AGU Encourages Integrity in all Aspects of Climate Change Discourse
Scholarly Society Rejects Deception Regarding Heartland Institute Documents
February 21, 2012
AGU Release No. 12-11
For Immediate Release
In response to a blog post late yesterday, 20 February 2012, by Dr. Peter Gleick regarding documents purportedly from the Heartland Institute which he disseminated, AGU President Michael McPhaden issued the following statement:
“AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.
“AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, which first convened in November 2011. In his resignation, he cited “personal, private reasons” and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair. His resignation was accepted.
Following Dr. Gleick’s resignation, a search began immediately for a replacement. Effective today, 21 February, the new chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity is Linda Gundersen, Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity, USGS (U.S. Geological Survey).
The American Geophysical Union is a not-for-profit society of Earth and space scientists with more than 61,000 members in 146 countries. Established in 1919 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, meetings, and outreach programs. For more information, visit www.agu.org.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
…and expressed concern that he would not be able to fulfill his responsibilities as chair.
–Ya think?
Jerk. Don’t call yourself a scientist, ok? Don’t paint the rest of us with your tarred brush.
Where’s the part where they also cancel his membership and strip his awards?
Or invite the committee to investigate his ethics?
grumble
“While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
Yeah, sure. What discourse? We only get discourse when these crooks are caught with their hands in the figurative cookie jar, and then we get BS like, “climate change is occurring”. Duh! Who pays these guys, and why?
Linda Gundersen…..out of the frying pan…and into the fire
If Chairman Gleick hand picked the members of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics, perhaps the entire Task Force should be disbanded.
Now that’s Gleick is a proven confessed liar and fraudster, when are his various scientific papers going to be investigated for falsehoods?
Or at least noted that the author of the papers is not trustworthy?
Apparently it was Gleick the journalist and not Gleick the scientist that did the deed.
“On Thursday, 16 February, prior to his blog post, Dr. Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics”
That’s an interesting tidbit, just to know that he’s been preparing for his exposure since the 16th, at least…. so while he appeared to be “offline” he was monitoring the blog discussions (or receiving info about them from a 3rd party) and realizing that the blogosphere (yay Mosher) was focused upon him…..
Doesn’t change any of the important aspects but suggests that he knew by the 16th that he was going to face some kind of consequences.
Any comment from NAS? I’d like to see what they have to say.
I wonder what they’ll do when they find out that the whole UN-IPCC Assessment Reports and associated organisations have had as much ‘integrity’ as Dr. Gleick and the whole thing has been a lie?
Well, well. Every once in a while I’m prescient. 🙂
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/gleick-removed-from-agu-task-force-on-scientific-ethics/#comment-899531
With a straight face he intones
““AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.””
Ah but the integrity of science. After that laser like insight certainly he should resign as well as it was his integrity officer that committed the breach.
Steve, they already know, they just hope no-one else will notice – apart from those evil skeptics, of course.
PS Who are they?
While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.
These people have no shame. They just had to throw that in there one way or another.
Im sure this action will live on in infamy. Im speculating that the term Gleick will become a euphemism for blatant deception. As in “At first he was sounding convincing, but then I realized he was totally gleicking us so I left”. Or “this used car salesman was the biggest gleick Ive ever seen.”
I think its got a nice ring to it.
“it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring”
Hell yes.
Is there a law or rule that every statement has to be closed with this ‘credo’?
Will people be punished by the climate gods if they forget to add this piece?
Isn’t it ridiculous and embarrassing to do so?
I find it interesting that there is a Pacific Institute (Gleick) AND a Pacific Research Institute, both in the Bay area. I believe that the PI was founded after the PRI and may have been an attempt to obfuscate both the mission and size of the PI.
In comparison to the National Center for Science Education’s press release this one is excellent. Professional and reasonably brief, it sticks to appropriate matters and is not being used as a jumping off point to reheat the unproven allegations made on the back of the faked document.
Per AGU President Michael McPhaden:
As if those skeptical of the “crippled conjecture” behind the Watermelons’ AGW fraud have ever denied that the Earth’s climate can change, has changed, or will in future change.
We merely continue to observe that the “climatology” charlatans have yet to produce objective evidence to support the preposterous contention that any such change could be initiated or otherwise effected by the trace anthropogenic increase in a trace atmospheric carbon dioxide content.
I don’t know about other readers and participants in these exchange, but I am personally fed up to the goddam gills with the flagrant blind arrogance of these warmista scions of random canine parentage
So is Gleick chairing an ethics committee like Iran chairing a human rights committee?
Huh ?
Everybody in the AGW movement has acted with equal deception !
AGU already has Linda Gunderson up on the page as the new chair.
Peter Gleick still shows up in the comments in the code:
<!–2010–2012 term–>
Chair
<!– Peter Gleick, Pacific Institute, Oakland, California–>
Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia.
I notice that the Union of Bedwettingly Concerned Scientists issued the most feeble ‘condemnation’ ever.
We know the expression “Damned with feint praise”, how about “Praised with feint condemnation”?
In the beginning there was a “big bang”.
Then the weather changed, well rather the climate changed, and still yet does so.
Study it all you may, it will still in fact change.
Notwithstanding your lust for power not you or your science will have much to do with the final results.
The real story here is that the phrase “dissuading teachers from teaching science” didn’t leave Gleick rolling on the floor laughing. It’s obviously a childish caricature of the skeptics position. We don’t know if he’s so stupid that he actually wrote that phrase, but we do know that he’s not smart enough to laugh at it. My God, he can’t really believe those words, can he?
Imagine a memo, allegedly from, say, Michael Mann, that says, “We need to figure out better ways to hoax the public. The old ways aren’t working any more.” Or how about, “We need to find new ways of preventing the truth from getting out.”
Wouldn’t everyone instantly know that those words must be fake? Mann may be wrong but he’s still a true believer in his own side. Mann would never self-identify as a hoaxer, nor describe a paper he’s trying to block as “truth.” No one thinks that the guys mixing the kool-ade aren’t also drinking it.
The skeptics are likewise serious. If the warmists thought otherwise, they’d be chomping at the bit to get us to debate. The fact that they avoid debates PROVES they take us, and our arguments, seriously. Who would hesitate to debate, for example, the holocaust with a real holocaust denier? It’d be an easy win.
Gleick’s hilarious stupidity is the real story. It really does boggle the mind. AGU should be way more embarrassed about that than about Gleick’s unethical/criminal activity. Gleick’s cluelessness should win some kind of prize.
What the press release should have said:
“AGU is disappointed that Dr. Gleick got caught red-handed. Getting caught while attacking a skeptic person and/or organization is inconsistent with our organization’s standards. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific sneakiness in their interactions with colleagues, the MSM, and the public (especially skeptics). Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan (coauthored by Dr. Gleick) are ‘sneakiness and subterfuge in everything we do.’
/sarc
As a geophysicist with 27 years experience actually being a geophysicist and a not bum sucker I am very annoyed at Peter Gleick and the UGU. I had always wondered while I was out in the field getting eaten by flies what were the academic guys doing joining all these committees. Well, now I know. A fellow geophysicist reminded me that no monuments have ever been erected for a committee but it saddens me that people like Gleick were spokesmen for me and now the AGU steps up to the plate to throw him under the bus without acknowledging the problems with climate science. “We want the gravy train to continue and regrettably Gleick will not be among us” Well screw you guys.