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.
Richard Tol says:
September 3, 2010 at 11:10 pm
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.
I have bolded because you switched the usage of pronouns. It is the fact that the IPCC is, supposedly, neutral that is the underlying assurance behind their reports. Yet, if they cannot catch errors in the citations, then how do we even know the report is soundly based? Does IPCC cite other authors, quoted verbatim or not?
If this was a PhD thesis, and got caught, everyone knows what would happen next!
Ecotretas
Was it me or did I hear the word, reeducation, about the health care bill.?
Perhaps the will try to reeducate us?
EJ
Apart from the obvious pilfering, what strikes me about both texts is the way something that may, might, or could happen is reinforced by a lot lot of fussy factoids (eg. altitudes of Harare and Nairobi) so that the reader quickly forgets that one is talking about loose speculation and gets a reassuring sense of scientific precision at work. If the writers are particularly confident they might treat you to a “would”…but with a “perhaps” or an “arguably” appended to allow a tactical retreat if needed.
Nobody does this as well as Judith Curry, but most warmists do it. Where would they be without their conditional auxiliary verbs? If you try to nail them down on their claims, they can simply argue that they were only presenting “interesting” hypotheses…and maybe offer you a link to further “interesting” studies.
On the other hand, if you buy into their malaria panic, they’ll consider it a good day’s work. How can they lose?
Dave F says:
September 3, 2010 at 11:37 pm
“Does IPCC cite other authors, quoted verbatim or not?”
Like it or not, if we are not honest and open we are nothing. The quote is referenced, no reason to think it was not also referenced in the book.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/p-574-ipcc_1995_human_population_health_chapter1.pdf
Dave F says:
September 3, 2010 at 11:29 pm
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…”
Not sure what you are talking about. I didn’t find the charge unworthy, but that it may be. This is based on the information Donna provides, I have not read or verified the book’s or the IPCC’s contents or references. But one can not plagiarize himself.
You know, she might have had something there if it wasn’t for the fact that both passages have a citation to a source. Epic. Fail.
As McMichael is both the author of the book and a contributor to the relevant section of the IPCC report the charge of plagiarism is a bit of a stretch. Neither is the book a a source of original science (not something that normally bothers the IPCC I know) so is citation appropriate?
The real issue here is that given McMichael went into the IPCC process with a strongly held, fringe, POV… “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.” (Source: Donna Laframboise)
The whole point of the “plagiarism” is that it clearly demonstrates a before and after, evidence of a strong, pre-existing bias leading one to seriously question why McMichael was chosen as an editor and whether of not there was a good-faith review of all available evidence before writing the IPCC report.
Another pathetic slur. Apparently unable to critique the science in the IPCC, are the skeptics now relying on inventing rules?
Self-plagiarism is no sin. The graphic makes that clear – how can “the act of presenting another’s work or ideas as your own” refer to re-presenting ones own work. The passages in question were then peer reviewed in the IPCC process.
(Self-plagiarism is only a problem when used in an attempt to publish similar material in two journals in an attempt to boost publication numbers)
I’m not so sure this couldn’t be deemed plagiarism, one aspect of which is not attributing direct quotes or passages closely based on them to an identified source.
Donna L indicates that McM’s book doesn’t appear in the reference list for the health chapter. Hence, he’s being alleged to have lifted stuff from an unattributed source (albeit himself), and the casual reader could come to the mistaken conclusion that it came from somewhere else – maybe something else in the reference list.
If so, why do such a thing? The cynic might wonder whether McM thought it might seem more authoritative that way, and also, less suspicious than if he had been perceived to be quoting his own stuff, i.e. pushing his own agenda despite not really being – according to Donna – a health expert.
And if that were to prove to be the case, then there could be, one might argue, a similar underlying attempt to deceive the reader as one finds in more “straightforward” cases of plagiarism. Moreover, it would then appear to be more than mere sloppiness.
At the end of the day, McM was hardly likely to have been unaware of a source that he himself wrote. It is very difficult to imagine that the decision to omit it from the reference list was other than a conscious one.
I’m an educator who has on quite a number of occasions picked up plagiarism and challenged students with it; and, having studied the definitions of plagiarism, I’ve found that the more stringent ones do not accept ignorance as a defence; that is, it is deemed plagiarism whether or not there is intent to deceive. But if there is, the case is all the more strong.
Intent to deceive by omission of sources, ladies and gentlemen. That is perhaps the key to plagiarism. I leave it to you to judge whether this might apply in this case.
Jay Currie says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:49 pm
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.
That… and the enormous reserves of fossil fuels Canada now boasts about?
http://www.rense.com/general37/petrol.htm
Yet another example of how the IPCC throws together its reports.
Overlordgate anyone?
Wow, this is amazing. Here we were all along comparing the IPCC writings to high school level research documents and wondering how it could fail so badly, and here we have fifth grade level failure.
Even if it somehow turns out that the author is the guy who wrote this, the fact that it was not referenced correctly would still get you an F in fifth grade. You just don’t take word for word basically work from one paper you wrote to another without properly describing how you did it. I don’t think it matters if its plagiarism or not, the fact that a fifth grader would flunk in the US with this chapter of the IPCC should all be telling us something.
That something is that the people who wrote this piece of firewood that somehow won a nobel peace prize should not even be allowed to be janitors until they can pass grade school.
The MSM is getting better, some of it. The Australian newpaper today has a piece from Matt Ridley repeated from the Times which is scathing of the IPCC. It is next to another piece about “a British architect…waging war against the ‘carbonista’ doomsayers”.
(…and Mr Ridley’s piece quotes Richard Tol /awe)
Why should it be a surprise?
Mann is a particularly good example of post normal scientific thinking and its expression, any link he can make whether it is true or false – it does not matter, is used to further the AGW meme/pack of lies.
Joe Bastardi is an alumnus of Penn State, he is appalled by the tactics of the climatology dept (at Penn State Uni), he is absolutely correct in his observations.
Academic rigour has been defenestrated: plagiarism is rife, hypocrisy, dubious statistical methodology, selective data sets, data goes missing, bias is the norm and blather are the requirements now, enter Michael Mann and his buddies at CRU – because it all rings true for the UEA too.
I have read Donna’s blog about this and I quote her.
“McMichael’s Planetary Overload arguments rely on a Greenpeace report about global warming. His book frequently cites articles in non-peer-reviewed publications such as New Scientist and Scientific American. McMichael is, in other words, an environmentalist whose day job happens to involve the study of public health. He has no expertise in most of the topics his book discusses.”
Greenpeace propaganda recycled yet again!
—
I have to put in with those who have questioned calling this “plagiarism.”
Dr. McMichael having been the author of Planetary Overload and having been charged with drafting the section of the 1995 IPCC report under discussion, I find it altogether unremarkable that he should have recycled statements from his earlier work.
I think it falls more in the line of cribbing than plagiarism, much as Thomas Jefferson derived a great deal of what he put into the Declaration of Independence from works already extant, including his own. In a letter to Henry Lee dated 8 May 1825, Jefferson wrote:
Naturally, I do not attribute to Dr. McMichael the insight or eloquence of a Jefferson, who did not need to copy “from any particular or previous writing” to express ideas which he had already articulated in other works. Like most men, Dr. McMichael might not have all that much creativity in his make-up, and not as much ingenuity.
So he did a bit of cut-and-paste to pull together his part of the 1995 report from his own book. Sloppy and inelegant, sure.
But not much of a sin, if even we can call it that.
—
The accuracy of citations and the reliability of the original source material were the issues which gained public and media traction in the Himalayagate incident.
The objective issue is not whether anybody thinks McMicael is an “activist” (I don’t think the public will respond favourably to that approac to the issue). The issue is whether IPCC citations were sufficiently open and accurate to support their claims.
Was the IPCC clear that the source material was this book?
If so, does the book accurately cite credible source material to support the claims?
If not, did the IPCC acccurately cite credible original source material to the effect that it did not need to mention the book?
I am what’s known as a “primary source” for some historical US Army aircraft, and whenever I cite (or paraphrase) one of my previous articles in a new article for a primary author, I use quotation marks and a footnote — if I don’t, the primary author will ask me if I screwed up my proofreading, because not using quotes or footnoting will make him look unprofessional to *his* editor.
Harry Eagar: September 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm
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.
Nairobi has had malarial outbreaks since it was founded in 1899. It was originally built as a railway depot — it was a suitable midway point between Kampala and Mombassa because there was a ready source of water for the steam engines’ boilers, the higher altitude provided relief from the coastal heat, and it was swampy, thereby reducing the chance that the railway workers would be killed by lions.
http://www.kenya-information-guide.com/history-of-nairobi.html
In 1911, Kenya’s primary medical officer wrote:
“It is difficult to say that any but spasmodic efforts toward the prevention of the breeding of mosquitos have been carried out. The litigious temper of the inhabitants renders even ameliorative measures well nigh impossible …. [malaria] exists in places in which it should never have been allowed to get a hold, and yearly is a cause of a heavy mortality amongst Africans and Asiatics. The reason for this is two-fold; in the townships insufficient drains, not only public ones, but the almost total absence of domestic drains connecting houses with the roadside channels; and, everywhere, owing to the race for development, a tendency to disregard the unrenumerative expense that sanitary reform entails, and the unproductive waste of time involved in keeping compounds in order.” (Colony & Protectorate of Kenya, 1911).
The Brits instigated serious eradication efforts in 1912 to control recurring malarial outbreaks in the three major towns of Mombassa, Kisumu, and Nairobi.
http://malaria.who.int/docs/ek_report3.htm
How many more sections are simply the expression of the lead writer’s opinion rather than a synthesis of the best science at the time ?
If in doubt, throw it out.
As any PR writer will tell you: Change the grammar a little and it sounds like an original document. No need for those pesky “quote marks”.
The IPCC are a bunch of cheats. What a revelation…
Harry Eagar says:
September 3, 2010 at 10:50 pm
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.
I do not know about Nairobi but Harare is not getting malaria (altitude 1450m)
There seems to be some misapprehension here. It is perfectly possible to plagiarize oneself. The book was published by CUP. While I haven’t published anything there, I have done so for several other scientific publishers, and they invariably require you to sign over all rights to them. There is a widespread idea among scientists that this somehow “does not count”, but this is not so.
In this case IPCC has as far as I can see almost certainly committed an actionable copyright infringement unless they have specific permission from CUP to use the material. (Brief) citations are permitted, but that is not the case here.
AJ McMichael, Global Environmental Change and Human Population Health: A Conceptual and Scientific Challenge for Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 1-8 (1993)
Page 4, left column, paragraph 2 reads
A search for “Sandstorms Kansas sudan bronchitis asthma” in scholar.google.com turns up A Haines and Chris Fuchs, Potential impacts on health of atmospheric change, Journal of Public Health Medicine, Vol. 13(2), pp. 69-80 (1991). Can’t verify the exact passage, the article is pay-walled.
Both these peer-reviewed articles are cited in the IPCC chapter in question. Do you consider this “the act of presenting another’s work or ideas as your own”? If anything, this is self-plagiarism.
Oh, BTW, Donna Laframboise chose to chop off the reference from the IPCC passage: