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
I think it bears repeating that Dr Wegman and his colleagues did their work at the request of a duly authorized congressional committee for the great price of FREE-gratis-that is, without compensation.
For this minor terpitude to stain an otherwise praiseworthy effort to ferret out the Truth is too extreme for anyone to abide in good conscience.
Thomas says: May 16, 2011 at 4:45 am
“Well, congratulations to Deep Climate ..
Odd, I don’t remember any comments like this from Wegman about the anonymous person who stole the mails in ClimateGate…
Good point!
but then again, on reflection, if this were climategate Wegman would have been vindicated as some national hero having had a completely different paper checked for signs of bubonic plague (plaguerism!)
Were any warmists bitching about this plagiarism in 2006, 2007, or 2008?
Prior to Climate Gate, the Wegman Report was no more than an ant on the picnic table for the Warmists. Then, after the Wizards of Warm were exposed behind the curtain, then they had to try to destroy any credible skeptical arguments. The Wegman Report served their purpose (even though the warming fraud and the subversion of the peer-review proccess had been documented extensively since).
Scottish Sceptic says:
May 16, 2011 at 12:55 am
**I’m sorry, if the paper was sloppy enough to contain plagiarised text, then it is sloppy enough to contain other mistakes.**
Have you found them and proven your innuendo? If not then you should retract your remarks.
[Snip. Pejorative use of the d-word violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Does anyone have links to the specific sections of plagiarized text by Wegman, from the original report and/or the Journal article?
Plagarism. What a horrible crime. So horrible that the US has a sitting Vice-President who has been guilty of it on multiple occasions. Will Deep Climate seek to have Joe Biden retracted?
Taphonomic says:
May 16, 2011 at 8:42 am
Plagarism. What a horrible crime. So horrible that the US has a sitting Vice-President who has been guilty of it on multiple occasions. Will Deep Climate seek to have Joe Biden retracted?
===========================================
lol, very nice! In a show of solidarity for truth, I’d join him in such effort!
Hathaway’s forecast is based on data up to the day of the forecast, ….This is the way it should be. Just as the forecast for next week’s weather should be based on the latest data.
Met office has abandoned long range forecasts. Perhaps Hathaway should do the same, and forecast the next week’s SSN.
“As far as I can tell, nobody is disputing the paper’s findings though.”
Although, according to a new article from Dan Vergano, in the opinion of a social networks expert the paper was not very good and furthermore it was not properly peer-reviewed:
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2011/05/retracted-climate-critics-study-panned-by-expert-/1
Apologies for the random quote “As far as I can tell, nobody is disputing…” that doesn’t come from this blog. It was on my clip board and was pasted by mistake. Copy and paste can be a dangerous thing!
Thomas says: May 16, 2011 at 4:45 am
“..Deep Climate… attack a man….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…(emphasis added)
***************
First, it was our beloved Anthony, (no sarc intended) not Wegman, who made the comment. That aside, you have made a faulty comparison.
The “outing” of Deep Climate would not expose him/her to the same kind of brutal retribution that whoever released the “Climategate” emails would have been exposed to. We have seen the AGW crowd demand everything from revocation of certification to war crime trials, to organized thuggery against those they perceive as being enemies. For example their entire “peer review” process was nothing but a corrupt organization to promote “True-believers” and cast out (blacklist) the “Non-believers”.
I expect that whoever released the “Climategate” emails would have been blacklisted as a minimum and probably sent to prison.
No equivalence at all.
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)
What I find newsworthy is that USAToday finds newsworthy a retraction of 4+year old article in the journal Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, based upon a Congressional Report. Not only do they find it newsworthy, but worthy of immediate publication Monday and a followup with peer review by “network analysis expert Kathleen Carley of Carnegie Mellon” on Tuesday morning. What coverage!
When I did my degree, the rule was plagarism was if you copied from a single source. If you used multiple sources, this was called research. I guess you have to be really picky on your researchers. But the bottom line is that the guy who publishes is responsible. The simple truth is that you have to check everything and then check it again. This will not appeal to the warmist. If it fits the religion – it’s OK. But if you are a scientist, you will check and check again.
Paul A says:
May 16, 2011 at 9:07 am
Apologies for the random quote “As far as I can tell, nobody is disputing…” that doesn’t come from this blog. It was on my clip board and was pasted by mistake. Copy and paste can be a dangerous thing!
=====================================
No problem, it was what I was thinking and I suspect many others.
So let me get this straight, the “social networking” aspect isn’t regarded as being very good???
I’m sure by now, all people interested have read the original report and we can make our own judgment as to what that means. It was a side issue (yet detailed) of the report, and the climate-gate e-mails have bore it out the inferences as valid and very relevant.
Sorry, I’ll take reality over the word of a social networking expert every day.
Paul A,
Per the article you linked:
Ri-i-i-i-i-ght. The dog ate his homework.
“Thou shall not plagiarize” is the first thing an undergraduate students learns.
Plagiarizing is dishonest. and i find it truly amazing there are people here defending dishonesty.
Plagiarism is scientific misconduct. Period.
On top of that, Plagiarism from Wikipedia in a supposedly peer reviewed journal article is about as embarassing as it gets. For the authors, the journal and the reviewers.
Found in steven mosher on May 16, 2011 at 12:31 am:
Sorry Anthony, the name was mentioned several times in the comments of this 2009 WUWT post. I just Googled the mentioned name with the blogging handle, the name was given in a comment by Mosh in this 2011 post on Judith Curry’s blog.
And Steve McIntyre outed him in this January 2011 Climate Audit post.
As you have too much integrity to edit the archives to say “It wasn’t done on my site!” you’d best just admit the name is out there and let it be used here, again.
REPLY: With volunteer moderators, I don’t see every comment that gets approved here, there are far too many. Thanks for bringing that one to my attention in 2009. Since he put his name on his website registration then, it became a matter of public record then. Though it appears now he has hidden it, but the genie can’t be put back in the bottle. -Anthony
I have an idea who Deep Climate is in actuality.
kadaka.
Everybody in the know knows who he is. It’s not a big deal. maybe he is worried it will harm his music career. I dont see how, I still watch susan sarandon movies. he needs to get over himself.
Never Mind….His name is common knowledge.
“Not only do they find it newsworthy, but worthy of immediate publication Monday and a followup with peer review by “network analysis…”
this is politics.
they go for the talking points.
the skeptics haven’t got that type of political savoire-faire.
until you have a warmist head.on.a.pike, you’ve not made a dent in their political machine.
next time there is a chance to win over anything in court, it would be politic to ram it home.
one talking point can be used to grab another.
failure to get one when it’s there for the taking becomes a talking point against you, too. e.g., “all this time they have totally failed to nail a catastrophist – so obviously the catastrophists are unimpeachable.”
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
May 16, 2011 at 10:57 am
Found in steven mosher on May 16, 2011 at 12:31 am:
deep climate is
==================================
Heck, and I thought Mosh was just stating he disliked a certain style of oldies music!!! Mosh, I apologize for the thoughts about you after my misunderstanding! I really liked the group! Alot!
Seriously though, it is correct that DC is known, but, he does still enjoy a certain degree of anonymity. Mainly because of people like me that don’t care what his name is. To date, other than typically being fodder for informed skeptics, his greatest claim to fame in the climate discussion is that he forced an understudy to re-write a paper because he copied off of someone else. I can see why he still goes by DC, doesn’t seem like much to hang your hat on.
A lot of judges in the comment section here. I’d just as soon withhold judgment until I saw what was plagiarized and by whom. Plagiarism isn’t necessarily dishonest. It could be a simple oversight in citing sources. In addition, if this plagiarism wasn’t related to the meat and substance of the paper, but minor points/descriptions that the paper could have done without, then how does one call that “scientific” misconduct. I call what the AGW scientists are doing misconduct, immoral, and just plain wrong. I don’t think we can classify the alleged plagiarism in the Wegman paper as misconduct unless some new information is revealed.