I don’t appear to have mocked the NIPCC recently, preferring to consign them to oblivion, but JoNova is somewhat implausibly singing their virtues, so I’ve noticed. If you read the report you’ll see that its prefixed by recommendations from the Great and the Good; and they’ve been fortunate enough to squeeze in praise from that luminary Jeevananda Reddy, from which I think it is fair to deduce that they were not at all short of Great or Good to fill out their puff list. Google trends is still instructive:
Stoats are still wiping the floor with the NIPCC.
But if you do – like almost no-one else – actually read the report, you’ll be struck by it having lots and lots of words in it. But really very few authors. And if you’re of a reflective frame of mind, you’ll think to yourself: “Really? Did they really bother to write so many words to so little purpose?” And then you’ll think to yourself: I wonder if they cheated just a little bit and copied some of them?
So I scrolled down, the way you would with someone’s homework where you think you’ll get to the bit you’ll hope no-one will ever even skim, to about 2/3 of the way down – to page 606. 606! Good grief, so many pages. To “5.1.2 Paleoecological Records”.
* “Most of the world’s major species “body types” were laid down during the Cambrian period 600 million years ago (Levinton, 1992)…” This is in the previous NIPCC report, and in “Unstoppable GW every now and again” by S Fred.
* “During the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), some 56 million years ago, it is believed…” is from Surviving the warmth of the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, as is a pile of the following text.
* “How were the bulk of Earth’s species able to survive a climatic change that many today believe is unsurvivable…” is from an Idso blog post commenting on Hof et al. (2011).
* “The two phenomena that come into play in these ecosystem transformations are acclimation and adaptation…” is lightly modified from the Idso’s take on Vegas-Vilarrubia et al. (2011).
And so on. To be fair, they are mostly plagiarising themselves. But oddly, despite everyone’s desire to bump up their own citation count, they don’t include themselves in the list of references.