Gavin Schmidt’s Demands
February 4th, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Gavin Schmidt at NASA has just now written an email to the director of CIRES and the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (but not to me), where I work at the University of Colorado, demanding that we take down this post and extend to him an apology.
If Gavin wants, he is free to respond on this blog. I have not posted his email, though if he wants, I’d be happy to post that up as well. He does use terms like “slander” and “abuse.” I think my comments in the posting are are a fair representation of the pickle Gavin has gotten himself into.
When will these guys learn that bullying and bluster is not going to win them any respect or friends?
February 4th, 2009 at 5:15 pm
You should cut Dr. Schmidt some slack.
I don’t know what caused BAS to “stir the pot” by editing and giving late attribution for report of the Harry data error. Apparently none was given until this morning, February 4, 2009 at about 11:00AM. At about that time, “Bernie” commented in part over at RC @ 207, “BAS has now apparently identified who alerted them to the problem with the Harry data: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/data.html
“Note! The surface aws data are currently being re-proccessed [sic] after an error was reported by Gavin Schmidt in the values for Harry AWS(2/2/09)”.
Before then, BAS posted, “Note! The surface aws data are currently being re-proccessed [sic] after an error was reported in the values at Harry AWS (2/2/09)” as mentioned in part by “Thor” yesterday, February 3, 2009, at about 5:33PM over at RC @ 184.
It’s fair to say that the issues of data error and of “who first reported?” permeated the RC and CA blogosphere quite some time before attribution. It’s also fair to say that Dr. Schmidt’s responses to questions at RC about the Steig et al paper give little or no indication that he sought such attribution. Indeed, he refers to “people” and “others” who likewise saw error, and we should be mindful that Eric Steig himself was fielding questions about errors over at RC. I do not know what was communicated by Schmidt and, perhaps, others to one or more over at BAS. But, I want to believe that they are smart professionals not willing to engage in subterfuge (knowing that CA and others peruse these matters), and not wanting to waste their valuable time by intentionally doing otherwise.
February 4th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Brian- Thanks for the comment. Lets take a look at Gavins own words:
“[Steve McIntyre] alluded to an unspecified problem, and I looked into it. I found the source of the problem with no further input from anyone. This isn’t that complicated. – gavin”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/langswitch_lang/tk#comment-111604
So Gavin admits that he got the idea from Steve and the followed up this hint locating the data problem.
So there is no confusion Gavin also says:
“we are all dependent on many things, including that SM had alluded to data problem at Harry – I don’t see anywhere that I denied this”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/warm-reception-to-antarctic-warming-story/langswitch_lang/tk#comment-111599
However, when describing what he did, he said that he found the problem “independently” of Steve McIntyre. Sorry, but independently does not mean “dependent on” Steve McIntyre for alluding to “data problem at Harry.” In fact, this is exactly the opposite of independently.
Academics care about such things. Intellectual provenance is important. Just because Steve McIntyre is not a normal academic does not mean that he does not deserve to be treated with the same respect and dignity that we professionals think we deserve.
Gavin caught caught out. I feel bad for the guy. But writing screeds to my superiors at the University won’t help him move past this episode. He should just say “whoops, my bad, learn and move on”.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Before the attribution appeared, Gavin made an awful lot of snippy comments about Steve, and heavily promulgated the notion that the error in Harry was found “independently”.
In reality, the error was found by SteveM. Gavin, after having read there was an error, looked at the data and confirmed such an error existed. The flimsy claim of “independence” leans on the idea that SteveM had not given a full, detailed, precise description of all aspects of the error in Harry.
Why Gavin didn’t just say “After reading SteveM’s blog post, I checked myself. I found there was an error, and felt it was best to inform BAS”? Who knows. But this would have given credit to SteveM for discovering the issue in the first place. Who BAS credited afterwards would be up to BAS.
I can’t claim to know Gavin’s motives for claiming he found the errors “independently”. But “independence” rhetoric at least seems to be aimed toward suggesting that SteveM’s post, ideas or efforts bore no relationships to in Gavin’s (or anyone’s) inclination to learn more about the error.
Heck, given the fact that Gavin learned the error existed from Steve, it’s a bit odd Gavin didn’t just email SteveM and, ask if he was sure about the error. Or he could have left a comment. Emailing SteveM could have saved Gavin quite a bit of effort.
February 4th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
LOL
February 4th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Roger -
Someone at CA commented that Steve has “got into Gavin’s head”. Seems to me that both you and Steve are not only in his head but taking over his nervous and circulatory systems as well.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Lets be clear:
Gavin wasn’t trying to steal credit from Steve.
He was trying to paint Steve in a bad light.
It probably never occurred to him that plagiarism could be an issue.
In fact, I would argue that he has not committed plagiarism in as much as he tried to take credit AWAY from Steve but did NOT try to pass off Steve’s work as his own (The latter being a more popular definition of plagiarism).
Still, Roger’s post is fair game. Gavin behaved improperly. He has not made any attempt to apologize or promise not to repeat his behavior. He should therefore be held responsible for his actions.
February 4th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Lucia,
Gavin Schmidt lives in world where he doesn’t want to read, hear, see the name of Steve McIntyre. He doesn’t even want to acknowledge that he exist. So, if Steve doesn’t exist why would he ever use the Steve M word, or acknowledge his finding in a diligent manner.
BTW, if only it was the first time.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I just have to chime in say solman seems to me to be about right here, on all his posts.
My impression is that Gavin’s gaffe was because of what seems to be an informal standing policy at RealClimate not to acknowledge McIntyre’s existence, or any contributions he’s made towards correcting people’s work.
He’s just put up a new post at RC(here) that seems pretty obviously to be in response to all this hullaballoo, yet fails to mention or even allude to McIntyre’s role it once.
If the comments are moderated in keeping with RC’s usual methods, I’m sure anyone bringing up McIntyre’s role, no matter how polite, will be filtered out.
As an aside, even as a short-term lurker, I feel pretty confident calling this great blog here measured and fair, and it seems an excellent contribution to the various CC discussions. Thank you, Dr. Pielke.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Having just watched American Idol (group night), I have to reflect that humans are humans and their behavior is not always without drama. Scientists are humans, ergo… their claims need to be verified, and some will behave in such a manner that the community needs to weigh in on their behavior and make sure it follows community norms. We should not expect everyone to be perfect; in fact, I would bet the behavioral science would say that’s not an attribute of humans. Nevertheless, it is the role of the community to point out violations of community norms. So I, too, am glad this blog exists to bring attention to such things.
February 4th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Sylvain–
The sad thing is that if Gavin had behaved fairly explained that he was motivated to look at the data based on SteveM’s post, he would alienate fewer people. That would result in a larger fraction of open minds reading his latest post — which seems a plausible explanation of why Harry makes little difference in the total trend. (I say plausible because with these things people need to actually check to be certain. I haven’t and don’t plan to do so. The general result always seemed plausible to me. My only objections have been to the odd rhetoric RC has scattered around the issue of Antarctic warming.)
Now, as a result of Gavin’s recent tortured explanations of what he means by “independent” combined with his mystery man routine, quite a few people will read the article with utterly closed minds.
That can’t be the result Gavin hopes for.
February 4th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Solman:
let’s be clear about this. Steve McIntyre put in a pretty fair amount of effort to replicate the results of a published work. He noted a likely but undefined problem with the data. Dr. Schmidt, who had access to that very same data for months and did not independently notice the problem, raced to examine the data and pre-empt McIntyre. Whether he sought the acknowledgement from BAS or not is irrelevant. He was in fact attempting to steal the credit from Steve McIntyre, used the intellectual output from another as the basis of his work and failed to give credit. THAT is plagiarism and intellectual dishonesty. Our 19th and 20th century notions of plagiarism may not have caught up to the 21st century reality of blogs and the net, but make no mistake, Dr. Schmidt’s actions were highly unethical. If any of my students had attempted such a maneuver, I would have had them up before the university disciplinary committee.
R.E. Phelan
February 5th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Re #11, R E Phelan: What do you think that chances are that Gavin was actually a peer reviewer for the Steig et al paper? Presuming that it was in fact a peer reviewed paper. It would seem that whoever the peer reviewers were, they certainly did a lot less to check the paper and its underlying data than Steve McIntyre did. How can that be, I wonder?
February 5th, 2009 at 6:21 am
rephelan said:
“He was in fact attempting to steal the credit from Steve McIntyre”
I don’t think he can be said to have “stolen” credit without first CLAIMING credit.
In the RC thread, Gavin avoided claiming any credit for the fixes.
The only attribution of credit to Gavin was by BAS, and I doubt very much that he wanted this to occur.
BTW, I assumed, based on Gavin’s posts at RC that he was the mystery man. I thought that Steve’s original mystery man post was clearly implying the same. The unfortunate thing for Gavin was his “outing” by BAS. It was timed almost perfectly to maximize internet outrage.
February 5th, 2009 at 6:52 am
rephelan, solman-
My reading of this situation is that Gavin did not claim credit for the discovery of the error. To the contrary, he said rather oddly that “someone” had found it independently, when that “someone” was himself. It seems obvious that gavin was not trying to elevate himself as much as take down SM a notch. What Gavin claimed was to have discovered the error independently from SM. This was, it turns out, not a true claim by Gavin.
After Gavin was publicly given credit by BAS for reporting the error, Gavin defended his claim to “independence” in its discovery in convoluted ways that led to his current and continuing pickle.
Gavin could have nipped this in the bud on several occasions, including when he was given credit for the discovery. As of this moment, Gavin is still receiving credit on the BAS site and SM is not:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/data.html
February 5th, 2009 at 7:02 am
Mondo: Dr. Schmidt was not listed as a co-author on Steig’s paper and it was supposed to be peer reviewed and Dr. Schmidt is a peer by anyone’s definition. Asking him to review a paper in his field would not be too over-the-top or nefarious. Reviewers are often anonymous, so it is mot too likely we’ll know that one way or the other.
Solman: You’re parsing the meaning of “is”. Dr. Schmidt may not have intended to claim credit, but he he did attempt to deprive Steve McIntyre of it and used McIntyre’s own work without attribution. When you take and use something that’s not yours, that’s stealing. Dr. Schmidt would not have even been able to use the teen joy-rider’s excuse: “I was just borrowing it and was gonna give it back!” The act may not have been a big deal or even all that unusual, but it is an issue of integrity, which IS a big deal.
February 5th, 2009 at 7:26 am
Solman–
In Gavin’s first foray, he gave credit due to SteveM for the “independent” discovery to an anonymous party. That is: Took from Steve, trarnsfered to “mystery man”.
The effect of this was to lift the credit from the person who deserved credit: SteveM. I’m not sure how this becomes not stealing the credit simply because the person who was “given” the credit was anonymous.
Later, when “mystery man” given the credit was revealed to be Gavin. When asked to explain, provides tortured explanations about how he really did discover the problem with Harry “independently”. The theory of “independent” discovery relies on first reading SteveM’s blog to learn there was a problem with the data for Harry. The theory of “independent” discovery involves having learned from SteveM there something wrong with Harry specifically but then uncovering some detail that had not yet been specifically revealed.
So, we are now treated to an explanation why Gavin, formerly the mystery man, really deserved the credit for the discovery.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:54 am
Was it theft ?
The common definition of theft includes two elements:
1. Intentionally taking another person’s property without asking, and with
2. intent to deprive the rightful owner of his property, indefinitely.
Theft doesn’t require that the thief benefit, only that the rightful owner lose the benefits of their property.
If I take an apple from the market, without paying, and eat it – that’s theft. If I take an apple from the market, without paying, and throw it on the roof – that’s also theft, even though I didn’t benefit.
So IF SteveM had some legal / academic property interest in his discovery, THEN Gavin’s actions look a lot like theft.
Did Roger Pielke, Jr. “slander” Gavin ?
Absolutely not, although libel is a possibility [b/c slander is oral, not written]. Describing somebody’s actions as theft seems pretty defamatory.
Lucky for Roger, he has two defenses:
1. Truth, if SteveM had an interest that Gavin intended to subvert, and
2. The First Amendment, which makes it nigh-impossible for a “public figure” to win a defamation case. Gavin, in taking on the role of spokesman to the public in this area, and continuously venturing outside the realm of pure science to talk about political motivations, is almost certainly a limited public figure. He’d basically have to prove that Roger’s comments are false, and Roger knew they were false, in order to win a libel claim.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:01 am
It’s about time the likes of Steig, Mann and Schmidt grew up and acted like real scientists rather than childish political advocates. Steve McIntyre’s ‘crimes’ are to expose flawed data and methodology, plus an unwillingness to share and archive data. Proper scientific method and objectivity are being avoided in case in undermines ‘action’ against a ‘climate catastrophe’ which underpinned by a lack of proper scientific method, lack of objectivity, flawed data, withheld data, and un-archived data. The word ‘independent’ has also been corrupted by co-workers using related data and methodology to produce ‘independent confirmation.’ Yes, Steve McIntyre has shown that the emperor has no clothes, and isn’t he hated for it? ‘Consensus’ climate science stinks.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:04 am
jim edwards,
Oddly, in context of this squabble, the person who seems to have suggested that getting credit is a “good” to be desired is gavin.
See response to bernie:
February 5th, 2009 at 11:37 am
At Realclimate, Gavin has stated that the initial hint of a problem came from Steve McIntyre, and that consequently Gavin, a commenter at Climateaudit and McIntyre found what the problem consisted of. Gavin reported the problem to BAS, but he never trumpeted that he discovered something. stating that what matters is that the problem got fixed. He clearly doesn’t like the games Steve McIntyre is playing (and I don’t blame him for that).
Gavin responded to a commenter (comment 221, “warm reception” thread): “i) discovering that Gill was mismatched with Harry was found independently by at least three people (SM, myself, and a poster on CA). ii) the source of the confusion was indeed found and not given to me by anyone else, iii) we are all dependent on many things, including that SM had alluded to data problem at Harry – I don’t see anywhere that I denied this. And BAS were notified by ‘people’ (plural) – not just by me. – gavin]”
This whole whodunnit-argument seems to have become much ado about nothing, and just serves to polarize the different sides of the “debate” (the blog-debate that is; the scientific debate isn’t concerned with these non-issues).
February 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
bverheggen
It is unfortunate Gavin’s manner turned this into a “who dunnit”.
Before BAS identified Gavin as the source of the report, Gavin made a claim of independence:
After BAS identified Gavin as the source of the report, he admitted he looked into the issue after he’d learned there was a problem based on SteveM’s post:
The important thing with regard to gavin’s snit with Roger is that initially, he suggested the problems were found by “people” who found it “independently”. One we learn “people” meant gavin, we are treated to a tortured explanation of the meaning of finding a problem “independently”. The independent problem identification involved learning there was a problem by way of stevem and then looking at the data and seeing that, yep, there was indeed a problem.
Had gavin’s only or even major motive been to get the data fixed, rather than playing games himself, he might have thought to email SteveM, asked him for details. He could have copied BAS in the process. By doing this, Gavin would have spared himself any trouble of “independently” “working out” a few specific details not yet revealed in SteveM’s post.
Of course the scientific debate over any topic is not concerned with this issue. But for some reason, gavin wants to play these distracting games. It’s detracts from his points on the science but that’s his own fault for being so self indulgent.
February 5th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Re #15: R E Phelan response to my #12. My point re peer review (perhaps not well made) is that surely the peer reviewers (and co-authors for that matter) must be getting a bit concerned about their lack of responsibility and rigour, which has been exposed now, so many times.
The number of poor quality papers, using dodgy data, and “innovative” statistical methods not supported by professional statisticians, that have come out, many with multiple “authors” and all apparently peer reviewed suggests that the co-authors and peer reviewers are not doing the job expected of them. It has also become evident (courtesy Wegman) that many of the supposedly independent peer reviewers are not in fact independent at all.
So it seems that in some areas of climate science, claims of “independence” cannot be taken seriously. There would seem to be no doubt that this contradicts sound practice.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Roger:
While questions of common courtesy (and perhaps ethics) are appropriate, implications of duty and right appear to be misplaced here.
Steve McIntyre began publishing about the Steig et al paper since Sunday, January 31st (“Steig v Hansen”), and he should have been and likely was aware that his readers included Schmidt, Steig, and Mann. After uttering “stay tuned for interesting news about Harry” on Sunday, February 1, McIntyre chose to defer (albeit for a day) and, in effect, he gave an open invitation to those capable to scrutinize the Harry data. That deference did not give rise to a duty for anyone to wait (for any length of time) until McIntyre offered more nor did it give him a proprietary interest before more was offered. Otherwise, we would then be asking when such duty and right become stale.
Schmidt claims, “BAS were notified by people Sunday night [February 1] who independently found the Gill/Harry mismatch”. If he was a peer reviewer (as suggested by Mondo45) then it would appear he had a duty to promptly correct his oversight and, perhaps, salvage the “warming picture” (as he apparently did last night with his latest, “Antarctica Warming is Robust”). If he did not do a peer review, he likely knew or discovered who did (Steig and Mann, to some extent, have been active in responding to comments at RC). In either case, Schmidt may not have wanted to broadcast that a “mismatch” went by him or by those he knew.
The incident suggests a warning to McIntyre that if he utters, “Eureka!”, he better explain then and there, and not defer to anyone. It’s also a tribute to his work such attention is being paid to it (notwithstanding protestations to the contrary) that one or more “people” are willing to drop their popcorn, turn their attention from the Super Bowl, and deal with data. It doesn’t say much for so called “peer review” when errors (apparently obvious to a number of “people”) are not addressed for more than a year after submission, or for the long and continuing combative history between McIntyre and Schmidt (and Mann likely more so). One side should take the initiative, and suggest to the other some protocols so that these incidents do recur.
February 5th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Correction:
“so that these incidents do NOT recur”.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Re #22
Mondo: I’m sure you’re right on a number if points. If I were one of the reviewers of Steig et al I probably would be petrified of being dragged into this little tempest, but unless someone outs them the way Gavin was at BAS we probably won’t know. What I also don’t know is what the responsibility of a reviewer actually consists of. It is certainly not to replicate the work he is reviewing; that is a later stage in the scientific process. They almost certainly are checking that the work meets the generally accepted standards of a discipline, but that is precisely where the peer-review process may be weakest. Every science is dominated by a paradigm that defines the questions to be asked, the methods to be used in investigation and appropriate criteria for evaluating results. Scientific communities are really rather small communities and tend to be ever more specialized. In all fairness to Steig, Mann and Schmidt (a heady and unfamiliar sensation, I must admit) they are out on the bleeding edge of their field trying to create a methodology to answer important questions. There are probably very few reviewers who can understand everything they are trying to do. It’s too new and complex. They will make mistakes. The communities are too insular. Which is why we need nuts and bolts type people like Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre and their legions of readers who can each add a little bit to a very large puzzle. I’ve gotten the impression that Steve relies very heavily on his network… a network that is not available to three or four reviewers who probably have a day job and share the paradigm and views of the authors they are reviewing.
Frankly, I think the time is not far off when researchers will routinely air their work in blogs like RC, CA and WUWT and solicit feedback from a wider community…. community review as opposed to peer review. It would also require a greater sensitivity to ethics. Steve, for example, usually tries very hard to keep his blog focused on the topic and not the politics. Commenters like us will need to develop an ethic of keeping our mouths shut if we can’t contribute something more than idle speculation or irrelevant criticism. Wikipedia was intended to be something like that, but it has to deal constantly with vandals and political animals. For community review to succeed we need an ethic of truth seeking rather than advocacy and persuasion. An ethic of humility.
Almost a century ago the great German sociologist Max Weber gave a lecture titled “Science as a Profession”. It can be found on the net in English and is well worth reading.
February 5th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Bryan–
If all Gavin did was fail to credit SteveM, or fail to wait to let SteveM post more details, your argument might clear Gavin. But Gavin did more than that. Gavin specifically claimed to have found the errors independently. That is untrue.
Gavin’s finding the errors depended on knowledge that SteveM had found errors, and specifically in Harry.
Unfortunately, protocols are being suggested all the time. The difficulty is that “people” insist that their protocols and only their protocols apply.
That’s not going to work. When gatekeeper dictated who got heard, the gatekeepers could dictate rules. The internet busted open the gate. Eventually those who relied on the gate will realize they can no longer close the gate because there is no gate.
February 5th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Gavin’s correspondence with my superiors continues. I have offered to post up his side of this conversation. Meantime, here is my response to him:
——————————
Dear Gavin (cc: Bill and Koni)-
First, for whatever reason I did not receive your original email until
sent to me by Bill Travis (as you know from experience I respond
quickly to emails). I have it now and am happy to respond.
Next, let me point you to our disclaimer on our website which
emphasizes that the comments found therein are those of the
individuals making those statements, and there is no implication of
institutional backing, as you suggest:
“This internet site was prepared by the Center for Science and
Technology Policy Research within the Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) with support in part from
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce, under cooperative agreement NA17RJ1229 and other grants.
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the Department of
Commerce.”
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/noaa_disclaimer.html
We have this disclaimer because we are at a university and the
comments on our website are often disparate, contradictory, and made
without any clearance from anyone. This is similar to most university
policies for open discussion and debate on campus and by staff.
Third, I stand by my opinions. They are of course my opinions, and I
believe that the evidence backs them up. If you disagree with my
interpretation of the evidence, then, I reiterate, you are welcome to
post a rebuttal or different perspective on our site, which we will
feature in its entirety and unedited. Further, I am perfectly happy
to post online and in public your email complaints to the University,
and my response to them. Please let me know if this would help to
address your concerns, and if so, we will post the correspondence. I
have come to learn that such disputes are often best handled in the
open.
Finally, should you wish to continue escalating this discussion — a
strategy that I hope you would avoid, in your own best interests –
you can of course make a formal complaint to the University of
Colorado’s Honor Code Committee where our dispute can be adjudicated
fully and in public. Let me say that I have little doubt that your
actions with respect to Steve McIntyre that I reported on would be
found in violation of our own Honor Code (were the actions to occur on
our campus between peers) — and similar policies at most universities
– and my reporting and interpretation of your behavior would be found
to be exactly what it is, an opinion covered by academic freedom of
expression. But you have that option.
I am sincerely sorry that you find yourself in the situation that you
do — the conflict between you and your colleagues and Steve McIntyre
over the past years has been a serious problem for our community. I
hope that in the future you guys can find a way to reconcile.
Meantime, here at our Center we’ll keep observing and offering our
views, based on a long history of observing scientists in political
conflicts. I expect that you won’t always agree with those views, but
you are always welcome to participate in the discussions on our site
and post responses to those views you have a different view on.
With best regards,
Roger
February 5th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
“I reiterate, you are welcome to
post a rebuttal or different perspective on our site, which we will
feature in its entirety and unedited.”
Somehow this is fairness that no one ever got from Realclimate.
I can imagine that the tone in the email wasn’t that friendly or even diplomatic.
February 5th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Lucia:
“’people’ insist that their protocols and only their protocols apply”.
I remember Begin & Sadat put their heads together upon the initiative of a woman reporter who publicly urged Sadat on late night television.
Are there no intermediaries with fair grasp of issues & protocols, and fairly easy access to both sides, interested in seeing the episodes here come to an end? Someone willing to spend the time urging and, if necessary, mediating? You, perhaps?
February 5th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Brian–
Alas, I am a terrible mediator.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Roger you said said (in the original thread):
“Specifically there are some odd things going on in its data on unemployment in West Virginia and Texas…. Would there be any ethical problem with such behavior?”
This is a highly misleading description. Assuming that West Virginia and Texas in your cute analogy correspond to Harry and Gill in the Antarctica brouhaha, you appear to suggest that McIntyre had identified both stations in his original reference to the problem.
But no one disputes that Schmidt worked out the splicing error on his own, including the identification of Gill as the source of spurious data. Gill wasn’t even mentioned in connection with the Harry problem on CA until the next day.
If that suggestion was deliberate on your part then that would certainly be an “ethical problem” in your behaviour.
Now here’s McIntyre’s first statement about Harry (comment #3):
“Dunno how “important” it is. It may not be possible to figure out exactly what they did without code. But it looks like there’s trouble with Harry.”
So, at this stage, McIntyre hadn’t even decided if the problem was with the data at BAS, or a processing error in the Steig-Mann analysis. Schmidt didn’t have much from Steve to go on, did he?
So let’s retry the analogy: “There’s a problem with Texas, but I don’t know what it is.” etc.
That’s more like it.
February 5th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
@Deep climate: So, at this stage, McIntyre hadn’t even decided if the problem was with the data at BAS, or a processing error in the Steig-Mann analysis. Schmidt didn’t have much from Steve to go on, did he
Hmm. Now that’s interesting, let’s take a quick look, shall we?
Yep, he certainly did say that in comment number 3, at 4:01PM
Of course, at comment 4, at 4:03PM he also posts
“#2. Yep. But it’s going to be even better than just that. BTW if anyone can figure out the provenance of Harry data http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/Harry.All.temperature.html from 1987-1994 – prior to its reported installation in Nov 1994 http://uwamrc.ssec.wisc.edu/aws/harrymain.html – I’d be very interested.”
Seems to me that’s an awfully big hint for anyone looking for the problem….and certainly far more for Schmidt to work with than you implied, wouldn’t you say?
So more “There’s a problem with Texas, but I don’t know what it is” AND “Upon thinking a minute, could anyone tell me where they got these figures unemployment figures for Texas, before it had any inhabitants?”
February 5th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
Roger,
At CEJournal you said: “It is hard to say who is outside and who is inside scientific circles anymore. McIntyre now publishes regularly in the peer reviewed literature.”
By my count McIntyre has one peer-reviewed article published in a recognized scientific journal (GRL in 2005). Could you enlighten us as to his other peer-reviewed articles in the scientific literature, to support your contention of his regular publication? And, no, Energy and Environment doesn’t count (it’s a social science journal and is not recognized as “scientific”).
February 5th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Deep Climate- Does PNAS count? What’s the point?
February 5th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Deep Climate (#31)-
The analogy holds just fine:
Gil is mentioned by McIntyre at CA in comment #67, 7:14AM 2 Feb:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5044#comment-323626
Gil is mentioned by Schmidt at RC comment #148. 3:35PM 2 Feb:
http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=644#comment-111331
Who knows what these guys were doing in between? Who cares?
Gavin admits he depended on McIntyre for the idea after he claimed to have discovered it independently. That is not right.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:45 am
[...] rather than make amends and put it behind him, Dr. Schmidt took the unusual step of writing to Pielke’s superiors at the University of Colorado demanding that Pielke remove his post and [...]
February 6th, 2009 at 10:26 am
As indirectly pointed out by a poster on CA “theduke”, an important aspect has not been dscussed that is relevant.
Climate Audit is a voluntary site. Real Climate is a funded advocacy site with a government employee as the main spokesperson. As noted several times on the CA blog, the contributions are important. So much so, Steve, on several occasions, has referred to his blog as a “certain product”. He has done this pointing out why certain moderation has occurred, and also why he approaches the write-ups with a certain style and most importantly, thoroghness.
Perhaps Gavin was not familiar with this. However, the evidence is that he reads not only what Steve has written, but what other posters have. In that, the respective blogs can be considered to be in competition for some of the same audience, Gavin’s conduct could be seen as an unfair practice.
Further, since the funding is different for the two blogs, and he “took” from Steve’s product, his actions are unethical as a government employee or as an advocate.
Even if he distances himself from either government or the advocacy roles, as a competitor in the climate blog arena, he still has acted unethically.
There is a colorful description of this in books on the Watergate scandal. It was not only considered unethical, it was considered illegal. Interestingly, the pursuit of this lead is one that lead to Nixon’s eventual resignation.
Leon Jaworski’s “The Right and the Power” is an excellent read IMO with aspects of ethics and failed cover-ups that seem relevant today. Somehow
.
February 6th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Sources at Climate Audit report the BAS page now gives joint credit to Schmidt, Steve, and CA readers. See deadwood’s comment.
February 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
“. . . and there is no implication of institutional backing, as you suggest:”
Do I infer correctly that GS’s “suggestion” was somewhere in the e-correspondence between Roger & GS? (of which GS refuses to make his public)?
If so, this is chutzpah on a scale . . . well, it’s really off the scale. The pointer’s hit the peg so hard & so often it must be mangled & on the bottom of the meter somewhere.
Schmidt & Co., via RealClimate, have clearly been NASA/GISS’s mouthpiece, despite claims of being just a bunch of concerned scientists running a completely independent website in their spare time. Institutional backing indeed.
The big question now is, how long will NASA continue to tolerate the embarrassments known as Hansen, Schmidt & Mann? And if NASA doesn’t care, how long before someone higher up the food chain demands an investigation?
February 6th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Roger you said:
“Deep Climate- Does PNAS count? What’s the point?”
No, a 250 word online letter does not count as a peer-reviewed article, as it was not of article length, nor was it peer-reviewed.
The point is you claimed that McIntyre was arguably “inside scientific circles” and “was regularly published in the peer-reviewed literature.” But he has only published *one* peer-reviewed article in a recognized scientific journal.
What else do you claim counts among McIntyre’s output of peer-reviewed scientific articles? I’ll make it easy for you. This page includes Ross McKitrick’s list of “Peer Reviewed Science Journal Articles”, including seven pieces jointly authored with McIntyre.
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/papers.html
I still maintain that the only one of these seven that properly fits that description is the GRL 2005 article (#7 on the list).
February 6th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
Roger you said:
“The analogy holds just fine:
Gil is mentioned by McIntyre at CA in comment #67, 7:14AM 2 Feb: …
Gil is mentioned by Schmidt at RC comment #148. 3:35PM 2 Feb:
Who knows what these guys were doing in between? Who cares?”
But Gavin Schmidt made it very clear that he discovered and reported the Gill-Harry splicing to BAS on *Feb. 1*, well before any mention of Gill (not “Gil”) on CA. So by your own logic the analogy does not hold. The implication of your Texas-Oklahoma analogy that Schmidt “stole” the discovery of the Gill-Harry connection from McIntyre simply does not hold up.
February 6th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Deep Climate-
#40 – You (an anonymous blog commenter) are not impressed with SM’s work and publication record, fair enough.
#41 – I address this argument in an email to Gavin, in a subsequent post:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/a-formal-response-to-gavin-schmidt-4936#comment-11889
The fact that Gavin has decided, appropriately, to share credit with McIntyre makes all of this moot now, doesn’t it? It should. Whether Gavin’s actions were right or wrong, appropriate or inappropriate, are a matter of opinion that has been fully aired here, so, time to move on?
February 6th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Roger,
#42 a
Whether I am “impressed” or not with McIntyre’s “publication record” is beside the point. The fact is that McIntyre has published only one peer-reviewed article in a scientific journal (GRL in 2005). I’ll take your response as indication that you concede that point.
#42 b
You have not addressed my argument that your “Texas-Oklahoma” (Gill-Harry) analogy was highly misleading. But I can see why you would want to move on and I’m happy to do so.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Monday morning, and another re-registration of his complaint about me comes by email from Gavin Schmidt to Koni Steffen.
February 9th, 2009 at 7:58 am
DeepClimate–
You are trying to hang your hat on the notion that the going a tiny bit past what had already been discussed at Steve’s blog to discover specific detail that Gil was involved in the issue makes this discovery “independent”. Everything Gavin learned was dependent on SteveM
1) Forming the notion, thought or idea that there might be an error in the data.
2) Forming the notion, thought or idea to look,
3) Thinking to look in detail at the station with the largest trend (Harry)
4) Thinking to write scripts, running Harry data through then, and confirming there were problems with Harry.
5) Explaining steps1-4 at his blog.
6) Permitting various discussions.
So, Gavin, having learned all of this from Steve’s investigation, then also looked at Harry and did a bit more to identify the problem involved Gil. This is not finding the problem independently. It’s not even finding the Harry/Gil problem independently. Gavin’s was motivated to do this because Steve had already conceived of the notion that there might be problems, investigated and confirmed there were problems. Moreover, he’d reported the problem involved Gil.
At best, Gavin could say he followed up on Steve’s idea and identified some details. But that’s not what Gavin did.
All the word parsing in the world will not make Gavin’s claim of finding anything independently of SteveM true. Trying to parse words to convince people the finding was independent is the strategy being used to deny SteveM credit for coming up with the idea to check the data, and to check it in a way that uncovered problems associated with Harry specifically.