More dirty pool by NCDC's Karl, Menne, and Peterson
Embedded with permission from - click to see original

I’ve mentioned more than once in the past how the Tom Karl managed National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) team has taken to using my data without my permission. They even ignored my letter sent direct to Tom Karl. I’d written to him to explain how Menne et al took that data, against my protestations of it being incomplete and not yet quality controlled, but planned on using it to write a paper refuting my work anyway. This was done before I could even get the surfacestations project survey completed. The goal of course was to preemptively refute what I and the volunteers had exposed: the pathetic condition of the USHCN climate observation network in the USA where only 1 in 10 stations meet the NOAA’s basic 100 foot exposure rule.

When you are faced with budget killing criticisms, I guess in their view playing dirty pool doesn’t seem so bad. Dr. Roger Pielke Senior voiced some similar criticisms of this amateurish behavior on the part of NCDC, Karl, and Menne, saying it amounted to professional discourtesy. Even NCDC GHCN guru Tom Peterson got into the act early on, writing a ghost authored “talking points” memo about the surfacestations project. Dr. Pielke weighed in on that too. Forgetting to clear his PDF editor document properties, Peterson was promptly busted for writing a ghost paper:

Here is a screencap:


Remember, these are the same people who use photoshopped flooded houses in government reports:

Image above taken directly from the NCDC authored CCSP report.

Recently, there was a grand meeting in Exeter to “reinvent” the surface data in the wake of Climategate. Many big names were invited, including the NCDC team. Of course people like Dr. Roger Pielke, who has been publishing on surfacestations metadata issues and myself were not invited. But, some of our work made it to the meeting.

Have a look at Menne’s powerpoint presentation here. Here’s a backup location in case it disappears down a rabbit hole: 7_1Wed_exeter-menne

I was a bit taken aback by the cover image (left, from NCDC’s Exter presentation), because it was straight from our surfacestations project (right, click image for gallery), but there was no attribution that I could find.

Russ Steele, the volunteer who took the photo of the Colfax, CA USHCN station,  writes to me to say:

I was shocked twice, once when discovering a photo that I had take was on the cover of a scientific brochure, and shocked again when I discovered that professionals who value their reputations and demand credit for their academic work did not provide a credit line for the photo. Do these professionals not have scruples?

Is it really so hard for NCDC to follow the terms of service rules? They can read, apparently.

Q: I’d like to use some of the photographs and data on this website, can I do that, and what credits/citations must I give?

A: For mass media publications or for scientific research the policy is simple. A citation should be given both to the website/project designer and to the person doing the site survey. Our Rules page outlines the license terms user have made when submitting surveys and photos. Each station should have a site survey form which indicates the photographer by name.

A sample photo credit/citation would look like this: Photo courtesy of Anthony Watts, and [photographer name in survey form]

But I wasn’t the only one to notice….Verity Jones writes:

Don’t mention it – you’re welcome!

By Verity Jones and KevinUK

There’s a lot of information available from the climate bun feast in Exeter at the beginning of September about restructuring climate science and developing a new climate databank and process (Climate Perestroika?) . In the new spirit of embracing openness and transparency (Climate Glasnost?), it is all on the web, but it is frustratingly like watching silent movies – you get the picture but the detail is lost with the sound. However, there are a few bits that are refreshingly familiar….First, the name of their new website ( It is so similar that I originally misread it, mistaking it for Anthony Watts’  NOAA/ NCDC even used a picture from the Surface Stations Gallery for the title slide of a presentation (as quickly spotted by Anthony himself):

Title Slide from Menne et al presentation at Exeter

Colfax General View of Site (Photo: Russ Steele; Link:

This graph seemed really familiar too…

Slide 12

It is of course so much more scientific looking than my version. And I thought I just had a quirky way of looking at data ;-)

Distribution of data trends of raw data vs adjusted data. Original Here:

They’ve come up with some nice new ways – non-gridded, non-anomalised ways – of presenting the temperature trends of individual stations on maps too…

Slide 19

Oh wait, that is familiar as well…

Original here:

And there is more.  Kevin has been working on the GHCNV3 Beta data release (ghcn-v3-beta-part-1-a-first-look-at-station-inventory-data) and, gratifyingly it seems as if many of the stations with ‘problems’ as uncovered by bloggers such as Willis Eschenbach (Darwin), and posts here (Edson, Guam) are now ‘fixed’.

Say, you don’t think….?  No, no way, they couldn’t have been reading this small sceptic blog surely.  It is probably just that great minds think alike, as they say, (but fools…)

But then, one of Dr Menne’s conclusions, reported by Dr. Roger Pielke Senior (here) was:

“Critiques of surface temperature data and processing methods are increasingly coming from non traditional scientific sources (non peer reviewed) and the issue raised may be too numerous and too frequent for a small group of traditional scientists to address” Lessons learnt from US Historical Climate Network and Global Historical Climate Network most recent homogenisation cycle – Matt Menne

And climate blogs are mentioned…

Slide 33

Steven Mosher’s blog is mentioned TWICE and Zeke Hausfather is even lauded with a whole slide summarising his posts (on Slide 34).

It is good to see the efforts of bloggers (what Matt Menne calls ‘non traditional scientific sources’)  have had some impact, even if it is not acknowledged. Well this is climate science I suppose so never mind. It’s always good to be in the company of people like Roger Pielke Snr who also didn’t get an invite to the Exeter workshop!

Imitation is supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery, but sometimes that’s all you get, not even an acknowledgment. However we like to be polite, so on behalf of many unsung heroes of the skeptical blogging community – THANK YOU for knowing a good idea when you see it on the web ;-) (Please keep looking!) We enjoy showing you new ways of doing things and delivering you new challenges.

Skeptic Blogs – Keeping Climate Scientists on their Toes Since 2005*

(*Climate Audit was started on Jan 31, 2005)

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Henry chance
September 23, 2010 5:20 pm

Knockoffs are a form of flattery.

Jacob Coburn
September 23, 2010 5:24 pm

I knew there was something amiss before. Are you aware that Youtube’s Climate Crock of the Week used that lifted work for a segment (not that it was well made, anyway)? I was so confused because after I watched it, I thought you hadn’t released it yet. (This was last Spring, by the way.) Then you had talked about its preemptive results just a few weeks back. This would explain it. Just thought you ought to know.

David Ball
September 23, 2010 5:31 pm

“Do these professionals not have any scruples?”

Michael Larkin
September 23, 2010 5:36 pm

Jeez, Anthony, aren’t you going to insist that they give you proper attribution?
On a related point, did I miss it, or has your finalised study been published yet? If not, do you have any idea when?

September 23, 2010 5:39 pm

That’s amusing.
You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence. And then complain when they aren’t polite in return. 😆

Michael Jankowski
September 23, 2010 5:40 pm

Obviously, there are playing so many games and taking part in shenanigans because “the science is settled” and they’re right about everything.

September 23, 2010 5:41 pm

Anthony, I thought you were walso working on a peer reviewed paper about the stations and your own conclusions. Is it proceeding? thanks

September 23, 2010 5:47 pm

Apparently, saving the world is such important work that the petty niceties of academic protocol are not required. Of course, the scientific method isn’t required either.

September 23, 2010 5:57 pm

Passing off? Unjust enrichment? Fraud? Surely there is some legal cause of action here. Even if you don’t want to pursue it, if this “study” figures in the grant applications of any of these people, then it is a misrepresentation of their “scholarship.” If they cite your data and the trends it shows, as being a question they have identified and need to pursue, they are deceiving the taxpayers: that’s work that you did. If all they do is list this publication/seminar as another of their many “accomplishments,” it is still deceptive stuffing of their CV’s.
A qui tam action against them for defrauding the government might be one way to get their attention.

September 23, 2010 5:57 pm

Congradulations Anthony, you’ve achieved the status of “he who must not be named”. I think you are in VERY good company.

Layne Blanchard
September 23, 2010 5:58 pm

Were they legitimate scientists, there may have been an initial CYA, but that would have eventually given way to credit for you and publicized thanks for helping them realize how much work they need to do, and a promise to scrub the entire dataset with the new learnings…..
But this isn’t about science…… it’s about protecting a groundless religious ideology.

September 23, 2010 6:11 pm

I do not know how your laws work in the US but here in Australia using others’ work without attribution or permission not only breeches copy write laws but may also be seen as plagiarism. Is it not time to take legal action?

September 23, 2010 6:12 pm

More like- “He who must not be named from amongst those who must be surveilled if they cannot be serviled!”

September 23, 2010 6:12 pm

Ron Broberg says:
“You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence. And then complain when they aren’t polite in return.”
Folks, that is how the amoral rationalize the theft of intellectual property. It is not a case of being ‘impolite,’ it is a case of being unethical and dishonest.

September 23, 2010 6:18 pm

Rude dudes, they are (and mere followers, I might add).
A leader determines the path and keeps going. Let’s see if they can keep up, Anthony.
WUWT. A beacon on the worldwide web.

Pat Frank
September 23, 2010 6:19 pm

According to the terms of use and copyright restrictions, see here, all the contents, including the images, on are protected by copyright. It seems to me, therefore, that Anthony has completely valid grounds to sue NOAA, Tom Karl, and Matt Menne for copyright infringement.
I’d suppose those grounds also extend to Matt Menne’s unauthorized use of Anthony’s copyrighted data for their publication, as well. In that case, the journal of record could also be named as a party to the violation.
How about it, Anthony? A little income enhancement? 🙂 Not to mention a little comeuppance for those to whom a little is due.
Any lawyers out there care to render an opinion?

Tom in Texas
September 23, 2010 6:20 pm

What is the budget of NCDC? Multi-millions?
And they can’t even do their own work.
What a bunch of unethical 3rd rate scientists.

John M
September 23, 2010 6:27 pm

I guess the definition of an “Old Boy’s Club” is when it’s more important to be “polite” (as Ron Broberg puts it) than ethical.

R. Shearer
September 23, 2010 6:29 pm

Would you expect anything less from an organization headed by the “faux” Dr. Karl?

September 23, 2010 6:31 pm

The internet speeds things up.
In the old days thee would have been no climategate, the data would be completely lost,
getting pics of so many stations would have been impossible, and they would have waited till you were dead to steal your work.
Be proud Anthony, you are in the company of uncredited greatness.

September 23, 2010 6:43 pm

u might be suffering from “psychological nonequivalence of mathematically equivalent information” –
23 Sept: Guardian: Leo Hickman: What psychology can teach us about our response to climate change
Calls to ‘save the planet’ or ‘do it for our grandchildren’ do not engage people, says psychology professor
Tonight at the Royal Society’s lecture hall in central London, Prof David Uzzell will present this year’s joint British Academy/British Psychological Society annual lecture. The title of the talk is one that should interest anyone keenly involved in the climate debate: “Psychology and Climate Change: collective solutions to a global problem”.
Uzzell is based at the University of Surrey’s Department of Psychology and was appointed as the UK’s first Professor of Environmental Psychology in 2000. I spoke to him ahead of his lecture and asked him to summarise its themes:…
Uzzell: “Rejecting climate change as a problem is, in a way, a coping strategy. Another aspect is that recent events, such as the UEA emails affair, the failure of COP15 at Copenhagen etc, give people a convenient reason to discount climate change as a threat. It gives them a permission to deny.”…
(coincidence???)By coincidence, a new paper entitled The Psychology of Global Warming, has just been published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The two authors – Professor Andy Pitman, co-director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, and Dr Ben Newell, senior lecturer in cognitive psychology at the University of New South Wales …
It’s fascinating to see some of the “psychological phenomenon” that the authors highlight to help explain why so many people chose to reject climate change as a risk. I’ll list their headings here, but do try and read the paper (pdf) for the full explanations:
* Psychological nonequivalence of mathematically equivalent information…
blah blah blah

JPA Knowles
September 23, 2010 6:48 pm

With the Internet creeping ever wider more people are getting their hands on info that the MSM shies away from. This article shows that Blogland is getting thru’.
Thank-you AW et al.

Dr. Dave
September 23, 2010 7:00 pm

Mr. Watts has obviously taken the high road and I must commend him for that. One needs to remember that these government agency “scientists” are, in effect, the “little people” in the broader scope of the AGW fraud. They live hand to mouth off government funding. If this fraud were to be fully exposed they could quite possibly lose their funding and maybe their jobs. Anthony Watts has no such fears. You rarely get in trouble for telling the truth (except perhaps to your spouse).
The larger, more contemptible criminals exist further up the food chain. In medical literature if one were to snatch a photo or a graph without permission a veritable shitstorm would ensue. In my view Anthony has so much credibility he can afford to let this one slide …just making the “faithful” aware of the deceit.

September 23, 2010 7:11 pm

Ron Broberg says:
You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence. And then complain when they aren’t polite in return.
Ron, it’s not impolite to merely state rationally derived and supportable suppositions and conclusions, especially when Anthony has just presented another likely example in support right before your very eyes.

September 23, 2010 7:17 pm

“You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence.”
Let’s be clear here Ron Broberg. The overarching accusation via ongoing scientific challenge and enquiry is that Team Climatology has exhibited much self-deception and incompetence and furthermore that conflation with their clear political advocacy has resulted in a degree of fraud on the general populace, not least their political representatives. What began as general suspicion and mild critique of Team Climatology with their consistent refusal to openly publish data and methodology exploded into mainstream consciousness with the release of the EAU’s CRU emails and subsequent parsing of them. By any reasonable assessment, coupled with ongoing revelations about sources of wild and unsubstantiated environmental claims(Himalayan Glaciers, etc) they vindicated all previous suspicion and critique of Team Climatology. Ever since the Climategate emails the Team have gone into damage control while political leaders that backed them and their conflated prescriptions unquestioningly, have had to extricate themselves as best they can, particularly after Copenhagen.
Do I think the Team started out as deliberate deceivers and fraudsters? No I don’t. More the case that they set out to prove a new theory but ran smack bang into that obvious hurdle of a pitifully short thermometer record in the large sweep of time and the inevitable temptation to see things in whatever data they could gather. It’s a familiar tale of Groupthink, human hubris and ultimately folly as they began more and more to drink their own bathwater and circle the wagons against outsiders. Well the inner circle is clearly broken now, with lot’s of fractured reputations lying everywhere and now we’re all trying to establish how Custer and Co got it all so wrong. It’s the way we do things in democratic and rationally enquiring societies, so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately it only takes a generation to forget the lessons, or perhaps too many dullards pumped out of universities armed with a scant knowledge of statistical science and an unerring belief in computer to spit out the answers to massive complexity.

September 23, 2010 7:24 pm

Keep up the good work Anthony. You are making a difference. Once people have to resort to lying and cheating they are losing the argument. Facts and logic win over.
Keep calm, gather your facts, back up proof they have stolen your data and then sue the b*stards !

September 23, 2010 7:32 pm

Ron Broberg says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm
That’s amusing.
You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence. And then complain when they aren’t polite in return. 😆

Ron, offhand I’m not sure if Anthony has ever used the term “fraud” as applicable to Climate Scientists, but, regardless, it’s not impolite to merely state rationally derived and supportable [at least prima facie] descriptors , especially when Anthony has just presented another example in support right before your very eyes.
Snap out of it!

September 23, 2010 7:33 pm

[oops, revised repost unintended]

Harold Pierce Jr
September 23, 2010 7:34 pm

When you send a comment to these guys, you should also send each of them a hard copy and a hard copies to their bosses up the chain of command as well hard copies to influential senators and a congressmen and fellows such Spencer, Christy et al several friendly newspaper reporters, etc. Be sure the distribution list starts off with their bosses.
Send copies to the president and the speakcrs of the House and Senate.

Theo Goodwin
September 23, 2010 7:35 pm

Smokey writes about Ron Broberg:
“Folks, that is how the amoral rationalize the theft of intellectual property. It is not a case of being ‘impolite,’ it is a case of being unethical and dishonest.”
Yep. You nailed him. There is not one warmer who will engage in discourse about moral matters. Apparently, they are simply incapable of doing so.

Windy City Kid
September 23, 2010 7:44 pm

It sounds like after November Mr. Issa might want to take a look into the way Mr. Karl conducts business.

September 23, 2010 7:46 pm

Anthony, step one is a cease and desist letter from your attorney. If that doesn’t work, you have a green light to go after them.

Eric Anderson
September 23, 2010 7:55 pm

Ron, if you thought this was just about politeness, you have missed the boat.

September 23, 2010 7:57 pm

@Harold Pierce Jr who said:

Send copies to the president and the speakers of the House and Senate.

And don’t forget Bozo the Clown. Yes, he’s dead, but the results might be more positive.

September 23, 2010 7:58 pm

Hang in there Anthony. You are winning this battle and it’s a big one. Their reactions and lack of courtesy are all the clue you need to see the truth of it.
Science is science, and traditional sources haven’t been traditional for that long anyway.

September 23, 2010 7:58 pm

The Russians prepare for 30 mini-ice age years.
So goes the IPCC models.
The US Government, now deeply in debt, prepares for the elections, the next elections and the next elections.
So goes the IPCC models and modelers. Job security!

Leon Brozyna
September 23, 2010 7:59 pm

This aspect of the character of government ‘scientists’ almost lends credence to the silly notion of devolution. But I suspect pond scum would take offense at being compared to those critters; pond scum are at least ethical.

September 23, 2010 8:11 pm

You say:
“Steven Mosher’s blog is mentioned TWICE”
on the page referenced first mention is to:
The other reference to Mosher is, on your referenced page, to:
i.e. not the same blog!

Tom in Texas
September 23, 2010 8:16 pm

Chuck says: September 23, 2010 at 7:58 pm
The Russians prepare for 30 mini-ice age years.


September 23, 2010 8:26 pm

To correct an earlier comment:
That’s amusing.
You are accused by ‘climate scientists’ on a nearly daily basis of stupidity, deception, and incompetence. And then then they steal your work and publish it. LOL.
To both Anthony and Verity: Way To Go!
I’m now waiting for the day one of them publishes an article on the impact of thermometer location volatility on trends 😉

September 23, 2010 8:26 pm

It’s very big of you to be seeing this a backhanded compliment, but isn’t taking work without attribution simply called plagiarism? They remind me of sales managers I have worked for in the past, who think nothing of stealing other people’s ideas and passing them off as their own in order to advance their own careers or to make themselves look good. Parasites, all of them.

Scott Finegan
September 23, 2010 8:30 pm

As one of the volunteers that surveyed several stations, at some cost in time and money:
I am troubled by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson’s actions. Acting as government agents, they used material that wasn’t theirs to use. Their failure to acknowledge and provide proper attribution as to the source of the purloined material makes it outright theft ( Plagiarism ).
Since Anthony previously sent a letter indicating certain materials were being used without permission, the plagiarists have had fair warning.
The US has a “Federal Research Misconduct Policy” of one sort or another. It is time to make an official complaint about misconduct by government employees.

September 23, 2010 8:33 pm

Ron Broberg says:
September 23, 2010 at 5:39 pm
“That’s amusing.
You accuse scientists on nearly daily basis of fraud, deception, and incompetence. And then complain when they aren’t polite in return. :lol:”
What is amusing is your characterization of such behaviors as being impolite. LOL!

September 23, 2010 8:36 pm

Anthony, you really should take action to protect your property. Failing to do so can put it in the public domain. It is similar to being forced into giving a right of way across your property to people if you never stopped them from using it before and suddenly decide to block access. I’m not a lawyer, but I know you can lose your property rights if you don’t actively defend them.

Cecil Coupe
September 23, 2010 8:38 pm

You might want to see if the jpeg meta data in their images is the same as yours. If there is any – it’s easy to lose. But like the MS-Word meta data, it often lurks around. It’s also possible to create/edit the jpeg meta data but it’s a PITA. If it exists, it probably includes the name/model of the camera, the cameras settings, the settings for the picture, date/time, and many more interesting bits of data. If the meta data exists in both images AND IF enough matches then a case for copyright infringement improves. Most casual photo apps don’t show all the meta data in an image so you might need different tools to see everything.

September 23, 2010 8:52 pm

I would expect them to use an exemplar weather station for this application, so it is a puzzle to me why they chose Colfax. Perhaps they just can’t resist a good barbecue….?

Frank K.
September 23, 2010 9:14 pm

Can we defund these clowns at the NCDC yet? Our tax money would be much better spent elsewhere…

R. de Haan
September 23, 2010 9:34 pm

“Today copyright laws have been standardized to some extent through international and regional agreements such as the Berne Convention and the European copyright directives. Although there are consistencies among nations’ copyright laws, each jurisdiction has separate and distinct laws and regulations about copyright. National copyright laws on licensing, transfer and assignment of copyright still vary greatly between countries and copyrighted works are licensed on territorial basis. Some jurisdictions also recognize moral rights of creators, such as the right to be credited for the work”.
Anthony, I think you need to find a copyright lawyer who is able and willing to work with you and file claims in case of copyright breaches on a no cure no pay basis if possible.
You now know that a well funded opposition is watching you with eagle eyes steeling your work at their convenience, so what do you have to loose?
I’m told there is a recession going on and a lot of (Hollywood) copyright lawyers are looking for work.

September 23, 2010 9:39 pm

I believe this is called “homogenizing”. A perfectly legitimate practice if you have a leftwing political agenda.

John F. Hultquist
September 23, 2010 9:46 pm

1. I sent a letter to a recent president a few years back. Two weeks later I got a letter from the National Committee of his party asking for a donation.
I think if you have anything to say to a national level politician it is probably best to say it here at WUWT or send a letter to her/his hometown newspaper.
2. My thought is that NCDC is strapped for funds and cannot supply a camera or travel funds to its site support crew. That is why the sites are so screwed up and why they have to steal photos from volunteers.
3. I think you have to get permission from the Government to be able to sue the Government.
4. I’ve ordered more beer and popcorn. Watching these folks is great entertainment.
5. Good job, Anthony!

Geoff Sherrington
September 23, 2010 9:48 pm

Here is a comment that is attributed:
‘Russia’s Putin shoots the breeze.
‘The Russian prime minister has said that nuclear energy is the only
alternative to traditional energy sources. As energy demand
increases, energy consumption patterns will only undergo minor
changes, he said. “You couldn’t transfer large electric power stations
to wind energy, however much you wanted to. In the next few
decades, it will be impossible.” Nuclear energy is the only “real and
powerful alternative” he asserted, calling other approaches to meeting
future electricity demand simply “claptrap.”
Russia relies on gas for half of its electricity and has a policy of
replacing gas-fired generating plant with nuclear as fast as possible so
as to be able to export more gas to Europe. Its latest projection is to
increase nuclear capacity from 24 to 43 GWe by 2020, and is on track
for that.’
World Nuclear News, 7/9/10.
WNN asks for acknowledgement of quotations from it.
This might also help Chuck says: September 23, 2010 at 7:58 pm

Gary Pe
September 23, 2010 9:53 pm

Ron Broberg says
Gee Ron, the whole Exeter meeting was entirely about Anthony’s surfacestations project, Pielke Snr’s critiques of the surface records and other’s in the blogosphere who have been turned away over the years by this bunch. They finally acknowledge that their network is a sorry excuse for data on climate but they are too petulant and unprofessional to simply give proper attribution to those they have disparaged over the years. Even the acknowledgement was forced on them by an order from (a House Committee?) the government to relook at the temp network. The oblique reference to >non traditional (non peer reviewed) critiques” that poor overworked gov and other gravy train scientists have to deal with is a pernicious swipe at some of the brightest and most creative scientists involved in climate science who happen to be on the opposite side of the “debate”. I’m waiting for the whitewash of the network that will come out of this exercise – this last year has been a desperate year of the whitewash since Climategate. Don’t they realize this is dangerously increasing the albedo of the planet.
Seriously Anthony, you have to get your stuff out there before it becomes all rationalized away in advance.

September 23, 2010 10:03 pm

Thank you for bringing this to our attention Anthony.
There is such a wealth of information on the internet that it is of huge benefit to many of us that you take the time and effort to produce WUWT, for which my heartfelt thanks.
It is therefore, somewhat ironic that some of those in the AGW camp who are paid to advise on scientific matters cannot be bothered with originality, and plagiarise not their like-minded fellows’ work, but yours!

September 23, 2010 10:06 pm

Not surprised really that they knocked-off your stuff Anthony. They are as just as careless about attribution as they are about the surface station network and data. The arrogance of these [snip] has no limits.
NCDC = No Consideration, Data Crap
I don’t expect any miracles from the new improve larger organisation, as it looks like Tom Karl will be at the helm of this proposed $400m white elephant:-
NOAA readies request to create new climate service agency
“The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is preparing a request to redirect several hundred million dollars in its fiscal 2011 budget proposal for the creation of a national climate service.
“…We’re trying to get it through the system as quickly as possible to Congress,” NOAA spokesman Brady Phillips said. He declined to specify an amount, but said it would be less than the $435 million in the original budget proposal for climate-related services.
The Commerce Department, which includes NOAA, formally unveiled plans for the climate service in February as a means of providing “relevant and timely” information about climate change to government officials and the public. Under NOAA’s blueprint, the planned center would consolidate the National Climatic Data Center, the Earth System Research Lab and other NOAA operations under one organizational umbrella. Tom Karl, who heads the data center, is acting as transitional director for the proposed climate service. Earlier this month, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke named six regional climate service directors…”
Full article here:-

Michael in Sydney
September 23, 2010 10:07 pm

Great work Anthony
Good to see that even good natured folk like Ron B check in to see the truth on almost a daily basis.

September 23, 2010 10:47 pm

Use of the photo or anything else that involves copying of an “author’s” original expression without permission is copyright infringement, except as allowed by the fair use provisions of copyright law.
Use of others’ work without proper attribution is plagiarism and is unethical and unprofessional.

September 23, 2010 10:58 pm

there must be a pony around here somewhere.
ah yes, slide 24.

James allison
September 23, 2010 11:06 pm

Dear NCDC scientists
Next time feel an urge to steal IP from Anthony’s websites why don’t you stay awhile and browse around WUWT. You will learn much about the scientific field you have all chosen.
Yours sincerely
James Allison

September 24, 2010 12:15 am

Not only did they steal the photos and the data, and write smarmy “papers” misusing the purloined materials, they did it all on the taxpayers’ dime. While aggrandizing themselves and sucking up big salaries. After Anthony and the Surface Station volunteers did NCDC’s jobs for them, for free. And NCDC just requested another $100 million to fix the problems that at one time they denied even existed but cannot anymore due to the work of Watts et al.
Their behavior is so cheesy, and so expensive, and so worthless that “criminal” hardly expresses it.
Congress should disband NCDC and give the $500 million, or whatever their budget is, to Watts and the Surface Station Project. Reward the honest people who have demonstrated the necessary expertise, and throw the bounders out.

September 24, 2010 12:20 am

If I had taken the photo that Russ Steele took, which was used without permission or attribution, I would present them with a bill for $50,000 and file a federal copyright infringement lawsuit if I didn’t have payment in thirty days.

September 24, 2010 12:30 am

A letter from a legal eagle demanding credit and attribution is a good idea, but I think Anthony should be very wary of going to court. These charlatans have deep pockets and good connections, and there’s nothing they’d like to do more than to waste Anthony’s time by tying him up in legal knots for the next 10 years. I think they’ve done this deliberately and provocatively to distract attention from the real issues.
If you want to avoid having to give awkward answers, keep ’em asking the wrong questions…

stephen richards
September 24, 2010 12:33 am

Skeptic Blogs – Keeping Climate Scientists on their Toes Since 2005
Skeptic Blogs – Keeping Climate Scientists HONEST Since 2005

stephen richards
September 24, 2010 12:35 am

But not honest enough to credit the ‘amateurs’ they have been doing their day job for them.
This is truly disgusting behaviour. They have no shame and no professionalism

stephen richards
September 24, 2010 12:41 am

Shame its not in France. Here the loser pays all costs. And lose theymost surely will.
Hey, what about old Bromberg, what planet is he on? Oh I know, planet Zod along with all the other climate analysts who call themselves scientists. It can’t be Earth their measurements don’t make sense.

Mike McMillan
September 24, 2010 1:46 am

“Critiques of surface temperature data and processing methods are increasingly coming from non traditional scientific sources (non peer reviewed) and the issue raised may be too numerous and too frequent for a small group of traditional scientists to address”
It’s kind of a stretch to call the climate community traditional, in that they don’t follow the scientific method, neither gathering their own data, nor performing experiments to test their hypotheses.
The lay community collectively has far greater expertise in the climate arena than the professionals. I don’t recall a single peer-reviewed paper the pros have published that hasn’t quickly been taken apart in one manner or another by the amateurs. MBH98, the IPCC assessment reports, Steig’s Antarctica, all riddled to tatters after a cruise thru WUWT and the other blogs.
Tens of billions of taxpayer government dollars spent to prove CAGW, and it’s still just a matter of faith. Michelson-Morley used to be the most consequential failed experiment in history, but I think it pales beside the current effort.

September 24, 2010 2:06 am

You haven’t a chance to sue them for breach of copyright so why not invoice them for the work they have plagiarised instead?
As you may know I live near the Met office so if you would like to prepare an itemised invoice I will put it in an envelope, write on it ‘delivered by hand,’ address it to Julia Slingo and physically take it to the Met office.
At the leat it will show that we are watching them watching us, at best you might get some money. Now if this should then somehow get into the newspapers…
I have made the same offer to my colleague Verity. Mind you it was interesting to see the Met Office work on ‘cooling trends’ seemed to be similar to our recent post here.

Reply to  tonyb
September 24, 2010 3:17 am

Many people are mentioning plagiarism. This is NOT the same. Plagiarism is passing someone else’s work off as your own. It is quite different to produce your own slightly different version of it, or to use their method and refine it. Scientists do this all the time, it is a good thing and shows work is repeatable. What they usually do out of professional courtesy is attribute their source. This is certainly expected in formal publications and conference presentations. I think it even more courteous to do so in a informal meeting. Perhaps (and this is no excuse) Dr Menne and colleagues felt the informality of the meeting excused them in some way from doing so. Anthony certainly has a gripe (for copyright at least).
My observations are just that – in fact it might seem arrogant that Kevin and I even imagine they copied us – which is why I have made light of it, kept it humourous (or tried to). We don’t know, we can’t know. Actually if there is even a remote chance they have got any ideas from us I would feel more flattered than litiginous. BUT, what REALLY ANNOYS, is that bloggers are somehow looked down upon and that our work is second class, not peer reviewed. I take this presentation as complete vindication that many of us are doing something right.
It is very different to be paid to do something thoroughly and publish it. I had a brief life as a scientist and peer-reviewed publications to my name – I know what it takes. I am still occasionally asked to review journal papers prior to publication (two in the last year, actually), mostly because of my business perspective and cross discipline knowledge. I am still capable of the same rigour – there is just no need and no time for it in my current professional life. OK rant over, but please stop calling this plagiarism – it isn’t!

September 24, 2010 2:15 am

My 16 year old son has just started at our local Sixth Form College (is this senior high in the States?). The student handbook makes it very clear that if anyone lifts other people’s work without attribution or citation and includes it in their own, that will be regarded as plagiarism and renders them liable to summary ejection. Much the same applies at the university where I work. Ordinary people like me would call it theft.

September 24, 2010 3:09 am

My comments this week are one word answers, so the comment to this is ‘Shameless’.

September 24, 2010 3:22 am

Cor, having read through all the slides, I would have loved to have been there to have heard the commentary that went with them. And the reaction from the audience.
I am sure the Met Office will use/has used all this fuss to try to ensure that they don’t have any cuts in their funding too. All areas of public spending in the UK are leaping up and down claiming that the end of the world will come if their funding is cut, so the Met Office has to do so too. If we cut all climate change funding in the UK I’m sure it would have a massive impact on our budget deficit. Trouble is, we are the daftest country in the world for claiming to be leaders in imposing such stringent targets in reducing CO2 emissions. We think we are showing the way; the rest of the world must be laughing its socks off.

September 24, 2010 3:40 am

I second verity in regard to the fact that this is not plagiarism but just a complete lack of professionalism. But as Steve M says “This is climate science”.
Now here is a challange for anyone (Ron B, Nick S, Mosh and fellow apologists for CAGW climate scientists over at Lucia’s Blackboard). Could you please do some googling and find evidence of any work prior to what Verity and I have done over at DITC in which someone else has taken the raw monthly temperature, fitted linear trends to each separate station for different time periods within that dataset and have created colour coded global maps that show the trends in the data in an easy to digest form.
Now there’s always a possibility that Matt Menne thought of a way of doing this before we did and if so then I’m sure he’ll be happy to come forth with a reference prior to December 2009 in which he has applied this very same technique/method. Note these maps aren’t the usual colour contour anomaly maps but rather show the individual station warming/cooling trend for a given time period (in NCDC case 1950 to 2009, in our case sveral different time periods including 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2010 so that the two warming trend periods can be contrasted).

anna v
September 24, 2010 4:20 am

Verity Jones says:
September 24, 2010 at 3:17 am

Many people are mentioning plagiarism. This is NOT the same. Plagiarism is passing someone else’s work off as your own. It is quite different to produce your own slightly different version of it, or to use their method and refine it. Scientists do this all the time, it is a good thing and shows work is repeatable. What they usually do out of professional courtesy is attribute their source.

It might not be plagiarism but it is more than courtesy that requires reference to prior and similar work . In my field, particle physics, a publication would not pass peer review if it did nor reference preexisting similar analysis, and that was at a time one had to spend hours in the library to dig out references. In the present computer age where everything is a click away it is inexcusable boorishness even in an informal presentation.

September 24, 2010 4:37 am

Sure this is plagarism, ladies and gentlemen. And for someone to lift an idea, an approach, or even a photo from someone else’s work and NOT attribute it IS ABSOLUTELY PLAGIARISM!
To whit:
To avoid plagiarism, you must give credit whenever you use
•another person’s idea, opinion, or theory;
•any facts, statistics, graphs, drawings—any pieces of information—that are not common knowledge;
•quotations of another person’s actual spoken or written words; or
•paraphrase of another person’s spoken or written words.
These guidelines are taken from the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities, and Conduct.
See? I noted the URL where I got the definition.
So where oh where did you people ever go to school? Maybe that’s why “Climate Science” is in the toilet?

gary gulrud
September 24, 2010 4:38 am

I’ve got some bad news for government run science, NCDC, NOAA, et al.: Today NASA is a muslim outreach. We are $1.6 Trillion underwater this year alone. They intend to reduce our entitlements and our paychecks.
Where do you think that leaves you? Buh bye.

Scott Finegan
September 24, 2010 4:56 am

If they didn’t cite the source, it may be copyright infringement, and plagiarism. My point is they work for the government, the government does have rules and definitions that apply.

John A
September 24, 2010 5:02 am

Did I really invent skeptic climate blogs?
One of my key inspirations for Climate Audit (other than the astroturfing was the pioneering blog of the late John Daly (Still Waiting for Greenhouse).
I didn’t agree with everything John Daly wrote, but his blog informed and irritated the IPCC and its cheerleaders in a way that stands the test of time. It was John Daly who brought my attention to the extraordinary efforts being made by James Hansen to alter the USHCN temperature record by stealth and it was also John Daly who produced the first solid critique of the then new IPCC-approved Mann Hockey Stick.
Practically the whole skeptic blogosphere owes much of its inspiration to John Daly, a fact that should make his widow and children proud.
My attitude to all climate blogs is Voltairean: I might not like all that they say, but I defend their right to say it.

Reply to  John A
September 24, 2010 5:16 am

John A
“the pioneering blog of the late John Daly (Still Waiting for Greenhouse).”
You know when I wrote that strapline at the bottom of the post ( it was quite early in the thought process that that came to me) I was actually thinking of John Daly’s site as well as Climate Audit. By the time I wrote and finished it, and had to decide on a date it was late and I was tired and I only thought to look up Climate Audit. John Daly’s work certainly pushes the date back.

September 24, 2010 5:29 am

For those of you saying it isn’t plagiarism, it is. If you will recall this statement from Anthony:
… the Tom Karl managed National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) team has taken to using my data without my permission. They even ignored my letter sent direct to Tom Karl. I’d written to him to explain how Menne et al took that data, against my protestations of it being incomplete and not yet quality controlled, but planned on using it to write a paper refuting my work anyway. This was done before I could even get the surfacestations project survey completed.
Really Anthony, I can’t urge you enough to do something to protect your property rights. Even if you don’t plan to sue, you have to put them on notice and it may be a good idea to send out a few press releases about this matter. Perhaps that will get the lame stream media’s attention.
Use it or lose it. Just like “kleenex” and “xerox”, bad things can happen to property rights.

September 24, 2010 5:45 am

Face it BIG BROTHER is here, a little late maybe, but here nonetheless.
(Remember when FDR made it illegal to own gold?)

September 24, 2010 6:10 am

I have to admit that you’re a far better man than I am. If I were in your shoes, I’d let Mark Morano know what happened so that he could pass it on to his contacts in the Congress… then when the House flips over to the republicans, I’d just sit back and watch the fireworks when these pathetic “scientists” get put in the hot seat and have to testify under oath. But then again, I’ve always taken great pleasure at stirring the pot and watching the aftermath.
Terrific job on everything you do!

September 24, 2010 6:13 am

I’m just a law student, but I will volunteer my time if Anthony decides to take some form of legal action.

Ken Harvey
September 24, 2010 6:43 am

The battle is now over. Evidence of self serving manipulation of data has long been on the table, but it is always possible to mount obtuse defences to this. Lack of observance of copyright? – oversight would be claimed. Lack of the most basic manners on a group scale by professionals? – game over. This is more damning than Jones’s e-mails.
Mr. Watts, you have done the world an inestimable service. May your kind increase.

September 24, 2010 7:10 am

As an occasional Surface Stations contributor, I am pleased that NCDC is paying attention. IMHO, however, the unattributed photo qualifies as plagiarism.
“Pirategate,” anyone? Rhymes with Climategate…

September 24, 2010 7:33 am

And here we have why “big government” is a problem. Anthony’s work was appropriated by a government agency without attribution. Who is going to protect Anthony from the government? Sure he can go to court, but guess what? His taxes are going to pay for the government lawyers that will oppose him. Another article like the one about the family being evicted in Australia. Not at the same level, but still sickening.

Geoff Sherrington
September 24, 2010 7:39 am

One of my hobbies is photography and for my pains I’m co-opted to a Plagiarism sub-committee of a national body.
IMO, there is little doubt that this was plagiarism by the standards used in photography, especially in this country. (Oz).

Paul Milligan
September 24, 2010 8:45 am

Have any of the graphs or jpgs been copyrighted? Is it too late?

September 24, 2010 8:47 am

Re are there any attorneys who read WUWT. Yes. I’m one. I am aware of several other attorneys who have left comments from time to time.
Re any attorneys willing to give legal advice on a public forum such as WUWT? No. That is not permitted under U.S. law. I am not licensed in non-U.S. jurisdictions so cannot comment on what non-U.S. attorneys or solicitors may or may not do.
However, even attorneys have some rights regarding making comments on blogs, as long as those comments do not violate the applicable laws governing attorneys. Attorneys who violate those laws are subject to penalties including temporary suspension of their license, or license revocation. Attorneys are also allowed to have blogs; I have one.

George E. Smith
September 24, 2010 8:59 am

Well Anthony,
The”traditional channels” for example of information dissemination were newspapers, magazines and the network TVs. Newspapers slowly morphed into people who knew how to run a printing press machine; and more or less correctly set up an AP or UPI story.
For their laziness; they have slowly been displaced my Talk Radio, and Web Blogs such as WUWT. The peer reviewed Journals of Science are starting to see their own influence dissipate; as they too departed from impartiality; and gathered their own agendas.
So you have here in WUWT a vehicle for communication of ideas; scientific or otherwise. It will tend to have some of the characteristics of all web information sites; that from time to time one has access to “information” that has no counterpart in reality.
Well we already have developed sensing technology for detecting web myths; so those will function here as well; but the ultimate result is that real information can be disseminated to a wider audience faster and more openly via places like WUWT, and such avenues will flourish.
How nice to be on a list of names that are all asterisked out. The only thing better than being on the asterisked out names list is to have a name as common as dirt; like Kim or Singh ; even Smith. When you have a name double on every street corner; it is the ultimate form of anonymity.
But being on the asterisked out names list is rather special, because it also has the benefits of Knighthood; namely recognition.
So frustrating as it is; (or izzat infuriating) you’ve actually hit the big time by making it to the list of famous unmentionables.
But I tend to side with those who are arguing you need to be noisy about this plagiarism; if only from the point of view; that if you don’t defend your turf; some will wonder how committed to it you are.
So I at least would see that someone like Mark Morano has the whole dossier; but also just keep it bubbling here as well; for new readership.
When you finally get your paper done and published exactly where you want it; then you will be better off for having kept the fire going in the mean time.
The “robustness” of the position of those who seek to undermine your work can only be disrupted by continuous exposure.
The whole Climategate/IPCC cesspool; just gets smellier all the time; and those who have hitched their chariots to it will ultimately drown in their own effluent.
So keep a stiff upper lip Mate; and Go get ’em.

September 24, 2010 9:22 am

KevinUK says:
September 24, 2010 at 3:40 am (Edit)
I second verity in regard to the fact that this is not plagiarism but just a complete lack of professionalism. But as Steve M says “This is climate science”.
Now here is a challange for anyone (Ron B, Nick S, Mosh and fellow apologists for CAGW climate scientists over at Lucia’s Blackboard).
I’m not an apologist for CAGW “scientists” or CAGW science. I’m a luke warmer. That means I get to be critical of certain bad behaviors on both sides. That means I get to be critical of bad methods on both sides. That means I get to be critical of bad arguments on both sides. That means I get to be critical of rhetorical diversions on both sides. For the case here I have said publicly in the past that Menne was unwise and unprofessional to use surface stations data before it was complete, especially when requested. Nothing, however, prevents anyone from looking at the pictures and concluding “that’s a CRN1”. I don’t know if he downloaded the spreadsheet that JohnV and I downloaded way back when. I know we both used it but never published anything but blog comments. If I did publish anything I would certainly ask for Anthony’s permission, as we did for the book. And I would acknowledge him for inspiring me, as I did in the book. So, I suppose that amounts to saying that were I menne or karl or peterson I would have acted differently.
As for the trend dots on the globe. Long ago steve McIntyre did a wonderful contour plot of trends. and nasa Giss has a gridded version of global trends that allows you to select the periods and select the data sets. So the notion of plotting trends, spatially represented ( grids and contours), has been around for a while. The ability to select or show different periods has been around for a while. Looking at trends at specific locations (points) and showing the trends at individual stations in a spatial presentation probably dates to 2008 at least. This is all from memory and I havent down a literature search. In 2008 a researcher at Columbia (ken Makoff) did the first google map ( with points ) of temperatures I have ever seen. Ken was one of the guys, I recall, who was trying to get Gistemp working on a MAC. Ken’s work precedes your work. I believe at the time Folks ask me to investigate who he was because he worked at Columbia and folks working on getting GISTEMP working were suspicious. Anyway, people working in the area were aware of his approach and display. A while back when I started to do google maps, I hunted down his web site. His stuff is somewhere around here. So If I was concerned about priority I would go look here. I’ll let others sort through the details of who has priority and who influenced who and who came up with the same idea independently.
You will have to ask Nick Barnes at clear climate code, but when I saw their googlemap work and read their code, it seems clear to me that they might been inspired by ken’s work. But that’s hard to tell. It’s hard to tell because the idea is fairly obvious. from a trend map of grid squares to a trend map of spatial points isnt much of an innovation. That’s not a criticism, it’s just an observation. working in the field I’d call it obvious.
However, If I’m the programmer and I get the idea of a display from you, then when I publish it I’m going to give you a hat tip. a note on your blog. an email, a comment in the line of code. Sometimes, its hard to remember all the things you see and where your ideas come from. I try to be pretty diligent, so that’s why I recall Steve’s work with contours, ken’s work with dots, clearclimatecodes work. peter oneils code which I use and attribute. I haven’t seen your work that I recall. I’ve seen tonyb’s work. maybe its the same thing. perhaps I saw your work on Airvent. It doesnt stick out in my mind like ken’s work does or clear climate codes work ( cause they posted code and I spent time looking at it) So, with regards to people stealing your work without attribution, I would say the case is a bit harder for you to maintain. You’d have to show that no prior work existed, no prior work was close to what you did, no logical combination of prior work. And I don’t know how you ascertain that they took it rather than “invented” it themselves given the rather obvious character of the display ( obvious to anyone who had seen global station maps, contour maps and gridded trends ). Still, If I were you I would drop them a note and make the request “if you got the idea for the map from us, can we please get a hat tip. If you were inspired by someone else or came up with the same idea yourself, no problem.” And just to be clear, when I call it “obvious” thats not a slam. That type of display is really cool. makes you want to slap your head and say “why didnt I think of that” So hats off to you. If they “took” it and are reminded by your letter, they should give credit.

September 24, 2010 9:27 am

Oh, check the dates on Ken’s work. I know he started work in sept of 2007 (around there) and I dont have an exact date for the posting of his map, but I recall around 2008. I could be wrong, so if your looking for prior art, start with him. who knows.
usually my memory for these things is pretty good, but in this case you should double check.

September 24, 2010 9:38 am

ok.. doing a little work for you..
March 24, 2008
Global Temperature Trends for Google Earth
A couple of programmers from Columbia University developed a Google Earth visualization of a large database of global temperature data. They took data from NASA and other sources and mapped placemarks for cities all over the world. Download their global data file here (it may take a few seconds to load the thousands of datapoints). The placemarks have colors which shows the warming trend between the baseline years and recent years. White represents pins without sufficient data in the baseline or recent years. The amount of cooling is shown in shades of blue and amount of warming in reds. But, the real interesting data is inside the placemark descriptions where graphs are shown indicating the temperature trends for each location over the past century or more.
So: the prior art contains all the elements of your display. What appears unique is your combination of elements: the ability to show raw data or adjusted data (a gistemp graphic feature). the ability to show trends for different periods ( a gistemp feature) showing the trend as a dot on the world color coded: (makoff)
your case is a lot messier than Anthonys case which is clear cut. Not saying you dont have one. Just on the facts as I know them, it’s messy. I’m less prone to jump to conclusions in your case, but open to being persuaded.
Nice thing about being a lukewarmer is that I feel no need to attack or defend any side. I just get to look at facts and ask more questions. an apologist would instantly defend or attack. I’ll accept your apology in advance

September 24, 2010 9:59 am

Theo Goodwin says:
September 23, 2010 at 7:35 pm (Edit)
Smokey writes about Ron Broberg:
“Folks, that is how the amoral rationalize the theft of intellectual property. It is not a case of being ‘impolite,’ it is a case of being unethical and dishonest.”
Yep. You nailed him. There is not one warmer who will engage in discourse about moral matters. Apparently, they are simply incapable of doing so.
hmm I believe in AGW and Tom Fuller believes in AGW and we kinda wrote a book on the ethical failings of certain people who also believe in AGW.
so you might want to edit that statement and give me credit for pointing out your overstatement… you might add a caveat about lukewarmers since people want to lump us with warmers. or you can leave the overstatement standing and display your morals.

Ian L. McQueen
September 24, 2010 10:18 am

Can’t you sue for misuse of intellectual property, like a photograph?

September 24, 2010 10:25 am

Plagiarism — Copyright Violation — call it what you will.
The direct use of the photograph is a copyright violation. Changing it does not matter — that is just a derivative work.
Send them a letter ask them to remove your material from the work.
The data is another issue.

September 24, 2010 12:13 pm

Most professional bodies have a code of ethics which if it doesn’t specify plagiarism or failure to attribute others’ work specifically will have something about ‘bringing disrepute’ to the society. The ones I’m familiar with are related to mechanical engineering, but it looks like AMS has something similar.
AMS (see article XII, item 2
As with many others, I think you should do something just to preserve IP and/or copyright rights for yourself and anyone else’s in the future.

September 24, 2010 12:17 pm

Question: If the science “is settled”, why do governments around the world continue funding global warming research to the tune of billions of dollars a year?
Answer: Global warming is big business!

September 24, 2010 12:33 pm

The actions by these authors is not only unethical and immoral, they are illegal.
Copyright law is international and plagiarisim is a crime, but nothing will happen to any miscreant if no complaints are laid. If it was my photograph or my data being hijacked for purposes about which I had not been consulted nor given my approval for, I would follow the neccessary legal steps to have the items in question deleted from the miscreant’s material, damages ascertained and paid, plus proper public apologies made in selected organs of the MSM in addition to apologies in the blogosphere.
These people need to feel the full force of the law.

September 24, 2010 1:00 pm

Charles S. Opalek, PE says:
September 24, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“Question: If the science “is settled”, why do governments around the world continue funding global warming research to the tune of billions of dollars a year?”
But Charles, its big business for those on the receiving end. But surely not for the Governments? So what is the driving factor for the Governments?
Votes, me thinks.

September 24, 2010 2:41 pm

Menne’s presentation.
(1) page 5: average Tmax and Tmin. Tmax oscillates without overall increase, Tmin oscillates but rises overall. What else but UHI
(2) page 39: Take Aways from the Lessons Learned
Scientific and methodological context:
Lesson 1: Metadata records are helpful, but we must be prepared to have less than comprehensive station histories
Lesson 2: There is a continuous need for “sifting and winnowing” to discover the causes behind systematic shifts in bias, especially those that aggregate across regions and the globe
Lesson 3: It may be difficult to come to full agreement on the details and philosophy for data homogenization (e.g., how to handle gradual vs abrupt changes in bias), but our benchmark datasets should be as realistic and varied as possible to quantify the skill of any particular approach
Lesson 4: A small group of people can make big contributions to the field—especially with automated algorithms
Lesson 5: Numerous avenues exist to build confidence and assess uncertainties in dataset construction (many of which are underway)
“Societal” context
Lesson 6: Non-traditional climate scientists will likely play a significant role in advancing the field of climate dataset construction
Lesson 7: For now, the world is watching so let’s find a way to build momentum
I admit I don’t understand all the technical language of the presentation, but the whole thing – not just the cribbing from Verity and Kevin and Anthony – fails my smell test. We all know there is an unaccounted-for UHI++ of the order of something like 0.5 or 0.7 degC. We can see this very simply when pairs of records are combined, rural vs urban. Again and again. Yet here we have what looks to me like mealy-mouthed bluster, continuing to fudge, and avoiding saying anything like
“we now see a drastic problem, thanks to citizen scientists like Watts, McKitrick, et al who have pointed it out – now how can we get a reasonable estimate of the true global temperature shift over the last century, while seeing our budget cut drastically? perhaps we can take a leaf out of this book and just concentrate on a very small proportion of data records and getting each of those squeaky clean….”

September 24, 2010 2:44 pm

All it needs is a DMCA take-down notice to be submitted, and the offending article will disappear.
Anthony has enumerated the steps you must go to in order to have the permission neccesary to use the material and these have not been followed.
There have been precendents before where Open Source software was illegally stripped of its copyright notices, and those ended up in legal action.
It may well be that if Anthony takes no steps to protect his copyright, and the copyright of his contributers, then he will end up losing the protection. It doesn’t neccesarily have to be Anthony that raises the complaint. Any of the contributers whose work was copied without permission can submit a take-down notice.
Those with a wicked sense of humor would do it just before a major presentation. But I’m sure everyone has an angelic sense of humor.

September 24, 2010 5:12 pm

Unless I misread, seems to me they are taking the complaints by skeptics to heart and recommending improving the dataset and sites. Isn’t that what we want?

September 25, 2010 5:44 am

I fully agree with you – I am really heartened by what I can see and understand of what happened at Exeter.
I can’t speak for Anthony (and he has much more to complain about), but I really don’t mind so much personally. It is great that they have mentioned blogs and for example that Zeke Hausfather was singled out. Perhaps in the commentary they did say more, who knows. I thought the similarities were striking and I was aiming more for the ‘hey – great minds think alike’/humour angle and ‘well if they did notice us that’s great’.
like you I have a problem with the outputs and what is done with them. I have a lot less problem with the science whcih I see as a work in progress. The problem is that the answers from the research that are being used were premature and the inaccuracies are still only being addressed.
However, I got a lot from the Exeter presentations. It is a bit like sitting though a presentation in a language of which you have very poor comprehension (which I have had to do from time-to time, although I could at least ask questions afterwards). I understand a lot of the background methods (in overview if not in detail) and most of the technical jargon so understand enough of the presention to get something from it. Some of it I am delighted to see (where the thinking is going), other parts we’ll have to wait and see.

September 25, 2010 8:27 am

For those in any doubt as to the fact that NCDC have been ‘borrowing’ from other peoples work and I can only assume, given their lack of attribution, subsequently passing it off as their own, have a look at this new thread on DITC.
Can you ‘spot the differences’?
Watch out for Part 2 coming soon in which I replicate the NCDC Exeter workshop presentation’s Slides 19 and 20 (colour coded maps).
I’ll also be doing a thread soon on the ‘Top 30 Cooling stations turned into Warming stations’ courtesy of NCDC adjustments in the GHCN V3 beta dataset. Now what was it Matt Menne said in his Exeter workshop presentation (slide 23)?
“First, do not flag good data as bad
Then, do not make bias adjustments where none are warranted

Now does anyone know what DAISNAID stands for?

September 25, 2010 11:41 am

Well i guess a few billions of funding for climatard research just doesn’t cut it if you have to *work* for it. Just let unpaid bloggers do the work and rip them off.

Corey S.
September 25, 2010 2:51 pm

Ian L. McQueen says:
September 24, 2010 at 10:18 am
Can’t you sue for misuse of intellectual property, like a photograph?

Yes, Ian, Anthony can sue for copyright infringement. On the Surfacestations rules page, it specifically states that permission needs to be asked for, and attribution given, prior to using the information on that site.

Unless otherwise noted, all text and images contained on this web site are the property of and/or its affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, or licensors, and are protected from unauthorized copying and dissemination by United States copyright law, trademark law, international conventions and other intellectual property laws.
© 2007, 2008, 2009 All rights reserved.

NOAA also understands copyright, and tells anyone visiting their site that they need to be sure to get permission before using any photos, since some may have copyrights attached to them. Anyone at NOAA should/would know the same.

Some materials may contain a Copyright Notice. It is your responsibility to identify the copyright owner and to obtain permission before making use of this material. …
Photographs are not protected by copyright unless noted. If copyrighted, permission should be obtained from the copyright owner prior to use.

The information at is copyrighted, as well as Anthony’s Surface Stations Project report.

© 2009 All rights reserved, including the right to reproduce this report or portions thereof in any form.

Since Karl, Menne, and Peterson all work for NOAA, they should know the rules regarding copyrighted material. It is all laid out in 17 USC §§ 101, 102(a), 302(a):

§ 302. Duration of copyright: Works created on or after January 1, 19784
(a) IN GENERAL. — Copyright in a work created on or after January 1, 1978, subsists from its creation and, except as provided by the following subsections, endures for a term consisting of the life of the author and 70 years after the author’s death.
(b) JOINT WORKS. — In the case of a joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire, the copyright endures for a term consisting of the life of the last surviving author and 70 years after such last surviving author’s death.

In the section, Copyright Infringement and Remedies:

§ 501. Infringement of copyright3
(a) Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), […] is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.

I think that Anthony should go over Title 17 and see whether any action is warranted.

September 25, 2010 5:37 pm

In the United States, all forms of creative expression are protected by copyright as soon as they are “fixed” in tangible form. For a writer putting ink to paper, that occurs as he writes. For a writer typing on his computer, that occurs when what he has written is saved. For a digital photographer, it happens as soon as the image is snapped.
An important exception to this is that almost all government works enter the public domain as soon as they are created. If copyrighted material is used on a government document or website, that does not change the copyright status of the work. A copyrighted photo used on NOAA is still copyrighted, whether a copyright notice is present or not.
I did a lot of research on copyright several years ago for another area I was interested in. Title 17 is not the last word on copyright law. There is also quite a bit of copyright related legal decisions, including from the Supreme Court, that come into play.
A very good reference on copyright is “The Copyright Handbook – How to Protect & Use Written Works” by attorney Stephen Fishman.
At the time, I put together a website on copyright, Copy Right, Copy Sense. Although I haven’t done anything with it for about 5 years, it has links to some of the more important cases and discusses many copyright concepts.
I’m not a lawyer, so information on my site cannot be considered legal advice, only a reference. (Likewise, I’m not a scientist, so to some people my opinions on climate are unimportant. 😉 )

Dave Stubbs
September 25, 2010 8:08 pm

Mr. Watts,
After reading your post today (Saturday, 9/25), I sent an email to Mr. Menne (and Mr. Williams and Lawrimore) stating that their lack of attribution of the title page photo was unethical. To Mr. Menne’s credit, he replied with the following:
“Dear Mr. Stubbs,
Thank you very much for your message. I have apologized to Anthony
Watts and Russ Steele for use of the photograph as a backdrop in the
title slide without attribution, and suggested to them two options for
addressing the situation (add an attribution or remove it entirely).
Best regards,
Matt Menne
I assume his statement is true, and as such, you should update your comments with this information. Mistakes are made by all of us, it’s how they are handled and corrected that is most important.
By the way, your web site is great and the contributions you are making to the climate change debate are commendable.
Dave Stubbs
REPLY: I have not seen an email or fax, but there is likely one in my inbox at my office. I’ll have a look tomorrow. – Anthony

September 25, 2010 8:40 pm

In the politics of personal destruction, the ends justify the means. I would say that they cannot handle the truth their about own incompetence. Keep the faith! It is better to be wronged and be right than to be wrong and claim to be right. The truth will be revealed.

%d bloggers like this: