....or the cutting and pasting unverifiable theories for fun and profit

Documenting climatology's fascination with regurgitation. Here is a popular example to get you started: Luterbacher and Jones borrow their text from the Mann.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Even the Climatologists Notice the Plagiarism

From the Climategate 2.0 email files....apparently even the climatologists noticed the endemic plagiarism...



date: Wed Aug 23 08:26:26 2000
from: Mike Hulme
subject: Re: Seeking some advice re CR
to: "Whetton, Peter"

Peter,
Never quite dealt with this issue before - I think you are right to point it out at this
stage and give the authors opportunity to re-write. Without having read the paragraphs in
question, there is sometimes a fine line between plagiarism and summarising (and properly
citing) work that has been published elsewhere. But it is always best to err on the safe
side!
Mike
At 13:28 23/08/00 +1000, you wrote:

Mike,
Sorry to bother you again, but I would appreciate your (private) advice on
another matter.
It concerns the Lal et al manuscript you passed on to me to deal with in my
capacity as an editor for Climate Research. I have what I think is an unsual
issue to deal with, and your editorial experience might be useful to draw
upon. I may decide to consult with one or more current CR editors in an
official manner, but I am unfamiliar with what is normal practice, and I
would appreciate your views. I also don't want to consult any more widely
than is essential (for reasons that will become obvious).
I have three reviews and my decision is that the paper needs major revision
and re-review. That's fine. The issue is that some portions of the paper
(model descriptions and some of the discussion) are clearly not the authors'
own writing. Indeed, some of the material at issue is almost verbatim use
of WGI TAR draft text (not written by the paper's authors). However, I have
no doubts about the originality of the core of the paper. The reviewers'
comments do not mention this issue, but in responding to their comments, the
authors would need, in any case, to substantially modify the offending bits.
I also see that if the paper is re-reviewed, the reviewers will have to be
alerted to the issue.
I was hoping that you might comment on how I have dealt with this issue in
the attached draft of my covering letter to the authors (paragraph three is
the key bit). The fact that the lead author is well known to me doesn't
help. (I don't know the communicating author).
If you would rather not comment, that is fine.
Cheers
Peter

No comments:

Post a Comment