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.
From today’s telegraph:
“The Inter-Academy report into the IPCC, led by Rajendra Pachauri, tiptoes around a mighty elephant in the room, argues Christopher Booker”
“A cunning bid to shore up the ruins of the IPCC”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7981979/A-cunning-bid-to-shore-up-the-ruins-of-the-IPCC.html
Harry Eagar: September 4, 2010 at 12:29 pm
I suggested, above, that bringing a 1993 statement up to date in 2005 would be a minimal effort, which the lead author did not bother to make.
An excellent point. They were doubly-remiss, because in 2002, there was an outbreak of malaria in Nairobi which killed 300 people. WG could easily have added that to reinforce their statement — although they’d have had to bury the medical reports which blamed the outbreak on people visiting the lowlands and returning after having contracted it.
Curious Canuck says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:06 am
Without doubt your concise and reasoned argument carries the day. The logic and ethics are irrefutable, bolstered as they are by the scrupulous use of quotation marks and appropriate attribution.
When you reference your claim, by providing the proper citation, you are in effect taking care of several things
a) revealing to all, the source of your claim
b) acknowledging the copyright of the original – provided you do not lift large chunks of text without prior permission from the publisher
c) letting others know, about the nature of your source – bet it peer-reviewed or otherwise, so they can evaluate confidence that can be placed on it.
Even if you are ‘reusing’ your ‘own material’, no matter – you still obtain permission from the publisher, unless your work is self-published. Since McMichael does not even cite his own work as being the source for those lifted passages, he ‘fails’.
And dear rattus,
People have been paid, under not so transparent procedures to say the least, to write stuff for the IPCC. Use your curiosity now and then. 🙂
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 4, 2010 at 8:45 am
Hu McCulloch says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:54 am
I concur with Aric Anderson (9/3 @ur momisugly 10:51AM) and Latimer Adler (9/3@ur momisugly11:00AM) that the problem here is not plagiarism per se, since you can’t plagiarize yourself.
“I disagree. We usually describe plagiarism as “taking the work of another” but the failure to cite and credit previously published work is the essential element. It does not matter if the work is your own. If you quote from it or paraphrase it or use the outline of the argument, you must cite it. Anything else is plagiarism. You can plagiarise yourself.”
A slippery slope. What is a “work”? Most all authors who write on a particular subject would likely be hard pressed not to re-use some version of a belief. And further, what is your cite for “you can plagiarize yourself”?
Job Description –
Review all relevant scientific material and summarize.
Job performance –
Applicant skillfully cut and pasted from a book he had previously written. Whether applicant actually reviewed any other available science is unknown.
Recommendation –
Applicant should be reassigned duties in the typing pool or possibly find alternative employment as a talking head.
Smokey says:
September 4, 2010 at 11:47 am
“…Rattus, you are so naive it’s cute. Who do you think pays for those endless jaunts to Cancun, Mexico City, Bali, etc? The Tooth Fairy?
They may be volunteers, but skeptical scientists almost never get picked, do they? And whether the IPCC’s carbon-scheme salesmen are paid directly by the UN, or paid by their current tax-sucking institution, the public ends up paying the freight. The only exceptions are NGOs like the WWF, which sends its lobbyists in droves to advance its alarmist agenda….”
_________________________________________
Sorry Smokey, you are wrong.
WWF also gets our taxpayer dollars.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/wwf.htm
“Profile: The U.S. WWF is a superpower in the international non-profit arena, with 20% of its revenue from government tax money, 10% from industry, and half from prescriptive foundations.”
Pleas note the use of quotation marks AND italics (snicker)
Holy Frakking Consensus!!
A consensus between one man and his
dog“book”.Glenn says:
September 4, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Other forms of academic dishonesty include falsifying or misusing data from experiments, submitting the same paper for two classes without permission…
The failure, whether intentional or not, to cite one’s sources properly is referred to as plagiarism.
http://www.yale.edu/graduateschool/academics/ethics.html
Whether a student copies verbatim or simply rephrases the ideas of another without properly acknowledging the source, the theft is the same.
Students are expected to submit work that is done solely for each course in which they enroll. Prior written permission of all instructors is required if students wish to submit the same or similar work in more than 1 course.
http://www.extension.harvard.edu/policies/responsible.jsp#integrity
Proper citation allows others to trace the origin and development of ideas, theories, and research outcomes and helps support the integrity of the academic enterprise and needed mutual trust between those seeking and those disseminating knowledge.
http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1961/Ethics-HIGHER-EDUCATION.html
When sociologists publish data or findings that they have previously published
elsewhere, they accompany these publications by proper acknowledgment.
http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/Ethics%20Code.pdf
Accounts of Chemical Research considers for publication only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. When submitting a manuscript, an author should inform the editor of any prior dissemination of the content in print or electronic format. This includes electronic posting of conference presentations, posters, and preprints on institutional repositories and other Web sites. Any content that has been made publicly available, either in print or electronic format, and that contains a significant amount of new information, if made part of a submitted manuscript, may jeopardize the originality of the submission and may preclude consideration for publication.
http://pubs.acs.org/page/achre4/submission/prior.html
Environmental Science & Technology considers for publication only original work that has not been previously published and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. When submitting a manuscript, an author should inform the editor of any prior dissemination of the content in print or electronic format. This includes electronic posting of conference presentations, posters, and preprints on institutional repositories and other Web sites. Any content that has been made publicly available, either in print or electronic format, and that contains a significant amount of new information, if made part of a submitted manuscript, may jeopardize the originality of the submission and may preclude consideration for publication. Duplication of already published data eliminates the paper from consideration in most circumstances.
http://pubs.acs.org/page/esthag/submission/prior.html
An author should identify the source of all information quoted or offered, except that which is common knowledge.
http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ethics.pdf
Proper and complete referencing is an essential part of any physics research publication. Deliberate omission of a pertinent author or reference is unethical and unacceptable.
http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm
Rattus Norvegicus says something silly @ur momisugly September 4, 2010 at 11:19 am
To the moderator, nobody pays the scientists for their work on the IPCC. They are volunteers.
How do you think they earn their livelihood? They work, mostly, for government bucks, in politicised organizations. They produce what their paymasters require.
They are the inhabitants of Gulliver’s Travels floating island of Laputa – metaphorically, literally and in fact.
richard telford says:
September 4, 2010 at 10:25 am
————–
Who paid the authors for their work on the IPCC?
Are you serious? You mean that the IPCC report can have any old s**t in it, so long as no-one is paid directly to write it?
The IPCC promise that the material is 1) the best there is, 2) all peer-reviewed, 3) current, 4) the consensus, 5) thoroughly reviewed and [gag] 6) unpoliticised.
Every time one more egregious violation of these promises turns up we find apologists. But while any big report will have errors, the number and variety of these little finds shows the lies.
Instead of worrying about whether this is “plagiarism” or “self-plagiarism”, wonder about whether it is consistent with best-practice climate research.
Ref – Ecotretas says:
September 3, 2010 at 11:49 pm
“If this was a PhD thesis, and got caught, everyone knows what would happen next!”
____________________
I’ve been out of the academic loop a real long time, could you fill me (and maybe some others) in on what they’d do today? Be gentle, even though I wear a diaper I can’t take things nearly as well as I used to.
As so much of this has been about whether or not this is plagiarism or not, consider…
The IPCC is a legal entity and it is the IPCC that has plagiarised, not the individual lead author.
DaveE
It should be noted that it is thought that John Adams contracted malaria during his trip to the Netherlands to try and obtain aid during the revolution. Benjamin Rush, the physician who signed the Declaration Of Independence, noted in his book on Yellow Fever (aka Bilious Remitting Fever) epidemic of 1794 that it was found as far north as Boston. He was practicing in Philadelphia at the time.
Again, Donna has done some outstanding detective work. However I have a problem with her charge of plagiarism. My online dictionary defines plagiarism as follows:
“the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.”
This is the most common usage of the word. However there’s a broader technical definition that’s used in Academia. Interestingly, under Definition 2, it is possible to plagiarize oneself! Donna is using this second definition, without being explicit about it. And that may cause some confusion.
A note from Critical Thinking 101. Sometimes there are two or more partially-overlapping definitions for a word. Readers can sometimes discern which definition an author had in mind when he/she used the word. Sometimes, it’s not very productive to quibble about the ‘true’ meaning of a word. It’s much better to get down to the essence of what the author was trying to say, and to analyze it, than to play the Aha-Gotcha game.
Nitpick Larry’s take on the article. Mr McMichael wrote a Scare-of-the-Month-Club book (SOTMCB) back in the early 1990s. Coincidentally, McMichael was given the responsibility of writing a health-related chapter to the IPCC’s 1995 report. In doing so, he lifted some material–almost verbatim–from his SOTMCB. He did not mention that SOTMCB as a reference. Consequently, that particular chapter was less than honest.
All of the IPCC’s claims are supposed to be backed up by peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. At least part of McMichael’s chapter was speculation masquerading as science. This is one example among many of ‘gray literature’ that has found its way into IPCC reports.
Glenn says:
September 4, 2010 at 12:20 am
[–snip irrelevant remarks–]
But one can not plagiarize himself.
The hell, you say!
If I write a book and receive proceeds from that tome, then I am OBLIGED to REVEAL in ALL subsequent publications by myself the source of that information.
In the case you didn’t understand that matter, it’s referred to as ‘JOURNALISTIC INTEGRITY.’
To NOT reference one’s priorly PUBLISHED remarks in such a way as to mislead the reader into believing that the current tome is original, is the essence of both MISLEADING and DECEIVING the reader of the current remarks.
Ergo, repeating one’s own words —of substance— in another medium without attribution and reference to the one’s prior work, is absolutely the essence of plagiarizing, for it not only misleads the reader into thinking that the current work is original, but it also gives the impression that the thought has not been priorly expressed by the author.
Larry Fields says:
September 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm
“All of the IPCC’s claims are supposed to be backed up by peer-reviewed publications in the scientific literature. At least part of McMichael’s chapter was speculation masquerading as science.”
I assume you refer to the part of the chapter that includes the alleged plagiarized bit.
Donna’s quote from the IPCC report as seen above:
“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 falciparum 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.”
However, what came before “Hence,” in the same paragraph was:
“Recent evidence of the responsiveness of malaria incidence to local climate change comes from observatios of marked increases in malaria incidence in Rwanda in 1987, when atypically hot and wet weather occurred (Loevensohn, 1994), and annual fluctuations in falciparum malaria intensity in northeast Pakistan that correlated with annual temperature variations during the 1980s (Bourma et al., 1994). ”
and what came after Donna’s quote was:
“(Haines et al., 1993)”
Perhaps McMichael should have referenced the part that was paraphrased with something like “I also expressed this opinion in a book I wrote a couple years ago”.
Not sure what that would have benefited, or why it was unethical not to have.
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 4, 2010 at 3:44 pm
Perhaps you didn’t understand, but you didn’t answer the question “what is “works”.
Suppose the quote in the book was not supported by any research, but the author said essentially the same thing in the IPCC report and did support it with research. Or if the support was from entirely different sources, yet the opinion or conclusion reached was the same.
Are unsupported opinions regarded as “works”, such that each book and publication written including the same opinion should include reference to all other material where the opinion was formulated? Seems a little odd to throw a blanket over everything and call it plagiarism. And scary.
This seems to be typical of climate research. You start off with a point of view based on supposition and ignorance, you ignore and suppress any data or science which contradicts your point of view, then you get your point of view published by the IPCC as a scientific consensus!
________________
Many comments are about the use of the word ‘plagiarism’, but this is not the point. He wrote the book in 1993 speculating on the effects of global warming. The IPCC report is supposed to be based on SCIENCE. That is : PROOF that global warming is causing this trend NOW. […and not that : There is no evidence at the moment but we are sure it will happen in the future! – That is BELIEF and not SCIENCE]
This has consequences :
From the [UK] Daily Telegraph 12 Feb 2008 : Malaria warning as UK becomes warmer
“Hospitals have been warned to prepare for outbreaks of malaria and tick-born viruses.
The UK is to be hit by regular malaria outbreaks, fatal heatwaves and contaminated drinking water within five years because of global warming, the Government has warned the NHS.
Following a major consultation with climate change scientists, the Government is issuing official advice to hospitals, care homes and institutions for dealing with rising temperatures, increased flooding, gales and other major weather events.
It warns that there is a high likelihood of a major heatwave, leading to as many as 10,000 deaths, hitting the UK by 2012.
All institutions have been told they must come up with a comprehensive plan on how to deal with the issues resulting from climate change.”
Think of the money and resources that are wasted on preparing for non-existent threats!
original link :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3325067/Malaria-warning-as-UK-becomes-warmer.html
anticlimactic says:
September 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm
“Many comments are about the use of the word ‘plagiarism’, but this is not the point. He wrote the book in 1993 speculating on the effects of global warming. The IPCC report is supposed to be based on SCIENCE. That is : PROOF that global warming is causing this trend NOW. […and not that : There is no evidence at the moment but we are sure it will happen in the future! – That is BELIEF and not SCIENCE]”
Sorry, but what you just wrote is belief, not science. Science isn’t about proof, or being “sure” about the future. However I agree that the report is supposed to be about and based on science. But instead there was an emphasis placed on plagiarism, and because of that, plagiarism IS the point: “The Book the IPCC Plagiarized”
Glenn says: September 4, 2010 at 6:38 pm
Glenn, I’m sorry you don’t like the rules, but that is just the way it is. In academic writing you cite everything. If you use the words from another publication, they must be enclosed in quotation marks and cited. If you paraphrase without citing, use the structure and outline of another publication without citing, you are guilty of academic misconduct. When you quote from your own publication and don’t cite it you are guilty of academic misconduct.
Donna Laframboise seems to have demonstrated that McMichaels cut and pasted from his own work into the IPCC report and didn’t cite it. If true, that is a case of academic misconduct and another example of the corruption of the IPCC process.
roger says of my comment, “Without doubt your concise and reasoned argument carries the day. The logic and ethics are irrefutable, bolstered as they are by the scrupulous use of quotation marks and appropriate attribution.”
You’re too generous, roger. My betters here have a much stronger grasp at ‘appropriately’ attributing on a technical level. I’m also clearly missing out on knowledge of all the text commands available in my little text box here.
I am happy that I did manage to delineate the content I was referring to from my own words well enough for you to appreciate the message I was conveying. That understanding is one of many aspects of the WUWT readers’ community I appreciate, even when it is accompanied by light-hearted ribbing. This is a heartening environment for those, like myself, who came in from the heat more recently than some of the long-timers that we’re learning so much from (and with) on a daily basis.
Another intellectual property question, though, while we are on the topic. Are reader’s permitted to make their own hats or t-shirts with the WUWT web address on them for personal use? Seems like it could be a great conversation opener. Maybe a quoted headline? I’m thinking yes after reading the slurs and linkings the site’s detractors publish on different blogs, but it felt right to ask.
p.s. Best hopes and wishes to Anthony and family in these difficult times you are going through.
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 4, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Robert, I’m sorry that you think I don’t like the rules, but you will forgive me if I do not place any value on unsupported claims, especially when they come into conflict. You said for example that that everything is to be cited, yet a reference you provided earlier excluded at least, common knowledge. You have not made the slightest effort to address my questions and considerations. I don’t think plagiary in this instance is clear cut and I’m left wondering whether you are intentionally refusing to support your claims with reason and address my questions. And I seriously doubt that reproducing any string of a few words without attribution in academic writing is always considered plagiary.
Can anyone comment on the particular altitude refered to? 2500 metres? Should it be feet? Is this just another IPCC mistake that has been missed? At around 1500m asl, Harare has a fair way to go despite recent hyperinflation to exceed 2500m asl and a quick Wiki of Nairobi suggests that it is both 1661m asl and 1795m asl!
As a former resident of Harare and other parts of Zimbabwe, I would suggest that the prevalence of malaria has more to do with eradication campaigns than climate change. Oh and don’t rule out interstate trucking as a vector in transporting both the parasites and the mosquitoes (and other unpleasant social diseases).
Just give them back the DDT and let them do internal residential spraying and treated nets and you can stop worrying about malaria killing a significant proportion of the populace. Surely saving 300 million people from infection and a million people from dying EVERY year NOW from malaria should rate more highly in the “We need urgent action NOW before it is too late” scheme of things?? No? Ah well, a little carbon tax then? pffft
/rant off
Glenn: September 4, 2010 at 8:37 pm
And I seriously doubt that reproducing any string of a few words without attribution in academic writing is always considered plagiary.
If that particular string of a few words had appeared in a previous publication in the order in which they were reproduced, and they were reproduced without attribution, and they did not fit the definition of common knowledge, then that is — by definition — plagiarism.