I have a bit of time free and a connection available so I just had to get this story up that I’ve been reading on my cellphone. I have to hand it to Donna Laframboise of nofrakkingconsensus, she’s a tireless detail ferret. She’s already found a boatload of errors in the various IPCC reports, now she finds word for word copying from a book to write the health effects section of the IPPC WG2 report.
Donna writes in “The Book the IPCC Plagiarized”:
It appears unlikely that a good faith, bona fide review of the scientific literature took place prior to the writing of significant sections of the IPCC’s first health chapter. Instead, the climate bible surreptitiously incorporated numerous opinions expressed a few years earlier by the activist-oriented person in charge of writing this chapter.
Then the media told the world that the IPCC’s proclamations regarding global warming and diseases such as malaria were the considered, consensus view of thousands of experts.
Of course we’ve been saying for some time that the “malaria link” to global warming is unsupported, one might even call it hyped, seeing how bad the correlations (or lack thereof) are. Now we find the IPPC didn’t really bother to check research. They just copied it from a doomsday book by an activist. See below.
Donna points out this word for word similarity between the book and the 1995 WG2 report:
McMichael’s 1993 book, page 154:
In eastern Africa, a relatively small increase in winter temperature would enable the malarial zone to extend ‘upwards’ to engulf the large urban highland populations that are currently off-limits to the mosquito because of the cooler temperatures at higher altitudes – e.g. Nairobi (Kenya) and Harare (Zimbabwe). Indeed, such populations around the world, currently just outside the margins of endemic malaria, would provide early evidence of climate-related shifts in the distribution of this disease.
Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 574:
Hence, it is a reasonable prediction that, in eastern Africa, a relatively small increase in winter temperature could extend the mosquito habitat and thus enable faciparum malaria to reach beyond the usual altitude limit of around 2,500 m to the large, malaria-free, urban highland populations, e.g. Nairobi in Kenya and Harare in Zimbabwe. Indeed, the monitoring of such populations around the world, currently just beyond the boundaries of stable endemic malaria, could provide early evidence of climate-related shifts in malaria distribution.
another example:
McMichael’s 1993 book, page 150:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and in the Sudan have been accompanied by increased illness and death from bronchitis and asthma.
Climate Bible’s 1995 Working Group 2 report, page 578:
Sandstorms in Kansas (USA) and the Sudan have been accompanied by increases in bronchitis and asthma.
Sheesh.
Read the whole IPCC train wreck here. It’s not just a couple of sentences, there’s plenty more where this sample came from.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Wow. Just wow.
Not only are they wrong and dishonest, they are just plain LAZY!
Something you might expect from a 5th grader, but from the top scientists at the IPCC, the ones that know the science is settled? Sounds like someone forgot to do their homework, fooled around, and then did it quickly at the last minute?
I don’t think we should be unduly critical of a summation report quoting source material verbatim (or almost verbatim). Assuming the source material to be an authoritative statement, it would be unwise to paraphrase it because the meaning could change.
The real issue is whether the source material is sound.
A concensus of one.
Monolithic.
I bet this news will make the EPA real happy. Another IPCC OOPS.
Anthony J. McMichael may be an activist, but he is credentialed and was a member of the IPCC working group. The charge of plagiary may be unjustified.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=688
FatBigot says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:41 pm
I don’t think we should be unduly critical of a summation report quoting source material verbatim (or almost verbatim). Assuming the source material to be an authoritative statement, it would be unwise to paraphrase it because the meaning could change.
The real issue is whether the source material is sound.
——————
Well clearly, FatBigot, you don’t think they were fit to be the judge of that, so what are they doing writing the report?
“If I have seen further it is only by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Sir Isaac Newton
FatBigot says:
The real issue is whether the source material is sound.
________________
Also, if the source is referenced properly and if where quoted verbatim is that clearly indicated. We have quotation marks for a reason you know. Adding a few phrases in the fore and aft of a paragraph is a pretty low standard of behavior. Especially if the source is … unsound.
Mostly they added more wiggle words, would = could and loosened up the text.
“”Hence, it is a reasonable prediction that”” What a qualifier that is!
In 1965 I was told in school;”stealing from another is plagiarism, but stealing from many, [if you use references] is research.”
Gold standard!
Well the title of the book is kind of a gold colour, that’s good enough right?
I don’t think that we have heard or seen the last of IPCC’s or Al Gore’s (et al) propaganda, but well spotted Donna. There is far too much political clout at stake, and of course a bigger trough for all those porcine snouts, not to mention keeping the hoi polloi in a state of angst, for them to back off just yet.
The issue here is not so much stealing from the book (his own, by the way) but the simple fact that it is accepted as gospel, without any analysis. The (carefully chosen) lead writer of the health chapter simply expressed his own opinion, without reviewing the scientific literature. And as night follows day –
“Then the media told the world that the IPCC’s proclamations regarding global warming and diseases such as malaria were the considered, consensus view of thousands of experts. “
Ironically, when you follow the link above to the Amazon page, you can look at a sample. (A softcover will run you 37 beans.)
And every page is prominently marked “copyrighted material”.
And now I have a perfect example of plagiarism to show my class — along with a surreptitious excuse to introduce the whole Climategate thing. How handy. (Of course, this may mean I never get to teach again.)
Proud Canadian that I am, I cannot help but note Donna is another one of ours!
Must be something about the relentlessly cold winters up here which makes for a bit of skepticism on the whole AGW thing.
It’s 17 years since 1993. It was 12 years since 1993 in 2005. They (or he) could have reported whether Nairobi is getting malaria or not, or if malaria has approached closer or not.
It is not clear to me this is plagiarism. If McMichaels was closely involved in the group that put together the health chapter of the IPCC report, then obviously he gave his consent, either implicit or explicit, for them to lift concepts and even direct language from his earlier book. I suppose the failure to cite his book is one aspect of plagiarism, but the consent is probably there.
Further, if an individual writes a book and then uses his own ideas later to contribute to another document, that is not plagiarism.
Plagiarism? Possibly not. Shoddy processes? You bet. Lack of proper peer review of significant portions of the text? Almost certainly. Yet another example of the incestuous nature of the so-called independent process that led to the IPCC consensus? Definitely. More reason to doubt the objectivity and conclusions of the IPCC. Absolutely.
Well, this book has been thoroughly reviewed, on Amazon, by three people….
…one of whom (Barmak Kusha – in 2000) gave it two stars. Barmak seems to be rather astute: “This volume is interesting but it tries to cover too much. The author also makes too many unsupported claims and over-generalizations.” (That was a quote for those unfamiliar with the use of quotation marks).
At least it wasn’t “Return to Almora” (unquote).
Another story from the “So what else is new?” department, but a good one. Thanks for the link, Anthony.
I’m no fan of the IPCC at all as my previous posts will testify, but is it at all possible to plagiarise oneself?
If you are made responsible for writing a chapter about a particular topic and discover that you have already done this work, and are pretty pleased with the way you have expressed it, I don’t see that it can be plagiarism to repeat it elsewhere..it is after all, your own intellectual property. So plagiarism = no.
There are many other stronger criticisms that can justifiably be made…the most important of which is whether the actual ‘science’ is right or not. But plagiarism of oneself won’t wash.
Glenn is right. McMichael was a (convening?) lead author on this chapter. He cut and pasted his own writing. They actually rephrased it a good bit.
REPLY: I think perhaps people are assigning the title to me, and just to be clear, that was Donna’s title which is why I have it in quotes. See the link “Donna writes…” I’m going to make that a little clearer. – Anthony
Yes Donna is a pretty good bloodhound. She organized the highly successful Citizens Audit report of the AR4.
In a related topic, it seems R Pachauri has been talking to the Times of India. The blame game has started. Read it HERE from Jo Novas.
Glenn says:
September 3, 2010 at 9:50 pm
Anthony J. McMichael may be an activist, but he is credentialed and was a member of the IPCC working group. The charge of plagiary may be unjustified.
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg2/index.php?idp=688
Really? There are tons of internet websites (turnitin.com for one) dedicated to catching these sorts of things. You are supposed to cite these things in a very specific way. The charge of plagiarism you are finding unworthy is the very charge that many undergrad students may be getting some very bad grades for. And if undergrads can’t do it, why can the IPCC? Aren’t they a ‘leading scientific body’? Why are they exempt from the standards applied to students? Aside from the fact that the student’s work may actually be relevant…