I found myself checking on various pieces of climatological plagiarism recently. This was a response to the comment that some of the famous Wegman report for Congress on the shoddy statistical methods behind Michael Mann's famous Hockey Stick graph contained unattributed material from other authors.
I decided to examine with just a few 'googles' what the climatological norms were. And I was duly disappointed to find that climatological publications are rife with cut-and-paste text. I posted several of these findings on various blogs as comments - but I thought I would start a small collection here, just in case I find the need to continue this activity.
If you have suggestions - please don't hesitate to leave comments.
For the purposes of this blog I am taking a broad definition of plagiarism - the sort of thing that a journalist might be expected to adhere to. In particular, if you publish it in one place, then you cannot publish the same text in an another paper. (Or you can, but you might get fired for doing so, see http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/335048-plagiarism-when-you-copy-your-own-work-miami-herald-thinks-so.html).
My thinking on this is that scientific research should be original. The scientific literature should not be cluttered with repetitious cut-and-paste papers.
Even so, it appears that 'straight' plagiarism (passing off another person's work as original work) occurs in climatology, you'll see examples of that here.
I found this exercise somewhat depressing. It turns out that many climatological publications are not new work but highly derivative cutting and pasting exercises.
The examples I have listed came from a few minutes of checking papers. I am not sure if I will continue conducting such tests - it is not particularly edifying. However, I was surprised by the ease with which I saw plagiarism.