Readers may recall this post: More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson
…where I take NCDC to task for not given proper attribution to the surfacestations.org and volunteer Russ Steele for use of a photo on the cover page of their Exeter report, seen below.
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.
So yes, I was a little miffed that they’d used it, especially since it has been an ongoing problem with NCDC using my preliminary data (against my wishes) to write a paper.
So I fired off an email to Dr. Matt Menne of NCDC about the issue.
And I got a response a few days later. The email was friendly, apologetic, and offered two solutions. I opted to just have him do the solution that put our standard attribution on it.
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]
And, to his credit, he did, though he missed adding Russ Steele’s name.
That is the cover page of his updated presentation, which you can download here (PDF)
So, apology made, attribution added, document updated, and the problem was solved. Simple, I’m satisfied. Of course I could have been a jerk about it and demanded all sorts actions via formal complaints, copyright claims, etc. But I didn’t. It simply didn’t rise to that level.
But I’m betting that I won’t even have to ask about adding Russ Steele’s name in place of “various contributors” He’ll see it here and fix it, or somebody will tell him.
Given all the wailing that has been going on about the Wegman report (Aka “copygate” Steve McIntyre sums it up pretty well here) and attribution to Bradley, and a whole strange set of circumstances, it seems to me that after four years of the Wegman report floating around the web, if Dr. Bradley really had an attribution issue, he could have avoided the whole stink going on now by simply asking Dr. Wegman to modify the report in a way that satisfies whatever his complaint is.
But that would be too simple, too direct, and too professional. It also wouldn’t get the pound of flesh some of the players like John Mashey and “Deep Climate” want.
It’s a sad state of affairs, really, and only invites escalation of moribund issues beyond the scope of their actual worth.
More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
By the new Wegman rules . . . that is plagiarism.
Anthony,
I’d love to see an entry on the question of how close we are to a Kuhn Paradigm shift on climate change. Increasingly, I have the feeling that the disquiet which has been bubbling below the surface is set to boil over.
Am I alone in this view?
Anthony,
my memory is a little fuzzy and I can’t quite recall. When NCDC’s attributiongate first broke last January did Kieth Kloor do a post on it?
REPLY:not that I am aware of -Anthony
LazyTeenager wrote: “It is somewhat disappointing that they were careless about this in the first place.”
In an ideal world, yes. But I would guess that this report was prepared by a team against a deadline. As someone who does that myself (not on climatology), I can testify that (1) it’s difficult to communicate to everyone on the team all the guidelines of this sort (attribution is only one), (2) it’s easy for people to misunderstand or forget, (3) it’s easy for metadata (like where a photo came from) to get misplaced, and (4) there’s never enough time before the deadline to do a thorough review, and any review that does take place is usually aimed at intellectual content (are we saying the right things) and style (are we saying it understandably). So I sympathize.
Off the topic, but I also sympathize with the loss of raw data collected in the 1980s and even 1990s. There have been so many changes in data storage between then and now, and data on magnetic media (and even CDs) gets corrupted over time, that it takes a well funded effort to copy data over to new media while ensuring its integrity. Data formats change, too; anyone wanting to recover data from a relational database of the 1980s has a real task ahead. In some ways, the shift from paper records to computer media has made it much easier for data to go missing, be corrupted, or become uninterpretable.
Excellent and gracious account.
Note that they also edited their online version of the Talking Points Memo, adding a citation to Watts (2009), Heartland Institute.
“Professionals” acting unprofessionally…it’s far too common…being truly “professional” has little to do with letters after your name… It’s just about treating people as you would like to have them treat you.
Anthony is a true professional and demonstrates it all the time.
Anto, to me not so much boiling over, but more like slopping over.
Since the EA e-mail release, and the public opinion drop, and some climate scientists actually starting to realize that the contrarions actually have some points, it appears that the more reasonable people on both sides of the debate are finally starting to act like adults.
For the sake of this subject, I can only say that it’s about time!
I like to think that, at least in a very small way, I am one of the best “various contributors” on the web. 🙂
@Mike Maxwell: good point about data loss, either outright (shredded, moved) or effectively (incompatible formats, lack of systems running host software, etc). It’s compounded by (a) the rapidity of obsolescence in technology and (b) the related explosion in file size and type. From a 64-KB Atari to Terabyte backup drives in one human generation, and we’ve only just started. So our culture hasn’t evolved good rules about “data courtesy” e.g. attribution of fragments assembled into a new whole. The same kind of mismatch is playing out elsewhere in the legal system, as post-modern techniques to create “structured debt instruments” (mortgage-backed securities) in a purely electronic form are now crashing into due process foreclosure procedures based on common law dating back to the Middle Ages. To put it mildly, we live in interesting times.
Anto says:
October 16, 2010 at 7:30 am
Anthony,
I’d love to see an entry on the question of how close we are to a Kuhn Paradigm shift on climate change. Increasingly, I have the feeling that the disquiet which has been bubbling below the surface is set to boil over.
Am I alone in this view?
—–
Anto, that is an excellent question! It is difficult to perceive a true paradigm shift when we are in the process of going through it.
I once taught a class of MBA students that the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the Russians signified a paradigm shift, and for a while in history, that appeared to be the case. However, the carbon-credit balloon seems to have deflated as quickly as it inflated! (look up Chicago Climate Exchange for example).
The topic of climate change (errrr, disruption, sorry!) is so complicated with so many competing interests, that I think it will take quite a while for this to play out. However, you are correct, I think we are living through a true paradigm shift.
The resignation of Dr. Harold Lewis from the American Physical Society was a signal event! Watch for more.
Thanks, Anthony, you are making huge contributions, and I am pleased that they gave you and Surface Stations due credit on the Exeter presentation!
I don’t think that it was an oversight. It was more of a mental blind spot. Because you are not part of academia (as they see it), you don’t count. Therefore no attribution is necessary. Just the same way they can use your work without permission nor attribution. Elitist arrogance. Harsh, but unfortunately reality.
The whole climate science commuity could benefit from being more collegial and cooperative.
To Anto and CRS, Dr PH re Paradigm Shift
I think we are in or approaching the shift too and it is a comforting thought.
A classic paradigm shift, however, can’t just be about rejecting a broadly held view; it has to involve accepting a new one. If “we” reject CAGW what are “we” replacing with? Ie – An earth centred solar system was replaced with a a sun centred one…”Classic” mechanics was replaced with Quantum mechanics…etc…
As I think about it, the lack of a replacement paradigm remains the biggest challenge to skeptics/deniers. There’s a whole range of potential theories to explain the recent “climate disruption” but no one theory or no grouping serves as a replacement paradigm.
Don’t get me wrong; I am entirely frustrated that CAGW is the current paradigm but paradigm it is!
Per my last post, the description of the replacement paradigm would seem like a good thought piece for Willis E.
dbleader61 says:
October 16, 2010 at 1:02 pm
Per my last post, the description of the replacement paradigm would seem like a good thought piece for Willis E.
—-
Excellent posts, DB! I hope Willis takes up the challenge!
The “death of global warming” resembles the death of a religion to me…..long-held and protected beliefs, fiercely defended, now wither in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Dr. Lindzen alluded to this in his Fermilab colloquium.
Perhaps it is more analogous to the death of communism? There seems to be very little serious consideration to Marxism/Leninism that I can see. In any event, long-held beliefs are dying in all except for the most invested in the belief system.
If the Arctic ice mass continues to rebuild, and we have another winter like the last one, I think the end will be near. Cancun and the Fall elections in the US will be interesting!
I see I got the wrong kind of attribution. (1)
(1) – Pg. 17
Imagine all the lawyers that would out of work if more people would solve their problems this way.
So it’s blackmail now?
Seems like less than two weeks ago that Anthony offerred this sage advice:
“if Dr. Bradley really had an attribution issue, he could have avoided the whole stink going on now by simply asking Dr. Wegman to modify the report in a way that satisfies whatever his complaint is.”
So this is what they say when he does?
[NOTE: this is Mosher’s post, not Anthony’s ~mod]