Plimer the plagiarist

Eli Rabett has been investigating Ian Plimer’s claim that climate scientists were cooking the books on the CO2 record. Plimer wrote:

The raw data from Mauna Loa is ‘edited’ by an operator who deletes what is considered poor data. Some 82% of the raw data is “edited” leaving just 18% of the raw data measurements for statistical analysis [2902,2903]. With such savage editing of raw data, whatever trend one wants can be shown. [p 416 of Heaven and Earth]

The raw data is an average of 4 samples from hour to hour. In 2004 there were a possible 8784 measurements. Due to instrumental error 1102 samples had no data, 1085 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour but were used in the official figures and 866 had large hour by hour variability and were not used.[2102] [p 418]

This drew a correction from NOAA’s Pieter Tans:

To illustrate how misleading
Plimer is I made a plot of 3 years of all hourly data, with 2004 in the
middle because Plimer discussed 2004. …
In the plot, “selected” data means that we have used it in constructing
the published monthly mean because those hours satisfy the conditions
for “background” measurements. The red stripes are extremely close to
the published monthly means. …
Also plotted in purple-blue are all non-background data. If one
constructs monthly means from ALL data, incl. non-background, one
obtains the purple-blue stripes. The differences are only slight, with
the seasonal cycle becoming a bit larger due to upslope winds, esp.
during the summer.

Tans concludes that Plimer is a con man, but the story doesn’t end there. Plimer’s reference 2102 is ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/in-situ/. I analyzed the 2004 Mauna Loa data from there and found there were some minor errors in Plimer’s numbers: In fact, due to instrumental error 1103 samples had no data, 1097 were not used due to up slope winds, 655 had large variability within 1 hour and were not used and 881 had large hour by hour variability and were not used.

No big deal, complaining about minor mistakes like this really would be nitpicking. But look at this page, where Ferdinand Engelbeen makes exactly the same mistakes as Plimer and has the numbers in the same order:

For 2004, 8784 hourly average data should have been sampled, but:
1102 have no data, due to instrumental errors (including several weeks in June).
1085 were flagged, due to upslope diurnal winds (which have lower values), not used in daily, monthly and yearly averages.
655 had large variability within one hour, were flagged, but still are used in the official averages.
866 had large hour-by-hour variability > 0.25 ppmv, were flagged and not used.

Now if they both got the numbers right they could have just independently analyzed the same data, but when two people make exactly the same four errors it is proof of copying. The Internet Archive shows that Engelbeen’s page has had those numbers since at least 2007, well before Heaven and Earth was published, so it is Plimer who has copied from Engelbeen. And since Plimer does not cite Engelbeen as his source, that’s plagiarism.

But why plagiarize Engelbeen? All Plimer had to do avoid academic misconduct was cite Engelbeen instead of the NOAA FTP site. Well, directly before the numbers that Plimer copied are two graphs, one showing the raw data and one showing the selected data. And directly after the numbers Engelbeen writes:

As one can see in the trends, despite the exclusion of (in the above second graph) all outliers, the difference in trend with or without flagged data is minimal, only the number of outliers around the seasonal trend is reduced and the overall increase in 2004 in both cases is about 1.5 ppmv.

And to end any doubt on this point, Engelbeen continues:

Does discarding of “contaminated” data influence the trend over a year or several years? I have asked that question to Pieter Tans, responsible for dataprocessing of the Mauna Loa data. His answer:

The data selection method has been described in Thoning et al., J. Geophys. Research, (1989) vol. 94, 8549-8565. Different data selection methods are compared in that paper, including no selection. The methods give annual means differing by a few tenths of 1 ppm. I assume that you have read the README file [4] when downloading the data. The hourly means are NOT pre-processed, but they are flagged when the st.dev. of the minute averages is large.

That’s the same Pieter Tans quoted earlier.

So it seems that the reason why Plimer didn’t cite Engelbeen was that Engelbeen conclusively refuted Plimer’s claims about data selection at Mauna Loa being used to manufacture a trend. (Engelbeen, by the way, is a global warming skeptic and wrote his page in an attempt to end the Keeling-curve denial of folks like Plimer.)

Comments

  1. #1 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “And it doesn’t matter, carrot, what Plimers’ case resembles, it shows that you can get jail time for copyright. ”

    If this is how you think, I see no point in continuing with you. First off, it’s legally poor thinking – just because one commercial copyright case is criminal doesn’t mean they all are. Second, even if by the letter of the law (of whichever country), one could prosecute Plimer, you cannot show that anybody has ever prosecuted anybody for a similar transgression.

    If similar cases have never been prosecuted before, then you are being unreasonable in demanding that this one should be. It is a disproportionate demand, pretty much by definition.

    “But leaving him out and free without sanction gives sanction to the others to break the law with impunity.”

    Do you really think this is the first time somebody has paraphrased too closely in a part of a book?

    For the others to do what, paraphrase too much? Civil lawsuits, academic censure and public shame are good enough deterrence. It really isn’t something the state needs to bother with, and clearly the state agrees.

  2. #2 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Hence, attacking the man is more important to you than disputing his ideas.

    > Posted by: carrot eater

    PS that’s not ad hom either.

    If I were to say “he’s wrong because he’s a criminal” then that would be ad hom.

    Saying “he’s a criminal and should be in jail” is not.

  3. #3 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > First off, it’s legally poor thinking – just because one commercial copyright case is criminal doesn’t mean they all are.

    No, all commercial copyright infringement is a criminal copyright offence.

    Just like every time someone goes over the speed limit is a crime.

    ALL of them.

    Every single one, every single time.

    > Do you really think this is the first time somebody has paraphrased too closely in a part of a book?

    This isn’t paraphrasing. It’s plagiarism. Copyright infringement. For commercial gain. Commercial copyright infringement.

    > For the others to do what, paraphrase too much?

    If other paraphrase too much, then that’s not plagiarism. So what they do doesn’t pertain.

    Plimer didn’t paraphrase.

  4. #4 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    Even if contempt of court in a civil case can somehow lead to criminal penalties like jailtime, it does NOT matter.

    It’s the contempt that gets you in jail, not the original offense. And you definitely, absolutely, are not jailed if you don’t pay because you are too poor. If you don’t pay because you don’t feel like it, I don’t know. But that’s all besides the point.

    Why do I have to keep saying that?

    Civil copyright infringement does not get you in jail. Something else along the way, maybe, but not the infringement itself.

  5. #5 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “No, all commercial copyright infringement is a criminal copyright offence.”

    That does not appear to be the case; the standards are higher than that. And in any event, you’ve not shown any case where it’s been enforced in a case like this, where one author too closely paraphrased another for a paragraph and didn’t cite it.

    “This isn’t paraphrasing. It’s plagiarism. ”

    Too close a paraphrase is plagiarism. If you want to be really close, then keep the original wording, toss quotes around it, and cite it. (well, you should cite it, either way). Like Ambrose should have done.

    “Plimer didn’t paraphrase.”

    Seriously? I’m not wasting my time with this anymore.

  6. #6 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > That does not appear to be the case; the standards are higher than that.

    No they aren’t.

    Commercial copyright infringement is criminal.

    Where do you think the FBI warming “could result in criminal sanction and even jail” comes from?

    The law making it criminal for commercial copyright infringement.

    > Too close a paraphrase is plagiarism.

    No, too close a paraphrase is dodgy. But it isn’t plagiarism.

    > Plagiarise:

    > * a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work

    > * the act of plagiarizing; taking someone’s words or ideas as if they were your own

    cf

    > paraphrase:

    > 1. A restatement of a text or passage in another form or other words, often to clarify meaning.

    > 2. The restatement of texts in other words as a studying or teaching device.

    Paraphrasing is not plagiarism.

    And this is plagiarism.

  7. #7 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Even if contempt of court in a civil case can somehow lead to criminal penalties like jailtime, it does NOT matter.

    Why?

    > It’s the contempt that gets you in jail, not the original offense.

    This isn’t a why.

    It’s a how.

  8. #8 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    Mind you, I hope carrot is a judge.

    “Sorry your honour, I didn’t copy that CD, I just closely paraphrased”.

    carrot: “Case dismissed!”.

  9. #9 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    So Jammie can ignore the court because any demand they put on her is a civil case.

    Of course not, she can have her assets seized (other than minimum assets required to live), her wages, garnished, etc. Just because these are civil actions doesn’t mean they’re not onerous. I wouldn’t want the RIAA chasing my assets in court. Actually what I would like would be for the RIAA to be RICOd, but that’s another story (and I know they’re exploiting bad law, not breaking it).

  10. #10 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > If similar cases have never been prosecuted before, then you are being unreasonable in demanding that this one should be. It is a disproportionate demand, pretty much by definition.

    Yeah, so this is godwinning, but nobody had ever been tried for waging an aggressive war.

    So were the requests for the Hague War Crimes tribunal disproportionate?

    And given your previous inability to work out the definition of words like “ad hominem”, “plagiarism” and “paraphrase”,

    > pretty much by definition

    doesn’t have a lot of weight behind it without a linky.

  11. #11 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    But it wasn’t thrown out, was it.

    I never said it was. I said they didn’t win, and that it’s in limbo, because they’re bankrupt. As far as their chances of winning … the gravy train financing the company, based solely on the expectations of huge damages in their lawsuit-driven licensing racket, has dried up. If anyone has sufficient believe that they’ll win, they can finance the company out of bankruptcy and fire up the suit. Apparently thus far no one has that confidence.

    So I’d say your citing this case in support of your position is premature.

    Its power comes from the more recent idea of ” you can’t crack a copyrighted work without making a derivative, which you need a license”.

    Not exactly, it’s the crack itself, even if you don’t have any copyrighted material that’s protected by it.

    It’s unlawful to “circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works.” (that’s an actual quote)

    That’s the horridness of it. If you have DRM software on your machine, and no copyrighted bits protected by that DRM software on your machine, and you reverse engineer the DRM software – you’re in violation. Even if you never use it.

    Remove copyright, DMCA dies.

    Never said otherwise, mark.

  12. #12 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “Commercial copyright infringement is criminal.”

    There are additional criteria. Maybe they’re met here, but there are other criteria.
    http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506

    “No, too close a paraphrase is dodgy. But it isn’t plagiarism.”

    Too close a paraphrase falls into your definition. It need not be word-for-word. If you change too little, and/or don’t cite it, it’s plagiarism. Even if you do cite it, it’s plagiarism.

    Plimer used a close paraphrase, and didn’t cite it. Plagiarism, both ways.

    “This isn’t a why.

    It’s a how.”

    You’ve got to be kidding me. The penalty in a civil offense is never jail time.

  13. #13 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Actually what I would like would be for the RIAA to be RICOd, but that’s another story (and I know they’re exploiting bad law, not breaking it).

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    They *nearly* got it when Texas stewed them over unlicensed investigators.

    And the court reversal of the “making available” theory (a complete and utter nut-crusher of a bonheaded move by the judge who instructed the jury incorrectly in the first place) is showing that maybe the judges are getting hacked off being played for patsies.

    Problem is that having outsourced so much of their manufacturing, the US is now an “IP economy” and so the artificial scarcity idea is entrenched in the entire fabric of the US political structure.

    It’s expensive to run a country.

    But maybe at least the abuse of the system is getting reeled back in.
    Hence the moves to make all copyright infringeent a federal criminal offense, the bringing of three-strikes laws on not convictions but accusations, and so on.

    It’s killing the average USian and completely against the free market ideals and “essential liberty” they otherwise promote so vigorously.

    To some value, in general.

  14. #14 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    Now if you’d been on the receiving end of SCO, you would now be bankrupt.

    Odd, then, that the biggest company on the receiving end (IBM) is healthy, while the company on the dishing-it-out end (SCO), is bankrupt.

    Yes, I’m aware of SCO’s licensing scam, but intimidating companies into paying a license fee which hinges on a future court determination doesn’t have any relevance for statutory or case law.

  15. #15 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > You’ve got to be kidding me. The penalty in a civil offense is never jail time.

    > Posted by: carrot eater

    But the contempt is from a civil action.

    The civil action annulled and there is no contempt.

    How much simpler can I make it?

    > Plimer used a close paraphrase, and didn’t cite it

    No, it was a word-for-word copy.

    You even agreed it was in post 158.

  16. #16 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > You’ve got to be kidding me. The penalty in a civil offense is never jail time.

    > Posted by: carrot eater

    But the contempt is from a civil action.

    The civil action annulled and there is no contempt.

    How much simpler can I make it?

    > Plimer used a close paraphrase, and didn’t cite it

    No, it was a word-for-word copy. Read the flipping article.

    > Not for making illegal copies, but for distributing code that other could use to make an illegal copy.

    dog, it wasn’t distributed to the US. It was available in the USSR where due to disabled access laws the Adobe product was illegal.

    It was for a short while available but when informed that US citizens could not legally buy, the US purchases were refused.

    AFTER THAT Dimitry went to the US and was arrested by the FBI.

    That version is what *Adobe* said happened to get the FBI involved.

  17. #17 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Odd, then, that the biggest company on the receiving end (IBM) is healthy, while the company on the dishing-it-out end (SCO), is bankrupt.

    Now this is irrelevant.

    It was a pump-and-dump scheme and SCO were tiny compared to IBM, though IBM paid millions (where do you think they got that money from?).

    Now DMcB and Ralph Norda both made out like bandits, as did lots of large shareholders in SCO stock.

    Those who STARTED this have indeed done better than any IBM executive over the period.

    And SCO didn’t just scare licenses.

    They demanded insanities (a complete CM dump of ALL Novell and IBM code on IBM hardware at their expense), lied (millions of lines of code/a briefcase full of copied code/etc), and made shit up in court (negative know-how and the “WE OWN UNIX!” chart).

    They made a lot of money selling other products WITH a “free SCO license” and upgrades with free SCO Linux licenses, but they got very little payment for their $699 Linux license. MS bought a bunch and a MS Valued Partner paid a wodge. Lots of shady emails about that…

    It was a scam, but the licenses were merely a way to pump the stock up, which was the real scam.

    And Brent Hatch being Orrin Hatch’s son (wasn’t it?) helped make sure the judge didn’t just fling their insanities out of court.

    GRoklaw has reams on it, including all the paraphrased court cases SCO used to bolster their arguments that, if you read the court cases, said something completely different.

    Again because the US (apart from Louisiana, but only at the state level: so sue me, Dave, you’re right, but I can hardly be considered all that wrong to miss one state of 50…!) is case law led.

    And whatever you have the money to sue for you can grind someone down for it. All you need is something vaguely right, a lack of conscience and pots more money than the one you want to bury. Lacking the pots more money, you can syphon off lawyers fees to your brother (Mc Brides bro was one of their lawyers) and, until the company collapses, raid the drawers for anything not nailed down.

    Gotta love that limited liability!!!

  18. #18 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “But the contempt is from a civil action.
    The civil action annulled and there is no contempt.
    How much simpler can I make it?”

    So what? What point are you trying to make? We keep telling you that this is not relevant.

    Nowhere civilised can you go to jail if you are too poor to pay, in a civil case between two private parties. If you are able to pay but don’t, you’ll get liens and garnishments. Somewhere in the world, maybe you might get jailed then. Maybe; you have yet to document it, but maybe there is a state or country somewhere that does that. But how does it matter?

    If you said Plimer should go to jail because of a civil copyright violation, that would be a nonsensical statement. It cannot happen.

    If you said Plimer should be sued for a civil copyright violation, AND then he should refuse to pay even though he could pay, AND that all this should happen in a state where jail time is recourse in that situation.. I’d just shake my head and ignore you.

    So what you’re saying, even if true in some state or country, is not relevant.

  19. #19 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    It was for a short while available

    It only takes one instance.

    AFTER THAT Dimitry went to the US and was arrested by the FBI.

    Yes, I know. We also extradite foreign nationals who conspire to sell narcotics in the United States, even if they’ve never actually set foot in the United States. The mexicans have been shipping us a steadily growing trickle of higher-end traffickers over the last couple of years.

    Nothing unusual here.

    He wasn’t convicted, though he was certainly persecuted and I assume banned from reentering the country. And the company won in court.

    Don’t confuse attempts to apply the law with successfully getting a court to agree with you.

    I’m not saying any of this is right. The DMCA is horrible. The arrest of the Russian and coerced testimony was horrible.

    But it wasn’t for illegal copying of copyrighted material.

  20. #20 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    gain because the US (apart from Louisiana, but only at the state level: so sue me, Dave, you’re right, but I can hardly be considered all that wrong to miss one state of 50…!) is case law led.

    Yet, despite your huffing and puffing – SCO has not won its case. Its claims have not become part of case law.

    Yes, it’s a particularly good example of how a well-heeled charlatan can abuse the court system and the threat of legal action to extort money from people. Normal people don’t claim that such actions are part of case or statutory law.

  21. #21 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > If you said Plimer should go to jail because of a civil copyright violation, that would be a nonsensical statement. It cannot happen.

    It can.

    Plimer is done for civil copyright abuse.

    He refuses.

    He gets considered in contempt.

    He gets jailed.

    And anyway, this is commercial copyright infringement, so the “if” is irrelevant.

    This would be criminal copyright infringement. Jail time, crown fines (and the criminal statutes to get those fines AND jail you for hiding) and all that criminal stuff.

    So the “if” doesn’t exist.

    This is a criminal copyright case.

  22. #22 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “No, it was a word-for-word copy. Read the flipping article.”

    Perhaps you need to look up at Plimer’s and Engelbeen’s passages again, there. It isn’t word-for-word. It’s close, but it isn’t word-for-word. Plimer both neglected to credit Engelbeen for doing the counts, and closely paraphrased his language. Both would count as plagiarism under the academic codes I’ve seen.

    In any event, you can’t escape it. You’re calling for a prosecution and sentencing response that, so far as we can tell, is unprecedented for similar cases. No, you simply involving copyright does not make all your links similar. Being sloppy with a citation and paraphrase in an allegedly scholarly book is not even close to being similar to running a computer server for music or software piracy, or somehow enabling such piracy. Hence, your call is disproportionate.

  23. #23 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Yet, despite your huffing and puffing – SCO has not won its case. Its claims have not become part of case law.

    Yet Novell have no money that SCO kept and said that it was theirs because they own unix.

    IBM will get no court costs back.

    SCO won everything it wanted.

    SCO were on death-spiral and the pump-and-dump got everything they wanted.

    And five years and more down the line, the court STILL hasn’t thrown out many of the SCO theories. If it goes into receivership, it never will.

  24. #24 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Perhaps you need to look up at Plimer’s and Engelbeen’s passages again, there.

    Yeah, the books had more words that weren’t in the paper and vice versa.

    This doesn’t mean it wasn’t plagiarism and copyright theft.

    Four notes is enough.

    Zero notes even, if they last long enough.

    Read the links I’ve given.

    Plimer stole the IP from another, criminally.

    Saying so isn’t an ad hominem attack.

    Saying he should be jailed is appropriate and proportionate claim to commercial copyright infringement.

    It;s not like he or the Heartland Institute are going to be required to pay $150,000 per copy of the book in recompense.

  25. #25 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “It can.”

    You don’t even see the silliness of your statement. Yes, we demand that he be sued with a civil lawsuit, and that he lose, and that he doesn’t pay a sum he can reasonably pay, and that all this happen in whatever state or country (yet to be identified) where somehow that can result in jail time – Yes – We demand that all this happen, just so we can call for him to be jailed!

    “This is a criminal copyright case.”

    Only if a DA someplace wants to press it. You’ve been unable to show any similar case where one has done so.

    I’m done wasting my time.

  26. #26 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    OK, so Plimer is tried and convicted under civil law. If he doesn’t pay ($2.4M x the relative size of a book vs two cd’s) you can ask the court to get the money.

    And at that stage (except in Canada) you can be jailed for failing to pay.

    Plenty of examples with child support: a civil action with jail time for real.

    Just show me where it says this can only happen for child support cases in civil law or like canada, that the law states that only fines owing to the state can be punished for avoidance in this manner.

    > Only if a DA someplace wants to press it.

    Nope, it can happen when a company asks it. Adobe. Got the FBI involved.

    > You’ve been unable to show any similar case where one has done so.

    I just put that there for the irony effect.

  27. #27 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    “Yeah, the books had more words that weren’t in the paper and vice versa.”

    That’s what I’m saying – it’s a close paraphrase. Somehow you thought it wasn’t a paraphrase, and it was a word-for-word copy. I don’t know why you thought that.

    “This doesn’t mean it wasn’t plagiarism”

    ? I’ve said all along a close paraphrase was plagiarism – cited or uncited, doesn’t matter. If you’re going to be really close, just quote it directly. You’re the one who thought a close paraphrase wasn’t plagiarism, 206.

    “Four notes is enough.

    Zero notes even, if they last long enough.

    Read the links I’ve given.”

    And those were civil cases. Commercial, and yet not treated as criminal. What does that tell you?

    “Saying he should be jailed is appropriate and proportionate claim to commercial copyright infringement.”

    Demonstrate that this is normally how such cases are treated. Do it. Show me the Stephen Ambroses of the world being jailed.

    If you can’t, it’s disproportionate.

  28. #28 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > That’s what I’m saying – it’s a close paraphrase.

    That’s what you’re saying. I’m not saying you’re not saying it.

    You could say it’s a tuna sandwich. No problem there.

    But it isn’t a tuna sandwich and it isn’t close paraphrasing.

    It’s plagiarism, copyright infringement, for monetary gain and therefore piracy. The genuine one, which existed since about 1830: the exploitation of copyrighted works for unwarranted enrichment to the detriment of the copyright holder, as opposed to the current version: sharing it for free.

  29. #29 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    226: I don’t trust wikipedia, but under debtor’s prison:

    “In 1833 the United States reduced the practice of imprisonment for debts at the federal level.[clarification needed] Most states followed suit. It is still possible, however, to be incarcerated for debt, but only in those circumstances in which the court finds that the debtor actually possesses the money or means available to pay the debt, however, in the case of child support, if you are unable to pay the amount set by child support enforcement you will be incarcerated even though you may not have the actual means to pay it through no fault of your own. The constitutions of the U.S. states of Tennessee and Oklahoma forbid civil imprisonment for debts.[3]”

    “Nope, it can happen when a company asks it. Adobe. Got the FBI involved.”

    The FBI has to think it worth investigating, and then a prosecutor has to think it worth prosecuting. If not, then no criminal case. And you can’t find one for a missing footnote or closely paraphrased paragraph.

  30. #30 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Demonstrate that this is normally how such cases are treated. Do it. Show me the Stephen Ambroses of the world being jailed.

    I don’t have to.

    You have to show that Ambrose committed plagiarism.

    Tim’s done Plimer.

    And it doesn’t matter if he is or isn’t: copyright doesn’t require a robust defense or lose the rights, that’s trademarks require that.

  31. #31 carrot eater
    October 27, 2009

    It’s a close paraphrase, and close paraphrasing is a form of plagiarism. Whether it is cited, or not. That’s what I’ve said all along.

    You can’t seem to make up your mind what it is. First it’s a word-for-word copy. Then it isn’t. Well, if it isn’t, then it’s a close paraphrase. But it isn’t that, either? I give up.

  32. #32 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > 226: I don’t trust wikipedia, but under debtor’s prison:

    And if you can get arrested for not paying a civil fine, what’s the difference?

    It’s like saying “we don’t have the death penalty, we just have euthanasia for criminals”.

  33. #33 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > It’s a close paraphrase, and close paraphrasing is a form of plagiarism.

    No, I’ve already answered that one.

    > First it’s a word-for-word copy.

    It is of the words that were copied.

    If I add fifteen chapters to “The Half-Blood Prince” chapters 6,7 and 8, I’ve still plagiarised JK Rowling’s work.

    Not paraphrased.

    If I’d paraphrased, that would fall under “fair use”:

    reporting

    de minimis

    quotation

  34. #34 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    And five years and more down the line, the court STILL hasn’t thrown out many of the SCO theories. If it goes into receivership, it never will.

    Nor have those theories been established as part of case law.

    I’m well aware that the perps made out well on their scam. It’s irrelevant to your rather unique understanding of copyright law.

  35. #35 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    Although if it were a quotation, of course it shouldn’t be a paraphrase, else you’d be misquoting.

    Then again, if you’re quoting you have to say who you’re quoting, so it’s still not plagiarism.

  36. #36 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    Four notes is enough.

    I pointed out above that it was far more than “four notes”. I don’t think you even bother to read before spewing …

    Zero notes even, if they last long enough.

    Settled out of court, so we’ll never know.

  37. #37 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Nor have those theories been established as part of case law.

    They DO, however (which is the point of my use of them) show that what the law says and what the law allows doesn’t necessarily follow.

    After all, that belgian company tried and convicted in absentia was convicted under copyright by someone who didn’t have the copyrights. And that can be used as case law if you have no case but the judge doesn’t summarily dismiss (in which case you can use it as case law to appeal the dismissal).

    I’m not saying this is what the law says, but just saying that this is what the law is allowing.

    And SCO’s actions are a good example of non-law is being allowed by the law, so quoting law really doesn’t prove anything in defacto justice.

    More’s the pity.

  38. #38 Mark
    October 27, 2009

    > Settled out of court, so we’ll never know.

    No, we DO know.

    We know you can be sued for copying zero notes and lose.

    Defacto “justice”.

  39. #39 dhogaza
    October 27, 2009

    Sigh …

  40. #40 phillip soffermann
    October 27, 2009

    #177carrot eater… you summarised your case with reasonable civility here. Mark…yours is a convoluted and compulsive ramble… case dismissed! Both of you should now re-read Ockham’s Razor~Oct 18 2009.

  41. #41 Michael
    October 27, 2009

    As fascinating as the mark vs. dhogaza bickering is, any chance it could move to the open thread?

    The only plagiarism I’m really interested in is Plimer’s.

  42. #42 frankis
    October 27, 2009

    Further to Michael at #241:
    Mark you’ve posted something like 88 of 241 comments to this thread – more than a third of the comments in total. In truth I don’t look forward to what’s most likely your forthcoming 89th.

    Can you tell us how an innocent reader not expert in copyright law, who might for some reason find him/herself wading through the 240+ comments here, should be able to tell with any degree of confidence that you’re a serious person not (pardon me) a troll? You agree that the best contributions to a discussion normally come from people with either expertise or at least a good deal of personal experience in the subject, and that it’s preferable to shed light rather than heat?

    I sympathise with WotWot and Truesceptic; by this stage you’ve pretty much ruined for me what was an excellent piece of original work by Tim.

  43. #43 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    Mark you’ve posted something like 88 of 241 comments to this thread – more than a third of the comments in total

    Makes me wonder what my number is. Hopefully not so high.

    I sympathise with WotWot and Truesceptic; by this stage you’ve pretty much ruined for me what was an excellent piece of original work by Tim.

    If I (and more recently, carrot eater) had simply ignored Mark, how would that have altered your opinion?

    Because truly, I’m only interested in setting facts straight (including when I’m caught out being wrong, which I admit happens at times).

    As fascinating as the mark vs. dhogaza bickering is, any chance it could move to the open thread?

    The only plagiarism I’m really interested in is Plimer’s.

    Does this mean you have no interest in Mark’s claims that it should be treated as a serious criminal, rather than civil, case, even if it’s not clear that even a civil case might hold water?

  44. #44 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    In my above post, I’m quoting two separate people, I didn’t point it out because from context, it should be apparent.

    But I’m feeling paranoid at this point …

  45. #45 Pinko Punko
    October 28, 2009

    Bringing in SCO here is like bringing in Jarndyce and Jarndyce in an attempt to illuminate something.

    Parts of this thread are why people complain about the internet. At least this argument in “real life” would most places involve some sort of alcohol or at least snacks. I don’t want to name names, but somebody start passing out cheetos or booze because this is bringing me down.

  46. #46 ScaredAmoeba
    October 28, 2009

    Marco @ 96 – Thanks!

    coal site:www.ivanhoemines.com turned up 133 references – face palm!

    None of his other interests seem linked to coal. I didn’t search for oil or LNG.

    So accusing Plimer of having vested interests in being dishonest about fossil fuels is entirely justified!

  47. #47 Steve Chamberlain
    October 28, 2009

    philip sofferman (13, 23):
    As you would by now know if you had bothered to do any work, or at least read Katherine’s post “imply” is not the same as “infer”. Perhaps English isn’t your native language. Perhaps it is, and you are mutatis mutandis the sort of dolt who casts words about, in the hope you sound enlightened, without ever really understanding what the words mean. Whichever, read this simple explanation.

    Once you’ve mastered simple English, perhaps then you can move on to science, and thence to climate science, on completion of which I might start taking your (thus far mindless, witless and clueless) comments seriously. I look forward to hearing from you in 30 years’ time…

  48. #48 frankis
    October 28, 2009

    dhogaza, how about we just read between the lines of the fact that you didn’t get a mention at #242? If you insist, then no I’m not complaining about you.

  49. #49 phillip soffermann
    October 28, 2009

    #247 Steve Chamberlain…you are inhabiting an infernal region just like your mesmerising mate, Mark. I may be a man of few words, but I mean what I say and say what I mean. Bye!

  50. #50 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > Mark you’ve posted something like 88 of 241 comments to this thread – more than a third of the comments in total

    Oh, sorry. Didn’t know there was a limit.

    Am I using up all the numbers?

    I’ll go make some more. Back in a tick.

  51. #51 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > Does this mean you have no interest in Mark’s claims that it should be treated as a serious criminal, rather than civil, case, even if it’s not clear that even a civil case might hold water?

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    First half is a query I’d like seen answered.

    the second half we haven’t even started on, because carrot doesn’t think this IS a copyright infringement case.

    But it is copyright infringement for commercial gain. This is criminal.

    Are you or your other interlocutor careless of a crime going unpunished?

    Copyright crimes for money are not a problem?

    (PS I hope that some people are happy: I’ve made another few numbers, hope there’s some more to spare).

  52. #52 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > Mark…yours is a convoluted and compulsive ramble… case dismissed!

    Is it?

    Where and why?

    I’ve rambled on but the case of Plimer rests on this being copyright infringement for commercial gain and this is a criminal copyright infringement.

    Which can result in jail time.

    In what way is that wrong?

    Or do you just not want a scofflaw to be punished for their misdemeanors because you like him?

  53. #53 Janet Akerman
    October 28, 2009

    Could trolls baiters have done better in making this tread unreadable?

  54. #54 Steve Chamberlain
    October 28, 2009

    Janet Akerman “Could trolls baiters have done better in making this tread unreadable?”

    Janet, if this is directed at me, sorry. My sole defence is that I find the temptation to pick at scabs irresistible. Off back to my box now :)

  55. #55 skip
    October 28, 2009

    Criminal charges?

    Nah.

    Confession is what Plimer needs. Admit the error and move on. Then his garbage could not be exploited by the denier crowd and he might achieve a measure of redemption.

    Skip

  56. #56 phillip soffermann
    October 28, 2009

    #252 Mark…with respect…my last post on this thread. Read and understand the logic of #177 carot eater’s summary…even though I don’t agree with either of you! Please also read and understand Gen. George S. Patton’s dictum;

    ” If everybody is thinking alike…then somebody isn’t thinking!”

  57. #57 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    #256

    what was the point of that. It boils down to “read and understand someone’s logic”. I do understand and have read it.

    It’s wrong.

    Do you think I just said “it’s wrong” because I don’t understand it?

    And your Patton quote has no value either. It doesn’t say anything pertinent.

    Remember: “I wandered lonely as a cloud”

  58. #58 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > Could trolls baiters have done better in making this tread unreadable?

    > Posted by: Janet Akerman

    read #252

    if that hasn’t cleared away the detritus of side avenues of claim and counter, let me know where you’re still unable to read it and I’ll clarify.

    (note: proclaiming like you did is actually adding more detritus, therefore counterproductive)

  59. #59 Katharine
    October 28, 2009

    Guys, guys, guys, have your argument, but ignore the climate denialist retard who doesn’t know English worth shit.

  60. #60 Bernard J.
    October 28, 2009

    [Phillip Soffermann](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/plimer_the_plagiarist.php#comment-2023150).

    As you were unable to address the question the first time I posed it to you, I will repeat it, and hope that you reply with at least a modicum of an attempt to provide a response based in science.

    Can you point out which “ad hominem attacks (by Phillip Adams etc) and certain Deltoid bloggers on Plimer” are not in fact accurate summations of Plimer’s grievous misrepresentations of, and lyings about, the real understanding of the climatology behind global warming?

    Seriously… pick a point with which you have any degree of contention, and put your case forward. Any point at all.

    And for your advance information, red herrings, strawmen, and sundry other distractions will not be accepted as making a case.

  61. #61 Robin Levett
    October 28, 2009

    @Mark #226:

    (IAAL)

    OK, so Plimer is tried and convicted under civil law. If he doesn’t pay ($2.4M x the relative size of a book vs two cd’s) you can ask the court to get the money.

    (NB – “tried and convicted” ain’t possible in a civil suit)

    Not in England and Wales, you can’t. You can use Court procedures to enforce – such as by getting an order imposing a charge on property, getting an attachment of earnings, instructing the bailiffs to go in and seize property for sale etc etc. The Court does not however take over conduct of the enforcement.

    And at that stage (except in Canada) you can be jailed for failing to pay.

    Not in England and Wales you can’t. Failure to pay a civil judgment for money is not contempt. Failure to obey a Court order to do (or abstain from doing) something – like cease distribution in breach of copyright – is contempt, but debtor’s prisons no longer exist.

    In the UK, a parking fine is not a “civil” fine, whatever you mean by that. A parking ticket gives the unlawful parker the opportunity to avoid prosecution by paying a fixed penalty – that’s why it’s called a fixed penalty notice. If you don’t pay the fixed penalty, you are prosecuted for the original offence of parking in breach of bylaw. If you are convicted and fined, and fail to pay the fine, you can be imprisoned for non-payment of the fine.

    Again, imprisonment for non-payment of Council Tax is not imprisonment for civil debt; it is under specific statutory provision for protection of the revenue.

    Again, imprisonment for non-payment of child support isn’t imprisonment for civil debt; again, the state takes a particular interest in not having to pay to bring up the children of a defaulting spouse, and coerces where it thinks necessary.

    Find a case of imprisonment for civil debt since (in the UK at least)1869, and you may make a case requiring answer. In the meantime, in England and Wales the Debtors Act 1869 abolished imprisonment for debt as a principle. Section 11 of the 1970 Administration of Justice Act restricted the remaining jurisdiction to commit to maintenance orders on the one hand and certain taxes and similar imposts on the other.

  62. #62 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    Robin …

    (IAAL)

    You’re obviously unqualified to comment – just wait, you’ll see what I mean by that! :)

  63. #63 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > Not in England and Wales, you can’t.

    OK, you can’t be jailed for a civil offence (I take it there’s some link…?). Can contempt charges be levied because you aren’t paying? Because it doesn’t really make a difference if we don’t have a debtors prison if you can still be jailed for not paying. That’s basically what debtors prison was. About the only difference is that I don’t think you could avoid debtors prison by going chapter 11.

    And still nothing about proving this in the US.

  64. #64 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > In the UK, a parking fine is not a “civil” fine, whatever you mean by that.

    No, in the UK it is collected and paid to a private company. Local councils are now thinking this wasn’t a good idea, but it’s still the case.

    Parking offences are civil offences.

    Same with car clamping firms, though I don’t know if that one gives you jail time.

    PS about the IAAL, though dog smears as usual, I know a couple of solicitors myself. Having problems with a plumber (before I had to learn about the law, which this incident started me off on) I was talking to one solicitor about it. I’d mentioned what I’d found and he said, and I quote “Huh. Well you know more about it than me!”.

    Hell, there are COPYRIGHT lawyers who still insist that the GPL is viral and that using GPL software will infect other software on the system.

    Another solicitor was paid for by a friend who had a corn operation. Unhappy with the poor result (it was oversold in what it would do), he complained and the NHS said that it wasn’t their fault, they just paid the surgeon. The surgeon said that he’d done the procedure correctly.

    He had paid the NHS and was advised by the NHS consultation what the operation would do which wasn’t what the operation did. The NHS refused to be responsible for it not having as great an effect as they said it would because they merely paid the surgeon so were a third party.

    Talking to a *medical lawsuit* practising lawyer, he was told he had no chance of recompense.

    I told my friend this was bull and that if the NHS were defending with “we merely paid the surgeon” alone, he had them by the short and curlies.

    He took my advice and won 50% of the cost of the surgery back.

    If he’d taken the solicitor’s advice, he would have had nothing.

    Note: it wasn’t only myself who noticed that the NHS’s defence was worthless, another friend spotted that right off.

    So “IAAL” gives *some* credence to statements, but to accept without question is a false appeal to authority.

    Note too that dog had “forty years experience with copyright lawyers” and yet didn’t know that statutory damages existed before the DMCA. If the solicitors he worked with didn’t let him know about this, they weren’t very thorough.

  65. #65 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    Can contempt charges be levied because you aren’t paying? Because it doesn’t really make a difference if we don’t have a debtors prison if you can still be jailed for not paying.

    He said you can’t.

    You’ve been told some dozen+ times that you can’t be in the US either.

  66. #66 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    Mark, let me make it easy for you, from Robin’s post:

    Failure to pay a civil judgment for money is not contempt.

    Why do you even ask this: “Can contempt charges be levied because you aren’t paying?”

    I really do wonder if you read before you post.

  67. #67 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > He said you can’t.

    Did he?

    Where?

    > (NB – “tried and convicted” ain’t possible in a civil suit)

    > Not in England and Wales, you can’t.

    But as has been pointed out even by yourself is that a contempt charge isn’t the original civil suit.

  68. #68 Mark
    October 28, 2009

    > You’ve been told some dozen+ times that you can’t be in the US either.

    > Posted by: dhogaza

    and you’ve been told some donzen+ times you can.

    Please.
    > Why do you even ask this: “Can contempt charges be levied because you aren’t paying?”

    > I really do wonder if you read before you post.

    > Posted by: dhogaza |

    Well he said this:
    > Again, imprisonment for non-payment of child support isn’t imprisonment for civil debt;

    But this is DEFINITELY not true in the US. I did give links. Did you read them?

  69. #69 dhogaza
    October 28, 2009

    Mark, you’re just playing stupid games.

    But as has been pointed out even by yourself is that a contempt charge isn’t the original civil suit.

    He was correcting a statement you made. His correction was correct. Just effing admit it.

  70. #70 Tim Lambert
    October 28, 2009

    Enough already.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.