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.
What does 10:10 measure and what if we fail? 10:10 aims to be simple and aspirational rather than punitive. It asks us to track only our heating, electricity, and business travel for one year. It takes account of Hogan
the need for organisations to grow during that year and is interested durante the commitment to sopravvissuto as much as the actual reductions achieved.
Once again the ‘professionals ‘ in climate science operate at a standard that would be unacceptable for a undergraduate student. And once again I have to ask , are there actual any standards within climate ‘science’?
Greg Goodman:
re your experience of ‘Tamino’ which you report in your post at April 1, 2013 at 11:46 pm.
Tamino is a legend in his own lunchtime, and nothing else.
The man is a liar and a fool. He is in the same league as the guy who posts as ‘Eli Rabbett’.
Both operate under false names so they cannot be called to account for their lies, misrepresentations and smears. Neither has provided anything constructive to anything. And – as you have found with Tamino – each is a “cowardly bigot”.
Richard
@ur momisugly Jimmy Haigh; 10:48am
Tamino is clearly another climate “scientist” with “issues”…
and knr @ur momisugly 12:41am
Once again the ‘professionals ‘ in climate science operate at a standard that would be unacceptable for a undergraduate student. And once again I have to ask , are there actual any standards within climate ‘science’?
Little bit hard when Tamino admits himself in his ‘Back to School’ thread;
And by the way, I’m not a climate scientist.
Rollz4t:
At April 2, 2013 at 12:07 am you say
“Aspirational rather than punitive”? Are you deluded or simply propagandist?
10:10 made the disgusting video where anyone – including school children – questioning AGW gets blown up. It was pulled within hours as a result of public outrage but can still be seen here
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2010/10/1/crazy-offensive-10-10-global-warming-video-1925116
Richard
In reply to the wise crack about civil engineering being oxymoronic. Civil engineers design roads, bridges, buildings etc. Originally engineers were mainly military, and civil engineering arose as the application of engineering to the non-military sphere. Of course the modern military would have many civil engineers. Other branches of engineering arose later, such as mechanical, electrical, chemical, aeronautical, electronic, computer etc.
Tamino writes in a comment over at RealClimate: “In my opinion, the Marcott et al. reconstruction absolutely rules out any global temperature increase or decrease of similar magnitude with the rapidity we’ve witnessed over the last 100 years.” – which made Eric Steig reply that it is “a very strong statement coming from you, and makes me want to read it again, and your posts again. Very interesting if you are right.”
I’m puzzled about that myself, but I’ve seen Tamino fool himself with math before. He’s a smart guy, but even smart guys fool themselves every now and then, and if they’re of the kind that don’t want to listen to any objections, they don’t learn from their errors. I tried to discuss with him once, only to get very rude responses and (of course) in the end a ban from commenting on his “closed mind” blog.
So Tamino, by his own admission, demonstrates that the Peter Gleick style of ethics is the preferred method for the AGW fanatic.
As previously mentioned Tamino has shown narcissist tendencies. However, after reading his reply I think he suffers from the more serious condition known as malignant narcissism. The man is quite deluded and really believes he is something special. Some might call it a God complex. This episode shows the true person.
PS. I had an alarmist I was debating reference Open Mind, so I told him that if I commented there with a factual, considerate comment it would deleted because it disagreed with what Tamino had claimed. Of course, I was proven correct.
For British readers only.
In the immortal words of Corp Jones “They don’t like (aud)it up ’em!”
Mark T says:
April 1, 2013 at 5:57 pm
atarsinc says:
April 1, 2013 at 5:23 pm
Somebody needs to look at the definition of ‘plagiarism’.
Indeed. From Wikipedia
Plagiarism is the “wrongful appropriation” and “purloining and publication” of another author’s “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions,”
__________________________________
Unfortunately, that is not how the law works in the UK. In the UK, republishing thoughts and ideas is NOT plagiarism. Only the verbatim copying of text is plagiarism in the UK. I know, because I went through this whole procedure, and sucessfully prosecuted a case.
.
@Crispin in Waterloo but actually in Yogyakarta says: April 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm
The technique being used by Tamino is called ‘othering’.
========================================================================
I’d go one further and call it “dehumanisation”. As used against the Jews in Germany. If someone is no longer classified as “human”, any enormity against them becomes acceptable.
A very entertaining thread. I only heard of Tamino last night for the first time, when reading the interesting ‘Reader Background’ thread on The Air Vent blog (highly rec, to those of you who never read it).
I’m very glad I never wasted any time on his blog. What a douche. I hope Steve Mc – who is always Mr Good Manners until pushed too far – makes mincemeat of him. Better still, slurry.
I’m not lawyer enough to say if this was a case of ‘plagarism’ or not, and I’m just on my way now to read the DotEarth article, but this seems like an outright admission of premeditation by Tamino:
Ok, now we have an admission from Tamino, in his own word, in a public forum, that he vindictively and willfully rejects ethical behavior when he feels his position [and not even himself personally] has been ‘dissed’. How convenient for him that he feels justified in doing so.
How unfortunate for us that he is still able to be published. If he is willing to ‘out’ himself in this way, how can anyone trust anything he says when ethical presentation of information is assumed – namely science? What journal editor would be willing to do so?
W^3
[snip . . ad homs like that are discouraged here . . mod]
Tamino is working feverishly at comment-cleansing. I’m guessing there were hundreds of comments that were– shall we say–liquidated overnight. The fact that there are only 18 remaining on such a very controversial subject, i.e., scientific plagiarism, tells us all we need to know about our boy Tamino.
And, SURPRISE! They are all supportive of Tamino! He runs a very tight ship, except for that gaping hole from that nasty ol torpedo Steve McIntyre.
If you compare the two posts Steve links at dotearth, Tamino’s methods seem different than McIntyre’s, and the conclusions are different. Tamino said he referred to McIntyre’s tone in his post before removing those references.
I notice no one has pinpointed any plagiarism, not even Steve McIntyre. So what is it, preciesly? Seems like an empty accusation to me.
LInk to Tamino’s response to McIntyre with 18 comments from his fellow cultists:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/#comments
In scholarship, and in the codes of professional ethics that pertain to it, there are two levels of plagiarism:
(1) Using another author’s actual words and pretending they are your own
(2) Using ideas or evidence or points obtained from another author, without citing him or her as a source
In psychology, we teach our undergraduates about both kinds.
Mr. Foster aka Tamino hasn’t practiced plagiarism on the first level. But he has done it on the second level—and gone on to admit it in a public forum.
This is grossly unethical, unscholarly behavior.
There appears to be no professional body to which Mr. Foster belongs that could take action against him. But he deserves to be publicly discredited, as widely and in as many fora as possible.
I don’t know of any legal basis for prosecuting or suing him. This is simply a case where he has behaved unethically and deserves to be called out.
His excuse is, unfortunately, familiar. Steve McIntyre, we are told, deserves to be plagiarized, because, as a “denialist,” he must be demonic, subhuman, not of the same species as Mr. Foster. Some on the Left have called this kind of thing “eliminationist rhetoric,” though of course they never notice any, unless it is directed at themselves.
Anyone who refuses to cite a source for these kinds of reasons ought to be a pariah in his or her profession.
Unfortunately, the value system in some lines of work has been turned upside down, so that people like Mr Foster get rewarded instead.
The comments at Tamino’s take a lot longer to build up than here. If you think there should be ‘hundreds of comments’, take a look at previous articles. You have to go back nearly 30 articles before you find one with more than 100 comments in it, and a number have less than 20, even after a month.
So your supposition is probably wrong. Where’s your skeppticism?
Probably hiding in the same place as all the others here who blindly accept that there has been plagiarism.
C’mon, people. you give a bad name to skepticism. Check before you assert!
Here are the 2 posts McIntyre said evidenced plagiarism. Can anyone substantiate this accusation?
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/
barry, Tamino openly acknowledges he should have mentioned McIntyre but did not out of spite .
In other words his lower than a snake in his approach and not for the first time . And yes we know full well the idea that all things done in the name of ‘the cause ‘ are justified for some people no matter how bad , we just think of it has a stupid joke of and an idea that has nothing what so ever to do with science.
What the heck sort of justification is that? McIntyre ‘explored the low road’, so Foster can plagiarize him and that’s OK? What does ‘explored the low road’ even mean?
“and of course his usual knee-jerk spasms at the sight of anything remotely resembling a hockey stick”
Hypothesis – I don’t believe the Marcott hockey stick is real.
Proof – provided
Science – done
Seems simple.
Massaging 73 proxies to make a hockey stick, that does take some doing.
I would like to see the *specific* “language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions” that Tamino is accused of plagiarizing from McIntyre. Has anyone bothered to produce, side-by-side, the *specific* items from McIntyre’s post that Tamino purportedly used without attribution? If it’s true that plagiarism occurred, it ought to be easy to verify.
barry,
I haven’t tracked the thread in question, so I have no idea whether Tamino has deleted any comments from it.
Nor, if he has, how many.
Back to the issue at hand:
Tamino has admitted plagiarizing. (See his own words, above.)
He knew of Steve McIntyre’s analyses, he read them, he used points from them.
And he refused to cite Mr. McIntyre.
Not because the analyses, points, and conclusions weren’t relevant, or because they hadn’t influenced his own thinking.
But because, from Tamino’s point of view, Mr. McIntyre is a subhuman with a bad attitude.
Case closed, unless you want to argue that Tamino has confessed to something he didn’t do.