In case readers think that Trenberth’s outburst discussed yesterday represents an isolated and unfortunate climate scientist incident, this is not the case. In fact, some of Trenberth’s most objectionable language was lifted verbatim from an article in Nature Geoscience earlier this year. Trenberth here; Hasselmann here.
Trenberth’s copying from Hasselmann came in two forms:
– Trenberth copied one long paragraph verbatim mostly verbatim without quotation marks. While Hasselmann was cited at the end of the paragraph, the fact that the text was lifted [mostly] verbatim was not shown – something that John Mashey will no doubt weigh in on.
– second, Trenberth copied multiple sections of Hasselmann either verbatim or with negligible paraphrase without any citation whatever.
Trenberth’s summary of the UK whitewashes as follows:
Three investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh, and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists depend on their credibility and have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans (Hasselman 2010)
This is word for word identical to the following Hasselmann text, but, as noted above, while Trenberth cited Hasselmann at the end of the paragraph, there is no block quotation or indication that the entire paragraph was lifted verbatim.
Three recent investigations of the alleged scientific misconduct of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — one by the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee[1,2], a second by the Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society, chaired by Lord Oxburgh[3], and the latest by the Independent Climate Change E-mails Review, chaired by Sir Muir Russell[4] — have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted: established scientists, dependent on their credibility for their livelihood, have no motivation in purposely misleading the public and their colleagues. Moreover, they are unlikely to make false claims that other colleagues, working independently on similar data sets, can readily show to be incorrect. They are also understandably (but inadvisably) reluctant to share complex data sets with non-experts that they perceive as charlatans.
In the rest of the article, Trenberth repeatedly using Hasselmann tet either verbatim or near-verbatim with no citation whatever.
Trenberth continued:
Scientists make mistakes and often make assumptions that limit the validity of their results. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.
Hasselmann’s corresponding text was virtually identical:
Scientists can, of course, err. They regularly argue with colleagues who arrive at different conclusions. These debates follow the normal procedure of scientific inquiry.
Shortly afterwards, Trenberth talks about tactics to use against “deniers”:
It is important that climate scientists learn how to counter the distracting strategies of deniers. Debating them about the science is not an approach that is recommended.
Here Trenberth only slightly paraphrased Hasselmann – Trenberth’s variation being to use the word “denier”:
It is important that climate scientists learn to counter the distracting strategies of interest groups whose goal is precisely to deflect from the real problems of climate change.
As noted yesterday, Trenberth’s recommended tactic (as shown in the Climategate letters) was to cast aspersions on the motives of critics – a practice regularly followed at realclimate and similar venues:
So my feeble suggestion is to indeed cast aspersions on their motives and throw in some counter rhetoric. Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.
Hasselmann went on to describe the motivations of climate scientists as follows:
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments
Hasselmann added:
Individually, most climate scientists have the goal of establishing a scientific reputation and, if possible, attaining more public funding for climate research.
Trenberth lifted the first part verbatim as follows (but, for some reason, left out the part about climate scientists having as one of their goals “more public funding”):
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments.
Hasselmann continued:
Their [climate scientist] beliefs are centred on faith in the scientific method and the efficiency of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from scientifically non-substantiated assertions.
As did Trenberth:
They [climate scientists] have faith in the scientific method and the efficacy of the established peer-review process in separating verifiable scientific results from baseless assertions.
Again read Trenberth here and Hasselmann here. However strident Trenberth appears, his tone and attitude differs little from that of Hasselmann expressed in a leading journal published by Nature.
In closing, I note that copying of text has been subject to considerable recent attention following the USA Today about Raymond Bradley’s academic misconduct complaint that “text was just lifted verbatim from my book and placed in the Wegman Report”. See CA discussion e.g. here here – posts which included criticism of the Wegman Report in respect to its citation of Bradley, while, at the same time, observing that the section in question was “boilerplate” description of tree rings and did not affect the statistical report and that Bradley himself had lifted text verbatim from Fritts’ 1976 text on tree rings.
Climate Audit 
65 Comments
Actually, Hasselman’s article was in Nature Geoscience, a specialty journal published by Nature, but not Nature itself.
Steve- corrected.
“Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.”
Labeling is a marker of projection.
Okay, this is too early in the day for my mind to be so totally boggled. I think my jaw broke when it hit the floor.
One needs a strong jaw to look at climate science.
A set of springs glued to the underside of the chin restores normal vertical postioning but not too stong on the springs or broken teeth result.
Re: Ken Finney (Jan 14 10:47),
I’m still having trouble figuring out the brain processes which lead to the sort of material that Trenberth and others produce. These are smart fellows. Have they failed to learn how to analyze the meaning and consequences of what they say? Even in an informal setting such as this blog, I try to always reread what I write and eliminate verbiage which is misleading, ambiguous or needs nuance. And when error is pointed out, I try to always acknowledge it, just as Steve, in the first comment, acknowledged an error and that he’d corrected it in the head post. I don’t see this in very many climate scientists, and it’s disturbing.
Re: Viv Evans (Jan 14 14:37),
> Trenberth and others are smart fellows?
Smart has nothing to do with it.
Blinders firmly in place, and the religious experience of Saving the Planet through social engineering…. well.
Science is concerned with reality without regard for appearances. Politics is concerned with appearances without regard for reality. When you combine the two you get nonsense. The quoted remarks of Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished climate scientist, suggest that the confounding of publicly funded climate science by politics is now near total. The implication is that public funding for climate science should be terminated — unless it’s nonsense the funding agencies want, in which case they’re getting value for money.
Maybe we should refer to Trenberth’s ilk as ‘climate politists’
Funny happenings in Hasselmann’s life (from Wikipedia)..perhaps there is some projection indeed 😎
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Hasselmann
Hasselmann met with unexpected resistance when he ventured into fundamental physics:
“I presented a talk at a physical colloquium in Oldenburg, and a couple of people sprung up afterwards and shouted that it was a scandal that somebody should give such a talk in a physical colloquium. It was almost a religious reaction. I felt I was in one of those pre-election political talk shows that sometimes get out of hand.
“I had not experienced such violent antagonism before. When I first presented the nonlinear wave interaction theory, people like Bill Pearson or Francis Bretherton emphatically said I was all wrong, but this was in the normal civilized framework of people being sceptical and arguing. And the established SAR experts were critical but not outright hostile when I trespassed in their area to develop a theory for the SAR imaging of ocean waves. Traditional economists also showed only mild irritation, or simply smiled condescendingly, when I came up with alternative economic models. I suppose there was never this feeling that I was attacking anybody’s foundations. The Oldenburg hecklers were – I suspect somewhat frustrated – elementary particle physicists
Give us a P, give us a L ……………… give us a M,and what have we got?
But that identical paragraph is only 2% of the text-mass of the entire paper, so what you’ve found doesn’t matter. Move on. Nothing to see here.
Apparently Trenberth doesn’t actually present this paper to the AMS until a Jan 23-27 conference in Boulder. Perhaps the AMS membership will distance itself from his innovative take on statistical hypothesis testing.
Seattle…
Thanks, Ken — Trenberth is with NCAR in Boulder, but the talk will be in Seattle.
Perhaps Trenberth + Hasselman + others was a Team effort in the beginning for Nature Geoscience? Since it’s a pre-print or non-peer reviewed manuscript, he should have the opportunity to throw some quotes around that paragraph and re-upload prior or after AMS in order to satisfy the charlatans (Hasselman 2010).
Or alternatively, Trenberth’s pre-print is a Team effort.
I too suspect a TEAM effort here. The mystery to me is how Hasselmann, who is a first-rate scientist (e.g., he ingeniously applied Feynman diagrams to studies of nonlinear ocean wave interactions), became involved in a flimsy science so far afield from his prior work in physical oceanography. His entire take on the climate debate lacks any recognition of substantive scientific issues raised by highly qualified specialists in much more closely related disciplines. Perhaps he was drawn in by Barnett at SIO (with whom he collaborated on some wave-generation studies in the German Bight), who goes with flow.
I would have thought given the plagiarism that Trenberth + Hasselman = Hasselberth with a little Trenman left over.
@Ryan Maue
Let me just say this is not the only instance of something like this.
I am giving Kevin the benefit of any doubt, something he clearly extends to all of those that disagree with him. There are clearly avenues of remedy for this type of plagiarism. I am curious about the physical contortions necessary to mentally wrap my mind around the likely explanation.
OT
When you consider Trenbeth’s attempt to change the null question based upon “consensus”, it is hardly surprising he has lost the capacity to post original material.
KT’s text is a treasure trove…
The main societal motivation of climate scientists is to understand the dynamics of the climate system (both natural and human induced), and to communicate this understanding to the public and governments. Most climate scientists have the goal of establishing the best information about the state of affairs as a basis for subsequent discussion about what to do about it: policy relevant but not policy prescriptive.
IOW most people become climate scientists to better the world. So “studying the climate” is equated to “activism”. This explains a lot, and won’t do any good to the reputation of the “activist scientists”.
Nice catch!
The tax payer received excellent value for money from Trenberth’s cut and paste activities. Trenberth deleted the word ‘recent’ from Hasselmann’s text. I wonder what the luminaries of the climatology world charge the tax payer to delete a few more words?
hahaha, yes. Given the recession, efficiency is the order of the day. We all need to do more with less.
Some other parts of Trenberth’s text apparently come from here. The ctrl-c; ctrl-v lessons paid off handsomely, and so much less complicated than research.
ZT – that appears to be a link to Trenberth’s own work. So it might mean that some of this new bit is a rehash, but doesn’t appear to raise an attribution question. am i missing something?
2B
Yes, that is Trenberth’s recycled verbiage. Journalists and students don’t get to endlessly repeat themselves – but in the whirlpool world of climatology, word count is everything.
looks like Trenberth did some lifting from that source.
Couldn’t he take the time to do his own thinking?
“Labeling them as lazy with nothing better to do seems like a good thing to do.”
Trenberth+shoe = fit.
moshpit – come on back over to Briggs’ site. We’re having some fun over there.
Re: Mike B (Jan 14 15:23), ok
Have you considered the possibility Hasselman copied from Trenberth’s early draft?
I mean really, what’s the point of this? Whatever ACTUALLY happened, a) will never be made public, and b) Trenberth and Hasselman will say this is all “much ado about nothing.”
Mike B–
It’s a joke. I guess you didn’t read the redacted Wegman copied from Rapp theories at DC. . .:)
I assume DC is Deep Climate, and no, I don’t have time for that.
Sorry for my confusion.
Hasselman says “Isolated errors in the extensive three-volume IPCC assessments are, of course, unavoidable. However, these can — and, in the future, undoubtedly will— be minimized by more stringent editorial procedures.”
Has anyone heard anything about these new procedures?
A version of Trenberth’s essay appears to have been sent to climatesight in August – see here. A number of phrases are quoted. Trenberth’s untrue claim about Phil Jones’ supposed inexperience with IPCC was reported there.
There was a local global warming effect created at climatesight by one Brian D when he read my comments there. As the moderator will delete references to Climateaudit, I partly paraphrased Steve’s comments about Trenberth without referencing CA. In response to Brian D’s remarks I said the following:
**”If you read the Climateaudit post on Jan 20, 2011 titled,
“Was Phil Jones an IPCC Virgin?”
you will see in great detail that Jones was well involved before AR4.
I await your apology.
(Yes, I paraphrased from the CA website as references to some sites are not posted)”**
And true to form it was determined to be “slanderous” and deleted.
The moderator allows slanderous comments by warmers but hides behind the cloaks of “inflammatory”, “Slander”, and “give citations” when deleting responses.
Trenberth even repeats Hasselmann’s erroneous description of the Oxburgh inquiry as the “Scientific Assessment Panel of the Royal Society”. In the past, we’ve discussed Oxburgh’s false claims that the Royal Society has selected the eleven papers considered by his inquiry and that CRU had not been involved in their selection – the truth being that they were selected by Trevor Davies, a former CRU director and present UEA official, based on the list of references in CRU’s submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry.
Not being familiar with the process, I’m not sure what to expect next.
Reasonably, surely, given that plagiarism has been uncovered before publication, this piece can no longer go to press?
a travesty
This kinda smells like a case of farming out writing to a grad student or a postdoc without any oversight. I can hardly imagine any scientist lifting whole sentences from another.
But it IS the kind of thing that today’s students do if they think they can get away with it. Imagine a busy research group with too many things going on and a relatively unscientific, nonrigorous general audience paper to write. Farm it out to Joe, the new postdoc. And don’t look at it too carefully. Ooops.
Maybe Trenberth actually did this, but it is just amazingly stupid. I suspect, rather, some schmuck just lost his assistantship or postdoc.
Seems to me that PR pros are in the mix somewhere. As illustrated countless time in the Climategate emails, the very foundation of RealClimate and groups like desmogblog, it would be naive to assume that coordinated efforts to protect CAGW science are not in place.
Re: bernie (Jan 14 23:04), Yes. I can confirm that. Some standard playbook hings are being trotted out. This should come as no surprise, they’ve had PR folks on board ( and media training) for sometime.
The problem is this. They need more than a new playbook. They need new players
A new story would help too.
Yes – it is quite obvious.
See for example how “climate change” was replaced all around the world by “dangerous climate disruption” in a very few days.
Re: AusieDan (Jan 15 19:04), The first trial balloon came after AGU. The issue was raised about the lack of conservative or republican scientists. Within days they had a piece placed on Emmanuel. bonehead move. there are other things happening, mostly cosmetic. Trenberth is trying new material. I suspect that some analysis of WUWT was done to pull off key concepts ( the NULL) introduced by Willis. It’s become a battle cry of the skeptics. So Trenberth will try to flip the script. One thing you see here is that the skeptics have an advantage in testing out ideas. If Willis’ “null” meme had failed nobody would rememember. But when Trenberth crashes and burns the incident will live on. Expect more things to fall out of Trenberth’s return to center stage.
Re: the Trenberth null I say “bring it on”. I can see heaps of fun while we sort out a rigorous null for GHG causing the majority of recent temp increases, and watch the scramble to show any hypothesis tests aren’t completely lost in the noise of the data.
A key issue with Trenberth is his use of denier. It is a term most skeptical scientists have rejected as offensive, although some may have embraced it. The IPCC is supposed to provide an objective assessment of climate science. When Trenberth uses an offensive term to describe scientists with whom he disagrees, how is this demonstrating objectivity?
It seems clear to me that anyone who uses an offensive and pejorative term to describe climate scientists cannot be considered objective and should be excluded from any leadership or authorship role in future IPCC assessment reports. Just as Eduardo Zorita called for Phil Jones, Michael Mann et al from Climategate to be excluded from any future IPCC reports, I call for Trenberth and anyone else who uses the term denier to be excluded as well.
I made an earlier comment of a similar vein, but stepped over the line a bit (Steve snipped it). Let me try to make a somewhat more measured point — I don’t think that it is proper to use public grant money to hire PR agencies. I don’t know if that’s the case, but I agree with the comment that a lot of this looks like the work of PR professionals. And, under certain circumstances, using public money for political purposes is problematic.
I slightly edited the post to improve the flow a little (but did not change any points.)
It isn’t particularly important, but you are wrong when you say the first example is “word for word identical to the following Hasselmann text.” The two texts are extremely similar, but there are at least two differences I noticed. The first difference is Trenberth removed the word “recent” from the first sentence. The second difference I noticed is Trenberth reworded the two lines following, “have confirmed what climate scientists have never seriously doubted:”
It is obvious Trenberth lifted the text from Hasselmann, but he didn’t copy it word for word.
Wegman didn’t copy Bradley word for word either. So what are you trying to say?
I am trying to say Steve McIntyre was wrong when he said, “Trenberth copied one long paragraph verbatim without quotation marks.” As such, he should change the text so it is accurate.
You seem to be under the impression I am trying to defend Trenberth. I’m not. I just happened to notice a mistake and thought I would point it out.
Considering what I know of this site, I wouldn’t have thought this confusing.
Steve – noted in text.
Is this plagiarism, or is it a group of scientists using common talking-points?
Well, atleast he did get the quotes right though, which really can’t be said about Wegmans altering… So it’s really not the same thing, but still.
The problem he says nothing about the fact he has , he just bits from someelse and using in his speech , without attributing .
It looks as though Trenbeth cites Hasselmann quite correctly. I see no foul here.
Re: bigcitylib (Jan 15 11:55), And wegman cited Bradley and Bradley cited Fitts.
The problem in all those cases is properly quoting.
if you want inormaton on citing and quoting I suggest you start by looking at how you Handled Mark Styne. Then don’t repeat your behavior
I guess that’s why Trenberth has now revised the manuscript to address some of the issues raised here.
Seems even Trenberth knows better than to trust BCL’s judgment.
I had trouble getting past Mr. Trenberth’s first page quote, “Moreover, the extensive review process, which is a hundred times more rigorous than that for any individual paper….” Is his use of the figure of one hundred, a suspiciously round number, one of the 87.963% of statistics made up on the fly, or a scientific variant of the word “gadjillion,” so frequently used by my granddaughter to describe any number larger then her fingers and toes total? Either way, it seems odd to use such unnecessary, and almost certainly inaccurate specificity, especially when it so obviously made up. Or is there a logarithm to accurately calculate the rigorousness of review that I am not aware of? John Vonderlin
Priests take words written in books and speak them in public. That is not called plagiarism. That is called a liturgy.
That is all that is going on here with Dr. Trenberth. A priest of CAGW is delivering a liturgy to the unwashed.
So much excitement over nothing. This is a draft of a talk he was planning and the offending text has been corrected: http://ams.confex.com/ams/91Annual/webprogram/Manuscript/Paper180230/ClimategateThoughts4AMS_v3.pdf
One paragraph where he forgot the quote marks and you try to turn it into a major scandal. Get a grip.
Guess it takes some folks a while to catch up.
just wondering whether Messrs Mashey and Hank Roberts got their investigative dentures stuck into this….
11 Trackbacks
[…] Steve has much more here. […]
[…] McIntyre ClimateAudit.org January 14, […]
[…] Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim In case readers think that Trenberth’s outburst discussed yesterday represents an isolated and unfortunate climate […] […]
[…] Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre Skip to content Hockey Stick StudiesStatistics and RContact Steve McProxy DataCA blog setupFAQ 2005Station DataHigh-Resolution Ocean SedimentsSubscribe to CAEconometric ReferencesBlog Rules and Road MapGridded DataTip JarAboutCA Assistant « Trenberth and Lifting Text Verbatim […]
[…] January 14, 2011, I reported here that Trenberth’s AMS presentation had lifted text verbatim or near-verbatim from Hasselmann […]
[…] manquez pas aussi les billets de Steve McIntyre sur le sujet: ici, ici et […]
[…] Source: https://climateaudit.org/2011/01/14/12736/ […]
[…] […]
[…] was most recently discussed at CA here in connection with his plagiarism of Hasselmann (2010). This entry was written by Steve […]
[…] tanked when he advocated for inverting the null hypothesis in climate science. Which, BTW, was plagiarized . He’s not a scientist, he’s an advocate with […]
[…] Unlike Trenberth’s presentation to the American Meteorological Society earlier this year (see here here here), Trenberth et al 2011 was not […]