Reader “pottereaton” submitted this on 2013/04/01 at 2:28 pm
McIntyre/Tamino Feud brewing:
First McIntyre at DotEarth:
Steve McIntyre
Toronto, Canada
Andy,
The ideas in Tamino’s post purporting to explain the Marcott uptick,http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/ which you praise as “illuminating”, was shamelessly plagiarized from the Climate Audit post How Marcott Upticks Arise. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
It’s annoying that you (and Real Climate) would link to the plagiarization and not to the original post.
Then Tamino, (at his blog) although his comment may have preceded McIntyre’s:
UPDATE
Dave Burton, purveyor of foolishness and myths, submitted the following comment:
“Grant, I find it just plain bizarre that you wrote all this and never even mentioned Steve McIntyre, who first figured out what Marcott had done wrong, and whose excellent work is the whole reason you wrote this.”
For your information, Davy boy, McIntyre’s contribution to this was limited to his every effort to discredit the entire reconstruction, to discredit Marcott and his collaborators, and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick, sprinkled literally with thinly veiled sneering.
Also for your information, the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively. But prior to posting I decided to remove that, since McIntyre had already fully explored the “low road.”
=====================================================
IMHO, Foster’s response to Burton seems to be mostly venom, and it seems that his emotions got the better of his ability to do science professionally when he decided to remove the references. Seems like a clear case of spite to me. – Anthony
UPDATE: This is a comment and response from “Tamino” on that thread at “Open Mind”. IMHO Grant Foster might be suffering from social isolation issues (from what I know, he works from home with his cat) that prevent him from seeing a reality unfavorable to him, and so he is substituting his own. This is just sad. – Anthony
Steven Mosher | April 2, 2013 at 5:03 am |
It’s pretty simple Tamino. You wrote that you had acknowledgements in your post. You wrote that you removed them. What you think of Steve Mcintyre is not the issue. What you think of me is not the issue. Your opinion of what constitutes good scholarship is shown by the fact that you originally included the cites. So, what I think about scholarship is not the issue. Your behavior shows that you understood the right thing to do. Include the cites. For some reason you changed your mind. We will never know what that is. But your own behavior shows that when you first wrote it, you did as you were trained.
[Response: I have repeatedly stated the truth — that the only “acknowledgements” were of his mistaken ideas and his insulting tone. For you to claim that these were owed to him for reasons of “scholarship” is either mind-boggling stupidity (which I doubt) or nothing more than a pathetic excuse to denigrate me in a dazzling display of your ethical shortcomings.
Perhaps you and others are so keen to discredit my insights because it is now obvious that McIntyre was so clueless about the Marcott paper. Cite that.]
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mosher scorns his Team-Mate Eli Rabbet for hurting the Cause:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=63:3
Mosher is to be commended however for implying it may be possible the Vikings did actually live in Greenland 1000 years ago and is not a skeptic conspiracy theory.
Tamino plagiarized, according to the common usage of the word. Used antecedent ideas from others without attribution. Bad form. Worse form admitting it in writing. Steve M is right to take after him in Revkin’s own forum. NYT used to take plagarism seriously. We shall soon learn whether they still do.
Pielke Jr. yesterday provided a formal definition of scientific/academic misconduct which includes fabrication or falsification of data. Marcott’s re-dated core tops are the former, and nulling published proxy data (Isono) that should have been included in the 1940 bin is the latter. Both are self evident in the SI Excel spreadsheet. No factual dispute is possible.
The first sentence of the Science abstract is wrong and needs to be withdrawn according to the author’s own new FAQ itself.
I have written Science editors requesting the Marcott paper retraction/correction on these grounds. Rather than just commenting here, every one should arm themselves with the incontrovertible facts and then do likewise.
Make it happen.
Regards
Based on the class of Tamino’s response, I appears that what annoys him is not the sneering he perceives from SM, but rather that it’s “thinly veiled”. The whole Hockey Team seems to feel that sneering, itself, is Good Form.
I posted the following at Tamino in response to a post by Rattus Norvegicus. It’s in moderation and will likely stay there.
@atarsinc:
Are you using two computers? I alternate between “John” and “Juan” because at some time in the past I used “Juan” on my machine, and “John” on the wife’s. These stupid machines remember what you did.
Long as you’re here, I don’t know if you saw my question on http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/31/the-mail-on-sunday-takes-on-the-ccc/ at 8:14 PM. Perhaps the mods will let me repeat and sharpen it here.
Does the GISS web site enable me to know whether their database has incorporated the record from San Luis Obispo Polytech (COOP 947854) for June, 2005 to September, 2011, when NOAA’s digitized station records clearly show that measurements for that period originated from Weather Underground station KCASANLU4, wrongly attributed to COOP 947854? And if they in fact have incorporated that data, what adjustments have they made?
See the digitized records here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/coop/coop.html?_page=2&state=CA&foreign=false&stationID=047851&_target3=Next+%3E
I suppose now that I’ve been dumb enough to mention my name alterations, the mods will be after me.
: > )
Mark T, Thanks for following my suggestion. I simply want folks to be talking about the same thing when they speak of plagiarism. I don’t see plagiarism here whatsoever. Two individuals recognising an idea at roughly the same time is not plagiarism. If you (or Mr. McIntyre) feel differently, I suggest you push for sanctions. However, if your intention is to harangue and berate Tamino, you seem to have come to the right place. John Parsons, aka atarsinc.
“Davy boy” here.
Here’s the link to Steve’s comment at DotEarth:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/fresh-thoughts-from-authors-of-a-paper-on-11300-years-of-global-temperature-changes/?comments#permid=73
I posted my comment March 22, around 10pm:
Tamino simply deleted it.
I noticed it was gone, and reposted it later that evening, or early the next morning.
Tamino was annoyed. He still didn’t “approve” my comment, but he incorporated it in his “update,” with his angry reply.
Tamino heavily censors his blog. Here’s another recent message (about yet another deleted message) that he deleted:
I think Tamino often employs censorship out of embarrassment, rather than admitting his errors. Here’s an example from exactly two years ago. I first tried to post this comment (twice):
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/so-what/#comment-49972
Tamino just deleted my entire comment.
I reposted it, and he then deleted all but the 1st sentence, and added the following response:
I then posted the following reply to a comment by “Steve L.,” but Tamino deleted it, too:
I then posted the following complaint, which Tamino also deleted:
So I changed the subject, and made one more try at commenting, which Tamino also deleted:
Finally, I gave up, and went away for a long time.
Trying to convey anything meaningful at Tamino’s misnamed “OpenMind” is just about impossible.
@wte9 says:
April 1, 2013 at 5:50 pm
—————————————
Re Tamino’s response:
Brings to mind the famous quote from Emerson: “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.”
I also find it amusing that Tamino complains repeatedly about the tone of McIntyre’s posts, when it has always been clear to me that Tamino was the most vicious and irascible blogger in the field of climate science, with the possible exception of Joe Romm. I sure you could compile a large volume of insults he’s hurled at McIntyre over the years, even as McIntyre hardly knew who he was.
Welcome to climatology – here’s your straitjacket….
It takes a ‘special’ kind of narcissism to call oneself Tamino.
atarsinc says:
April 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm
So now you’re policing what others say, define their motives, and require they follow your requirements? How is it you people think you’re right about everything and everybody should follow your script?
That’s one of the reasons the kind of “climate science” practiced by “The Team” is so far off the rails.
Hmmm, I did not “follow your suggestion,” I simply pointed out that you need a better understanding yourself. This is not a case of two people discovering something at the same time, as evidenced by Grant’s own admission to the contrary… unless you really believe his comments about originally referencing Steve’s work were, what, just a joke? You did read about that, right, or did you just pretend it did not happen like so many of the other “open minded” folks like yourself?
Mark
Why try, Dave Burton? Tamino has nothing to gain and everything to lose by letting contrary posts get through. There is no win for you, only frustration.
Mark
atarsinc says:
April 1, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Mark T, Thanks for following my suggestion. I simply want folks to be talking about the same thing when they speak of plagiarism. I don’t see plagiarism here whatsoever. Two individuals recognising an idea at roughly the same time is not plagiarism. If you (or Mr. McIntyre) feel differently, I suggest you push for sanctions. However, if your intention is to harangue and berate Tamino, you seem to have come to the right place. John Parsons, aka atarsinc.
——————————————————————————-
John, what you are saying is that you don’t see provable plagiarism. And you might be right, but you really don’t know. McIntyre says there was and he doesn’t make such accusations lightly. McIntyre knows the kind of work that Tamino is capable of doing having dealt with him over the years. I remember a dispute over something that SM and I posted on at Open Mind back in 2007 or thereabouts. So McIntyre has known of Tamino for a while and I do not think he would have announced in the New York Times that Tamino plagiarized his work without good reason.
You should be aware that “roughly the same time doesn’t work here.” McIntyre posted his work on the uptick a full week before Tamino posted his. It’s clear that Tamino spent a lot of time studying McIntyre’s post before he posted his work, and he even admits that “the original version of this post mentioned McIntyre (and linked to his posts) extensively.”
When it comes to who is the most credible on this issue, you are a fool if you choose Tamino.
Correction to the above post: “‘ . . . roughly the same time'” doesn’t work here.”
If a fellow cannot put his own name to his posts or whatever why should anyone pay any attention to him/her/whatever? No name? Bin it.
Davyboy: thanks for the historical context. I posted a few days back on ClimateAudit that I thought that Tamino was a little more open-minded when it came to moderating posts, but your post above suggests to me that I’m mistaken. Certainly he’s always been an authoritarian type who didn’t suffer criticism– or for that matter, opposition– gladly.
He’s really stepped in it this time. And his excuses, evasions, diversions and insults are not convincing anyone but the most hardened believers that he did not borrow, to use a less damning term, liberally from Steve McIntyre’s analysis.
Grant Foster aka “Tamino” may be compensating for his own lack of formal education by flailing when cornered. I’ve yet to see a single citation of any degree granted to him in any subject by any accredited institution, and I have looked.
I read here a year or so ago that Grant Foster teaches at Howard U.
REPLY: No, Tamino works out of his apartment in Maine. You are thinking of Eli Rabett, aka Joshua Halpern. – Anthony
The only reason that should matter, Greg, is if Tamino himself is pushing his own authority. Even then, who really cares – nobody is ever correct because of their authority. Only in climate science have I ever seen such importance placed on pedigree.
Mark
Tamino is clearly another climate “scientist” with “issues”…
Why would any normal person believe anything the Team says? They have no principles.
Some my old favorites from former run ins with Tammy
But waaay beter is his appearence here in total recall
rogerknights, I believe you’ve confused Tamino with the Eli Rabett sock, whose alter ego appears to be one Josh Halpern, a chemistry professor at Howard.
Mark T, I’ve made no remark in this thread or anywhere else that *anyone* “is ever correct because of their authority”. Where did that get dredged from? What is incredible is that Grant Foster’s education is a blank in every partial bio that seems to be online. Well hidden. Unusual. I’ve heard 3rd party claims that he has a PhD in physics, an intimation he was working on a masters in stats, another that he was self taught in civil engineering. Does anyone know?
Grant Foster is incapable of reasoned debate or scientific discussion. He recently did two whole posts on his laughably ill-named “Open Mind” blog, criticising a graph I had produced
When I questioned his fourier analysis in the most gentle way he just deleted my comments then blocked further discussion and claimed to have “powned” me.
The second article called me a liar twice and he banned me permanently without allowing me a right to defend myself.
Yeah, right. Shout insults, run away and claim to have won.
Open Mind or Cowardly bigot?
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/open-mind-or-cowardly-bigot/