Post updated below – see my own experience with plagiarism by NOAA and how it was solved easily – Anthony
I get word that USA Today reports that the caterwaulings of the anonymous Canadian named Deep Climate and his accusations of plagiarism made against Dr. Edward Wegman in the Wegman report to Congress, which later became the paper Said et al, (published in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis) has succeeded.
The paper, which revealed some questionable behavior by climate scientists has been yanked by the journal’s legal team after it went through a private 3 person review. Here’s what USA Today says:
The journal publisher’s legal team “has decided to retract the study,” said CSDA journal editor Stanley Azen of the University of Southern California, following complaints of plagiarism. A November review by three plagiarism experts of the 2006 congressional report for USA TODAY also concluded that portions contained text from Wikipedia and textbooks. The journal study, co-authored by Wegman student Yasmin Said, detailed part of the congressional report’s analysis.
Wegman’s attorney told USA Today:
“Neither Dr. Wegman nor Dr. Said has ever engaged in plagiarism,” says their attorney, Milton Johns, by e-mail. In a March 16 e-mail to the journal, Wegman blamed a student who “had basically copied and pasted” from others’ work into the 2006 congressional report, and said the text was lifted without acknowledgment and used in the journal study. “We would never knowingly publish plagiarized material” wrote Wegman, a former CSDA journal editor.
Well, congratulations to Deep Climate for being able to attack a man in another country without having having to put your name behind it. Such courage. You must be proud.
So, no problem from my view. I expect the report will be rewritten, with citations where needed, maybe even adding extra dictionary definitions of words and their origins to satisfy the imagined slights against our lexiconic ancestors envisioned by DC and Mashey man, and they’ll resubmit it with the very same conclusions. That’s what I would do.
UPDATE: Some folks have erroneously come to the conclusion that I’m siding with the idea that plagiarism is OK . Let me be clear, that’s not true at all. My issue is how this whole affair was conducted. I had my own issue with plagiarism in the case of NOAA/NCDC which I dealt with in an easy, simple way. Here’s the issue:
More dirty pool by NCDC’s Karl, Menne, and Peterson
Menne solved the attribution issue at my request…and here’s the solution and path forward I offered, with a hint to DC, Mashey, et al to take it.
How to solve attribution conflicts in climate science
I wrote then:
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.
It would have been easy for DC and Mashey to follow that example, instead they chose the “dark side” and demanded that pound of flesh along with a national newspaper writer acting as an accessory for public flogging. It’s ugly the way it was handled. Again, the best way forward, now that they have their pound of flesh, is for Said et al to make the appropriate edits and citations were needed, and resubmit the paper. – Anthony
This is a situation that shouldn’t have happened. The message has been drowned in the noise from vital omitted details. If you put your name to a paper then you must surely check the contents very rigorously before submitting it. The blame lies with the author(s) and no one else.
You know what the Nixon-era tactic of ‘manufactured, irrelevant, cruel and incorrect rumors or outright falsehoods designed to damage or destroy an opponent’ was called?
It began with the word ‘rat’, with a four-letter word attached right behind. We all know who exactly the rat-lovemaking gang is.
Anthony, he seems pretty giddy about this…
http://deepclimate.org/2011/05/15/retraction-of-said-wegman-et-al-2008-part-1/
http://deepclimate.org/2011/05/15/retraction-of-said-wegman-et-al-2008-part-2/
I’ll bet $100 that the headlines in the alarmists blogs, articles, etc. say something to the effect of…”Wegman report retracted! Hockey stick Vindicated!”, even though it did no such thing.
I read this blog with enthusiasm every day and have for years. I am on your side.
But this post is a disappointment, and ill-advised if you value your scientific reputation.
I really think the Accuweather site is 100% AGW but is lited as lukewarmer here. For example
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/climatechange/Science look at what they post!
Wegman needs to rewrite the report and resubmit it regardless because the conclusions don’t change.
UK Sceptic: Agreed. We should all beware relying on the lazy research assistant. But copying boilerplate descriptions of what the method of SNA entails is not in the same league as, say, running an analysis and finding that the result depends upon the inclusion of one series of data, then not declaring that in the publication submitted, but putting the results in a secret folder. Or, say, constructing a method that mines red noise for the desired pattern. Or, perhaps, hiding a decline, or representing a jaw and a skull as coming form the same species as in Piltdown Man. How many ‘n’s are there in man?
Not only rewrite the report but include a ridiculously detailed supplement with updates since it was published, including stuff on Climategate and McShane and Wyner etc…
This is a golden opportunity to bring all the conclusions from the report back into the debate and officially bury the Hockey Stick.
“Well, congratulations to Deep Climate for being able to attack a man in another country without having having to put your name behind it. Such courage. You must be proud.”
Odd, I don’t remember any comments like this from Wegman about the anonymous person who stole the mails in ClimateGate…
I would add that if you are going to cite to a particular paper, do not quote a passage, and then use that to bolster a conclusion opposite to the one the source actually came to. That really doesn’t support your work, makes you look like you never looked at the original source (which you probably didn’t anyway) and reduces your credibility in the eyes of someone who follows up on sources. Sadly, it supports your credibility and conclusions in the eyes of someone who just uncritically reads the paper, which is probably most people. Article to follow soon.
So what does this mean for Bradley then?
http://climateaudit.org/2010/10/18/bradley-copies-fritts/
icecover says:
May 16, 2011 at 4:16 am
Careful! Some members are definitely true believers and others not so. I will not name names though.
Open season on Bradley then.
starzmom says:
“I would add that if you are going to cite to a particular paper, do not quote a passage, and then use that to bolster a conclusion opposite to the one the source actually came to. That really doesn’t support your work, makes you look like you never looked at the original source (which you probably didn’t anyway) and reduces your credibility in the eyes of someone who follows up on sources.”
Sorry but that is not necessarily true. I quoted a passsage from a paper by a well-known Harvard academic in a peer-reviewed paper journal to prove that his conclusion was false. The citation (for which I did not seek permission) was necessary to show how he had misused a statistical technique to manipulate the data (perhaps unconscioulsy).
My own article, which was published in a professional magazine drew criticism from several of his disciples (who had bothereed to read it) but, following further explanation, each conceded my point and agreed that the original conclusion was nbot supported by the facts.
Slavishly following starzmom’s recommendation would inhibit all rebuttals.
USAToday gets it wrong of course. They state:
The Wegman Report takes great pains to state they are not discussing global warming – just the statistics used in the Mann studies on tree rings.
It was Mann and his “Team” that used the hockey stock studies to make the case that global warming was unprecedented.
I wonder if Said et al. will be asked to correct the problem and produce an amended paper. From what I have ascertained about the content that was cribbed all it lacked was attribution. Sounds like a pretty simple fix.
Also note that while the paper is by Said et al., the USAToday article is all about the Wegman Report.
Editorial note:
In the top post, you should name the journal which published Said et al. 2008, viz., Computational Statistics and Data Analysis.
OK.
I agree it should be retracted, as long as the IPCC AR1/2/3/4/etc that contain improper citations & references according to their own rules are retracted also.
I agree that your response to this has been disappointing.
If this had been an AGW scientist trotting out a plagiarised paper, you would be (quite rightly) sooooo all over it by now.
But instead we get an attack on an otherwise anonymous blogger.
This is very weak indeed!
vukcevic says:
May 16, 2011 at 1:06 am
Hathaway looks like ‘marching’ his prediction uphill again.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
Hathaway’s forecast is based on data up to the day of the forecast, so will change every month and simply represents the fit to the cycle so far to his standard 3-parameter formula. This is the way it should be. Just as the forecast for next week’s weather should be based on the latest data.
I’m not surprised whatsoever that a student plagarised material from Wikipedia. The inability to think creatively among people in general has become an epidemic. For the most part society has become mindless, as evidenced by the success of the contemporary environmental industry.
Wikipedia should out DC… LOL
Everyone knows this isn’t about plagiarism, it’s about eliminating political obstacles.
Andrew
Sigh…… ok, math and science doesn’t count unless we dot our i’s. What a bizarre and laughable concept.
Anthony, I agree and encourage Said to reword and republish.
The warmistas are such a tiresome group.
Poptech may be on to something…..