A remarkable bit of digging by our man McIntyre finds out more about certain people who live in glass houses.
(reposted with explicit permission from the author for the plagiarism police,)
In the original Deep Climate post about Wegman, DC characterized Bradley 1999, a revision of the 1985 edition of Bradley’s textbook, as “seminal”. In respect to the dendro chapter at least, this is flatly untrue. Bradley copied both graphics and language from Fritts’ 1976 textbook, Tree Rings and Climate.
Bradley’s copying is not just incidental. Of the first 13 figures in Bradley’s dendro chapter, 12(!) are either copied exactly from Fritts 1976 or, in a few cases, with negligible “paraphrase” (e.g. Bradley Figure 10.10 combines single-columned Fritts Figure 7.10 and 7.11 into a double-columned figure).
For six of the 12 figures, Bradley cites references other than Fritts 1976 – mostly earlier Fritts articles, but also one Lamarche article. In each case, Fritts 1976 had itself re-used the earlier graphic (with citation) with a fresh caption (often lengthy). However, in each of these six cases, Bradley used the Fritts 1976 in a verbatim or near-verbatim form without citing Fritts 1976.
USE OF FRITTS 1976 CAPTIONS WITHOUT CITATION
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5 and Fritts 1971 Figure 3. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.2 states:
Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (left). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. (right): Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. These are termed sensitive (from Fritts, 1971).
The caption to Figure 1.5 from unreferenced Fritts 1976 is virtually identical:
Trees growing on sites where climate seldom limits growth processes produce rings that are uniformly wide (A). Such rings provide little or no record of variations in climate and are termed complacent. Trees growing on sites where climatic factors are frequently limiting produce rings that vary in width from year to year depending on how severely limiting climate has been to growth. (B) These are termed sensitive.
The caption to Fritts 1971 Figure 3 is related but not so close:
Trees with ample moisture and favorable temperatures are not limited by climatic factors (left). Their rings are uniformly wide and there is little variation in thickness from one ring to the next. Trees on arid or extremely cold sites may often be limited by climatic factors (right). Their rings are narrow and there may be marked variation in ring thickness corresponding to variations. in climatic factors which have limited growth.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 5.8 and Fritts 1971 Figure 5. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.3 states:
A schematic diagram showing how low precipitation and high temperature during the growing season may lead to the formation of a narrow tree ring in arid-site trees. Arrows indicate the net effects and include various processes and their interactions. It is implied that the effects of high precipitation and low temperature are the opposite and may lead to an increase in ring widths (from Fritts, 1971).
This is again virtually identical to the corresponding caption in Fritts 1976 – Figure 5.8. (Bradley changed “will increase” to “may lead to an increase”.)
Model Part A. A diagram representing some of the relationships that cause climatic factors of low precipitation and high temperatures during the growing season to lead to the formation of a narrow ring in arid-site trees. The arrows indicate the net effects and include various processes and their interactions. It is implied that the effects of high precipitation and low temperature are the opposite, that is, ring width will increase.
The caption to Fritts 1971 Figure 5 is related, but the Bradley language is clearly derived from the language from the unreferenced Fritts 1976.
Physiological Model A illustrating how low precipitation and high temperature during the growing season (season of cambial activity) may cause a ring to be narrow for conifers growing on semiarid and warm sites. The climatic conditions affect physiological processes which limit the rate of cell division, the amount of cell expansion or the length of the growing season.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 5.9 and Fritts 1971 Figure 6. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.4 states:
A schematic diagram showing how low precipitation and high temperature before the growing season may lead to the formation of a narrow tree ring in arid-site trees. (from Fritts, 1971).
The language from the corresponding Figure 5.9 in unreferenced Fritts 1976 is:
Model Part B. A diagram representing some of the relationships that cause climatic factors of low precipitation and high temperatures prior to the growing season to lead to the formation of a narrow ring in arid-site trees. Compare with Fig 5.8.
The language in cited Fritts 1971 Figure 6 is again related but not as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:
Physiological Model B illustrating how low precipitation and high temperature prior to the growing season (season of cambial activity) may cause the ring to be narrow for conifers growing on semiarid and warm sites. The climatic conditions may affect physiological processes which precondition the plant, reduce the potential for rapid growth and reduce the rate of cell division (shown in Model A) so that a narrow ring is formed.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 1.9 and Fritts 1971 Figure 2. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.7 states:
Standardization of ring-width measurements is necessary to remove the decrease in size associated with increasing age of the tree. If the ring widths for the three specimens shown in the upper figure are simply averaged by year, without removing the effect of the tree’s age, the mean ring-width chronology shown below them exhibits intervals of high and low growth, associated with the varying age of the samples. This age variability is generally removed by fitting a curve to each ring-width series, and dividing each ring width by the corresponding value of the curve. The resulting values, shown in the lower half of the figure, are referred to as indices, and may be averaged among specimens differing in age to produce a mean chronology for a site (lowermost record) ( from Fritts, 1971).
The language from Figure 1.8 in the unreferenced Fritts 1976 version is virtually identical:
Standardization of ring-width measurements is necessary to remove the decrease in size associated with increasing age of the tree. If the ring widths for the three specimens shown in the upper figure are averaged by year, without removing the effect of the tree’s age, the mean ring-width chronology shown immediately below them exhibits intervals of high and low growth associated with the varying age of the samples. This age variability can be removed by fitting a curve to each ring-width series, and dividing each ring width by the corresponding value of the curve. The resulting values shown in the lower half of the figure are referred to as indices and may be averaged among specimens differing in age to produce a mean chronology for a site.
The language in Figure 2 from the citation, Fritts 1971, is again related, but not as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:
Standardization is necessary because the first-formed rings are generally wider than those found in the older portions of stems and because some trees grow more rapidly than others. If ring-width measurements, plotted as a function of year of formation (upper plots) are averaged, the mean chronology will show long-term variations arising from differences in ring age and mean growth rate of different sampled specimens (fourth plot). When an exponential curve is fitted as shown in the upper plots and the value of each cure during each year is divided into the ring width for that year, new values are obtained which are referred to as indices (lower plot). These indices do not vary as a function of tree age and mean growth and have an expectation value of 1.0. Such indices may be safely averaged (lowest plot) to obtain a ring-width chronology that is likely to correspond to short-term fluctuations in climate that have limited the growth of the trees.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 6.6 and a figure from Fritts et al 1965 that I haven’t examined yet. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.9 states:
Five year running means of ring width indices from Pseudotsuga menziesii at Mesa Verde, Colorado, corrected for autocorrelation and plotted on every even year from AD442 through 1962 (after Fritts et al 1965)
The caption to unreferenced Fritts 1976 Figure 6.6 is identical:
Five year running means of ring width indices from Pseudotsuga menziesii at Mesa Verde, Colorado, corrected for autocorrelation and plotted on every even year from AD442 through 1962 (Modified from Fritts et al 1965c)
[insert Fritts 1965 when examined]
Bradley Figure 10.13
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.13 is identical to Fritts 1976 Figure 8.9 and Lamarche 1974 Figure 6. The caption to Bradley 1985 Figure 10.13 states:
Growth of pinus longaeva on lower forest border (…) and upper treeline (—) sites of the White Mountains, California, and the precipitation and temperature anomalies inferred from the departures in ring width. Data expressed as 20 year averages of standardized normal values. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in nearby mountains (after Lamarche 1974)
The caption to Fritts Figure 8.9 is virtually identical:
The 20-year average growth , expressed in standardized normal values, in Pinus longaeva on lower forest border (…) and upper treeline (—) sites of the White Mountains, California, and the precipitation and temperature anomalies inferred from the departures in ring width. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in nearby mountains (From Lamarche, V.C. 1974 Science 183 (4129) 1043-1048, copyright 1974 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.)
The caption to Lamarche 1974 Fig 6 is related, but not nearly as close as the unreferenced Fritts 1976:
Departures from mean growth(normalized 20-year means) trees on ecologically contrasting sites in the White Mountains and inferred climatic anomalies. Arrows show dates of glacial moraines in the nearby Sierra Nevada (19); all except the youngest were formed during periods judged to be relatively cool from the tree-ring evidence. Glacial advances of the early 1300s and early 1600s also coincide with unusually wet periods.
“AFTER” FRITTS 1976
For the six figures actually referenced to Fritts 1976, the Bradley 1985 captions all conclude with “after Fritts 1976″ (“after” is dropped in Bradley 1999). I leave it to readers to comment on whether the term “after” Fritts 1976 fully captures the fact that the figures are in fact identical and the lengthy captions are, in most cases, either verbatim or near verbatim.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.1
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.1: Drawing of cell structure along a cross section of a young stem of a conifer. The earlywood is made up of large and relatively thin-walled cells (tracheids); latewood is made up of small, thick-walled tncheids. Variations in tracheid thickness may produce false rings in either earlywood or latewood (after Fritts, 1976).
Fritts 1976 Figure 2.3: Drawing of cell structure along a cross section of a young stem of a conifer. The earlywood is made up of large and relatively thin-walled cells (tracheids); latewood is made up of small, thick-walled tracheids. Variations in tracheid thickness may produce false rings in either earlywood or latewood.
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.5: Annual growth increments or rings are formed because the wood cells produced early in the growing season (earlywood, EW) are large, thin-walled, and less dense, while the cells formed at the end of the season (latewood, LW) are smaller, thick-walled, and more dense. An abrupt change in cell size between the last-formed cells of one ring (LW) and the first-formed cells of the next (EW) marks the boundary between annual rings. Sometimes growing conditions temporarily become severe before the end of the growing season and may lead to the production of thick-walled cells within an annual growth layer (arrows).This may make it difficult to distinguish where the actual growth increment ends, which could lead to errors in dating. Usually these intra-annual bands or false rings can be identified, but where they cannot the problem must be resolved by cross-dating (after Fritts, 1976).
Fritts 1976 Figure 1.5: Annual growth layers or rings are formed because the wood cells produced early in the growing season (EW) are large, thin-walled, and less dense, while the cells formed at the end of the season (LW) are smaller, thick-walled, and more dense. An abrupt change in cell size between the last-formed cells of one ring (LW) and the first-formed cells of the next (EW) marks the boundary between annual rings. Sometimes growing conditions temporarily become severe before the end of the growing season and cause subsequently formed cells to be smaller with thicker walls (arrows). When more favorable conditions return, the subsequently formed cells are larger and have thinner walls. The resulting dark bands within the growth layer are called intra-annual growth bands or flase rings and are usually identified by the gradual transition in cell-size on both margins of the band. Occasionally these intra-annual bands are indistinguishable from the true annual ring and the problem must be resolved by crossdating. In A, the false ring is within the latewood formed near the end of the growing season. In B, it is within the earlywood formed near the beginning of the growing season. Growth is in the upward direction. (Adapted from Kuo and McGinnes Jr, 1973).
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.6: Cross dating of tree rings. Comparison of tree-ring widths makes it possible to identify false rings or where rings are locally absent. For example in (A), strict counting shows a clear lack of synchrony in the patterns. In the lower specimen of (a), rings 9 and 16 can be seen as very narrow and they do not appear at all in the upper specimen. Also, rings 21 (lower) and 20 (upper) show intra-annual growth bands. In (b) the positions of inferred absence are designated by dots (upper specimen(, the intra-annual band in ring 20 is recognized and the patterns in all ring widths are synchronously matched (after Fritts 1976).
Fritts 1976 Figure 1.8: Cross dating makes it possible to recognize areas where rings are locally absent or where intra-annual growth band appears like a true annual ring. The patterns of wide and narrow rings are compared among specimens. Every fifth ring is numbered in the diagram and in A the patterns of wide and narrow rings match until ring number 9, after which a lack of synchrony in pattern occurs. In the lower specimen of A, rings 9 and 16 can be seen as very narrow and they do not appear at all in the upper specimen; while rings 21 (in the lower) and 20 (in the upper) show intra-annual growth bands. In the upper specimen of B, the positions of inferred absence are designated by two dots, the intra-annual band in ring 20 is recognized and the patterns in all ring widths are synchronously matched (Drawing by M. Huggins).
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.10
Bradley 1985 Figure 10.10: Magnitudes of the elements of the first and second eigenvectors of climate at Mesa Verde, southwestern Colorado, and their corresponding amplitude sets. In eigenvector 1, (which reduces 13% of the climatic variance) the eigenvector elements for temperature are all the same sign; the corresponding signs for ten elements for precipitation have the opposite sign. This arises because temperatures throughout the 14 month period are somewhat positively correlated with each other, but they are negatively correlated with precipitation for ten out of 14 months. In eigenvector 2 which reduces 11% of the climatic variance) the eigenvector expresses a mode of climate in which the departures of temperature for July to November are opposite in sign to those of December to July. All elements for precipitation have signs opposite those of temperature, indicating a generally inverse relationship. The eigenvectors are multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude sets. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating a climatic regime for the year which most resembles the eigenvector in question (either positively or negatively (after Fritts 1976).
Fritts 1976 Figure 7.10: Plot of the magnitudes of the elements of the first and most important eigenvector of Mesa Verde climate, which reduces 13% of the climatic variance, and the corresponding amplitude set. The eigenvector expresses a mode of climate in which the departures of temperature for July to November are opposite in sign to those of December-July. All elements for precipitation have signs opposite those of temperature, indicating a generally inverse relationship. The eigenvector is multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude set. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating the most resemblance of the climatic regime for the year to that particular eigenvector. (See Fig 7.9).
Fritts 1976 Figure 7.11: The magnitudes of the elements of the second eigenvector of Mesa Verde climate, which reduces 11% of the climatic variance, and the corresponding amplitude set. The eigenvector elements for temperature are all the same sign; and the corresponding signs for ten elements for precipitation have the opposite sign. This arises because temperatures throughout the 14 month period are somewhat positively correlated with each other, but they are negatively correlated with precipitation for ten out of 14 months. The eigenvector is multiplied with normalized climatic data to obtain the amplitude set. Asterisks mark those elements with the largest positive and negative values, indicating the most resemblance of the climatic regime for the year to that particular eigenvector. (See Fig 7.12).
Bradley Figure 10.11
Bradley Figure 10.11: Response functions obtained from a stepwise regression analysis using amplitudes of eigenvectors to estimate a ring-width chronology representing six Pinus ponderosa sites along the lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado. Steps with 1, 3 and 12 predictor variables are shown. Percentage variance reduced can be calculated by multiplying the R2 value by 100. The regression coefficients for amplitudes are converted to response functions though when response functions are complex as in this example, a linear combination of many eigenvectors is needed to obtain the best fitting relationship (after Fritts 1976).
Fritts Figure 10.11: Response functions obtained from a stepwise regression analysis using amplitudes of eigenvectors and prior growth to estimate a ring-width chronology representing six Pinus ponderosa sites along the lower slopes of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado. Steps with 1, 3, 7, 12 and 20 predictor variables are shown. The regression coefficients for amplitudes are converted to response functions (Equation 7.22) . When response functions are complex as in this example, a linear combination of many eigenvectors is needed to obtain the best fitting relationship. Prior growth was entered into regression after the step with 12 variables. The percent variance can be calculated by multiplying the R2 by 100.
RUNNING TEXT
Bradley 1985 included the acknowledgment to Fritts shown below. However, this acknowledgment was removed in Bradley 1999 – which may partially explain DC’s inflated estimation of the seminality of Bradley 1999:
…the greatest strides in dendroclimatology hae been made in the last 10-15 years, largely as a result of the work of H.C. Fritts and associates at the Laboratory of Tree Ring Research in the University of Arizona; much of this work has been documented at length in the excellent book by Fritts (1976).
As Bradley’s running text is mostly a commentary on Fritts 1976 graphics, unsurprisingly there are many parallels in language (even though Fritts 1976 is seldom mentioned in the running text and then not always relevantly). Here is one example of virtually identical language in the running text (noticed in a fairly quick pass)
Bradley, 346: Once the regression coefficients have been calculated, the eigenvectors incorporated in the regression equation are mathematically transformed into a new set of n coefficients corresponding to the original (intercorrelated) set of n variables. These new coefficients are termed weights or elements of the response function and are analogous to the stepwise regression coefficients discussed earlier…
Fritts 353: Once the regression coefficients for the selected set of orthogonal variables have been calculated, they may be mathematically transformed into a new set of coefficients which correspond to the original correlated set of variables. These new coefficients (sometimes referred to as weights or elements of the response function) are analogous to the stepwise regression coefficients described in the previous section…
Needless to say, there are many other examples.
Bradley’s Variations
Given the almost total derivativeness of these sections of Bradley 1985 from Fritts 1976, it’s interesting to see those places where Bradley has, in the terminology of DC and Mashey, “distorted” Fritts.
For example, Fritts (p 11) listed carbon dioxide as an important external limiting factor – a limiting factor notably left out by Bradley (but included by Wegman, a point with which DC took issue.)
Some of the most important external limiting factors are water, temperature, light, carbon dioxide, oxygen and soil minerals…
Another Bradley innovation was the following analogy of trees to a “filter or transducer” – the sort of metaphor that has been contested at Climate Audit as long as this blog has been going. Although Bradley cites Fritts 1976 as authority, I was unable to locate Fritts’ use of this metaphor (it is possible that I missed it, since I have Fritts 1976 only in a non-searchable form). However, Fritts seems mercifully free of thinking of trees as a sort of electronic transceiver nor have I thus far seen any examples of the signal-noise metaphor nor of “climate the dependent variable with ring-width data the predictor”.
From the point of view of paleoclimatology, it is perhaps useful to consider the tree as a filter or transducer which, through various physiological processes, converts a given climatic input signal into a certain ring width output that is stored and can be studied in detail, even thousands of years later (Fritts, 1976; Schweingruber, 1988, 1996).
In Bradley’s interview with USA Today, he stated:
“Clearly, text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the (Wegman) report.
Something that Fritts could have said about Bradley. As to Deep Climate’s untrue assertion that Bradley 1999 was “seminal”, I presume that this statement was made without any attempt to determine whether it was true or not.
APPENDIX
Here is a summary of corresponding Bradley and Fritts figures.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
| Bradley has excerpted three of five Fritts panels (see right).
|
 |
 |
 |
Those who throw stones….
Looks like a teleconnection to me so there is no need for citation…
p.s. Teleconnections do work in time as well as space, do they not?
So who is going to put in the plagiarism complaint against Bradley then?
It looks like “He who smelt it, dealt it.”
I guess I have to say-so what? Nothing ever happens to these so called scientists or professors. Mann, Hansen, Jones, Patchy,etc,etc.-nothing,all exonerated and still getting bunches of grants and money. ALAS.
Gosh – long!
In para 3 I assume Mr McIntyre means Bradley where I have highlighted Fritts
“For six of the 12 figures, Fritts cites references other than Fritts 1976 – mostly earlier…”
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs]
Oh, you couldn’t make this stuff up, could you? If you’re going to sling something at someone else…make sure it’s not a boomerang.
And this is significant why? Because Bradley loused-up his references? This is unprecedented! It’s worse than we thought!
Boy, oh boy, this is a real nail-biter! I’m gonna go make popcorn.
Not.
Nice post, thank you.
I briefly investigated the concept that “there is no cutting and pasting in climatology” and found that sadly there is plenty. (It seems that the basic idea is to reuse segments of papers as much as possible – without too much regard for the author(s) – very efficient). I suspect that the underlying motivation is that quantity trumps quality (in cargo-cult science, anyway).
Personally, I’m not too bothered if this is all that can be found to do with (or justify) all the grant money. But, I’m surprised that Bradley would call out Wegman, as even Bradley seems to have hit on the same wording as other authors (as pointed out here), or reused his own many pieces of text in different papers (see below) and is widely copied in the climatology community.
I’ve made a small collection of examples here: http://climatologyplagiarism.blogspot.com/
It is an eye opener – if somewhat depressing.
Well, well, well…
How about them apple tree rings? At least it is good to see that our friends practice recycling.
Hats off to Steve McIntyre for being a couple of miles ahead of the AGW crowd.
I just finished my doctorate and I would have been absolutely killed by my committee for such violations. The least he could do is run it through Turnitin for cryin’ out loud. Lazy, lazy!
Wow. Guess he knows Plagiarism in the biblical sense.
HAHAHHAHAHHA……So, if, the failure to cite properly invalidates Wegman, wouldn’t that mean Bradley is also invalidated, hence a large portion of dendrochronologists who used his text to get their education? hahahahhaha!
The hypocrisy of Bradley is absolutely stunning. Especially considering that the Wegman report is a review of MBH whereas Bradley’s text book is a money making venture. I wonder if the “team” will ever learn to keep their mouths shut as each time they open them they show just how sleazy they really are. Excellent work Steve and thanks for posting this Anthony.
I think we’re forgetting that a glass house made of heat trapping gases will be unaffected by any ricocheting stones.
The only thing that counts is legal prosecution
Oops! Listen, you can almost hear the scurry of tiny little feet through the fetid underbrush of settled climate science . . . . . whisperings of ‘no-joy, no-joy’ drifting softly through the darkening gloom, settling like fog upon their vanishing credibility.
Thank you Mr. McIntyre.
Thank you CTM, lieutenant in the Climate Plagiarism Police International.
John
Oh lord, I assume John Mashey has heard by now. If he doesn’t do as deep of an exposé as he did with Wegman & Bradley, his analysis will weakened and appear to be a political work.
Is Harold Fritts still around? Did Blackburn use the material with permission? Encouragement? Fritts 1976 was republished in 2001, see http://www.blackburnpress.com/trerinandcli.html
http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/references.htm says:
In trying to find contact info for Fritz, most pages I found were citations of Fritz 1976.
Sorry but I can’t get excited about this. I am however curious as to whether there was any original work in this seminal piece.
DaveE.
ZT says:
October 18, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Nice job ZT – Wow!
I reminds me of my technical proposal writing days where we would make up “boiler plate” templates with example thesis paragraphs and stitch our proposals together and then (hopefully remember!) edit the boiler plates.
Except in climate science they simple republish the boiler plates. It would be funny in a kind of pathetic way but for the fact that most of these characters are one way or another funded from the public trough to produce this stuff; in other words, they are funded, one way or another, by you and I.
ZT said: “But, I’m surprised that Bradley would call out Wegman, …”
Psychologists call it projection. A man who accuses his wife of infidelity is almost always guilty of the same transgression. Bradley thinks he can live with his “minor” faults, but the truth is, he thinks of himself as a slime bag. Best to get others in the same predicament so he won’t feel so badly about it.
See: Copyright Basics
Regarding “Fair Use”
It would appear that Bradley 1985 and 1999 infringed on Fritz’s 1976 copyright. This does not appear like “fair use”, particularly when Bradley 1999 did not cite Fritz. It would appear that Fritz or heirs should have the right to sue. Any copyright lawyers care to comment?
“And this is significant why? Because Bradley loused-up his references? This is unprecedented! It’s worse than we thought!
Boy, oh boy, this is a real nail-biter! I’m gonna go make popcorn.
Not.”
Brego…you need to keep up….the reason this is “significant” is that Bradley has filed an official complaint in regards to the Wegman report for not properly referencing his work….yet he is guilty FAR beyond what he is accusing Wegman of. got it?
I like the bonus prize Steve caught by surprise while fishing for plagiarisms. Looks like Bradley lifts a whole chapter pretty much verbatim from Fritts. But where Fritts said
Bradley omitted carbon dioxide…
then Deep Climate criticised Wegman for reintroducing carbon dioxide
Now I’ve just been hearing from Tim Ball [Wikipedia “who is this man? doesn’t exist in our universe”] that Maurice Strong pretty well instituted the IPCC, to target manmade additions, to undermine the whole wealth basis of industrialised nations (while working for UN so as to be accountable to nobody, and making money for himself from this plot to impoverish others), hence IPCC targeted CO2, research be damned.
Hence in 1971 and 1976, Fritts could mention CO2, but in 1985 Bradley stealthily extracted it.
Good Job! ©
The severity of these transgressions can be debated, but I can’t help notice that with Bradley’s figure 10.6 that the drawing is not properly attributed. Fritz attributed the drawing to “M. Huggins”. Bradley did not.
I’m not sure on the correct academic procedure here. Given that Fritz clearly attributed the drawing to someone else, shouldn’t Bradley have also attributed the drawing to the person who owns the copyright (as the creator of the drawing)? Is his failure to do so a breach of copyright?
As I understand it this is a dendrochronology text book isn’t it? Has dendrochronology moved so little that the text and figures in a 1976 text book are still valid and relevant? I doubt it’s !
Where did all of that AGW money go if not for extending the science (?) of dendrochronology?
(PS Best wishes to your wife for a speedy recovery)
Have we reached the point where it is obvious that the logical historical determinants of CAGW are: Greed & the invention of word processors capable of cutting and pasting text?
I find this pretty depressing – because man made CO2 obviously has an effect on climate – but just because some people (with vested interests) have been saying that it has a large effect (repeatedly, and in the same words, in the scientific literature) does not make that particular assertion true.
I think the word is “pwnd”.
When a field is as scientifically bankrupt as climate science, it soon becomes necessary for it to retreat to its next redoubt: ethical bankruptcy.
Steve’s post is just incoherent. eg
“USE OF FRITTS 1976 CAPTIONS WITHOUT CITATION”
…
(from Fritts, 1971).
So he says it’s from Fritts – but in Steve’s opinion, Fritts 1976 is a better cite than 1971 so that’s, well …
According to John M at CA, each of the figures is used with permission, indicated in the normal textbook way in a section at the back (p 599). It’s quite normal to include the original caption, and in each case the author seems to be cited.
I guess Bradley’s work is “seminal” because he made the important discovery (apparently by clairvoyance) that CO2 doesn’t affect tree ring growth as Fritts claimed. No wonder he was annoyed when Wegman disputed his “settled” science!
Those who yell the most against things they wouldn’t, and we shouldn’t, do, usually do them with more gusto.
Good job! I love this stuff
1
Awesome
I think bradley’s book should be withdrawn from book shelves
David L. Hagen says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Yes Sir, you are largely correct.
More or less internationally these provisions have been standardised with the exception of the length of the copyright and other minor matters.
Thus for example for fair use:
I can quote the exact words especially if I attribute them thus: In his article Fred Bloggs says, viz ” the outbreak of purple spotted lurgi……”. If it is long argument, whether academic or polemic I can even quote Fred Blogg’s conclusions at length provided I do not reproduce more than a portion of the work: although I could quote the entire work if it was of public interest, such as being published in a newspaper article, and I was commenting on or rebutting more or less each and every paragraph so that it is clear I am not passing his work off as my own.
I cannot opine given what little information is available as to whether the matter you quote is a case of infringement since we don’t even know whether consent was obtained: but if so it is surprising it does not appear to have been acknowledged.
As you observe any action must lie with the author, his estate or the owners who purchased the rights.
Which does not mean that academic authorities may not inquire into the circumstances if they choose.
Kindest Regards
This all about the “theft” of Fritts’s 1976 and earlier work by Bradley and uses Bradley’s clear citations of Fritts’s earlier work. For text books and review articles this is not a problem, especially if Fritts gave permission. Plagiarism is not an issue here.
What would be a big issue is if Bradley 1999 did not cite Fritts’s work. I am not sure if SM is alleging this. Can someone check Bradley 1999 to see whether he continues to cite Fritts (I don’t have a copy handy).
From left field. P D Jones in email 1237496573 to Ben Santer.
Another issue that should be considered as well is this.
With many papers, we’re using Met Office observations. We’ve abstracted these
from BADC to use them in the papers. We’re not allowed to make these available
to others. We’d need to get the Met Office’s permission in all cases.
timheyes says:
October 18, 2010 at 7:05 pm
As I understand it this is a dendrochronology text book isn’t it? Has dendrochronology moved so little that the text and figures in a 1976 text book are still valid and relevant?>>
Of course not. In 1976 they only knew how to do a reconstruction based on large numbers of trees with carefull statistical analysis to eliminate unnatural outliers and achieved results that were in concert with the historical record. Today the science has progressed so far that statistical analysis is no longer required and neither are large numbers of trees as only the outliers (perhaps as few as 7 trees from Siberia) need be considered, and results continue to be in concert with the historical record due to the advancement of computer systems which allow for instant editing of the historical record to match outlier results. Modern techniques also make use of data series that are upside down, an ability that was not present in 1976 when such an approach would have been considered fraudulent.
But that is the nature of science. That which was science in the past is known today as a misunderstanding of the facts. That is how we know today that the earth is flat and the sun circles the earth as any fool with the powers of observation can easily see. Dendrochronology is no different, though current state of the art is much more complex than in 1976, and so requires the observations of highly educated fools, expert fools, foolish experts, journalistic foolishness and a public that has been fooled to continue to progress. History being repetitive, Gaia is playing them for fools as she has initiated the descent into an ice age that was foolishly predicted in 1976 and now forgotten. If she makes good her threat this time, we shall dispense with discussion of fools and foolish facts as we scour the earth for fuel.
Aha – Climategate Email 1037394925.txt reveals:
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/:
Professor Emeritus (Dendrochronology)
Now working on projects of my choice and enjoying life.
…
Last updated March 29, 2000
——-
See also http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/6
Say, you don’t think that Wegman was actually copying Fritts?
(Or some other third party?)
Ric Werme says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Is Harold Fritts still around?
__________________________________________________________
Here is Hal’s Homepage with contact information: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/
Here is the emeritus entry at U of AZ: http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/people/6
Last paper I could find that Dr Fritts was involved with is from 2003:
http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/trt/20030626.pdf
David L. Hagen says: October 18, 2010 at 6:30 pm
“It would appear that Bradley 1985 and 1999 infringed on Fritz’s 1976 copyright.”
Like most textbooks, Bradley’s used a large number of texts and captions (incl Fritts’) with permission from the copyright holders (p 599, Bradley 1999).
This book was published by Academic Press. Publishers keep tabs on this stuff. Incidentally AP is also Fritts’ publisher.
“texts and captions” – I meant images and captions.
I read this yesterday and was astounded at the audacity of the man. Apparently they still think the noise screen of the MSM will protect them.
@davidmhoffer says: October 18, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Absolutely excellent!
In 1976, the importance of having “pal-reviewed” papers was also in its infancy.
Lucy Skywalker says:
October 18, 2010 at 6:51 pm
Some of the most important external limiting factors are water, temperature, light, carbon dioxide, oxygen and soil minerals…
Bradley omitted carbon dioxide…
——————————————————–
Omitting carbon dioxide in a basic textbook and the context of Hockey Stick constructions looks extremely disturbing.
Did he do this already in 1985 or only since the 1999 edition ?
Deep Climate and Mashey should be commended for their diligent efforts in starting the process that, thanks to the great scholarship of Steve McIntyre, has shown that Wegman was perfectly correct in citing CO2 as a factor in the growth of tree rings and that Bradley was incorrect. I believe this is known as an own goal.
(chomping on popcorn, chomp, chomp, chomp …)
Man, I saw this thing coming a mile away back in this thread:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/on-wegman-who-will-guard-the-guards-themselves/
(oh yeah, I hereby grant myself permission to plagiarize myself 😉
@Nick Stokes, the point of this article is that, using the same methods applied to accuse Wegman of plagiarism, Bradley is also a plagiarist – and a much more thorough and comprehensive plagiarist. By their standards. Remember that. Consequently they’re either hypocrites or liars.
Archonix,
OK, where is Bradley’s plagiarism? Please point to it.
From Fritts‘ March 2000 page (not Fritz, folks!)
Last active work appears to be 2003. Looks like Fritts wrote in the days when dendroclimatology had integrity and carbon dioxide was included in the factors that influence treering size, as Wegman noted but Bradley omitted.
Thanks Mashey.
@Archonix
” Bradley is also a plagiarist – and a much more thorough and comprehensive plagiarist. “
Really? A much more thorough plagiarist because he references Fritts 1971 while Steve thinks Fritts 1976 is a better fit? This is a more “thorough” form of plagiarism than lifting entire paragraphs wholesale without reference and altering the meaning of others?
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.
Scottish author & novelist (1771 – 1832)
Link
Well done John Mashey. Not only have you outed yourself as an obsessive Internet crank, but you’ve exposed the Hockey Team to charges of widespread plagiarism and rampant hypocricy.
The best thing for Wegman to do right now is to publicly announce that he will properly attribute what was copied to the sources that Bradley copied.
Is that the sound of shattering glass I hear?
Tempest in a teapot, indeed. And by that I mean the Bradley charges, not SM’s revelations.
It seems that what has been ignored is the nature of Wegman’s report. It is NOT a published paper, but a report. Included in the report is a section that provides background/review to the topic which is the subject of the report, namely the misuse of statistics by Mann et al.
The rules for attribution for a report are not the same as for published academic articles. Wegman does provide attribution for his background, just not in the way it would be required for a published article.
SM’s exposure of Bradley’s copying of Fritts’s text does show that wholesale copying of text is common in textbooks, but is not a big deal since permission was granted.
What SM has done though is provide enough material for Wegman, if his defenders wish to use it at GM, to get Bradley’s charges summarily dismissed as sour grapes. It will not however stop the team from using this with their choir as “evidence” of Wegman’s being a hack, and therefore tainting his statistical analysis.
Its all about muddying the waters. In that Bradley and the team have likely succeeded, but only with those already in the choir. Unfortunately this choir includes a lot of powerful people – for now.
Only a numbskull would deny CO2 didn’t influence tree ring size. That, or they’re bowing to god Gaia in the name of climate science.
Archonix says:
October 19, 2010 at 2:41 am
——————-
Archonix,
Regarding the two below commenter challenges for you to show the Bradley plagiarism, you should check the CA post on it. There is more detailed discussion than here at WUWT.
Of course, Stokes and sharperoo could have told you that, but it appears not to be their style.
NOTE: It appears that this is getting wide circulation, like the Bradley PR blitz against Wegman did. I am sure a lot of independent thinkers are now looking at widespread plagiarism in the settled science publications. Bradley made a tactical error of major proportions. Look for an avalanche of settled science issues resulting from Bradley’s PR mistake.
John
Martin Brumby says:
October 19, 2010 at 12:11 am
@davidmhoffer says: October 18, 2010 at 9:46 pm
Absolutely excellent!
In 1976, the importance of having “pal-reviewed” papers was also in its infancy.>>
Thanks. When I first started reading dendro studies it was out of simple interest. Kept finding Briffa citing Jones and Mann, so look up Mann and he cites Jones and Briffa, and around the circle we go without end. One of my first wake up calls that the “fix” was in. If someone is able to draw, I would dearly like to have a caricature drawing of the three of them in robes and singing together to the obvious tune:
We three kings of dendro are
Raising the price, of running your car
Data bogus, and though we know it
Follow us, we are the Stars
Stars of tricking, Stars of hiding
Rings declining, still we’re shining
Fiction leading, Still proceeding
Stop your whining, We’re deciding
Who besides, we the Stars
Will even get, to keep their cars
Cherry picking, guys?
I said using the same methods applied to accuse Wegman of plagiarism, Bradley is also a plagiarist.
Learn to read. Seriously.
@John Whitman
“Of course, Stokes and sharperoo could have told you that, but it appears not to be their style.”
The link to CA is the third line of the post we’re all commenting on, why would someone direct to a link that’s already given?
Even if you uncritically accept all the accusations against Wegman and all the accusations against Bradley I don’t see how it supports the conclusion that Bradley is a “more thorough” plagiarist than Wegman.
According to this post Bradley is guilty of referencing the wrong year when citing Fritts and possibly using “after” in a fashion which would make the reader think there were more changes than there were.
Wegman is accused of copying and pasting large chunks of text without any citation at all (i.e. leading the reader to believe it was original work) and altering the meaning of copied text in other instances. This is a significantly more serious charge and bears no relation to the claims against Bradley here.
“I am sure a lot of independent thinkers are now looking at widespread plagiarism in the settled science publications. Bradley made a tactical error of major proportions. Look for an avalanche of settled science issues resulting from Bradley’s PR mistake.”
I think everyone is going to regret opening this Pandora’s Box. It adds nothing to the discussion or science and threatens to consume a lot of bandwith for childish pointmaking.
I liked Watts’ collegial and mature approach to a missing citation better.
Lucy Skywalker says:
Hence in 1971 and 1976, Fritts could mention CO2, but in 1985 Bradley stealthily extracted it.
+++++++++++++++
Lucy, you have hit Tuesday’s nail on the head. The citation/attribution noise is loud but the major issue is still the missing CO2 because the whole point of the deletion was to hide the real influence of CO2 on trees. Purpose? To claim different role for CO2 with a large agenda in tow.
Personally I am not as offended by the lack of or or inaccurate citation as I am by the twisting of facts to suit a non-factual claimed role for CO2 in the atmosphere.
Of course Bradley attacks Wegman on the basis of citation! What else can he say? I suspect he did not think that the deletion of CO2 from the original source would be noticed. If all the citations are attributed correctly in the back of the textbook it means he is deliberately mis-misrepresenting the works of another, while claiming to have correctly cited it. Wow.
In other words either a) he did not really plagerise the work, presenting as he does that CO2 is not a factor in tree growth which is the original claim, or b) he does cite the author correctly but edits the quote to deviously use the stature of the author by mis-quoting him to support a different/contrary argument, or c) the charts are in fact plagerised as was the text which was edited to support his own ideas, contrary to the conclusions of the source author. Do academics have a word for that?
sharper00 says:
October 19, 2010 at 3:46 am
@Archonix
” Bradley is also a plagiarist – and a much more thorough and comprehensive plagiarist. “
Really? A much more thorough plagiarist because he references Fritts 1971 while Steve thinks Fritts 1976 is a better fit? This is a more “thorough” form of plagiarism than lifting entire paragraphs wholesale without reference and altering the meaning of others?
—…—…
???? Bradley directly profited from his plagiarism because he lifted entire sections and illustrations directly from two earlier sources!
“Attributing” a source doesn’t imply the permission to copy entire graphs, photo’s, charts, and paragraphs. That’s what a Xerox copier does – and a Xerox is apparently far better at copying than a supposed PhD.
@RACookPE1978
“???? Bradley directly profited from his plagiarism because he lifted entire sections and illustrations directly from two earlier sources!”
And each of them says where they’re from. Look at the screenshots above and you’ll see the Bradley versions have “from Fritts” or “after fritts” on all of them.
““Attributing” a source doesn’t imply the permission to copy entire graphs, photo’s, charts, and paragraphs. That’s what a Xerox copier does – and a Xerox is apparently far better at copying than a supposed PhD.”
It doesn’t which is why “John M” over on the CA thread checked to see if the appropriate permissions had been obtained and they had, see:
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/#comment-243664
So the images are cited and the permissions were obtained.
Steve McIntyre’s complaint centers around whether Fritts 1976 is a closer cite than is Fritts 1971 or whether the text is quite different enough for the use of “after” as a cite. It’s an extremely weak claim.
Crispin in Waterloo;
re Lucy Skywalker:
Lucy, you have hit Tuesday’s nail on the head. The citation/attribution noise is loud but the major issue is still the missing CO2 because the whole point of the deletion was to hide the real influence of CO2 on trees.>>
This one has been tickling away at the edges of my mind since this thread began, and I finaly got it. In 1971 the accurate records being kept of CO2 levels at Mauna Loa were just over a decade old. Hardly enough to show any correlation with tree rings and CO2 levels, and only a 15 ppm change to boot. For Fritts to cite CO2 levels as a factor, he would have had to have measurements of historical CO2 levels from somewhere to correlate with tree rings. If so, it would be very interesting to see what data he used over what time frame. In another thread, Englebeen dismisses Beck’s claims of a CO2 spike in the 40’s based in part on no corroborating proxy. I’d be interested in learning if Fritts data supports Beck or not, and on a larger scale, what fluctuations in CO2 Fritts correlated to and how big they were. Are they in dispute with the accepted background CO2 level of 280 ppm?
I’d fire off an email to Beck who would no doubt have responded with observations of interest, but he has, alas, passed on. Englebeen however is very much alive and active, and though he disagrees with Beck, his criticisms have been well documented, fairly presented, credibly and respectfully argued. I’d be most interested in his reading of CO2 levels as discussed by Fritts. Perhaps Anthony or one of the mods can reach out to him for a more detailed response?
——–
sharper00,
Thank you for your reply.
I need to be short with my response since I am out and about with my BB.
Charges against Bradley? I know of no lawsuit regarding his Fritts related scholarship activities.
Your implication, a day into looking at Bradley, is that anything found is just false. Right? Wait a few days. Also, things found will not always be revealed by the discoverer until consideration is given about what to do with it. I think we had this conversation before regarding Cuccinelli & Mann.
John
You can tell that the science has run out when you are left to scrape the barrel with plaguerism jibes.
From my quick review of this article, it appears that Bradley has attributed material to the author but for the main part merely cited the wrong reference. A mistake for sure, but not exactly earth shattering.
Wegman’s omissions are at first glance more serious. However, one must take into account the nature of the document and what analysis was to be expected of Wegman. Background, is often considered to be common knowledge and I doubt that Wegman was intending to pass off his backgound summary as if it were his own original work and I doubt that any reader of the report would consider the background summary to be that of Wegman’s original work. That said, the background summary should have been attributed, or in some other way made cleafr that this was (largely) lifted from Bradley’s paper upon which the report was commenting upon.
As far as I am concerned, the most interesting aspect of all of this is the deletion (or omission -whether negligent, inadvertent or delibberate) by Bradley of CO2 as one of the factors that influence tree growth. Any one possessing an ounce of commonsense would readily appreciate that this is a factor relavent to plant/tree growth and hence the deletion/omission of this by Bradley does suggest that his scientific nouse and knowledge is severely lacking and leaves much to be desired.
PS: Usual forensic scruiting by SM which is most impressive.
Sharperoo: Do you perhaps agree that editing out the references in Fritts’ works to CO2 while claiming to have cited them (as you show above) constitutes a factual misrepresentation of the known role of atmospheric CO2 on the growth of tree rings?
The core message from Bradley et al is that CO2 is not a contributing factor and that temperature is the major one. It seems clear to me that Bradley is misusing the works of Fritts, perhaps attributed correctly and cited selectively, in order to misrepresent reality: that CO2 is an important factor in the width of tree rings.
You can see from http://www.ltrr.arizona.edu/~hal/halmodel.html that Fritts repeatedly notes that ‘available carbon’ is an important and indeed limiting factor in the size of tree rings. I have been reading on this topic for years and it surprises me to find out now that Bradley knew from the work of Fritts that CO2 was important and that he deleted that critical information while simultaneously proffering scientific claims for the dominant role of temperature, and further, by omission, the unimportance of the CO2 level in the atmosphere in the science of dendochronology. Later, others took up that cudgel and directly attacked the importance of CO2 on tree ring growth. I am interesting in ther motivation for doing so, given that the importance of CO2 was standard fare.
While I expect a lot of bleating and beating around the academic bush, the principal sin to me is the manipulating of the original reference with the intention of making CO2 seem to be a primary driver of climate. I mean, call a spade a spade: he had an agenda.
When you checked for the permission to cite Fritts, did you see any note that gave Bradley permission to edit chart notes and mis-quote Fritts on the issue of CO2 while attributing the notes to the original source?
Does Bradley make it clear in the midst of the cited works of Fritts (whether referenced correctly or not) that he differs with him on the issue of the importance of CO2 in tree ring growth theory, and that he had edited Fritts’ chart note to reflect his own opinion?
If Bradley did not make it clear he was doing this, does it not mean Bradley was trying to use Fritts’ standing as an expert dendochronologist to support his (Bradley’s) own opinion, while actually hiding the fact that Fritts’ original works do not? According to Fritts, there is no way to ‘hide the decline’ in the importance of temperature on tree ring growth if CO2 is considered a growth factor. Call it a ‘dimuition of relevance’ if you like. Bradley, in my view, tried to expurgate that knowledge from the cited works and substitute an inferior understanding that is at variance with established fact which are: CO2 has a strong influence on tree ring growth and available carbon is a limiting growth factor, as has been continuously reported by Fritts over the past 39 years. If Bradley wished to establish that Fritts is incorrect on these matters, he should not have edited Fritt’s science when trying to do so, all the while claiming to have been citing his works.
Why “our man McIntyre” is not revered as a rock star like Mick Jagger is beyond me. He has almost singlehandedly saved humanity from the ravages of the global elite who wanted a one world government ushered in by a global CO2 tax.
Given the number of trolls operating here and shouting “you’re wrong” I suspect there is some fire here after all.
Perhaps widening the search to other team authors would reveal some interesting stuff.
The arm-waving from various accusers of Wegman have unwittingly (or witlessly) allowed the sharp intellect of Lucy Skywalker and others to highlight Bradley’s devious and stealthy removal of the references to CO2, that excellent plant food, from Fritt’s work while transferring it to his own textbook.
This is academic banditry on Bradley’s part and it probably would have remained hidden without the silly arm-waving that some have reckoned to be an intelligent response to all that has been laid bare by Mr McIntyre’s investigation..
Crispin in Waterloo says:
That was one of the clearest discussions of the prime issue I’ve seen. thank you.
You will notice no comment on the fact that the two documents in question are two different things…
One is a report which is supposed to be educational to Congress, and is not in itself supposed to be taken as a published paper…and this is where we are now on trying to determine of all things…copying original works. This is a very big difference.
Now if we assume they are the same thing (which makes ZERO sense) … If the work went from Frits – Bradley – Wegman, then in actuality Bradley has no room to complain about copying since the original author of the work is someone else. Just because he copied someone else does not mean his work is original in that sense, which is the litmus test even for published papers. And at the most we have a mistake in the citations. However, Bradley has no horse in this, he can’t cry foul when he got the original material from someone else. Wegman will be exonerated and I am sure the media will say nothing unlike with Mann when it was big news everytime he got white-washed out of trouble.
This stinks of something else, and I think we all will be looking at this merry-go-round of references in much more detail from now on, since apperantly its important for some reason…
So. Bradley was a bad boy for not reinventing the wheel. Steve criticises for proper methodology: building on previous work and giving proper credit.
Next he is critisised for not using previous work ( co2 ). Maybe Bradley didn’t think this part was important.
Hard to yap plagiarist when nothing was written. Sort of like meeting a man that wasn’t there. He wasn’t there again today. Oh how I wish he’d go away. Because I forget who wrote that ( it wasn;t me ) I’m going to claim public domain. So sue me.
This has been one of the most remarkable threads in the speed in which the posters have sifted through the chaff and found the one nugget of indisputable fact.
The chaff, of course, is whether Bradley copied Fritts without permission or citation, or whether or not he used 1976 instead of 1971, or vice versa. Then someone noticed – hats off to Lucy Skywalker – the original work of Fritz had contained and explicit reference to CO2 that was removed in the Bradley version. Crispin in Waterloo has summarised the importance of this most succintly when he wrote:
“If Bradley did not make it clear he was doing this [removing the CO2 reference], does it not mean Bradley was trying to use Fritts’ standing as an expert dendochronologist to support his (Bradley’s) own opinion, while actually hiding the fact that Fritts’ original works do not?”
Bradley now has some explaining to do, in the metaphorical sense. In reality of course, Bradley’s hiding of the CO2 will never be discussed outside of sceptical blogs.
Some of the most important external limiting factors are water, temperature, light, carbon dioxide, oxygen and soil minerals…
There’s a reason water is at the front of this list. Trees can grow in a wide range of temperature providing sufficient water is available. It doesn’t work the other way around.
Mac The Knife strikes again. Cudos, Steve.
John McManus – quick question:
Do you think Steve M went into this much detail because Bradley was claiming plagerism by Wegman? I do. It seems that Bradley claims that Wegman used Bradley’s published and copyrighted work without giving due credit. It appears that when Steve M looked into it, he found that at least some of the work was not Bradley’s in the first place rendering the plagerism claim a bit shaky. Bradley used to say at least some of it was from Fritts. Is that correct?
It seems from the whole content above that initially Bradley correctly cited the works of Fritts and dropped at least some of the references when producing a textbook for sale. One contributor disagrees that the references are missing. I would think that a brief investigation would clear that up pronto. Citation is highly formalised.
What is interesting of course is mis-quoting, correctly cited, with a view to ‘editing’ the science in order to support a certain, different (even contrary), viewpoint. Given the proclivities of the Team, and given evidence this clear, I suggest that we all take a moment each day to look up original citations of critical documents to see if quotes have been similarly edited. It definitely qualifies as a new trick.
It is most likely to take place with citations from older off-line publications and also with ‘crossover sciences’ where previously, mentions of a warmer past or higher CO2 were not contentious. Now that articles routinely have to include some arcane reference to AGW in order to appear in print (witness the lunacy in the New Scientist) there are ‘camps’ emerging. Who know who they are.
We are well aware that the Team has been cross-citing each other’s papers, building up a long list of ‘verified and much cited works’ and conspiring to not cite contrary papers or the publications they appeared in. What we perhaps have not been investigating is the accuracy of quotes taken from outside the group to see if this new trick is widespread.
Remember who pal-reviewed the papers (love the phrase!) and you can immediately see the risk: if your pal is reviewing the paper, will your pal wink when you carefully edit the correctly cited quote from an old paper to be more supportive of your modern argument?
Who reviewed Bradley’s papers? Was the deletion of Fritts’ inclusion of CO2 as a growth factor for tree rings noticed? Did the reviewer have a vested interest in seeing the reference(s) removed? Was Bradley asked to correct the mis-quote?
If the quote was corrected now, would it change in any way the arguments presented in the original article(s) or the textbook? If the core arguments based on the dendochronological temperature reconstructions are undermined by the limitations or fertilisations of CO2, are the core conclusions of the IPCC reports similarly undermined?
CAGW is a warm and cosy sweater designed by a close-knit group for an funding Emperor. Steve M tugged at another loose end and, stitch by stitch, it is unravelling. Carry on tugging – it is going to be a revealing exercise.
Alexander K says: October 19, 2010 at 12:49 pm
“Bradley’s devious and stealthy removal of the references to CO2”
Bradley did not remove carbon dioxide from anything. They are talking about different things. Fritts was talking about factors influencing plant growth. Bradley is talking about factors influencing treering width. Bradley was not “copying” Fritts. The context is totally different.
Heh, does carbon dioxide influence tree ring width? Your sophistry just adds to the general hilarity of the joke. Give it up. Are you the last man standing?
==================
Nick Stokes,
“Fritts was talking about factors influencing plant growth. Bradley is talking about factors influencing treering width.”
Last time I checked, trees were plants, but keep up the good work.
I have reviewed the long passages above in the article.
Nick Stokes: “Bradley did not remove carbon dioxide from anything. ”
That is contested by the facts above where the deletion is clearly marked and discussed.
NS “They are talking about different things. Fritts was talking about factors influencing plant growth. Bradley is talking about factors influencing treering width. ”
They were not only talking about exactly the same thing, Bradley was using long passages from Fritts to do his talking for him.
NS “Bradley was not “copying” Fritts. The context is totally different.”
Not only did Bradley copy Fritts exactly on several occasions, and almost exactly on others, the context is identical as they were discussing exactly the same thing.
It is not possible to put a ‘context’ wash on this. Bradley’s work was considered by DC to be ‘seminal’, yet significant portions of the relevant portions of the book are directly lifted from Fritts whose 1976 book is formally credited in Bradley 1985. It was Fritts whose work was seminal, and Bradley said so in 1985. He said that about works DC thinks were Bradley’s. DC thinks they were Bradley’s because some of the work is not credited in the textbook to its real source: Fritts. This is not complicated.
Further to the claim made by a poster above, I investigated the common practice for citing references in textbooks. The claim was that the references are given in the back of the book and therefore the works were reproduced with the permission of Fritts, asked and given. However, when I looked into a number of textbooks I found that in each and every case, figures used from other sources are individually credited in the captions. In one case, I found an entire book “Mechanics of Materials”, Hibbeler, Prentice Hall Second Ed, that had no material at all that was no original and it contains no references. Fair enough. In another, “Engineering Materials”, Budinski, Prentice Hall, I found that every single externally sourced figure or chart or photo has its source given. For example, p.437 “From Chemical Engineering, reprinted with permission”. I also checked “Convection Heat Transfer” by Bejan – who writes many of the best thermo textbooks. Again, all external sources are individually referenced.
Thus I conclude that to use an external source without giving the source in the caption is non-standard practise in the publishing world. Photos in newspapers are individually credited, for example. I cannot accept the argument that using unreferenced materials in the text and having somewhere in the back a list that includes Fritts constitutes proper citation and I revert to my earlier position that Bradley used Fritts’ work without giving due credit.
Reviewing the seminal works of Fritts and the lengthy quotes used by Bradley appended with ‘after Fritts, 1976’ it struck me that a student doing that in a paper would be disciplined. It is ironic that Bradley now seeks to discipline Wegman for plagiarising material Bradley placed, unreferenced in the normal sense of the word, in a book others have been led to believe was ‘seminal’ when the works belong to Fritts.
Regarding the removal of “CO2”:
“For example, Fritts (p 11) listed carbon dioxide as an important external limiting factor – a limiting factor notably left out by Bradley (but included by Wegman, a point with which DC took issue.)”
This is extraordinary! Wegman included Fritts’ original wording in his report and DC thinks that Wegman has distorted Bradley’s work! As far as I can see, in this particular case Wegman may not have quoted Bradley at all. Why does DC think it was Bradley’s original work being mis-quoted by Wegman? Because Bradley did NOT attribute the quote correctly, or at all apparently. Clearly DC has been led by Bradley to believe that Bradley is the source of the work. That Wegman cites the original wording is important. Not only does it show that he knows where to find the original citation, it shows that he also knows Bradley change the text.
Next is a distortion of a completely different kind: attributing to Fritts things he does not say and which he apparently does not believe (hoping perhaps to capitalise on Fritts’ long-standing as an expert dendrochronologist to support his own argument).
“Another Bradley innovation was the following analogy of trees to a “filter or transducer” – the sort of metaphor that has been contested at Climate Audit as long as this blog has been going. Although Bradley cites Fritts 1976 as authority, I was unable to locate Fritts’ use of this metaphor (it is possible that I missed it, since I have Fritts 1976 only in a non-searchable form). However, Fritts seems mercifully free of thinking of trees as a sort of electronic transceiver nor have I thus far seen any examples of the signal-noise metaphor nor of “climate the dependent variable with ring-width data the predictor”.
Why does Bradley claim that Fritts supports this idea? Or rather, why would he tell us that Fritts does? It appears to be because Fritts is/was the Main Man in the world of dendochronology, the author of the seminal works. It might have helped Bradley’s case to have it noised about that the ‘filter/transducer’ idea was supported by Fritts, which so far as we know, it is not. If it was, Bradley would no doubt have referenced the source because it would have helped found his argument. As we say, citation please:
“From the point of view of paleoclimatology, it is perhaps useful to consider the tree as a filter or transducer which, through various physiological processes, converts a given climatic input signal into a certain ring width output that is stored and can be studied in detail, even thousands of years later (Fritts, 1976; Schweingruber, 1988, 1996).”
“Fritts, 1976”. That’s it. Untraceable.
Finally a word about context. In the world of academic plagiarism, context matters not a whit as far as I can see. “Fair use’ is pretty well defined. Reporting ‘common knowledge’ is reasonable. Something as mundane as, “The exponential distribution”, a chart with a logarithmic Y axis and a diagonal straight line across it (Figure 22-4, “Motion and Time Study”, Niebel, 1993, p.682 is referenced to “The Port of New York Authority”.
I cannot see how Bradley will escape the charge that he used the works of others without proper citation, that he edited at least one of them to change, materially, its obvious and intended meaning, that he attributed to an expert in the field support for some proposition he apparently did not. Further, through this combination, Bradley has produced a work which experts in the field were induced, by its content, to believe Bradley was substantially the original author, to such a point that the work is considered by such experts to be ‘seminal’. I take it that DC is an expert in dendrochronology and or climatology and that we can assume his belief in the originality of Bradley’s work is the direct result of the contents of the book in question, considering its cited sources and references. Perhaps DC, being now made aware of the real source of the charts, notes and figures, will consider Fritts to have produced the seminal works, as apparently did Bradley in 1985. This materially affects the charges DC supports against Wegman.