An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Dear Dr. Gundersen;

I see that due to the highly theatrical auto-defenestration of your predecessor, Dr. Peter Gleick, you are now the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity. I’m not sure whether to offer my congratulations or my condolences. Let me offer you both, as you have both huge opportunity and huge danger in front of you, and the reputation of your Task Force has already suffered serious damage.

Next, let me put it to you straight. As Dr. Gleick’s demise for wire fraud is just the latest demonstration, far too many climate scientists have all the scientific integrity of a desperate grifter whose con is going badly wrong. Consider for example the response from Dr. Gleick’s supporters to his actions, who in many cases have lauded him as a “whistleblower”, and some of whom stop just short of proposing him for climate sainthood.

So my question for you is this: what are you planning to do about this abysmal state of affairs?

Make no mistake. If Peter Gleick walks away from this debacle free of expulsion, sanction, or censure from the AGU, without suffering any further penalties, your reputation and the reputation of the AGU will forever join his on the cutting room floor. People are already laughing at the spectacle of the chair of a task force on scientific integrity getting caught with his entire arm in the cookie jar. You have one, and only one, chance to stop the laughter.

Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the bal … the scientific integrity to take up the case of its late and unlamented commander as its very first order of business, my Spidey-sense says that it will be forever known as the “AGU Task Farce on Scientific Integrity”. You have a clear integrity case staring you in the face. If you only respond to Dr. Gleick’s reprehensible actions with vague platitudes about “the importance of …”, if the Task Force’s only contribution is mealy-mouthed mumblings about how “we deplore …” and “we are disappointed …”, I assure you that people will continue to point and laugh at that kind of spineless pretense of scientific integrity.

Folks are fed up with climate scientists who lie, cheat, and steal to attack their scientific opponents, and who then walk away without the slightest action being taken by other scientists. As long as there are no repercussions from the scientific community for the kind of things Dr. Gleick has done, mainstream climate scientists will continue to do them. Indeed, Dr. Gleick’s own actions were no doubt greatly encouraged by the fact that you noble scientists were so full of bul … of scientific integrity that you all let the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators walk away scot-free, without even asking them the important questions, much less getting answers to those major issues.

You have the opportunity to actually take a principled stand here, Dr. Gundersen, and I cannot overemphasize the importance of you doing so. Dr. Gleick’s kind of unethical skullduggery in the name of science has ruined the reputation of the entire field of climate science. The rot of “noble cause corruption” is well advanced in the field, and it will not stop until people just like you quit looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist. I had hoped that some kind of repercussions for scientific malfeasance would be one of the outcomes of Climategate, but people just ignored that part. This one you can’t ignore.

Well, I suppose you can ignore it, humans are amazing, anyone can ignore even an elephant in the room … but if you do ignore it, in the future please don’t ever expect your opinions on scientific integrity to be given even the slightest weight. The world is already watching your actions, not your words, and you can be assured that those actions will be carefully examined. If you let this chance for meaningful action slip away, no one out here in the real world will ever again believe a word you say on the subject of integrity.

I cannot urge you in strong enough terms. Do not miss the boat on this one. The credibility of your panel is already irrevocably damaged by the witless choice of your first chair. The move is yours to make or not, the opportunity is there to take the scientific high ground. You will be judged on whether you and the Task Force have the scientific integrity to take action regarding Dr. Gleick, or whether you just take the UN route and issue a string of “strongly worded resolutions” bemoaning the general situation.

Let me close with a quote from Megan McCardle at The Atlantic:

When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”

After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

I am hoping for action on this, but sadly, I have been in this game long enough to not expect scientific integrity, even from scientists who sit on scientific integrity task forces … and I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

In any case, my warmest and best wishes to you, Dr. Gundersen. I do not envy you, as you have a very difficult task ahead. I wish you every success in your work.

w.

APPENDIX:

From the AGU website, I find the following, and I encourage people to note the names of the participants in this scientific experiment. If they actually step up to the plate, if the Task Force and the AGU do take action regarding Dr. Gleick’s misdeeds, if they don’t just blow smoke and mouth smooth-sounding words, then these are the people to congratulate.

And vice versa.

AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics 

Chair

Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia.

Members

David J. Chesney, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, Michigan

Floyd DesChamps, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC

Karen Fischer, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island

Tim Grove, MIT Earth Atmosphere & Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia

Noel Gurwick, UCSUSA, Washington, DC

Dennis Moore, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, Washington

Arthur Nowell, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington

Len Pietrafesa, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina

Jeff Plescia, Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland

Peter Schuck, NASA/GSFC CODE 674, Greenbelt, Maryland

Jagadish Shukla, Geo Mason-Center Ocean/Land Atmosphere, Calverton, Maryland

Vivian Weil, Center for Ethics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois

Staff Liaison

Randy Townsend

The Scientific Ethics Task Force is responsible for reviewing and guiding the Union’s standards, principles, and code of conduct on ethics and integrity in scientific activities.

Committee Charge

Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies;

Based on this knowledge, update AGU’s protocols and procedures for addressing violations of its ethical principles;

As appropriate, revise and augment AGU’s current ethical principles and code of conduct for AGU meetings, publications and for interactions between scientists with their professional colleagues and the public;

Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and

Consider whether AGU should adopt a statement of ethical principles as a condition of membership or for participation in certain activities of the Union. If so, develop a recommendation on how the principles would be applied to AGU members and or participants in AGU activities.

About these ads

200 thoughts on “An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen

  1. I am hoping for action on this, but sadly, I have been in this game long enough to not expect scientific integrity, even from scientists who sit on scientific integrity task forces … and I would be delighted to be proven wrong.

    Precisely. If “climate science” were really based on science, such “scientific integrity task forces” wouldn’t be needed; their very existence establishes the fact there’s a serious problem. But as it currently stands, the “foxes are guarding the henhouse” (they believe everybody else is lacking integrity), so I doubt this appeal will prompt a penitent answer. Still, good try, Willis.

  2. Well, already the AGU has shown it’s lack of bal … scientific integrity by issuing the following:

    “…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.”

  3. If Gleick is prepared to stoop so low in order to attack the “denialists”, it makes you wonder what he’s been doing with his science over the years.

    Given that he believes that “the cause” is bigger than truth and integrity, is it credible that that attitude has not crept into his scientific endeavours?

  4. Committees, Panels, Review Boards: all with the pomposity and false grandiosity of a street bum smoking a CUBAN cigar butt he found in the gutter.

    The power to recommend, not the power to act. The titles and the day-timers and the business cards, but what comes of the oxygen they suck from the room? What actually happens?

    We humans love our time in the sun. We create bureaucracies that serve no one but the bureaucrats. We speechify and qualify and pontificate. And then go home, have a scotch and applaud ourselves for the great work we’re doing. After all, we are all now on the same page, pulling in the same direction, together with the plan and the programme. The future is ours, once we get the memo out.

    Oh, sorry. That was about politicians. Or the AGU, the UCS, the Royal Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and Al Gore. All such a sameness.

  5. One simple change which could be made in the midst of all this hubbub, is to be far more careful in throwing around terms designed to malign and obfuscate.

    Two examples:
    First Example: “Climate Change” i.e. the term used with no qualifiers.
    What does this mean? The people warning about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) keep changing terms, and then accusing people not on board with their projections as being against science. Well, what science is that? What exactly is “Climate Change”?

    Second Example: “Denier” i.e. anyone who appears to disagree with anything those on the AGU’s official side of this debate espouse. Denier of what? “Climate Change”? What definition of “Climate Change” are these supposed opponents “Denying”?

    I, personally do not believe the proponents of CAGW have scientifically proven their conjecture.
    I do, however believe that climate changes. What am I, the enemy?

  6. Excellent letter, Willis! thank you!!

    I won’t be holding my breath but they need to take more substantial action than simply removing him (or he removed himself according to their statement) from the Chair of their Ethics Committee. They will try to ignore the issue and make excuses to themselves, but the AGU needs to act.

  7. Defenstration? I hope you ran that through a spell checker before actually sending it. Otherwise, great letter, that I hope doesn’t get defenestrated by the recipients.

    [Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]

  8. Given Linda’s position, she is obviously a good politician … an expert in talking a lot and saying little. I wouldn’t expect anything useful from her.

  9. In the committee remit: Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles . How fortunate they are! They have a real-world test case to consider and respond to right off the top.

    But indications are not very good so far …

  10. I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    Concise and apt.

  11. “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.”

    They think it is approriate to push the company line in the midst of their announcement, instead of demonstrating embarassment over having chosen a weasel like Gleick to be the head of their “ethics task force”.

    Just another instance of the problem, and proof they don’t get it.

  12. “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

    - A classic line! ++1

  13. Excellent as always, Willis. However, the alacrity with which Ms Linda Gunderson was selected raises serious doubts regarding her impartiality. She is seen as a member of Gleick’s “team”, and as such can absolutely be counted upon to sweep this issue under the rug, and MoveOn.

    Prove me wrong, Ms Gunderson. I double-dog dare you. If I’m wrong, then you will find Gleick to be a dishonest propagandist, with no regard for the truth. The ball is squarely in your court. Will you waffle? Or will you unequivocally condemn his egregious wrongdoing? Were you pre-selected as a reliable team player? Or as an ethical arbiter? You now represent the ethics of the AGU. The world is watching, and you will be judged on how you handle a self-confessed, dishonest conniver in your organization.

  14. Well put, Mr. Eschenbach, but given that climate “science” is involved I feel that a friend’s favourite quotation applies:

    “Happy is he who expecteth nothing.”

  15. I’m afraid I’ve grown quite cynical of scientific bodies in recent years, and do not expect to see too many signs of integrity from the AGU.

    One of my colleagues in another faculty recently reported having had an entire article of his lifted by two academics and plagiarized in its entirety in the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications. He reported having told his students about this, as a warning to them about the dangers of plagiarism, because these two frauds had been severely punished: they were prohibited from publishing in the journal again for three entire years!!!! (I don’t know whether to add a /sarc tag or not)

    It seems that much of science, and indeed, much of academia, has become a welfare project for people just smart enough to get their Ph.D.s, and especially for those of the right – sorry, I mean leftist – activist inclinations. Professional standards, and the disinterested pursuit of truth and knowledge, have gone out the window.

  16. Charges, convictions in a court of law , and imprisonment are imperative. Imprisonment and public destruction of their careers are the only real actions these climatologist have to fear! This flagrant criminality must be given the maximum legal punishments, lest the Rule Of Law be completely abrogated.

    We need clear and unambiguous statements and actions from Dr. Laura Gunderson that she and the AGU will support full disclosure of all details and assist criminal actions against Gleick.

  17. He has already resigned from the Task Force on blah blah blah. Perhaps also from the AGU. If he hasn’t resigned they can toss him out (but not out a window).

    So, having severed all ties to him – what then? Sue him for damaging the AGU’s reputation. That might require they prove they have a reputation that could be damaged. I would advise the AGU to disband the Task Force on blah blah blah and then shut up. For the AGU, this would be the equivalent of dropping a concrete block in the ocean over the Mariana Trench.

  18. Just based on the quotes available, I think Megan McCardle would make a better chair for the AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity than Dr. Gundersen.

    MM: “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

    Dr. G: “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.”

    Unfortunately, I’ve become cynical enough to believe that “substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change” means agreeing (completely) with Saint Mann & Co, with the possible exception of discussing who’s name will go first on the next paper they release. They’ve already made it very clear what they think of our definition of “substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

  19. I share your seniment, but I think this letter would have had greater impact if it were not so “over the top.”

  20. I am of the opinion that Peter Gleick falls into the category of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus and his various works and pronouncements should be treated accordingly.

  21. I disagree with the use of childish humor in this post. I disagree with the conclusions.

    The AGU should be asked, forced, to recruit “Deniers” to formulate the charge to a NEW COMMITTEE & have those “Deniers” assist in picking a new task force composed of at least one “Denier” who’s been hurt by the actions of “warmers.”

  22. Great challenge, Mr. Eschenbach!

    But then, your clarity of exposition and commitment to actual scientific integrity is why you are one of the shining lights of real Science.

    This is right up there with your superb posting on Judith Curry’s blog last July – a treatise I keep bookmarked and quote from frequently: http://judithcurry.com/2011/07/25/a-scientists-manifesto/#comment-90161

    Just one of the many “money quotes” from that: “I was astounded when Phil Jones came out with his statement about how it was right for him to conceal his data because someone might have the audacity to try and find something wrong with it.

    But I was more amazed when NOBODY CONDEMNED IT. Everyone took your path, Judith, and refused to say a word about Phil’s anti-scientific stance. That’s why I filed the first of all of the Freedom of Information requests for CRU climate data. Because the climate establishment, you and the others, were far too busy working away in your laboratories to ask the tough questions. You were all morally or ethically opposed to naming names by publicly saying ‘Hey, Phil, give Warwick the data, anything else goes against scientific transparency’. ”

    Here’s hoping the AGU will do a U-turn and start supporting actual scientific integrity – but history tells me not to hold my breath…..

  23. The Fanatics will only consider changing their tune when billions of aggrieved people world wide are complaining to them each day about the world’s dropping temperatures, even as the Fanatics continue their chant of ‘çontuinuously increasing world temperatures’..

  24. I’d like to amend my previous comment. The AGU must fire it’s head, it must fire whoever picked Dr Gleick. Why: Picking someone so unethical to head an ethics investigation is an unbelievable & unacceptable demonstration of utter gross professional & ethical mis-judgement.

    How could we accept that the existing committees is acceptable? How can we accept that any of the existing members are acceptable on ethical grounds, in & of themselves!? The head of the AGU must have known the personality, beliefs & ethics of Gleick at least as well as all the members, therefore, a new head of AGU must reestablished.

  25. My prediction…Peter Gleick is secretly retained at the AGU as a “special consultant” with a salary of $150,000. Meanwhile, the AGU Integrity Panel holds their first press conference… “Peter? Peter who? Let’s talk about global warming? Uh earthquakes? How about plate tectonics! Yeah…that’s interesting. Peter who???”

  26. Perhaps the first thing the “Task Force on Scientific Integrity” should look into:

    How a man who has demonstrated a complete lack of scientific integrity became Chair of the AGU task force in the first place. The vetting process, if it exists at all, is demonstrably worthless.

    Second thing:

    Devise an improved vetting process and subject each of the task force members to it, especially the new Chair.

  27. Keith Minto says:
    February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    Concise and apt.

    I generally don’t quote other’s comments, yielding instead to a recurring self-delusion that I can explain it more strongly and clearly. However, there was no way I was going to be able to beat that. As an obituary for the AGW alarmists, that’s as good as it gets.

    w.

  28. GogogoStopSTOP says (February 21, 2012 at 10:00 pm): “I’d like to amend my previous comment. The AGU must fire it’s head, it must fire whoever picked Dr Gleick. Why: Picking someone so unethical to head an ethics investigation is an unbelievable & unacceptable demonstration of utter gross professional & ethical mis-judgement.”

    Heh. Well said. I didn’t see your comment until after I had submitted mine. Yours renders mine superfluous.

    Great minds think alike! :-)

  29. jb says:
    February 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    I share your seniment, but I think this letter would have had greater impact if it were not so “over the top.”

    Yeah, you’re likely right, jb, I probably should have rubbed her tummy and blown in her ear before warning her that she needs to act …

    The problem is, I’m terminally honest, and I’m not going to sugar coat it. Sorry. I don’t know how to do “under the top”. It comes out of my electronic pen looking like mashed potatoes made from dehydrated potato powder instead of real potatoes, and sounding like a strongly worded resolution from the UN deploring low self-esteem among career criminals.

    So … I invite you to write a much nicer version and send it to her. I’m sure compared to me, you’ll sound quite reasonable. In fact, I encourage everyone to do so, let her know that I’m a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing reformed cowboy who is way over the line … but be sure to add that like me, you are concerned about the heat-death of climate science from chronic malfeasance.

    w.

  30. Markus Says;

    First you argue with them
    Then they fight you
    Then you laugh at them
    Then they get angry
    Then you win.

  31. Ouch!

    That’s gotta sting, just a bit, that slap, and burn as badly as rotgut bathtub gin going down. I’m optimistic that scientific integrity will trump ideology, but…

    …okay, I’m not. Like Willis, I’d love to be surprised, though.

  32. I don’t think we do ourselves any favour with this. It comes across as arrogant. Maybe I don’t know her well enough but taking the high road and genuinely offering help and debate might have been a better option.

  33. I hold a PhD in Physics and Mathematics, believe that total transparency in Science is the safest and best way to go, and have a Shakespearian taste in humor as in: “What fools we mortals be”. I have occasionally participated in but generally stayed away from Academia because of a sense of personal distaste for Academia’s strong leftist tilt. The epic battle between Anthony and the Warmists has been satisfying to watch. I cheer him on. I would never be able to stand up to the forces that he has chosen to battle.

    Kudos to you all.

  34. Is anyone but me tired of the newspaper headline sensationalism? There has always been fraud in science. Some poor guys will feel their careers are on the line and make bad choices.

    Before we spin a few extra doughnuts in our hummers to celebrate the demise of AGW, we might want to consider the possibility that the recent flattening and even lowering of GMAT and SST’s might just be the imput from a cyclical planetary air and water conditioner called PDO. We might want to think about the indications that Arctic temperatures might be warmer now than than during the Midieval Warm Period (if we can trust the proxies).

    We are dumping a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. Whether that CO2 will behave like it did in Tyndall’s jar in a free atmosphere is an open question. The modelers treating their model output as data definitely do not know, but then again, neither do we.

  35. Mark McDonald says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    I don’t think we do ourselves any favour with this. It comes across as arrogant. Maybe I don’t know her well enough but taking the high road and genuinely offering help and debate might have been a better option.

    Then why on earth are you not out doing just exactly that, instead of wasting time bitching about what I do?

    Gotta love the Armchair Admirals …

    w.

  36. They will not do anything, they will think it will just go away. To them he is a hero.

    Scum all of them.

  37. Michael Mann is retained as an AGU fellow, despite his documented attempts to ruin the careers of fellow scientists with differing opinions.

    Michael Mann is retained as an AGU fellow, despite his documented attempts to corrupt the peer review process.

    Michael Mann is retained as an AGU fellow, despite his documented (and admitted) participation in a conspiracy to destroy incriminating emails.

    Michael Mann is retained as an AGU fellow, despite having nominated Phil Jones to AGU fellowship, knowing first hand that Jones had fomented a conspiracy to destroy incriminating emails.

    Phil Jones was accepted as an AGU fellow, despite having refused requests to provide publically funded data under his stewardship, in one case making the decidedly unsicentific and scientifically unethical statement ““Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it.”

    Phil Jones is retained as an AGU fellow, despite having escaped prosecution for evading FOIA requests by dint of a statute of limitations.

    Peter Gleick is made chairman of the AGU task force on ethics and integrity, despite being well known as a strident political activist in the arena of his professional field, and having obvious conflicts of interest with the task force mission.

    Question: Which of these is different from the others? Answer: None of them.

    Making a weasel like Gleick the head of an ethics and integrity task force is not an anomaly for AGU. It is the result of a broken professional culture, one that does not react to these transgressions with outrage but instead with muted “disappointment” fronting for tacit agreement. The simple fact of the matter is, Linda Gunderson is going to have no chance reforming the behaviour of an organization whose members, likely as not including Linda Gunderson, do not find anything untoward in their behaviour.

  38. Being myself experienced chiefly of outfits like the American Medical Association and such colleges, societies, and associations as encompass the various clinical specialties, I’ve come to the conclusion that all such ostensibly high-minded organizations – emphatically to include the American Geophysical Union – remind us only too damned well of a remark made by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations:

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public….”

    I think that highfalutin’ convocations like the A.G.U. should henceforth abandon all the noble-sounding Latinate mottoes – especially the hideously tainted Royal Society’s much-violated “Nullius in verba” – and go to something more pertinent to their actual objectives, like:

    “Show Me the Money!”

  39. Willis
    Never mind the whingers and carpers!
    Yet again you hit the nail smack on the head and have precisely the right tone.
    Glad that birthday booze hasn’t detracted from your great talents!

  40. Unfortunately, their statist funding will likely INCREASE, such that misconduct, to and beyond the level of fraud and thuggery, will not incur any negative consequences.

    By the statists, for the statists. In a few days, they’ll be laughing at their opponents.

  41. @henrythethird says: February 21, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    “Well, already the AGU has shown it’s lack of bal … scientific integrity by issuing the following:
    “…AGU is DISAPPOINTED that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values….”

    Ahem. Agreed. “Disappointed” is how I feel when I break a fingernail. This term is off base by at least an order of magnitude. A more appropriate term would have been, “AGU is AGHAST…” followed by swearing on the ghosts of Newton, Copernicus, and Einstein that they’d get to the bottom of it.

  42. Sharpshooter says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm
    Unfortunately, their statist funding will likely INCREASE, such that misconduct, to and beyond the level of fraud and thuggery, will not incur any negative consequences.

    By the statists, for the statists. In a few days, they’ll be laughing at their opponents.
    ==========
    /signed

  43. I’m more concerned about the rest of the membership rather than just one figurehead.
    Do they move in “lock step” or stand for integrity. I would like the hear each member respond.

  44. I do hope that Heartland is well lawyered. Kahane (sp?) is a pretty brutal guy…and will counter punch hard….he’ll be in attack mode from day 1. Unfortunately I don’t think Heartland has deep pockets…and the alarmists will do serious and wide-spread hate on them.

    Also, I’ve read a couple of places the speculation that this has something to do with the education wars wrt AGW. So, in my researching I found a little piece at HuffPo about the time NCSE was hiring Gleick (and Mark McCaffrey) to fold in AGW to their fight for Teaching Evolution portfolio

    The author is pretty agitated about teaching AGW…and only the correct AGW in schools…and how really, this is just the creationist thing all over again

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/climate-change-skeptics-science-teachers_n_1214049.html

    and if you are interested in looking at their principles…look here, at McCaffrey’s old shop

    http://www.cleanet.org/clean/literacy/index.html

  45. Another excellent posting Willis – probably your best – reinforced by your remarks at 10:19pm.
    Having long been a cynic, a characteristic moulded by experience, what’s likely to happen – as some organisms do naturally – is the priority becomes the defence, continuance and expansion of the body.
    Do I hear someone saying, “This could have been avoided if only we’d had bigger grants”?

  46. http://www.usgs.gov/humancapital/documents/ecd_guidingprinciples.pdf

    Dr. Gundersen has considered integrity issues within the enormous USGS. She’s not the CEO of some $2 million dollar a year advocacy group. I would never assume she was the second choice. Instead, I would guess the selection of the chairman went something like this:

    Meeting leader: “Thank you all for agreeing to serve. We need to select a Chair”
    Dr. Gleik: “Pick me! Pick me!”
    Dr. Gundersen: “I’m pleased that Dr. Gleik is willing to take on this responsibility. Many of us have very full plates at this time. Thank you, Dr. Gleik! ”

    Nomination.
    Vote.

    It’s just a guess but I think an educated guess.

    Willis, you are who you are and we appreciate that. I don’t think Dr. Gundersen would be moved much by your tone but your message is, as always, clear and amusing.

  47. “If he hasn’t resigned they can toss him out (but not out a window)”

    Ah, “aus dem Fenster werfen ” rather than “defenestration” ? Seems to me that our Willis was thinking in German when he wrote “defenstration” anyway, hence the now corrected typo. :-) ;-)

  48. I notice they edited the page so quickly they forgot to remove her name lower down. Somebody got told to delete his details FAST!

    Excellent letter WIllis, i too wish her and her team the best, ethics seems to be a branch of classical greek to most scientists.

  49. ‘Sharpshooter says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm
    By the statists, for the statists. In a few days, they’ll be laughing at their opponents.’

    Not this time Sharpy, if HI have its way, the statism in this case will be the melted out by the Lawyers. Possibly a criminal one at that.

    And Lawyers love putting the finger on scum as a lot of them do have optimistology tendancies.

    .

  50. These are all “preselected” AGW members. There will be no change, I promise.
    “presumably she is the second most honest member” Right on the nail.

  51. Anthony,

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    This or some form of it should be at the top of your site. It is the best form of the old saying that I have seen.

  52. You letter is way too long and wordy, too informal and emotional. The key to writing effective put-downs is to stay short and pithy, so that your reader is entertained and informed, and outraged by the facts presented, instead of your opinions — people value them, but generally much prefer to make their own mind up, which is a good thing(tm). 3-4 short paragraphs is the optimal size for such letters.

    Also, your letter just plays to the gallery, it will not convince hardened climate fraudsters nor will it help to educate the victims who have been hoodwinked by the climate fraud crew either.

  53. @Paul Marco
    >>Are you kidding? It’s all politics. They will circle the wagons.

    Precisely, they’ve gotta try to protect what they have. The only thing that will change the AGU will be when more of their membership resigns in protest, and maybe that won’t even do it. It’s too bad. Scientific integrity is on the ropes right now.

  54. Ethics and Integrity Task Force has the same meaning as the Free and Democratic Republic of Eastern Germany. I would not have written an open letter to Ulrich or Honecker. We have to wait till the wall comes down.

  55. nice try will, however if the scientific community had any integrity at all the AGW hoax would never been unscrutinized in the first place.

    Science has devolved into a political cult. now has a new priestess.

  56. They say that the camera never lies but, the contents of the box very rarely (if ever) live up to the picture on the box. The high sounding words which form the policy and stratergy of these organisations are just like the pictures oh the boxes. I have yet to find one that I think would fool Willis.
    Say it like it is or move on. Thanks Willis.

  57. Not directly related to the AGU, but certainly to ethics:

    Have we had a comment yet from

    Donald A. Brown
    Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law,
    Director,Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute,
    Penn State University
    126 Willard,
    University Park, Pa, 16802
    717-802-xxxx (cell); 814-865-xxxx (office)
    dab57@psu.xxxx

    who asked if an ‘ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign’ would see this as ‘a new kind of crime against humanity’?

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/29/penn-state-to-lecture-on-climate-ethics/

    Presumably he would see Gleick’s identity theft, fraud, and publication of personal details of Heatland employees and donors all over the web as entirely ethical, and justified by the ‘Greater Cause’ of ‘Saving the ****ing Planet’.

    Perhaps someone in the area could ask him tomorrow: ‘Dr. Donald Brown, associate professor of environmental ethics, science, and law at Penn State University will present a lecture, “Turning Up the Volume on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change,” at the Erie Art Museum, Thursday, Feb. 23, at 7 p.m., with an audience Q&A to follow.’

    No breath holding for a decent answer. AGW and ehics just don’t seem to mix.

  58. Laurie says:
    February 22, 2012 at 12:32 am

    … Willis, you are who you are and we appreciate that. I don’t think Dr. Gundersen would be moved much by your tone but your message is, as always, clear and amusing.

    Thanks, Laurie. Actually, I was not looking to move Dr. Gundersen, not trying to persuade her. Instead I was trying to warn her of the dangers of inaction, for AGU and for her own reputation. I am constitutionally incapable of watching someone drive a bus off a cliff without shouting “HEY! LOOK OUT!” … particularly when I’m a passenger on the bus.

    And you are correct that when I do that, I am more concerned with volume and clarity than with quiet persuasion.

    What she does with the warning is up to her. I encourage her to seize the huge opportunity she has. She’s devoted her life to issues of scientific integrity. She now has the chance to be an actor in that field, to carpe the daylights out of the diem, to actually be that strong voice that the issue needs and wants. What a chance, she has the bully pulpit, she could be the strong voice for scientific honesty and transparency.

    Not holding my breath …

    w.

  59. Hexe Froschbein says:
    February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am

    You letter is way too long and wordy, too informal and emotional. The key to writing effective put-downs is to stay short and pithy, so that your reader is entertained and informed, and outraged by the facts presented, instead of your opinions — people value them, but generally much prefer to make their own mind up, which is a good thing(tm). 3-4 short paragraphs is the optimal size for such letters.

    Also, your letter just plays to the gallery, it will not convince hardened climate fraudsters nor will it help to educate the victims who have been hoodwinked by the climate fraud crew either.

    Y’know, Hexe, I’m one of the more widely read climate bloggers on the planet, with about a million page views last year, writing for the best and most widely read science blog on the web, and you are a commenter.

    Care to guess why?

    Because one of us actually knows how to write an interesting open letter.

    w.

  60. Well put Willis. Being a cynic I reckon that the fact Gleick thought he could get away with it suggests the board of the AGU has not really talked much about ethics or worse is a feeble pushover for someone like him. Don’t hold your breath waiting for action!

  61. Hexe Froschbein says:
    February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am

    … Also, your letter just plays to the gallery, it will not convince hardened climate fraudsters nor will it help to educate the victims who have been hoodwinked by the climate fraud crew either.

    I think it will help educate folks who have been fooled.

    However, I fear that changing the opinions of what you describe as “hardened climate fraudsters” requires something more akin to a tactical nuclear weapon than to an open letter …

    w.

  62. Doug Proctor: February 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm

    Great comment Doug. So very ‘visual’. I was able to relate to it on so very many levels. I particularly liked the opening metaphor:

    “Committees, Panels, Review Boards: all with the pomposity and false grandiosity of a street bum smoking a CUBAN cigar butt he found in the gutter.”

    stan stendera: February 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    “…Eschenbach’s Hawk soars with the Eagles”

    I can only agree whole-heartedly with that statement. OTOH, I have a cap that would be the perfect adornment for Dr Gleick et al. On it are inscribed the words:

    “It’s hard to soar with eagles when you work with turkeys”

    I would add one thing to Willis’s letter: a plea. A plea to Dr Gundersen that the very first thing she implements as part of her role as ‘Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics’ is to BAN the use of the unethical epithet ‘Denier’ in all AGU communications and papers etc. Her committee would do well to define ethical labels that the community could come to use, which would ‘ethically’ describe those who are adherents to the hypothesis and those who are agin it.

    Finally, I have spent the last few days, like many here, reading thousands and thousands of words about ‘Fake-gate’. In all that, it was inevitable that there would be a crushing denoument, a final reckoning. And it has come to pass. However, nowhere have I actually read that the AGU or any other scientific body associated with Dr Gleick has either sacked him or asked for his resignation. They have merely hidden behind the fact that he is no longer in post. That’s cognitive disonance – in spades.

  63. “presumably she is the second most honest member”

    ROFL.

    Those people and organizations that have defended Gleick since he admitted wire fraud suggests to the outside world that faking results and meddling with data is perceived as an acceptable way of getting the job done. A delusional God syndrome must be systemic amongst Gleick’s peers.

  64. Snotrocket says (February 22, 2012 at 2:38 am)

    (1) Gleick has not been fired from anything.

    (2) No major climate scientist has commented apart from Dr. Curry, who judging by Chris Colose’s comments on her blog, is now officially blackballed from being ‘one of us’ in climate circles.

    (3) No apology (or indeed mention) on news organisations like the BBC.

    (4) No one apart from bloggers has condemned Gleick for *still* lying through his teeth. He holds to his claim that the ‘fake document’ was sent to him, but it was the stylistic features of the document that allowed Steven Mosher to finger him in the first place. He wrote it; now he’s denying it through his ‘official spokesman’.

    Is everyone in the world of officialdom now just a time-serving liar?

  65. JJ says: February 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm…

    I propose JJ’s comment as comment of the post! Absolutely nailed it.

    BTW: In a discussion with an acquaintance, who having a Masters in English Literature in History believes he has a better intellectual grasp of argument than mere bloggers, he expounded on the theory that, in all discourse there is first hypothesis, followed by thesis, antithesis and finally, synthesis, when all are agreed. Not being impressed, I was able to add another ‘thesis’ to his ‘logic’: it is ‘prothesis‘: that point in time when your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

  66. I’d like to respectfully suggest that the phrase “Noble Cause Corruption” be retired.

    Corruption is corruption, and even the most nobel cause becomes ignoble as soon as corruption is needed and used to defend and/or promote it.

  67. Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Climate Files
    By ANDREW C. REVKIN……………..
    One way or the other, Gleick’s use of deception in pursuit of his cause after years of calling out climate deception has destroyed his credibility and harmed others. (Some of the released documents contain information about Heartland employees that has no bearing on the climate fight.)

    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/20/peter-gleick-admits-to-deception-in-obtaining-heartland-climate-files/

    Scientific integrity at its finest. “Your honour, the Devil made me do it.” :>(

    Warmists and farters are the same. They accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing.

  68. AGU
    ………it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    Of course climate change is occurring. What I want to know is whatever happened to global warming? This is the question they so ‘deftly’ avoid with the lame use of the word climate change. B.S.

  69. I initially thought Willis’s letter was a trifle over-combatitive…but then I thought, well, if it is what he really thinks, he should indeed write it and send it.
    To those of you who don’t agree…go ahead and write your own letter!
    I can see the AGU not reviewing their outlook but merely thinking “How can we best MANAGE this? We have to be SEEN to be doing something.”
    Sadly, it would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect the change of attitude Willis demands.

  70. I will put my $5 on “looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist.”

    Oh, and what jonathan frodsham says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm

    with bells on. Sadly.

    Kudos for trying though Willis.

  71. I’d guess they would not (perhaps sensibly) take action till it is clear what legal actions will be forthcoming. After all, if Dr Glieck is convicted of fraud, their decision will be taken for them (assuming AGU have the universal ability to expel members so convicted), so earlier discussion would be pointless (and risk politicising their self-perceived secure position).

    The best I’d expect at the moment would therefore be that they will state they will monitor the situation. I would certainly expect the AGU will not let Dr Gleick use his affiliation with them for while until they feel the time is right for them to clear thing up.

  72. Watchman says (February 22, 2012 at 4:12 am)
    ————

    He has already admitted obtaining personal information (names of donors & staff, personal details) by deception.

    Given the tough line being taken by police forces around the world re internet fraud, this alone should be cause to charge him.

  73. “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring”

    How can any, any scientist, write such utter gobbledegook nonsense? And one from the “geophysical”?

    “or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    What discourse? They don’t allow it. They refuse to discuss it.

    They’ve stopped being scientists, have now become another church in the great new belief system the AGWChurch, demonising the basic food of us carbon life forms and blaming us for producing it!

    “The American geophysical Union (AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists with over 50,000 members from over 140 countries. The AGU’s activities are focused on the collection and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences include four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences, solid-Earth sciences, hydrologic sciences, and space sciences. The AGU’s mission is to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public; to encourage cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines; to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs; and to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information. In December 2003, the AGU clearly stated its position on global warming, explicitly pointing to human activities as determining factors in changing the Earth’s climate.”

    http://what-when-how.com/global-warming/american-geophysical-union-global-warming/

    Task force on science integrity? What the hell is that supposed to mean when they’ve decided on an unproven belief system opposed to science integrity? When they have imposed their belief system on an established scientific organisation and find merely regrettable that they’ve been caught out by one of numerous examples of criminal behaviour against science discourse by members of their Church?

    Will your letter get through to her? Maybe it would to the other “50,000 members from over 140 countries” – let her show how to lead a task force on science integrity – she could circulate your letter to all the members with a link back to your post…

  74. Willis, I know you write good and interesting stuff, this is why I come here to read and comment on it. ;)

    However, people’s attention span is short and you only get a few moments of their time to make your ideas take root in their thinking.

    Can I show your letter to my educated but naive friends as proof that those climate alchemists are fraudsters? Nops, because they are not in the loop and would need to understand too many side issues to fully comprehend your message here. For me, those are the people we need to reach, it’s not all that different from any other advertisement campaign.

    For once we have an issue that is not complex (in the scientific sense) that even total laymen can understand and that can be communicated in publicity friendly soundbites that inspire critical thinking (and outrage) in people who normally would not be able to follow the technical arguments. Let’s use it, we don’t often get this chance!

  75. That letter is pure Willis, well done Mr. Eschenbach. Another commenter mentioned that in view of Gleick’s AGW zealotry blinding him to the ethical, legal, and personal repercussions that were sure to follow his actions, it is not unreasonable to question his published works. Since confirmation bias is almost a certainty. I wonder if the journals in which Gleick has been published would have the integrity to re-examine his papers.

    Let me think about that, naaaah, never happen.

  76. It needed to be said, you said it. Now thousands of other scientists need to step up to the plate and demand an accounting. Thanks.
    JG

  77. Well, as powerful as the AGU appears to be, hopefully the new chair will see that inaction will not only put the AGU in a bad light, it also will reflect on HER employer – the USGS.

    After all, her job there is listed as: Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity.

    So, Dr Gundersen, what would you do if Dr. Peter Gleick worked for the USGS? If his actions reflected discredit on the USGS, would you only express “disappointment” that he acted in a way that is inconsistent with your organization’s values?

  78. Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm
    Mark McDonald says:
    February 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm

    Then why on earth are you not out doing just exactly that, instead of wasting time bitching about what I do?

    Gotta love the Armchair Admirals …

    Aye, Captain. Well and properly done and written, Willis. Gunderson has no choice, but hypoxia is imminent.

  79. This is great. We have a nice, long list of government and university geologists. Most of my grandfather’s graduate students went into the private sector. But, that was 1927.

    I often wonder how many generations will be needed to dismantle the government/university system of science. I am not optimistic.

  80. Great letter Willis! Once again you are piercingly clear, and yet, as you so eloquently put it, the Armchair Admirals are back criticizing, “improving” your message. One would think a disturbingly large percentage of the population had studied “marketing.”

  81. ‘a new broom sweeps clean’ is the supposition.
    I think there is an opportunity here to hold AGU to task.
    given AGU is an ethics group we would expect the dissemination of a code of ethics.
    we would expect ideals such as integrity, disclosure, transparency, and respect, to be sacrosanct. .
    we would expect grievance procedures, complaints officers, disciplinary boards, and sanctions for transgressors.
    we would expect referrals to appropriate authorities for criminal breach of ethics.
    are these items in place ?
    we would expect a review and redrafting of established protocols as a matter of urgency.
    I would call for an anonymous volunteering of grievances re malpractise, from scientists and affected groups and individuals, within and without the AGU.
    I would focus in particular on the curriculum and practises of teaching climate change in schools.
    I would review the work of transgressors, retrospective to a period of years.

    dear all,
    ‘it’s the squeaky wheel that gets oiled’. ‘go hard on the issue, soft on the person’. ad hom attacks do have their place (in a hostile environment), but largely demonstrate a failure of communication and intent to debate issues.
    I don’t think we’re here to gloat are we ? enough of the smug, it does not advance our cause, which is the dissemination and uptake of accurate climate science ! to push the point, we’re here to be righteously outraged, not to exchange pleasantries. stop smiling !
    maintain the high ground, and work on those people skills !
    now if some of you fine people would put those ‘woulds’, reframed as ‘are’s … ?’ into polite letters to the AGU, we might achieve some results.
    greetings from oz.

  82. The following is from today’s Wikipedia version of Dr. Gleick’s info page:
    (Introduction)
    >>Dr. Peter H. Gleick (born 1956) is a scientist working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity[1], with a focus on global freshwater challenges. He works at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources [2], the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. On February 16, 2012 Dr. Gleick resigned from the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics citing “personal, private reasons”. [3] On February 20 he confessed he had obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses[4].<<

    1.
    So, Dr. Gleick is so worried about "…………. the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation."

    Doesn't he realise that if a good part of the money, trillions of it, that has been (ineffectivley) spent on fighting climate change was spent on building water processing plantsin the third world, this problem would have been greatly reduced?
    2.
    Wikipedia has failed to include the fact that Dr. Gleick not only "obtained documents…under false pretenses" but actually falsified, faked a document in his zeal to try to discredit scientific organisation.

    Shame on Wikipedia.

  83. THE AGU is a joke. They don’t do real science. According to them Co2 and man caused global warming – case closed. Narrowminded people don’t make good scientists so don’t expect anything to change. The AGU will circle the wagons, lie through their teeth and continue on as before.

    Scientific integrity in most of today’s so-called science institutions doesn’t exist.

    Great letter Willis. Seeds on infertile ground however.

  84. Snotrocket says:
    February 22, 2012 at 3:03 am

    BTW: In a discussion with an acquaintance, who having a Masters in English Literature in History believes he has a better intellectual grasp of argument than mere bloggers, he expounded on the theory that, in all discourse there is first hypothesis, followed by thesis, antithesis and finally, synthesis, when all are agreed. Not being impressed, I was able to add another ‘thesis’ to his ‘logic’: it is ‘prothesis‘: that point in time when your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

    Prosthesis, n, a prostituted thesis.

  85. Good open letter fervently penned. Except the strike-out parts. For what it’s worth, I would not suggest this device as a form of “voice” in a written debate that should reflect the seriousness of a court case. To be sure, strike-outs are used in court cases when testimony is to be stricken from the record. As a penned device it loses its formality alongside its importance and takes on a tongue-in-cheek informality. Responses and letters with regard to the issue at hand and that are meant to be taken seriously, should be scrubbed of all tongue-in-cheek voice.

  86. A good warning regarding the opportunity at hand but little in the way of suggestions of what she might do specifically to regain credibility.

  87. Willis:

    Regarding the AGU’s response to Gleick’s crimes, we should all hope for the best but not expect too much.

    Oops, should I say alleged crimes? Although Gleick has confessed, he hasn’t been convicted.

  88. Excuse the excess in commenting, but this subject is not being addressed correctly. I want to talk about the real issue.

    The Real Issue: Is this the very first time that Dr. Gleick has had a lapse of ethics? Is this the first time that the head of the American Geophysical Union has exemplified serious misjudgment?

    The Issue isn’t Dr Gleick! It’s the AGU & it’s leadership. The AGU picked someone to run an ethics panel who is without ethics!

    This can’t be the first time in Gleick’s lifetime that he’s demonstrated unethical behavior… that’s the issue. Therefore, someone knew his character & that person picked him for his character. He was picked because of who his is, who he was, what he thinks, what he will impose on others on the panel.

  89. I am minded of the UN Human Rights Council adding Libya as a member. Not since that bit of news has there been anything so egregious as the head of the Scientific Integrity Council of the AGU being accused (innocent until proven guily, but …) of such an ethical breach.

  90. While a letter of substance and expectation is required I fear this one, filled with theatrics, will make it appear as Willis’ inner drama queen vs the Carbon Queen. Somebody please take another whack at it.

  91. @Pamela Gray says:
    February 22, 2012 at 6:35 am
    “Responses and letters with regard to the issue at hand and that are meant to be taken seriously, should be scrubbed of all tongue-in-cheek voice.”

    I wholeheartedly agree, but, the overall conclusion of the post is misguided. It doesn’t go far enough. The outcome requested should not have been, ‘Please Ms Gundersen, do a wonderful job.”

    The outcome that should be pressed is: The head of the AGU should resign for incompetence. He picked someone to head an ethics investigation that is prima facia unethical scoundrel.

    We need to call for the resignation of the head of the American Geophysical Union, not wag a finger at Dr Gundersen?

  92. Great letter! I hope she reads it.
    I just finished reading Time Inc’s take on the scandal on Yahoo News. They think that global warming is settled and that the efforts of Heartland are aimed at producing a false ideology on global warming in school curricula that rivals the efforts to push creationism and evolutionary design. Therefore in the name of global warming religion, the efforts while illegal are justified as the leaks by wiki-leaks and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaks during the Vietnam conflict. Your letter is abundantly clear that the scientific integrity task force has a major mountain to climb with no hope of help from the AGW religious fanatics or the completely blind main stream press that unfortunately doesn’t understand the skeptic’s position on AGW. They don’t understand any of the science issues, rely on selected science sources, see Dr. Gleick as a hero “whistle blower” for the cause, believe this is a conservative-liberal disagreement, political, rather than a science integrity issue. I truly hope that the task force is up to the challenge

  93. @Mindert Eiting
    >>>We have to wait till the wall comes down.

    Good point. The wall… is… coming… down. That is obvious. Once people are able to stroll back and forth across the ruins of this scam in freedom, then what has been broken (like scientific integrity) can be repaired.

  94. Seeing as “climate science ethics” has overtaken “jumbo shrimp” as the ultimate oxymoron I expect no actions of significance from the AGU on this matter. I do hope that Heartland goes after Gleick with a vengeance though.

    Great letter, Willis. You inspire me.

  95. It was more like a summary execution for treason than a defenestration. Sorta like Morant as scapegoat.
    Now if skeptics had’ve lanched him, that would be a different story.

  96. Too bad Peter G had not been required to post a ‘performance bond’ as a requirement for this position; perhaps going forward this can be made a requirement …

  97. All that is needed for Mr.Green to invite the aggrieved parties to the White House and then they can be lectured about how to treat one another over a couple of beers. Fixed.

  98. If the AGU (and the PI) do not ostracize Gleick publicly, this Church of the Global Warming is behaving just like the Catholic Church, where Cardinal Law shuffled pedophile priests from one diocese to another, saying the problem has been solved. Like Law, Gleich needs to be given a hole to climb into for the rest of his life.

    Great letter W. but don’t hold your breath. These cult watermelon religion types will simply change the name of Gunderson’s group from “Task Fo/arce” to something else that sounds more enlightened. Dazzle them w/ BS – the Alinsky way.

  99. Given that Gleick organized and chaired this Task Force, it is likely that he hand-picked most of its members for the alignment of their view of Scientific Ethics with his own. If so, the AGU should simply dismiss the entire Task Force, with no prejudice to its members other than Gleick.

  100. Gleick Watch.

    Is this the Peter Gleick?

    c/o American Bar Association.

    …-

    “February 17, 2012″

    “The American Bar Association issued the following news release:”

    “Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, will give keynote remarks at a Feb. 23 luncheon beginning at 12:30 p.m.”

    “Emerging Water Law Issues Topic of ABA Conference in San Diego”

    http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1607357662.html

  101. “JJ says: Presumably, Linda Gunderson is the second most ethical member of the AGU, after Peter Gleick.”

    LMAO! You owe me a new keyboard.

  102. jon shively says:
    February 22, 2012 at 7:13 am

    “Great letter! I hope she reads it.
    I just finished reading Time Inc’s take on the scandal on Yahoo News. They think that global warming is settled and that the efforts of Heartland are aimed at producing a false ideology on global warming in school curricula that rivals the efforts to push creationism and evolutionary design. Therefore in the name of global warming religion, the efforts while illegal are justified as the leaks by wiki-leaks and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaks during the Vietnam conflict.”

    Always remember – it does NOT matter what Time Inc. or Yahoo! thinks about anything, particularly climate change. You have a voice – and your voice is given power when you VOTE.

    Please remember all of these shenanigans with Gleick and his sympathizers in November when you vote. We can vote to change the way the CAGW is funded. And please note that CAGW scientists are by and large funded by US, the taxpayers, at both the state and federal levels.

    • Frank K. says:
      February 22, 2012 at 8:05 am
      jon shively says:
      February 22, 2012 at 7:13 am

      “You have a voice – and your voice is given power when you VOTE.”

      We need to do more than VOTE. We need to sacrifice.

      My sacrifice is to contribute, for me, large amounts of money to conservative candidates & causes. Note the small “c.” It’s most important to know what someone will do when confronted with serious decisions.

  103. Falling on deaf ears Willis. The only thing that would cause the AGU to act is a trickle of resignations by prominent geophysicists followed by a flood of resignations from the regular members. When the AGU has no members left perhaps the board may attempt to do the right thing. Meanwhile, form the NAGU (New American Geophysical Union).

  104. How and by whom was Gundersen appointed? By the same method and by the same people Gleick was appointed? For some reason I just don’t have any belief that there will be any change from a continuation of the same group-think in the leadership. Once the organization has been hijacked and the ranks filled with like minded participants there is most likely no hope for a return to sanity without a complete overhaul, which will not likely happen. Is there a venue for the membership to rise to create a complete restructuring of their leadership and policies?

  105. Great letter Willis.
    If you had been weaker, later on you would wish you had not.
    As well, your responses to the whiners are great. Take no prisoners.
    Yes, I would be surprised if the AGU does anything concrete.(Oops, concrete causes warming!)

  106. Snotrocket on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 am
    JJ says on February 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm…
    I propose JJ’s comment as comment of the post! Absolutely nailed it.

    Seconded!

    I hope this letter from Willis Eschenbach has made Dr. Gundersen and her task force aware how much is at stake.

    Time is of the essence, but there is still plenty of time to do it properly, once.

    It might be wise to determine if any new skills, experience and independence are required in the task force and whether each current member is happy to continue with such an important task ahead; I would expect that it will be more onerous than was originally thought.
    To me, it looks like a different ball game. We, in Britain, have had railway organisations without any engineers on the board, so we should be aware that a team without the proper mix of experience can fail, even though everyone may have good intentions.
    This reappraisal should not, however, be an excuse for procrastination.

  107. Willis Eschenbach: Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the ba

    You should write so as not to offend people who do not already have a commitment to one action or another. Of the many letter that they receive, this one will go into the “ignore” pile.

  108. Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm
    jb says:
    February 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    “I share your seniment, but I think this letter would have had greater impact if it were not so “over the top.”

    Yeah, you’re likely right, jb, I probably should have rubbed her tummy and blown in her ear before warning her that she needs to act …

    The problem is, I’m terminally honest, and I’m not going to sugar coat it. Sorry. I don’t know how to do “under the top”. It comes out of my electronic pen looking like mashed potatoes made from dehydrated potato powder instead of real potatoes, and sounding like a strongly worded resolution from the UN deploring low self-esteem among career criminals.

    So … I invite you to write a much nicer version and send it to her. I’m sure compared to me, you’ll sound quite reasonable. In fact, I encourage everyone to do so, let her know that I’m a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing reformed cowboy who is way over the line … but be sure to add that like me, you are concerned about the heat-death of climate science from chronic malfeasance.

    w.”

    W,

    I like your letter. And terminally honest is pretty accurate for you, as usual. I would have preferred a little brutality, however. Some of those posting have come up with some great ideas. For instance, firing whomever was responsible for hiring this Gleik idiot in the first place. So, in some ways, to some of us extremist deniers you were “under the top”. Which, all in all, may make your piece “just right” in any event. Don’t be so sensitive. Now there’s a word I’ll bet you don’t hear describing you too often!

  109. I think my previous post is still applicable, but has been trumped by this post:
    “Hu McCulloch says on February 22, 2012 at 7:38 am
    Given that Gleick organized and chaired this Task Force, it is likely that he hand-picked most of its members for the alignment of their view of Scientific Ethics with his own. If so, the AGU should simply dismiss the entire Task Force, with no prejudice to its members other than Gleick.”

    Willis Eschenbach’s letter requires a response. Something needs to be done about it!
    Signed, disgusted, from the scientific community.

  110. maz2 says:
    February 22, 2012 at 7:45 am
    Gleick Watch.

    Is this the Peter Gleick?

    c/o American Bar Association.

    _____________________________

    He has withdrawn according to an ABA rep.

  111. I think you are too soft. It is a fact that the “AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity” had a Chairman who engaged in extremely, easily proved, unethical activities. Therefore, such Task Force is inefficient, corrupt and useless. And also arguably damaging, since it tries to represent an ethical position it cannot hold.

    Therefore, such task force must be removed as soon as possible. Something as soft as a change of Chairman is not enough. Maybe a complete purge could be enough, but I very much doubt it.

    Good open letter (a little childish at times, IMHO, this issue being dead serious), but I think you aim too low. This is unforgivable, and all that “Task Force” should be disinfected with 99% hydrochloric acid.

  112. Viv Evans says:
    February 22, 2012 at 3:07 am

    I’d like to respectfully suggest that the phrase “Noble Cause Corruption” be retired.

    Corruption is corruption, and even the most nobel cause becomes ignoble as soon as corruption is needed and used to defend and/or promote it.

    Thanks, Viv, but allow me to disagree for a couple reasons. First, the cause is either noble or it is not, but that is not based on what either the supporters or the opponents of the cause do. That is based on the cause itself.

    More importantly “Noble cause corruption” is a very valuable distinction between those led to corruption by say greed, those led to corruption by necessity, and those led to corruption by the seduction of the idea that they were saving the world.

    Of those, noble cause corruption is by far the worst, and thus worth distinguishing. It is the worst because those led by noble cause corruption put no ethical boundaries at all on their actions, are unrepentant when caught, and try to get all of their followers to emulate them … none of which are generally present in garden-variety corruption.

    So I say the phrase “noble cause corruption” is a useful one, it allows us to point out where the real danger lies.

    All the best,

    w.

  113. John Brookes says:
    February 22, 2012 at 3:34 am (Edit)

    What a horrible letter. What business do you have writing to her?

    To paraphrase an acquaintance of mine …

    What a horrible comment. What business do you have writing to me?

    I’m sure you see the problem … or not, but that’s all the explanation you’re gonna get.

    w.

  114. Hexe Froschbein says:
    February 22, 2012 at 4:43 am

    Willis, I know you write good and interesting stuff, this is why I come here to read and comment on it. ;)

    However, people’s attention span is short and you only get a few moments of their time to make your ideas take root in their thinking.

    Can I show your letter to my educated but naive friends as proof that those climate alchemists are fraudsters? Nops, because they are not in the loop and would need to understand too many side issues to fully comprehend your message here. For me, those are the people we need to reach, it’s not all that different from any other advertisement campaign.

    For once we have an issue that is not complex (in the scientific sense) that even total laymen can understand and that can be communicated in publicity friendly soundbites that inspire critical thinking (and outrage) in people who normally would not be able to follow the technical arguments. Let’s use it, we don’t often get this chance!

    Hexe, first, thanks for your interesting response to my comments.

    And I agree with you, that we need to have simple, clear explanations for people to assist them in understanding the complexities of the climate, as well as the complexities of the politics surrounding the climate. I think I have succeeded as well as anyone in making the abstruse parts of both climate and politics more understandable for the interested lay person.

    However, as I mentioned above, public eduction was not the point of my letter. It had a very different goal. My letter was 1) to remind Dr. Gundersen that actions have consequences, 2) to let her know that there is both huge opportunity as well as huge risk in her position, and 3) to warn her that people will be judging both her and AGU on the actions of the Task Force.

    As such, I was speaking first and foremost to her, and not to the folks watching the show and eating the popcorn.

    Hope this clarifies things. Yes, we still need the simple clear arguments … but this is a paper with another purpose.

    All the best, and thanks for defending your position and giving me a chance to explain mine.

    w.

  115. Who in the world makes these rules for effective debate?
    Debate without passion is useless.
    When the opposition can dictate what speach we use we are lost.
    If it is true shout it from the roof tops and don’t censure who you are in the process.
    The false civility being imposed on us is censorship by another name.
    As to the letter, well done. We need more voices like yours.

  116. Excellent open letter Willis! Keep on drinking upstream from the herd….

    In fullfilling her new position I hope Ms G will keep in mind; “Based on studies, it is observed that trainees and junior colleagues model their professional behavior, to a large extent, on what their leaders do, not what they say.” – The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity – A REPORT OF A CONFERENCE April 10, 2000 Washington, DC [PDF]

  117. Pamela Gray says:
    February 22, 2012 at 6:35 am

    Good open letter fervently penned. Except the strike-out parts. For what it’s worth, I would not suggest this device as a form of “voice” in a written debate that should reflect the seriousness of a court case. To be sure, strike-outs are used in court cases when testimony is to be stricken from the record. As a penned device it loses its formality alongside its importance and takes on a tongue-in-cheek informality. Responses and letters with regard to the issue at hand and that are meant to be taken seriously, should be scrubbed of all tongue-in-cheek voice.

    Thanks, Pamela. You may be right. I considered long and hard about the strikeouts, as I do with all the parts of my writing that depart from the norl. My final choice was to leave them in, obviously.

    I did so because the truth is that I’m angry. Now, I can write all calm and dispassionate, which as you say would better fit the gravity of the case … but that would be a lie, wouldn’t it? Because I’m not all calm and dispassionate about it at all.

    So at the end, I thought that being honest about how I felt about the issues was more important that being all courtroom solemn and churchy about it … particularly since the issue in question is honesty. I do my utmost not to lie, even by omission, on any given day. But when the topic is honest and integrity, being personally honesty about how I feel about the issues is even more important.

    So, judgement call, and that’s how I judged it, and yes, I can certainly see your side of the question.

    All the best,

    w.

  118. I fear that we are much more likely to see this committee declare that denying AGW is unethical, and any scientist doing so will be sanctioned. That seems much more in keeping with the parties involved.

    Perhaps we should all send heartland a donation to help offset their cost of litigation against Gleick.

  119. Thank you, Willis, for your reply.
    I accept your argument for using ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ because of the distinction it makes between the ordinary corruption and this one, which leads its perpetrators to abandon all ethical restraints.

    However, I am not quite on board when you say this:
    “First, the cause is either noble or it is not, but that is not based on what either the supporters or the opponents of the cause do. That is based on the cause itself.”

    I maintain that even the most noble cause becomes ignoble when its defendants have to resort to corruption and the abandonment of all ethical considerations and restraints to further it.
    There are numerous, and rather bloody instances of such corruption in human history, of causes which were regarded as noble.

    Using ‘noble cause corruption’ to distinguish this from the garden variety makes sense – provided we then, whenever possible, point out that this behaviour has damaged not just the perpetrators but the cause itself, especially for those who believed in it.

    Thanks again, Willis, and I did like your letter vey much indeed!

  120. Mike Hebb says:
    February 22, 2012 at 6:38 am

    A good warning regarding the opportunity at hand but little in the way of suggestions of what she might do specifically to regain credibility.

    Thanks, Mike. Specifically? She should vigorously put the Task Force on the jobs laid out in the Task Force’s mission statement quoted above. Nothing special. Just do what the task force was set up to do, instead of mailing it in.

    w.

  121. dp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 7:05 am

    While a letter of substance and expectation is required I fear this one, filled with theatrics, will make it appear as Willis’ inner drama queen vs the Carbon Queen. Somebody please take another whack at it.

    We’ve been waiting breathlessly for you to “take another whack at it”, but so far, all you’ve done is bitch and moan about what a poor job I’m doing. Lead, follow, or just get out of the way.

    Armchair Admirals coming out of the woodwork today …

    w.

  122. Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 22, 2012 at 8:13 am

    Falling on deaf ears Willis. The only thing that would cause the AGU to act is a trickle of resignations by prominent geophysicists followed by a flood of resignations from the regular members.

    Likely you are right about the deaf ears, Steve, but I’m constitutionally incapable of watching a slow-motion crash without doing something about it. I may not succeed, and often I don’t … but at least I sleep well at night knowing that I have done what I could, that I have raised my voice in protest or in support, and that I’ve lit my candle. One candle doesn’t light up the world, to be sure, or even the room, but … I sleep better.

    w.

  123. Septic Matthew says:
    February 22, 2012 at 8:49 am

    Willis Eschenbach:

    Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the ba

    You should write so as not to offend people who do not already have a commitment to one action or another. Of the many letter that they receive, this one will go into the “ignore” pile.

    Thanks as always, Matthew. See my response to Pamela above.

    In addition, you seem to think that I wrote the letter for some vague “people” who receive “many letters”. I didn’t.

    I wrote it for Dr. Gundersen. I suspect she will receive very few (if any) other letters like this one, and that she will not ignore it. She may or may not act on it, but she will not ignore it, particularly on the basis you claim.

    And I want her to know I’m angry. I want her to know that I think that between them the committee features fewer balls than the average sandlot baseball game, which usually has only one. I want her to know that I find the silence surrounding the actions of the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators reprehensible, particularly from the self-appointed guardians of scientific integrity.

    In other words, I’m not trying to convince her, or anyone else. I’m not trying to get her to like me. I’m not running for office, it’s not a popularity contest.

    I’m trying to warn her of the dangers, and point out the huge opportunity. And that’s a very different game.

    w.

  124. “I hate Communism most for its cold-blooded murder of the truth! Pravda doesn’t mean truth. Pravda means whatever serves the world Communist revolution.”

    -Robert A. Heinlein

    This is just SO adaptable to the warmists.

  125. Viv Evans says:
    February 22, 2012 at 10:12 am

    Thank you, Willis, for your reply.
    I accept your argument for using ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ because of the distinction it makes between the ordinary corruption and this one, which leads its perpetrators to abandon all ethical restraints.

    However, I am not quite on board when you say this:

    “First, the cause is either noble or it is not, but that is not based on what either the supporters or the opponents of the cause do. That is based on the cause itself.”

    I maintain that even the most noble cause becomes ignoble when its defendants have to resort to corruption and the abandonment of all ethical considerations and restraints to further it.

    Thanks for defending and explaining your position, Viv. Let me see if I can give you an example. I’d say for me, the cause of preventing trachoma from wood cooking fires is a pretty noble one.

    Now, someone could be doing that and later be shown to have done something very unethical, say knowingly sold a bunch of faulty stoves that didn’t reduce black carbon at all. Their actions might even increase the incidence of trachoma.

    But does their perfidy somehow make the cause of ending trachoma less worthy, less valuable, less noble?

    I say no. I say the cause is the cause, and there will always be people to game the system and cheat and lie and steal in the name of a host of things.

    But that doesn’t make ending trachoma any less worth doing, or any less noble. The value and the nobility of the cause is inherent in the cause itself. It is not something which is diminished (or increased, for that matter) by the actions of humans professing to believe in the cause.

    w.

    PS—It is instructive to consider the flip side of the situation. Here’s a sample question. Does playing a video game ethically and with integrity somehow transform playing video games into a noble calling?

  126. I’d like Linda Gundersen to have a look at Inhofe’s list of highly-respected scientists, including Nobel prizewinners, who don’t believe in AGW or at least in CAGW.

    I still get the feeling that people like her are likely to be completely screened from such realities, but might these days know about WUWT.

    Willis, any chance of adding this up top where Linda might see it? It’s a 2009 list and there may be a more uptodate one but that should do for starters.

  127. How did the Warmists ever manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. ;>)

    This whole episode makes me wonder just how tainted their pal reviewed papers are. Wire fraud – now you know why I keep calling them climate bandits.

  128. Willis

    Your writing style is mine before I had the passion beaten out of me by the civil service and other large organisations.

    Passion is good. Writing with passion (and for that matter so is speaking) is good and if you intend to offend, which I nearly always did, then it’s good. However, if you intend to offend beware, because your intended audience will likely switch you off and you will have gained nothing except a reduction in blood pressure, but hey, that’s good also. :)

  129. Re: Steve C: February 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm
    Just to complete the quote:

    “Happy is he who expecteth nothing
    For he shall never be disappointed.”

  130. “substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”

    Why do i keep thinking of the statement: ‘we will keep it out of print even if we have to re-define what peer-review is’
    Dr. Jones

  131. At 9:19 PM on 22 February, manuel had written:

    I think you are too soft. It is a fact that the “AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity” had a Chairman who engaged in extremely, easily proved, unethical activities. Therefore, such Task Force is inefficient, corrupt and useless. And also arguably damaging, since it tries to represent an ethical position it cannot hold.

    Therefore, such task force must be removed as soon as possible. Something as soft as a change of Chairman is not enough. Maybe a complete purge could be enough, but I very much doubt it.

    Peter Gleick had been the American Geophysical Union’s choice to lead the organization’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity, indicating:

    (1) The A.G.U. as a body had perceived a definite problem with scientific integrity in those disciplines with which the Union is concerned;

    (2) Dr. Gleick was the best qualified and most trustworthy of the Union’s membership to manage the review of such concerns and thereby to recommend corrective measures.

    This having been the case, it may be reliably inferred that the A.G.U. as a whole is institutionally unqualified to undertake either review of Dr. Gleick’s most recent malfeasances or continue the pretense of acting to address matters of “Scientific Integrity.”

    Therefore the A.G.U.’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity must not merely have its chairman and its membership dismissed but it needs to be dissolved completely, with no further arguably spurious measures undertaken by the Union until a thoroughly transparent review can be undertaken and completed by science professionals who are NOT members of the A.G.U. and have, in fact, expressed reasoned skepticism of the anthropogenic global climate change contention as embraced by Dr. Gleick in Dr. Gleick’s public promulgations on the subject.

    This emphatically adversarial external review of the A.G.U.’s particular and general violations of “Scientific Integrity” are absolutely required. Until such an examination of the Union’s policies, procedures, and other professional malpractice can be conducted, there can be no trust reposed in the institutional reliability of the American Geophysical Union, and the organization itself might as well be defunded, deprived of all legal status as a non-profit entity, and dissolved.

    No one can trust Dr. Gunderson or any other member of the A.G.U.’s leadership – particularly those members of the Task Force on Scientific Integrity who had been working under Dr. Gleick as chairman – to discipline themselves.

    Were the remediation of the A.G.U.’s “Scientific Integrity” false front left to me,

    “I’d take a FLAMETHROWER to this place!”

  132. Willis,

    Be careful what you wish for. If your asking for greater scrutiny and higher levels of integrity you only give greater power to the gatekeepers. It’s fun at the moment while your opponents are getting it in the neck but that time will pass. We’ll be left with a debate that is further closed down. The problem here is the debate has collapsed into one about morals, ethics and nefarious motives on both sides. The solution isn’t to further emphasize these aspects.

  133. I posted this in another forum and it is appropriate here as well.

    It has always been one of my top two concerns related to the entire hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming that the scientific community itself becomes compromised and then discredited due to the allure of money and “fame” attached to being a crusader for “saving” the “planet”. This is, as others have pointed out, the trap of the noble cause syndrome as well as what president Eisenhower so eloquently and prophetically spoke about over 50 years ago…

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

    Wise words.

  134. Steve from Rockwood says:
    February 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
    Falling on deaf ears Willis. The only thing that would cause the AGU to act is a trickle of resignations by prominent geophysicists followed by a flood of resignations from the regular members. When the AGU has no members left perhaps the board may attempt to do the right thing. Meanwhile, form the NAGU (New American Geophysical Union).

    I suspect this may be true of all the established scientific organizations that have gotten in bed with the CAGW mythology. It’s time for the dissidents to get up and leave, and form new alternatives, not just to the AGU, but to the AAAS, and all the others.

    In order to embrace CAGW and the political imperatives of its adherents, an organization has to forsake science and embrace ideology; the AGU is effectively no different from a ‘Soviet GU’. It’s a procrustean bed from which the organization cannot get up. Time for ‘heretics’ and ‘deniers’ to form a new one, re-dedicated to the principles—and uncertainties!—of free scientific inquiry.

    /Mr Lynn

  135. Politics is is the cancer of science. Every organization that tries to promote something is by definition political. Generations of “scientists” have been trained in a system that is inherently political. It is only co-incidental that a few scientists practice and teach scientific integrity. Take a look at all the lawsuits that have arisen due to drug side effects. Medical science involves human lives, but is being corrupted by politics and the FDA. People die because of that corruption.
    Think of what our world would be like if the field of mechanical engineers had the same level of integrity as the “climate scientists”
    The solution is to cut out the cancer. Scientists should be too busy doing their jobs instead of sitting in meetings reviewing pointless issues. Stop funding bad science.

  136. Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm
    Keith Minto says:
    February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.

    After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.

    Concise and apt.

    I generally don’t quote other’s comments, yielding instead to a recurring self-delusion that I can explain it more strongly and clearly. However, there was no way I was going to be able to beat that. As an obituary for the AGW alarmists, that’s as good as it gets.

    w.

    I couldn’t agree more. That short sentence deserves to be, not just the QOTW, but probably the Quote of the Century so far. It should be printed up in VJ Day headline font, nicely laminated and handed out to every graduate in every scientific discipline right along with their diploma, and its advice would probably be just as apt for every other graduate, no matter what their field of interest is.
    In the years I’ve spent engaged in this farcical controversy I’ve always been fairly agnostic about the science. My perception has always been that the state of the “science” is so inadequate to the scale of the question that any of the numerous hypotheses put forward in this regard are at least arguable, even if none of them are convincingly so. What has placed me firmly in the “denialist” camp has been the alarmist community’s demand for “solutions”, which are ill-conceived, ineffective and undeniably damaging in the present moment, to avoid “catastrophic” future developments whose certainty is almost infinitesimal. But another, and perhaps more powerful, objection I’ve had is the growing spread of this “noble cause corruption”. The threat to liberty and prosperity presented by the CAGW scam is great, but in the end humanity will probably be able to recover from even the worst damage that it can inflict. What will be much harder to recover from is the destruction of human ability to trust anything, even things that may prove to be true that we should.
    Most of us are familiar from our childhood with the fable of “The Little Boy
    Who Cried Wolf” which is usually taught as a lesson in the danger of being a liar. What is rarely discussed in those lessons is the damage done to the people of the little boy’s village who, as a result of his repeated lies, lose the capacity to respond appropriately when real danger presents itself. If, as seems increasingly evident, humanity ends up in a similar state because of all of this, it will be the real “crime against humanity” that these folks need to answer for because we are undoubtedly faced with numerous real and present problems which we should actually be addressing. When one of those problems rises to the point where we not only should but must respond to it, if that response cannot be organized because our capacity to do so has been lost along with our capacity to trust, we will reap the whirlwind from the wind of lies that we have sown.

  137. “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”

    If people learn nothing from this whole affair it should be this.

    Because I don’t have time time to develop sufficient expertise on every subject (be honest neither can most of you) I near universally accept the mainstream scientific consensus. I’m not a vaccine/evolution/anything “denier”. I don’t think the moon landings were fake, or that 9/11 was an inside job.

    Without the antics of the AGW proponents (remember the burden of proof is on them) I’d be singing from either the AGW or CAGW hymn sheet right now. Certainly a lot of the antics of opponents of AGW theory also leave a lot to be desired.

    On the arguments, my head (as much as a lay person can say about such things) says they probably have got the science right (perhaps over-exaggerated) but I look at their behavior and doubt enters my mind.

    And I don’t think they really understand this. They don’t understand we are not scientists, so what we (mostly) have to go on when we listen to them is trust.

    And they are flunking that course quite badly.

    P.S. Also props to Mosher. 8).

  138. Willis – we got enough Gonzo Journalism from PG this week. Responding in kind won’t move the ball down field. I happen to be pretty fair writer but didn’t write a response because I know I’m too wrapped up in the outcome to be objective. Like you I too would have gone Gonzo. The era of Kerouac, John Howard Griffin, Hunter S Thompson, and Ayn Rand is over. Anger sells but doesn’t convince – that is why RealClimate is wallowing. While there’s nothing I enjoy more than a stream of consiousness rant, cooler heads must prevail for the good of the science in the current conflict.

    You often remind us you are a cowboy and sometimes it shows. When you’re on your game you’re damn good but this one landed in the park and rolled foul. Challenging your target to repent and do things your way is hardly mending fences. You don’t want her to succeed any more than I do and it came through.

  139. Willis Eschenbach: I wrote it for Dr. Gundersen. I suspect she will receive very few (if any) other letters like this one, and that she will not ignore it

    If I were her, or in her position, I would ignore it. Hence my inference that she would ignore it.

    If she does not receive at least 20 emails on the topic, I will be surprised. Maybe we’ll have the opportunity to ask her. The people whom I know in positions like hers receive many more emails than they can handle. The volume of emails related to crises goes way up in time of crisis.

  140. Does she also believe that we run around proudly thinking of ourselves as being the ‘Anti-climate’ camp?

    Yeah, Gleick, I say it all the time, “Down with Climate!”

  141. I wonder if Dr. Gundersen will have the gumption to drop by here and respond to Willis’s open letter.

    But I’m not holding my breath.

    /Mr Lynn

  142. dp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm

    Willis – we got enough Gonzo Journalism from PG this week. Responding in kind won’t move the ball down field. I happen to be pretty fair writer but didn’t write a response because I know I’m too wrapped up in the outcome to be objective. Like you I too would have gone Gonzo. The era of Kerouac, John Howard Griffin, Hunter S Thompson, and Ayn Rand is over. Anger sells but doesn’t convince – that is why RealClimate is wallowing. While there’s nothing I enjoy more than a stream of consiousness rant, cooler heads must prevail for the good of the science in the current conflict.

    You often remind us you are a cowboy and sometimes it shows. When you’re on your game you’re damn good but this one landed in the park and rolled foul. Challenging your target to repent and do things your way is hardly mending fences. You don’t want her to succeed any more than I do and it came through.

    You say you don’t write when you are “too wrapped up in the outcome”. Me, that’s the time I cannot escape writing.

    You say the problem is that I’m too angry, too passionate about the issues.

    I say the problem is that people are neither angry enough nor passionate enough about the issues. We’re watching the slow-motion destruction of an entire field of science, and people like you keep counseling me to play patty-cake and not write when I am moved and go all California on people … not my style, dp.

    You say that ” Anger sells but doesn’t convince – that is why RealClimate is wallowing.” … if so, explain to me why I’m easily the most popular guest poster on this web site, and yet when I’m angry, I’m angry, and people know it.

    What “doesn’t convince” in my opinion is me pretending I’m angry when I’m not, or pretending I’m not angry when I am. What convinces best is called “honesty” where I come from.

    I don’t want you to retire from the fray when your blood is boiling, dp. All that point of view does is leave the field to some kind of cold-blooded logical analysis without any human being behind it. Yes, I’m angry about this, and no, I’m not going to pretend I’m not.

    Finally, I have said many times that I weigh and ponder each word very carefully. I am not unwilling to take an honest position at the edge of the field, in order to legitimize and shelter other less radical points of view, points of view that I often agree with. Compared to me, they look totally reasonable …

    I also am happy to take extreme positions because it lets others know that their vision may not be clouded after all, that there may indeed be a reason why they feel angry too.

    So I would strongly encourage you and everyone, as I have before, to avoid facile assumptions that my posts are uncontrolled emotions or bursts of anger, or that I’ve yielded to my inner cowboy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I choose my words, my steps, and my positions with great care. I say as much as I want and no more than that. I honestly express my feelings, but not blindly— I do it with precision and in the way I think will have the greatest effect. Y’all greatly underestimate the thought I’ve put into every one of my posts.

    For example, in this post, I wanted a jarring tone. I didn’t want it to be just another comment. I wanted Dr. Gundersen to have trouble reading it. I didn’t want it to slip past. I wanted to push her a bit, challenge her, perhaps even to anger her. I didn’t want her to be able to dismiss it, I wanted to get under her skin a little, to come at her from a direction unknown to her.

    Was I successful? Neither you nor I have a clue as to that. Was that the right tack to take? Heck, I don’t know that either. It was my best judgement about what might engage her.

    Finally, should I reshape all of that because some random anonymous internet poster called “dp” thinks I’m off the rails?

    Not gonna happen, my friend. Sorry.

    All the best,

    w.

  143. “Have we had a comment yet from

    Donald A. Brown
    Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law,
    Director,Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute,
    Penn State University
    126 Willard,
    University Park, Pa, 16802
    717-802-xxxx (cell); 814-865-xxxx (office)
    dab57@psu.xxxx

    who asked if an ‘ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign’ would see this as ‘a new kind of crime against humanity’?”

    Hmmm. . . . someone else we haven’t heard from is Professor Kathleen Hayhoe, the self described “Climate Change Evangelist” professor at Texas Tech who has made a career out of trying to merge the bad news about carbon dioxide and warming with the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ; witness her book ““A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”, written with her pastor husband.

    I wonder if she’s bothered at all by Professor Peter Gleick’s prevarications, given that if she is as she claims to be, she believe’s Peter Gleick’s father is the devil. . . . . .

  144. Antonio Lorusso (@amlorusso) says:
    February 22, 2012 at 12:57 pm
    On the arguments, my head (as much as a lay person can say about such things) says they probably have got the science right (perhaps over-exaggerated) but I look at their behavior and doubt enters my mind.
    ========================================
    Antonio, if they had the science right…….you would not have made that post….on this blog….and no one would be debating it

  145. Septic Matthew says:
    February 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    I wrote it for Dr. Gundersen. I suspect she will receive very few (if any) other letters like this one, and that she will not ignore it

    If I were her, or in her position, I would ignore it. Hence my inference that she would ignore it.

    See, that’s why I would write an entirely different letter to you, Matthew … I write individual letters, not generic ones. Read my post above to understand more about my choices.

    I greatly doubt that she can ignore my letter. She may deny it, she may react to it, she may be angered by it, I doubt greatly that she will answer it … but ignore it?

    Hardly. She knows all her friends read it. She knows what’s at stake now, she can no longer pretend all is well. She knows that her leadership will watched and her actions weighed.

    Ignored? No way.

    w.

  146. Willis says to Dr. Gundersen:

    . . . You will be judged on whether you and the Task Force have the scientific integrity to take action regarding Dr. Gleick, or whether you just take the UN route and issue a string of “strongly worded resolutions” bemoaning the general situation.

    which is true, but IMO doesn’t go far enough. I think she, and her panel, will ultimately be judged on whether they can break free of the ideological bed into which the AGU (and similar organizations) have inserted themselves, and affirm that integrity in science means much more than condemning an obvious miscreant like Gleick. They must proclaim a renewed dedication to the basics of the scientific method: transparency, replicability, and a refusal to accept any conclusion (especially forgone ones) at face value; above all, they must insist that members never submit research goals and methods to any political or ideological tests, no matter how attractive or well-intentioned.

    Anything less, and the panel and the organization it represents should be cast away with the historical debris of misguided and misbegotten attempts at enforcing orthodoxy.

    /Mr Lynn

  147. This may be O/T but I think not.

    This whole problem started way back in the ’50s & ’60s with the stupid PC idea that every child gets a prize!

    Well the fact is, everyone fails at some time. Educating past their grade is a waste of time & money! All this it’s too challenging is just bull$h1t! Learn to handle failure young, you’re going to do a lot of it in your life.

    I think it was education minister Ed, (load of,) Balls, who said something along the lines of, “I want every child to be above average.”

    Says it all!

    DaveE

  148. ‘”Willis Eschenbach says:
    February 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm
    “Keith Minto says:
    February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm

    I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.

    ‘After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else’.

    Concise and apt.”

    I generally don’t quote other’s comments, yielding instead to a recurring self-delusion that I can explain it more strongly and clearly. However, there was no way I was going to be able to beat that. As an obituary for the AGW alarmists, that’s as good as it gets.”‘

    This I use as my sig line, to remind myself as much as others, about the underlying purpose of discussion….

    ‘In any controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves’.- Siddartha…

  149. Willis Eschenbach: Ignored? No way.

    You over-rate yourself. Sorry, but I think you do.

    She has now received at least 150 letters these last 2 days, and she will skip most of them.

  150. Septic Matt,

    I am curious how you arrived at such a specific number. Do you have inside info? Guessing? Assuming?

  151. Is it just me…. or does Dr. Linda Gundersen REALLY look like Michael Mann…. in earrings and a long dark wig?

  152. Septic Matthew says:
    February 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Willis Eschenbach:

    Ignored? No way.

    You over-rate yourself. Sorry, but I think you do.

    She has now received at least 150 letters these last 2 days, and she will skip most of them.

    I over-rate myself? Perhaps so, perhaps not, it’s one of the most difficult things I know of to measure. I have no doubt that I, like most people, generally overestimate my own abilities … and curiously, that has stood me in good stead for a lifetime. Let me give you an example.

    I grew up on a very remote cattle ranch, where if something broke we had to fix it. When I left the ranch, I was convinced that I could “fix anything but a broken heart” as we used to say … totally untrue, of course. It was a wild overestimation of my own abilities, but it’s the kind of delusion that if you keep it up long enough, you wind up able to … well … fix pretty much any dang thing, including an occasional broken heart over the years.

    So yes, it’s quite possible that I over-rate myself … but I’ve never worried much about that.

    And yes, her email inbox must be very full, 150 emails as you say is not out of the question at all. But then … my letter’s not in her email inbox, is it?

    As far as I know, she has only received one public open letter, one that her friends will read and ponder, an open letter that has already garnered ten thousand page views …

    People from both sides of the climate debate read this blog in general, including my work, for a simple reason—it’s interesting. Whether you are a believer in the AGW hypothesis or not, there’s a lot to see at WUWT, a lot to consider, a lot to learn, a lot to object to, at this site.

    So yes, Matthew, I’m quite certain she will read it. Anyone who is seriously involved in climate reads WUWT, you’d be mad not to, if only to see what us crazies are up to now. How do I know? Because my work and other work published at WUWT is read, discussed, screamed at, and eviscerated all over the climate blogosphere. I’m actually astounded, I occasionally will do a search under my name, and I find that Tobis or the lagomorph or some other AGW site is busily abusing me at a rate of knots … no comments on my post itself, but they be hatin’ on me elsewhere … kinda gives me a warm feeling, knowing that my words are sparking discussions even when I’m not around.

    In any case, what she does when she reads it, as I have mentioned, is up to her. I truly hope that she seizes the brass ring. She is in an incredibly fortunate position, and could easily this into being a powerful voice for honest, transparent science.

    Or not.

    w.

  153. jim says:
    February 22, 2012 at 2:49 am

    “presumably she is the second most honest member”

    ROFL.

    Those people and organizations that have defended Gleick since he admitted wire fraud suggests to the outside world that faking results and meddling with data is perceived as an acceptable way of getting the job done. A delusional God syndrome must be systemic amongst Gleick’s peers.

    ____________________________________________________________________

    One must look at the establishment as a whole. in this case Eddenhoffer exposed the cult that is AGW and the real crux of the agenda… its not about science.. its about control of money and people… down to every thing they eat, do and when they die… in the quest for ultimate power anything and everything is acceptable… Gleicks behavior is but a symptom of a greater problem. the lust for power is intoxicating and it removes any ethical ground that might have existed…as he saw his power and stature going away he did what he could to regain power and control..

    If you look and Michale Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and many others when they were exposed as liars and frauds.. their socialist agenda trumps all….

  154. Willis – an open letter is a bit of an olive branch. It is bad form to offer it and then whack the person over the head with it. I’m one of your big fans, we’re on the same side, but sometimes we don’t agree. I’m a fan but not a fan boy. This isn’t one of your great works but then you have had some great works to compare – I hear thunderstorms just recalling it. We’ve had the discussion about anonymity and it isn’t worth going over again. I retire in a few months and I can bare all at that time, and we can split a betel nut and have a good laugh. Privacy matters and that in fact is what underlies the gleickswoggle caper – denial of anonymity against the wishes of the anonymous.

    Please do keep up the excellent work and I will continue to enjoy reading it.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree, well, we don’t have to actually agree, but that’s what’s going to happen regarding posting while incensed. On average it doesn’t work out as well as an unimpassioned but well written missive which you are more than capable of and probably would have jotted off if you’d waited one more day. I will say this about your non-Churchillian ultimatum, it was in the best tradition of Gonzo writing but archaic.

    As for your target reading your chide – perhaps some of it will be seen, but having dealt with these former crosswalk monitors and teacher’s snitches, I know and you should know you are the water, they are the duck. It won’t matter.

    [Moderator’s Objection: Split a betel nut? No. Not here. Not ever. No $!@#&^!*! betel nuts. -REP]

  155. dp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm
    “Willis – we got enough Gonzo Journalism from PG this week. Responding in kind won’t move the ball down field. ”

    I must have missed the part where Willis forges an NCSE memo. Can you clue me in?

  156. dp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    Willis – an open letter is a bit of an olive branch. It is bad form to offer it and then whack the person over the head with it.

    What, are you the “Miss Manners” of open letters now? An open letter is any damn thing I want it to be, as long as it is open. That’s the difference between me and you. I draw outside the lines. Can’t help it.

    I’m one of your big fans, we’re on the same side, but sometimes we don’t agree. I’m a fan but not a fan boy.

    dp, you still don’t get it. You can come back and explain your position fifty times, and it won’t change me a bit. I DIDN’T WRITE THE POST FOR YOU, and your opinion of it, while interesting, is ultimately meaningless to me. I wrote it as best I know how. If you want to write an olive branch, I invite you to do so. If you want to continue to bitch and moan about the way I write, go away. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. I don’t need your endless complaints, I’m not interested in your insights. I write the way I write. You think its wrong. I don’t give a shift. MOVE ON, your attempts to get me to agree to being average and follow the rules are terminally boring.

    This isn’t one of your great works but then you have had some great works to compare – I hear thunderstorms just recalling it. We’ve had the discussion about anonymity and it isn’t worth going over again. I retire in a few months and I can bare all at that time, and we can split a betel nut and have a good laugh. Privacy matters and that in fact is what underlies the gleickswoggle caper – denial of anonymity against the wishes of the anonymous.

    Congratulations on your retirement, and if you have betel nut, lime, and a leaf, I’ll gladly join you.

    Please do keep up the excellent work and I will continue to enjoy reading it.

    Thanks, appreciated.

    We’re going to have to agree to disagree, well, we don’t have to actually agree, but that’s what’s going to happen regarding posting while incensed. On average it doesn’t work out as well as an unimpassioned but well written missive which you are more than capable of and probably would have jotted off if you’d waited one more day. I will say this about your non-Churchillian ultimatum, it was in the best tradition of Gonzo writing but archaic.

    Let me say again. Your opinion of my writing holds no weight at all. I wrote it in a specific way, with a specific purpose, to reach a specific person as best I know how. I DON’T CARE IF YOU LIKE IT.

    I also don’t care if it works “on average”, I’ve never written “on average” in my life. You seem to think writing is some generic “on average” act, which may be why I’m the blogger here and you’re the commenter. The part you don’t seem to take in is this—I wrote that piece to affect a certain person, and that person is not you. I didn’t write it to affect an average person, or a generic person. I aimed it, as best I know how, at Dr. Gundersen, at what I guessed might move her, intrigue her, push her, get under her skin, get behind her defenses.

    And now you are here babbling about “on average”, and telling me how it affected you … spare me.

    Look, dp, I’m a thowback, a sport, a primitive man in a modern world. I don’t do focus groups. I don’t listen to either nay-sayers or people who think I’m great, I “treat those two impostors just the same”. I don’t care if people think I’m off the rails. I don’t care if people like or hate what I write. I’m unconcerned even if everyone thinks I’m an idiot. I’m not writing for acclaim or for self-esteem or for approbation. I just write what I write as best as I know how. In particular, I don’t try to second-guess myself afterwards. It goes nowhere, because the next situation is never ever the same.

    As for your target reading your chide – perhaps some of it will be seen, but having dealt with these former crosswalk monitors and teacher’s snitches, I know and you should know you are the water, they are the duck. It won’t matter.

    So you say … based on what? How many public open letters have you actually written and published, dp, as I wrote and published this one?

    One?

    None?

    This is about my sixth or so, I’m not sure. Come back when you catch up, and I may give your opinion some weight. Or not. Like I said, I generally follow my own stars, they’ve served my navigation for years. I chose my words for a reason, my reasons don’t involve you in any way, and you have not given me any reason to change a single word.

    [Moderator's Objection: Split a betel nut? No. Not here. Not ever. No $!@#&^!*! betel nuts. -REP]

    Yeah, I used to get that reaction a lot, it’s an ugly habit. My favorite betel nut sight was one time on the island of Malaita. I went into a government office. Instead of a spittoon for the red, staining betelnut juice that everyone spits when they chew, they had a new cardboard box in the corner.

    Well, they had had a new cardboard box, but from the appearances that was some weeks ago. With the wet spit and the tropics the bottom half of the box had melted, leaving the top of the box looking like a square cardboard crown floating on a couple square metres of bright red betelnut spit flowing out from the corner of the office … people tiptoed (barefoot of course) as near as they dared, and then from force of habit tried to spit into the bottomless cardboard box.

    I started chewing betel there in the Solomons, while I was playing with a local rock band … best band in the country, actually. Everyone in the band chewed “bilnas”, as the Solomon Islands pijin language has it, and so I took it up as well. It was pretty gruesome when we all got up on stage, when the whole band smiled the spotlights reflected red all around the dance floor, and we looked like cannibals on a lunch break …

  157. Dirk – I think you don’t understand Gonzo journalism. It is brash but honest. Not that Hunter was above stimulating conversation using creating means. Get a copy of Nuni – it is a tale much like some Willis has shared of a fictitious time (not lumping Willis into the fiction) in the Solomon islands written by a guy who was critically acclaimed but probably had trouble paying his bills. Note the page after page of ranting as the relationships develop. That is Gonzo. If you’ve read Atlas Shrugged then you have read Gonzo. It is strident, sometimes energized by chemicals, but a very deep look into the mind of the writer. I’ve been compared to Kerouac and that can be annoying when you strive for your own style, and I’d offer Willis is in that crowd when he’s on. Or at least he can be. I wouldn’t claim it is even intentional, but passion is a big part of it and Willis is passionate. Perhaps you’ve noticed. All I’m saying is there are pragmatic reasons for reigning it in from time to time.

  158. Willis – if you didn’t write that post for me and other WUWT readers you’d have posted it somewhere else where we’d never have seen it. Of course you wrote it for us.

    Since I’ve not attacked you but only the tone of your post, and you have seen cause to attack me personally I will drop the point, well made, I think. Your skin is thinning. Grow a carapace if you want to be a writer.

  159. dp says:
    February 22, 2012 at 10:38 pm

    Willis – if you didn’t write that post for me and other WUWT readers you’d have posted it somewhere else where we’d never have seen it. Of course you wrote it for us.

    Are you really that dumb, or do you just play dumb on the web? I have said many times, I wrote it for Dr. Linda Gundersen. The title is kind of a clue for those with any wit. I posted it where I post everything. No, you weren’t involved at all, I didn’t write it for you in any sense, but clearly your ego is agitating for its own area code.

    Since I’ve not attacked you but only the tone of your post, and you have seen cause to attack me personally I will drop the point, well made, I think. Your skin is thinning. Grow a carapace if you want to be a writer.

    Oh, now you’re going to go all sensitive on me? You came once to tell me how I should write. I said I wasn’t interested. You came back again, to tell me that I was doing it all wrong. I said I couldn’t care less.

    The third time you came back to pester and annoy me about my writing, yes, I got personal. That’s what happens when you persist in trying to school someone who has repeatedly said they’re not interested in the slightest in your fantasies about how to write. They bite back. It’s the way of the world, third time being a jerk is the charm. Get used to it.

    Next, you think my skin is thinning? You’re the one bitching about being attacked, and I could care less if you attack me, whose skin is thin here? Again, you don’t have a clue what my point of view is. You obviously think I’m upset or angry. In fact, I think you are being very childish, but that you are kinda cute when you get upset.

    In particular, you don’t deal with rejection well at all. You don’t seem to understand that when I say I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR OPINION OF MY WRITING, that doesn’t mean “please return and explain your brilliant ideas to me again”. Now you’re all butthurt that I have had to repeatedly detach you like some crazed remora and throw you back into the ocean, since you keep coming back to latch on once again and tell me (very politely) that I’m a jerk and a fool who doesn’t know how to write …

    But I’m still laughing, dp, that’s where you’re wrong. I only get upset about important things, not about random anonymous internet popups who are convinced they are Miss Manners … don’t let the door hit you in the ego on the way out.

    w.

    PS—Come back and discuss the science any time, you are always welcome for that.

  160. Thank you again for your reply, Willis – and excuse my delayed reply, which is due to the small matter of living in different time zones …

    Both your examples provided great food for thought.
    Let’s take the Trachoma one, and the perfidy of a producer of cookers which make the problem of trachoma worse. You then say:
    “I say the cause is the cause, and there will always be people to game the system and cheat and lie and steal in the name of a host of things.”
    Does that mean that the corrupt producer of cookers displays the garden variety of corruption in all cases except when he sells this same shoddy products with the label ‘prevents trachoma’, in which case it suddenly becomes ‘noble cause corruption’?

    I think your excellent flip-side example:
    “Does playing a video game ethically and with integrity somehow transform playing video games into a noble calling?”
    actually points to what I was trying so clumsily to convey.

    Corruption, noble cause one or not, is down to a lack of integrity. Doesn’t matter if one cheats oneself and others while playing video games, or produces and sells shoddy cookers, or fiddles data. If a cause is labelled ‘noble’, the temptation to cheat becomes greater, because fighting for something considered to be ‘noble’ confers ‘nobility’ to the perpetrator.

    It is still cheating, it is still corruption, no matter the cause.

    I think we’ve labelled far too many ’causes’ as noble, or ‘pretty noble’, when in fact we mean “worthwhile”. When we say that ‘saving the planet’ is most noble, then we have already accepted that everything else must be subordinate, and that cheating is of course allowed.
    I would further say that using the label ‘noble cause’ actually invites noble cause corruption.
    If we use ‘worthwhile’ for a cause, then we get “worthwhile cause corruption”, which illustrates IMV that corruption is corruption, no matter the worthiness of a cause.
    Which then means that, as you say, ‘the cause remains the cause’.

    Thanks, Willis, for making me put my brain into gear with my first cup of coffee!

  161. Well, all this aside, I have one more question for Dr. Gundersen.

    I’m currently a US gov’t employee. If I have a problem with my current position, can I apply for a job with the USGS?

    I can imagine how much easier and lucrative a job there must be, not having to worry about ethics and all that.

  162. Wiliis Eschenbach: my letter’s not in her email inbox, is it?

    Then it’s not written to her, is it? It’s written to WUWT readers. It’s only addressed to her.

    I do like your data analyses. You pick interesting data sets and do interesting statistical analyses with them.

    This letter? not so much. I’d recommend that she ignore it, and I think that she will.

  163. Septic Matthew says:
    February 23, 2012 at 8:30 am (Edit)

    Wiliis Eschenbach:

    my letter’s not in her email inbox, is it?

    Then it’s not written to her, is it?

    Yes, it is written to her. A snail-mail letter, a fax, or a telegram wouldn’t be in her email inbox either … and by your asinine logic, that would mean that none of them were written to her. Get with the picture, you’re a smart guy, you usually don’t commit such obvious logic FAILs.

    See, that’s the deal with an “open letter”, Matthew. It’s called an “open letter” because it is a letter, which like any other letter is written to a particular person, but is open for others to read. Thus, “open letter”. Get it?

    Do try to keep up. Trying to school me doesn’t work when you’re not following the story.

    w.

  164. Wow – I’ve read many many open letters over the years, mainly published in newspapers where such a thing has a long tradition.

    I had always assumed that the letter was written to the person named at the head of the letter, but being “open” I, as a the reader of the newpaper, would get to read the letter as well.

    It turns out all these letters were actually written to me! And I never realised it till now! How silly of me.

  165. brc says:
    February 23, 2012 at 5:44 am
    I’m not a one-eyed electric car lover but the Tesla engineers have come up with a lot of clever stuff. Their battery packs are miles ahead of most of the competition and they were the first to market with a modern electric car … is a testament to a very good 1.0 design in the roadster.
    ———————–

    I’m not quite as impressed. The roadster was already designed for them. A guy takes a Lotus Elise chassis, and puts an electric motor into it and straps together some 7000 cells with off the shelf cell management technology. The battery pack technology is off the shelf tech BTW. Then gets the taxpayer to finance it. I don’t see the purpose for the car. I’m not into gimmickry for the sake of gimmickry. It’s perfomance is totally unimpressive to me. A Corvette ZR1 or Camaro ZL1 (just 2 examples), which costs less and are a lot more practical, will rape a Tesla. I have reservations about refering to Tesla as an American car company. They may be American, but I’m not sure they quite have achieved a level where they can be considered a car company yet maybe a kit-car company.

  166. I would ask the chairman of ethics to look into this scientific issue. Nils-Axel Mörner alleges that the IPCC and the cohorts of the extreme AGW paradigm are cooking the books, exaggerating the amount of sea level rise by a factor of at least three.

    Nils-Axel Mörner appears to allege in the attached article that some scientists are manipulating data to support a hypothesis. How can that be possible? Surely the director of ethics would be concerned about either Nils-Axel Mörner’s outrageous comments or the outrageous action of the scientist that are hiding a clear paradox.

    Nils-Axel Mörner is a specialist in sea level measurement, with many published papers. Surely if the IPCC is not a propaganda document someone can provide a clear extensive rebuttal to Mörner’s very basic fundamental observations.

    It appears this is Nils-Axel Mörner third publication of with the same underlying conclusion. Surely if science is on the side of the IPCC this should be simple matter to clear up.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

    “THE GREAT SEA-LEVEL HUMBUG There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!” by Nils-Axel Mörner

    This is, indeed, a terrible falsification of the actual situation. We are undoubtedly facing a “sea-level-gate.” The journal that published this false claim, Ethics and International Affairs, refuses to print a comment “that focuses on empirical data.” With surprise, we must ask: What is the meaning of addressing moral concern, if the entire empirical base is wrong?

    The mean of all the 159 NOAA sites gives a rate of 0.5 mm/year to 0.6 mm/year (Burton 2010). A better approach, however, is to exclude those sites that represent uplifted and subsided areas (Figure 4). This leaves 68 sites of reasonable stability (still with the possibility of an exaggeration of the rate of change, as discussed above). These sites give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1.0 (± 1.0) mm/year. This is far below the rates given by satellite altimetry, and the smell of a “sea-levelgate” gets stronger.

    The IPCC authors take the liberty to select what they call “representative” records for their reconstruction of the centennial sea level trend. This, of course, implies that their personal view— that is, the IPCC scenario laid down from the beginning of the project— is imposed in the selection and identification of their “representative” records.
    We start to smell another “sea-level-gate.”

    When the satellite altimetry group realized that the 1997 rise was an ENSO signal, and they extended the trend up to 2003, they seemed to have faced a problem: There was no sea level rise visible, and therefore a “reinterpretation” needed to be undertaken.(This was orally confirmed at the Global Warming meeting held by the Russian Academy of Science in Moscow in 2005, which I attended). Exactly what was done remains unclear, as the satellite altimetry groups do not specify the additional “corrections” they now infer. In 2003, the satellite altimetry record (Aviso 2003) suddenly took a new tilt—away from the quite horizontal record of 1992-2000, seen in Figures 5 and 6—of 2.3 (±0.1) mm/year (Figure 7).

  167. I would ask the chairman of scientific ethics to look into this issue in addition

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

    “THE GREAT SEA-LEVEL HUMBUG There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise!” by Nils-Axel Mörner

    It appears that a lead author of an IPCC chapter may be biased and could be acting in manner which some might label as unethical.

    http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm

    After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4′s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The
    result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today. Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in
    such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

    I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricane will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, nappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

  168. Hmm.. the AGU has an inordinate number of atomspheric specialists stacking this panel. You don`t suppose it was climate nepotism that peopled the integrity watchers

  169. Michael G Wallace says:
    February 23, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    Dr. Astley, you make some great points. But who knows if Dr. Gunderson is reading this blog?

    Michael, I can assure you she has read it. If she did not see it herself, I’m quite sure that one of her friends pointed it out to her. Everyone seriously interested in climate science reads WUWT regularly, if only to find out what Anthony and I and the other guest posters are up to now. And some of them know her. So yes, she has read it, as have the members of her team.

    I encourage you, if you haven’t already, to submit directly to AGU. If you want added signatures or complaints, for what it’s worth, count me in. Just let me know. My email is [SNIP: it is not advisable to post your e-mail address. I will forward it for you. -REP] and I am a member of AGU also (for whatever that may be worth).

    Who would be the person to send it to there?

    When I was at AGU last December I had quite a fun time at the sea level rise posters, discussing with various lukewarm authors how lame the evidence was for anthropogenic signals in sea level rise. Nobody that I talked to appeared to really believe there was anything to worry about regarding sea level rise, except for continued funding to study sea level rise. It’s certainly legitimate to study it, but I had the sense that they felt caught in the crosshairs between strident climate change funding research expectations and true scientific research, balance, and disclosure.
    Just my perception though.

    My own feeling is that a lot of researchers are funding-driven, and I have compassion for that. I consider myself fortunate that I’m pounding nails for a living these days. Some guys lift iron for exercise … I lift wood.

    And as a result, I am not beholden to anyone regarding the direction of my scientific work and research. It also allows me to write for WUWT uninhibited by any monetary considerations.

    And I understand that most scientists do not have that luxury.

    w.

  170. Michael Wallace and Willis Eschenbach,

    Thank-you for the thoughtful comments. Willis’ comment concerning financial pressure and risk if one does not stay on message is astute.

    There may also be general academic pressure and peer pressure to remain silent to what appears to be obvious evidence of a subgroup’s efforts to manipulate the scientific process and in some cases to manipulate data and analysis, as there is the mistaken belief by some that the end justifies the means.

    Any significant sustained unexplained cooling will change the public, politicians, and media’s perspective concerning climate change. There will eventually be a request for an explanation as to the cause of the cooling and a requested for a revised long term climate forecast. I would assume that gradually as the science is worked out and made public that there will also be a call for action to resolve the problems related to scientific integrity and ethics.

    There are a host of ineffective (such as the capturing and sequestrating of CO2, roughly an increase in capital cost of 3 times and loss of efficiency of 30% or the construction of wind farms in regions where wind speeds are too low for an economic wind farm) and harmful initiatives (such as the conversion of food to biofuel which has and will result in food shortages and in tropical rainforest being cut down), that will hopefully be addressed at the same time.

    My interest is primarily scientific. I am not sure if I can be of any help with the important unresolved ethical and policy issues. I do not like conflict. I will have some free time later this year perhaps I can layout an overview of abrupt climate change and what it appears is currently underway. I thought people would be more receptive to the science if it is clear the solar cycle has been interrupted and there is observational evidence of the cooling.

    Best wishes,

    William

    Comments:
    Based on the paleoclimatic record and research to try explain the cause of cyclic abrupt climate change in the record, it appears the planet is about to cool due to an interruption in the solar cycle. The late Gerald Bond, tracked 23 of the warming/cooling cycles that are also known as Dansgaard-Oesgher cycles. The magnitude and rapidity of the cooling phase varies depending on how long the sun was in a high activity state prior to the interruption, the duration of the solar cycles prior to the cycle interruption, the rapidity of the cycle interruption, and the orbital configuration of the planet when the cycle restarts. The largest cycles such as the Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event which are called Heinrich events are capable of terminating interglacial periods. There are geomagnetic excursions that have been found at the Heinrich events. It appears it is the geomagnetic excursions that cause the very large, rapid cooling events. The Younger Dryas cooling period lasted around 1000 years, with 70% of the cooling occurring within a decade.

    The geomagnetic field specialists have spent the last 10 years analyzing the geomagnetic proxy data to confirm the timing of past field changes and to confirm the paradoxical rapidity of past geomagnetic field changes (the proxy data indicates a rapidity of change that is physically not possible for a core based field generating mechanism) The proxy data was initially analyzed and interpreted based on what is possible based on the assumed field generation mechanism. The geomagnetic field specialists’ paradigm is likely shifting due to the current unexplained rapid changes (increase in size and drop of field intensity in that region.) of the South Atlantic geomagnetic field anomaly which appears to be the start of a geomagnetic excursion ( A set of three European satellites, “Swarm” are schedule for launch this spring to try to determine how and how rapidly the field is changing) as well has the discovery of past abrupt unexplained 10 to 15% degree shifts (archeomagnetic jerks) in the geomagnetic field axis orientation as compared to the planet’s rotational axis, that correlate with past cooling periods, (10 “archomagnetic jerks” have been found in fired pottery that captures the orientation and strength of the field when the pottery cools. It has been found that past geomagnetic excursions correlate with the termination of past interglacial periods)

    There is an interesting new published paper that proposes an ocean/core coupled mechanism to explain the rapidity of the past geomagnetic field changes. Ocean currents and electric current flow through the conductive ocean generated a field that is impressed on the conductive liquid core. The ocean mechanism has a time constant of roughly 5 years as compared to the core’s time constant of few thousand years.

  171. Ethics are connected with the personality, the world view of the person in question.

    It is interesting to compare the world view of James Hanson to Henrik Svensmark.to William Connelly to Richard Alley, based on their response to observations and outward actions. Each person within their worldview which may or may not be connected to the reality, believes they are acting morally and ethically. If a scientist takes a very strong public position which is scientifically incorrect it becomes very, very, difficult for them to state that they were completely incorrect. An example of that problem would be Lord Kelvin.

    To continue to make statements that are not supported by observations and logic it is necessary to ignore new data that invalidates past hypotheses.

    I will provide an outline in the next couple of comments of the change in science concerning extreme AGW and compare it to the worldview of those advocating the extreme AGW paradigm such as William Connelly or James Hansen.

    Richard Alley and colleges discovered the cyclic abrupt climate change in the Greenland Ice core data. Due to the physical phenomena which is referred to by paleo-climatologists as the polar see-saw the Antarctic ice sheet warms when when the Greenland ice sheet cools and visa versa. The Southern Hemisphere and the Northern Hemisphere both cool and warm concurrently (See Svensmark’s attached paper’s data to justify this assertion.) The reason why there is out of phase warming and cooling of the two ice sheets is due to the affect of high and low altitude clouds and increasing and decreasing ionization. i.e. Increasing ionization causes an increase in low level planetary cloud cover and reduction in high altitude cirrus clouds. The decrease in cirrus clouds has little affect on the Antarctic as the temperature above the ice sheet is so cold there is little difference in ice crystals and therefore little decrease in winter temperatures when high altitude clouds have the greatest affect on cooling due to lack of sunlight. In the summer the increase in low level clouds causes warming in the Antarctic as the albedo of the ice sheet is greater than the clouds and clouds have a component of warming due to the greenhouse affect of water and ice in the cloud. The polar see-saw effect is why there has been a significant decrease in Arctic ice and an increase in sea ice around the Antarctic ice sheet during the 20th century warming. (There are cycles of warming and cooling in the paleoclimatic record.)

    This link, figure 3 provides a graph from Richard Alley’s paper.

    http://www.climate4you.com/

    The Bond/Dansgaard-Oesgher are clearly evident in the paleorecord. The planet warms and then cools with different magnitudes of cooling following a cycle of roughly 1470 years plus or minus around 17%. As Gerald Bond found there are cosmogenic isotope changes at all of the past climate warming and cooling. What I do not understand is why Alley is not interested in what caused the past cycle of warming and cooling. Clearly there was a physical reason, the past cyclic warming and cooling that is periodic. Subsequent research shows the mechanism is not ocean currents, as there is a lack of correlation of ocean current changes and the cooling events and modelling indicates the temperature change due to a complete stoppage the Atlantic drift current is a factor of 3 to 5 too small to explain what is observed.

    Svensmark looks at the observations as a puzzle to be solved. Svensmark is very conservative, matter of fact, scientific in his explanation of his hypotheses, providing observations and logic to justify his conclusion.

    Attached is Svensmark’s paper which attempts to solve the puzzle of the polar see-saw. Svensmark’s paper includes data which uses direct measurement of ice sheet temperature from ice cores (due to insulating properties of the ice sheet the direct measurement of ice core temperature at different levels can be used to determine past temperatures for roughly the last 6 thousand years). Svensmark’s ice core temperature data show there is no lag time in the polar see-saw which rules out ocean currents as the cause of what is observed.

    Subsequent ocean current measurement by smart deep ocean floats indicates there is no deep ocean conveyor, the deep ocean current is distributed and complex which completely invalidates the hypothesized mechanism at a fundamental level.

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0612145.pdf

    http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/ocean-conveyor-belt-dismissed

    After nearly 50 years of acceptance, the theory that a great ocean “conveyor belt” continuously circulates water around the globe in an orderly fashion has been dismissed by a leading oceanographer. According to a review article in the journal Science, a number of studies conducted over the past few years have challenged this paradigm. Oceanographers have discovered the vital role of ocean eddy currents and the wind in establishing the structure and variability of the ocean’s overturning. In light of these new discoveries, the demise of the conveyor belt model has been become the new majority opinion among the world’s oceanographers. According to M. Susan Lozier, of Duke University, “the conveyor-belt model no longer serves the community well.”

    The idea that the ocean conveyor belt transports cold, dense water from the subpolar North Atlantic along the “lower limb” of the conveyor belt to the rest of the global ocean, where the waters are upwelled and then transported along the “upper limb” back to deepwater formation sites, has been supported by the majority of oceanographers for decades. This circulating flow was assumed to operate along western boundary currents in the deep ocean and provide a continuous supply of relatively warm surface waters to deepwater formation sites. While it was thought to be vulnerable to changes in deepwater production at high latitudes, with significant injections of fresh water capable of disrupting the smooth operation of the system, under normal conditions the conveyor belt was thought to function constantly and consistently. Now it seems that opinions within the oceanographic community have shifted, and the great ocean conveyor belt model has fallen from grace.

    As detailed in an eye opening article by Dr. Lozier, the conveyor belt has been found wanting and dismissed as the dominant ocean overturning paradigm. Lozier is Professor of Physical Oceanography and Chair of the Earth and Ocean Sciences Division at Duke, and is an expert in large-scale ocean circulation, water mass distribution and variability. The article, “Deconstructing the Conveyor Belt,” begins with a short history of the conveyor belt theory’s development. According to Lozier, our modern idea of the ocean’s overturning, and our understanding of its importance to Earth’s climate, developed as a result of the work of two prominent oceanographers:

    This is a link to Susan Lozier’s review paper.

    http://www.whoi.edu/cms/files/lozier10sci_95064.pdf

    Another paper that provides data to show the Dansgaard-Oeschger events are not caused by changes the North Atlantic Drift current.

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2000PA000571.shtml

    On the 1470-year pacing of Dansgaard-Oeschger warm events
    The oxygen isotope record from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core was reanalyzed in the frequency and time domains. The prominent 1470-year spectral peak, which has been associated with the occurrence of Dansgaard-Oeschger interstadial events, is solely caused by Dansgaard-Oeschger events 5, 6, and 7. This result emphasizes the nonstationary character of the oxygen isotope time series. Nevertheless, a fundamental pacing period of ∼1470 years seems to control the timing of the onset of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A trapezoidal time series model is introduced which provides a template for the pacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger events. Statistical analysis indicates only a ≤3% probability that the number of matches between observed and template-derived onsets of Dansgaard-Oeschger events between 13 and 46 kyr B.P. resulted by chance. During this interval the spacing of the Dansgaard-Oeschger onsets varied by ±20% around the fundamental 1470-year period and multiples thereof. The pacing seems unaffected by variations in the strength of North Atlantic Deep Water formation, suggesting that the thermohaline circulation was not the primary controlling factor of the pacing period.

    This paper includes data from a general circulation climate model that shows that the regional drop in temperature of a complete stoppage of the North Atlantic Drift current is a factor of 3 to 5 too small to explain the cooling associated with Younger Dryas abrupt cooling event and the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycle. As noted in the above paper, there is a lack of correlation of abrupt cooling events and changes to North Atlantic drift current, so the hypothesis is invalidated due to lack of correlation and the physical inability to cause the cooling that is observed.

    http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.999,y.0,no.,content.true,page.1,css.print/issue.aspx

    http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/pubs/Seager_etal_QJ_2002.pdf

  172. William, thanks for your thoughts. However, I’m not sure what your point is. You seem to be saying that the oceanic overturning is not happening, but the paper you cite says:

    What Are the Open Questions About the Overturning?

    Recent evidence that the ocean’s overturning limbs are not spatially and temporally continuous should not cast a shadow on the certainty of the overturning itself: There is clear and abundant evidence that ocean waters overturn. Deep water masses, primarily from the North Atlantic, spread to other ocean basins, with a concomitant surface mass flux of ~20 sverdrups.

    But that certainly may not be your point at all, it’s very difficult to tell.

    So … let me suggest boil your claim down to a couple of sentences and try again. When you get wordy you get lost, or at least I get lost.

    What is your point? What is the core, the essence of your claim? Because it is certainly not obvious from your writing above. Please don’t give me another eight long paragraphs in support, we can get to that once we’re clear what you are claiming.

    Let’s start with a clear statement of your main thesis, which at this point is not clear at all.

    w.

  173. Also, William, your citation about the Gulf Stream says that the whole study was done with models:

    The joy of such numerical models is that you can make radical changes to a virtual Earth’s climate system with nothing more than a click of the mouse. To assess the importance of the heat transported by ocean currents such as the Gulf Stream, we compared the results of two versions of these climate models.

    Color me totally unimpressed. If you want to get traction around here, citing a study which does nothing but compare two climate models won’t do it. In fact, it loses you points, people think “Man, that guy is a newbie, who else but a newbie would believe that climate model A minus climate model B means a damn thing …”

    w.

  174. Just what is the purpose of a “Task Force on Science Integrity”? What is supposed to be different from before its creation and after it has completed it mission — or at least passed its first milestone?

    The Other Pamela Grey on March 4 in “New Study Shows…” reported

    … how the News Media Council will exercise its power over all internet publishers. …. The size and scope of the proposed Super-Regulator is breathtaking. They will have the power to impose a “code of ethics”, force you to print views you don’t agree with as part of a ‘right of reply’, take you to court, and even make you take pieces down! Even personal blogs that get only 40 hits a day will be covered! To make matters worse, the SuperRegulator “would not have to give reasons for its decisions” and the decisions “would not be subject to appeal.” Even climate change websites in other countries like Watt’s Up With That will be covered by this!

    Link: http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/03/censorship-comes-to-australia/

    Just who’s bright idea was it to create an AGU Task Force on Science Integrity? If Peter Gleick wasn’t one of the biggest proponents, I’d be shocked. What will be their measure of “success?” if not to reduce ‘unethical behavior’. Of course ‘ethics’ is close to honesty, and we can’t have anyone do, write, or say things within the AGU that are not honest — can we? And they’re the Task FORCE! that knows where honesty starts and ends — just look at their founding chairperson, Mr. Gleick.

  175. On a re-read, I need to clarify that the “News Media Council” is a proposed Australian Government body and I know of nothing to connect it to the AGU Task Force. Nothing except coincidental timing. Whether the potential goals are similar is the focus of my questions.

Comments are closed.