/bent-their-core-tops-in/

  159. bmcburney says:
    “I also believe that if they had adopted Tamino’s “differences” method of analysis and had used the published proxy dates then they certainly would have obtained a more plausible result in the modern period. As compared to what they actually did, I think they would have had a much better paper. So I guess we have reached a kind of agreement.”

    No. I do like the differences method which looks simple yet comes out pretty close to both RegEM, and Standard5x5 too for all but the most recent values. I wish Marcott et al had thought of that or for other reasons graphically downplayed the Standard5x5 uptick instead of just stating that it is not robust. On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step. It would make little sense for a synthesis study in 2013 not to use the best methods.

    “Of course, according to Tamino, if they had done all those things they also would have produced an “modern uptick” of less than 0.15 C. Now, go back and re-read the original press release see if you can think of a reason why they didn’t do exactly what you are now suggesting they should have done. Here is a hint, imagine a press release headline which said: “New analysis by Marcott et al. reveals shocking truth that modern warming is comparable to medieval warm period and current temps are significantly lower than during vast majority of the holocene.””

    Conspiratorial, and wrong. 1940 is the end point for the reconstruction, and for the small modern uptick Tamino finds in re-analyzing the proxies. As the authors make clear in their paper, FAQs and interviews, their comparisons between holocene and modern temperatures are not, and could not possibly be, based on the proxy uptick. Proxies that end in 1940 cannot tell us about temperatures in 2000-2009. Marcott’s PR mistake was imagining that people would read the paper if they were curious about how that comparison was made. With equal lack of success I’ve been suggesting people look at Fig 3.

    “Mind you, that still would have left the problem of changing the frequency resolution in the modern period only (which is a problem which really can’t be solved given these proxies). But if you dump all the conclusions regarding comparisions to the modern period, I think you would have a fairly sound paper.”

    Just for a start, have you read their sections about the resolution issue? Since the redating accusations didn’t work, and the proxy uptick thing turns out to be trivial, this idea about resolution or “spikes” seems to be the next line of attack. But it’s not holding up either.

    Lars P. says:
    “The problem is you are getting your information only from Tamino’s closed mind.”

    Most of the info I posted here comes from reading the Science paper itself.

  160. I see that Jeremy Shakun has followed up on the FAQs with a new post responding to questions about redating and core tops.

  161. BA says:
    April 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm

    On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step.

    —-

    That’s interesting, I’d love to read those. Do you have a link?

  162. BA,

    I would not say that re-dating the cores per Marcott et al. is always an error or will always be unjustified. However, it is a step which has not presently been justified by experts and no justification is provided in the Marcott et al. paper or related materials. I can see that, despite the absence of any actual evidence, you have been able to form an opinion on this subject which gives you comfort. Once the original authors or other experts have examined the issue, agreement on this point may become more widespread.

    I was aware of when the reconstruction ended and the recent comments by the authors. Those things change nothing. Use the published dates, include the proxies which were inexplicably deleted, use the “differences” method and you still need to change the headline to something like what I wrote above. Of course, Marcott et al. do have a point about the fundamental error of comparing proxy results to the modern period. The frequency resolution alone makes that impossible. Too bad they did not read that press release before sending it out. I agree that was a big PR mistake.

  163. Wow I need to NOT skip the comments at Climate Audit, that’s a fascinating discussion!
    Doublethanks BA. :)

  164. BA –
    Please consider my comment:

    Mark Bofill says:

    April 3, 2013 at 6:13 am
    —-
    withdrawn.

  165. BA says:
    April 4, 2013 at 2:24 pm
    On the other hand, comments I’ve seen by paleoclimatologists seem to agree that adjusting the published radiocarbon dates using new and better correction in general was the right step. It would make little sense for a synthesis study in 2013 not to use the best methods.
    I could not see anybody having a problem with using the new and better radiocarbon dates, so why do you keep mentioning it, as nobody raised the question?

    Conspiratorial, and wrong. 1940 is the end point for the reconstruction, and for the small modern uptick Tamino finds in re-analyzing the proxies. As the authors make clear in their paper, FAQs and interviews, their comparisons between holocene and modern temperatures are not, and could not possibly be, based on the proxy uptick.
    No researcher would graf the thermometer record onto any reconstruction:
    “Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
    Response: No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum….”
    The new hockey stick was praised as a validation of the thermometer record.

  166. Mark Bofill rambled something on April 2, 2013 at 3:01 pm in

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/01/mcintyre-charges-grant-foster-aka-tamino-with-plagiarism-in-a-dot-earth-discussion/#comment-1264271

    Better men than you have tried the ‘lets play stupid disingenious with words’ game, see Jan Perlwitz comments and responses in the thread here http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/09/another-billboard-about-bogus-climate-claims. It doesn’t fly here.

    Truth and science don’t fly here. Smear, libelous accusations, insulting participants whose views are not liked by equalizing them with cockroaches, endorsing the falsification and context stripping of statements made by climate scientists, based on the rationalization that such an approach was the correct one to understand the meaning of the statement correctly, do instead.

    REPLY: This proves my point about why you are really here, based on your admission here in this comment – Anthony

Comments are closed.