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, www.surfacestations.org 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 (www.surfacetemperatures.org). It is so similar that I originally misread it, mistaking it for Anthony Watts’ www.surfacestations.org. 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: http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=300)
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: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/27/adjustment-effects-on-temperature-trends-part-1/
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: http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/mapping-global-warming/
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)
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.
Face it BIG BROTHER is here, a little late maybe, but here nonetheless.
(Remember when FDR made it illegal to own gold?)
Anthony,
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!
I’m just a law student, but I will volunteer my time if Anthony decides to take some form of legal action.
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.
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…
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.
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).
Have any of the graphs or jpgs been copyrighted? Is it too late?
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.
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.
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.
http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2008/03/global_temperature_trends_for_googl.html
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.
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.
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
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.
Can’t you sue for misuse of intellectual property, like a photograph?
IanM
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.
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.
ASME
http://www.asme.org/Education/PreCollege/TeacherResources/Code_Ethics_Engineers.cfm
IMechE
http://www.imeche.org/membership/ethics
AMS
http://ametsoc.org/aboutams/organizationpdfs/constitution.pdf (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.
Good luck and ‘ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM!’ d;-)
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!
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.
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.
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….”
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.
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?
MikeD,
I fully agree with you – I am really heartened by what I can see and understand of what happened at Exeter.
Z,
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’.
Lucy,
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.