AGU President on Gleick’s “shocking fall from grace”: “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

Mike McPhaden

Mike McPhaden President, AGU

AGU President’s message

We must remain committed to scientific integrity

27 February 2012

During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

Peter Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics on 16 February, prior to admitting in a blog post that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public. Here are a few things that come immediately to mind:

  • The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved. The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions. Public trust is essential because it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.
  • As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct. Long before the Heartland incident, we recognized the need to have clear and broad principles and procedures that expressed the value of scientific integrity and ethics embodied in our new strategic plan. More than ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full range of scientific activities our members engage in. The task force, now under the leadership of Linda Gundersen, director of the Office of Science Quality and Integrity at the U.S. Geological Survey, will complete its work with a renewed sense of urgency in view of recent events. Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become an integral part of AGU’s culture.
  • All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.

This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of AGU, as it has been for many AGU volunteer leaders, members, and staff. How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery or a unique scholarly achievement. These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.

Mike McPhaden

from a tip received via email h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard

=============================================================

UPDATE: 4:10PM 2/27  In related news, the author of The Ethics of Climate Change, James Garvey has written a defense article on Peter Gleick at the Guardian.  saying:

Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing.

Bishop Hill points out the Met Office Scientist that tell Garvey and the Guardian to basically go stuff it:

This comment from the Guardian thread:

Mr Garvey

I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though – I am just telling you that for context).

I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all. “Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.

Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called “climate wars”. People’s reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.

Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.

Richard Betts (Prof)

Indeed. Mr. Garvey, with AGU’s president saying “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.” please do shut up. – Anthony Watts

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fakegate and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

180 Responses to AGU President on Gleick’s “shocking fall from grace”: “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

  1. Leif: What do you think about this Gleick affarr????

  2. feet2thefire says:

    Where was all this condemnation of improper activities displayed in the Climategate emails?

  3. Jeremy says:

    …and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

    Hrumph, in spite of their recognition of how bad Gleicks actions were they still seem to think it’s a game of politics and public relations. Whence did their skepticism of their own viewpoints become so lost?

  4. Jay Davis says:

    When I got to “and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” at the end of the first paragraph, McPhaden blew it as far as I’m concerned. That statement alone shows he has absolutely no interest in any scientific debate with regards to “climate change”. To him, the science is settled.

  5. It’d be far better if they set for themselves a loftier goal, “improving the understanding of the world” rather than “providing benefit to society”. And that’d free them from public policy considerations.

  6. Hal says:

    “In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    I agree with him completely. He should be more specific : Even though he alludes to Gleick ‘s actions fueling the firestorm, he allows the CAGW believers to interpret the inverse.

    He weasels away from the argument, which is the size and direction of the feedbacks, and stays with the uncontested meme that the climate is changing.

    Another non-scientific, political scientist, trying to maintain his cushy job.

  7. Chris B says:

    “seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    Reality ? Really. When has the climate stayed the same.

    There should be a separation of science and religion.

  8. Wise words from Mr.McPhaden.

    Here’s hoping that some of his members will subject the Hockey Stick to due inquiry and publicly refute it if they find it lacking. Dissenting voices need to be as loud as those of the Cause.

  9. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    ‘fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.’

    Unproductive it is to sceptical of the settled science. This fellows scientific ethics are as bad as Gleicks. Astonishing.

  10. Alan Wilkinson says:

    “The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.”

    So how about starting with revising the AGU’s position statement on climate change?

  11. “As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards.”
    Right. Get Mann to release all that has been lawfully required of him as a first step.
    Then let’s take it from there.

  12. Markus Fitzhenry says:

    ”feet2thefire says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:17 pm
    Where was all this condemnation of improper activities displayed in the Climategate emails?”

    T^here was plenty of that from the warmist side, only it seems the Climategate emails were a proper cause for the whistleblower, whoever it was.

  13. Jenn Oates says:

    Ah, it seems like I’m not the only one who was annoyed by the climate change comment…as if AGW skeptics deny that climate changes, period. Way to frame the debate Mr. McPhaden.

  14. Here’s something worth consideration.
    Are we being blindsided by all of the CAGW malarkey whilst ignoring the bigger picture?
    http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/forget-climate-change-we-must-focus-on-the-real-issue/

  15. johnnythelowery says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:16 pm
    What do you think about this Gleick affair????
    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

  16. GeologyJim says:

    OK, taken at face value, this statement from Dr McPhaden is an affirmative step in the right direction. I applaud him for his directness, timeliness, and the clarity of his language.

    What I’d like to further read is “Therefore, AGU will immediately cease all educational/advocacy/lobbying actions, archive all website public-outreach materials, and undertake a thorough review of the scientific basis of all such materials. To insure transparency and robust debate, AGU will actively solicit input, comment, and criticism from scientific voices that have expressed reservation about past statements or summaries by AGU. The truth can only be found by frank, open debate of the facts, hypotheses, data quality, computer models, statistical tests, and attribution analyses in the context of the geological record of climate change over (at a minimum) the last 500,000 years”

    Something like that would be .. .. .. .. significant.

  17. Eric (skeptic) says:

    “betrayed the principles of scientific integrity”

    What is “scientific integrity”? He lied in an email to Heartland, that speaks to integrity, but not science. Gleick is being tossed under the bus because he is inconvenient now, the poll numbers are against him.

  18. Matthew says:

    @Markus Fitzhenry
    @feet2thefire

    So you’re saying that the equivalent situation applies to a private organization operating from donations, and a public organization subsisting on taxpayer dollars (and thus subject to FOIA) which was deliberately evading its obligations under the law?

    Just hoping you can clarify your stances.

  19. Mr Green Genes says:

    Jay Davis says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm
    ==========================
    With respect, I disagree. I think one thing most people can agree on is that the Earth’s climate IS changing – always has, always will. It seems to me that the “firestorm” relates to whether, and to what extent, it is caused by man. My personal view is that any anthropogenic effects are minor in comparison with natural variations and there is nothing catastrophic about any of it.

    If I have misinterpreted your comment, I apologise.

  20. Eric in NC says:

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. ”
    So, we are to conclude that Glieck’s motives, which were to discredit the HI
    and its supporters for expressing views not within the confines of The Cause,
    were acceptable to the AGU? A very telling statement.

  21. Pat Frank says:

    Here’s the other give-away: “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives (my bold)”

    That is, the motives were good, although the practice was wrong. What were Peter Gleick’s motives? Well, he told us. They were his, “frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved.

    Apparently Mike McPhaden agrees with Peter Gleick’s view. Somehow, all the violations of FOIA, the bullying of journal editors, the suppressing of disconfirming papers and evidence, the attacks on reputations and character assassinations levied against honest scientists persuaded by different evidence, the outright lies entered into the IPCC ARs, the outright lies in which MBH98/99 are rooted, the blatant rigging of data — all by AGW-promoting scientists, all in public view, and all in exact opposition to Peter Gleick’s rendition of the circumstance — have produced in Mike McPhaden’s breast a sympathy for the motives of Peter Gleick.

    Where’s the “intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity” in that, Mike?

  22. John Shade says:

    ‘Pompous oaf’, is my first reaction. I hope to find a more moderate stance upon a second reading, but I fear my current prior for the AGU is so dismal that the most generous interpretation I could manage for this announcement will not shift my position much.

  23. Larry says:

    “weakened the public’s trust in scientists”

    I dare say.

  24. Larry says:

    “transgression” = “getting caught with it all hanging out”

  25. Rosco says:

    As someone who was actively involved in environmental law enforcement I demand this person be dismissed from his position.

    I would certainly have been dismissed if I had obtained evidence by fraud and finding little of significance in the material proceded to manufacture some – hell I would have been jailed as a corrupt public servant as well as dismissed.

    Dismissal and disgrace is the minimu justice demands for this fraud.

  26. John A. Fleming says:

    McPhaden has pulled a Lord Dorwin. He has not actually committed the AGU to do anything now, nor has he committed the AGU to do anything after the Ethics committee issues its report. So he’s the guy in charge, and he’s powerless. His responsibility must be to keep the AGW gravy train on the track, that all these ideological debates are threatening.

    It’s not enough to not condone it, That’s wet-noodle whipping. It’s pretty clear that this boys and girls club will not take an active role in the discipline of its members.

  27. richard M says:

    “….In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s ”

    Sigh,… he couldn’t just leave it at the utter lack of integrity and deliberate malfeasance on Gleick’s part but just had to slip in a kind of backhanded defense anyway?

  28. Thomas says:

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

    So, can I read into this statement that McPhaden basically *approves* of the motives involved in the phishing attack, but finds the tactics unsavory? If Gleick had attempted to stifle debate by exposing the names of the board and big donors by actually attending the meeting and writing down their names, THEN it would have been OK?

    Why did he feel it necessary to even mention motives? So he wouldn’t hurt Gleick’s feelings?

    These are not the actions of people who have the facts on their side.

  29. Joachim Seifert says:

    Wonderful sounding WORDS of Mr. McPhaden…..but ACTION is what counts…..
    The Warmists had their chance with Gleick, has the Chair now been awarded to a
    firm, stout Skeptic?
    Its time, the skeptics gain an appropriate seat…. and why was Linda Gunderson
    selected in a huffing speed?
    Who knows, whether she represent us, the honest, upright skeptics….
    Or is she another Like of the Gleick but less visible? Somebody should
    know? Only a question….
    JS

  30. JJ says:

    When is AGU going to address its own blatantly obvious failing in this matter? Specifically that they selected a well known, virulent ideologue to chair their “task force on ethics and integrity”?

    That’s like picking the fattest cop on the force to guard the donuts.

  31. mkelly says:

    I saw nothing about Dr. G having his membership revoked. Mr. McFadden fails as a leader.

  32. Allen says:

    Yeah, it was all good until I reached THIS PART: “and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” This is code for “the AGU still believes that climate change is bad and that humans can do something about it”.

    AGU – FAIL.

  33. cui bono says:

    “..produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    Well, you lot started it.

  34. Gary Hladik says:

    Mike McPhaden’s statement illustrates with devastating clarity how an unethical fanatic became chair of AGU’s “Task Force on Scientific Ethics”, and why Gleick’s successor is unlikely to be an improvement.

  35. mrsean2k says:

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives” seems, in itself, like an unequivocal condemnation to me. He doesn’t otherwise describe or praise motive – something of a mitigation trotted out by various apologists – he says that whatever the motive was, it cannot be a balancing factor.

    I’m can’t really see any other interpretation and I applaud him for that much at least.

  36. Kasuha says:

    The only thing I don’t understand is, what took them so long. Regardless what they’re really planning, this is the only reasonable response they could have had to the issue.
    I have a feeling Gleick’s going to become very, very alone.

  37. Allen says:

    What cui bono said at 3:59pm. Eventually the public sniffs out ideology tarted up as “science”. What an ironic statement by the AGU president.

  38. sHx says:

    Gleick wasn’t just an ordinary AGU member; he was the Chair of their effing ethics and integrity panel.

    He was in a position to determine AGU’s standards for ethics and integrity.

    Had it been any other AGU member committing the wrongdoing against the Heartland, Gleick would have been in a position to whitewash the unethical conduct and protect the culprit.

    Why hasn’t Gleick been notified of an AGU disciplinary hearing anyway? Is it because the AGU officials don’t want to lose more credibility in the public opinion?

  39. mrsean2k says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:02 pm
    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives” seems, in itself, like an unequivocal condemnation to me. He doesn’t otherwise describe or praise motive – something of a mitigation trotted out by various apologists – he says that whatever the motive was, it cannot be a balancing factor.
    I’m can’t really see any other interpretation and I applaud him for that much at least.

    I’ll agree with this.

  40. Al Gored says:

    Well, I think that this – “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives” – is classic weasel wording. To make it unweasel, the “regardless of his motives” needs to be deleted because it does indeed imply that such transgression could be condoned for the right motive.

    This is Plato’s Noble Lie theme, which only applies to scenarios where the objective is unequivocally ‘good’ and this motive, built on lies, deception, and another agenda, cannot be called ‘good’ by anyone other than the climatutes who have benefited from it.

    Nice try Mike. Just cut the crap and bring back real ethics to the AGU, if that is possible in the New
    Lysenko Era.

  41. theduke says:

    Leif Svalgaard: “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

    I found that offensive. Why not just say, “His transgression must be condemned. Those who would condone it are enemies of science.” Fact is that many whose position on AGW parallels that of the AGU and Gleick are condoning his transgression and celebrating his motives.

    He calls it a “tragedy.” It wasn’t a “tragedy.” It was a crime.

    Then he wallows in self-pity talking about this being “one of his most trying times as president of AGU,” and how it represents a “rare and sad” occasion.

    Finally he says after discussing how they will react: “Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become an integral part of AGU’s culture.” Which leads to the question, “Why aren’t they already?”

    I respect you, but I think the statement is weak. The fact that Gleick didn’t show remorse or apologize to those he injured and that he continues to conceal the full story required strong, clear condemnation from McPhaden.

  42. visceralrebellion says:

    That’s gonna leave a mark.

  43. Genghis says:

    As the Chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, Peter Gleick personified the AGU’s ethics or more accurately the lack thereof.

    I have no idea how AGU can regain any semblance of being an ethical organization after this incident. Mike McPhaden’s resignation would be a good first step in the systematic house cleaning that has to occur.

  44. wws says:

    just more legal-department approved weasel words. Move along, nothing to see here.

  45. kwik says:

    “and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    Aha, another High Priest of the Church of CAGW.

  46. Garry says:

    “Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become an integral part of AGU’s culture.”

    Not a member of AGU, but if I were I’d be royally PO’d at this statement.

    Rhetorically, why does the leadership have to “ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated”? Are they not already? Doesn’t the AGU membership naturally adhere to ethical standards? Does the leadership really need to “communicate” those standards? Aren’t those already taught in high school and university science programs? Further, are ethical standards not already an “integral part of AGU’s culture”?

    Much is implied by that sentence, and it leaves one wondering what the heck is going on within the leadership of the AGU. What must they be thinking?

    Oh yeah. Peter Gleick was an AGU leader, and he was selected by the other AGU leaders. So I can think of one really, really good place to start with the assessments and the findings by the Task Force on Scientific Ethics. And it ain’t the membership.

    Prediction: more declining membership.

  47. dp says:

    McPhaden’s response is patently passive and appears to be the prequel to finally doing nothing, mimicking UEA and Penn State.

  48. Jay Davis says:

    Mr. Green Genes, when McPhaden writes “ideological firestorm”, he takes the debate out of the scientific realm and into the political realm. There is no place for “ideology” in science. When you let your ideology influence your work, especially to the extent the so-called “climate scientists” have done, then you are not doing science.

  49. David Ball says:

    “What a solid deal. He was only driven to church on sunday by the little old lady that owned him.”

  50. Doug Allen says:

    It’s time to revisit the Gleick “The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert” at Amazon and ask if it wasn’t already obvious then, that Peter Gleick was unsuitable to chair an ethics committee. For those who find the CAGW narrative plausible, wasn’t Glieck already hurting his and your cause? For those who find the CAGW narrative implausible, wasn’t Glieck just one more of those who put cause above science?

  51. JEM says:

    The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?

    He’s been visible in the climate battles sporadically and peripherally, but he’s been a very big presence in preventing water infrastructure development in California.

    Is this really the first time he’s pulled something like this?

    Has he engaged in past misbehavior that’s gone unreported, and in having gotten away with it he was emboldened to pull a scam on Heartland?

    I wonder…

  52. petermue says:

    These rare and sad occasions remind us that …

    .. it could also be only the tip of the iceberg.

  53. JJ says:

    mrsean2k says:

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives” seems, in itself, like an unequivocal condemnation to me. He doesn’t otherwise describe or praise motive – something of a mitigation trotted out by various apologists – he says that whatever the motive was, it cannot be a balancing factor.

    I’m can’t really see any other interpretation and I applaud him for that much at least.

    I can’t really applaud it, given that he put it down in Paragraph #2, while the company line statement about “…the reality of the Earth’s changing climate” is right up top.

    That apologist language shouldn’t have been in there at all. Every communication thus far by McPhaden/AGU about this incident contains a variant of it. Their absolute inability to discuss the Gleick affair without reaffirming the warmist crede demonstrates why there was a Peter Gleick problem in the first place. These people cannot divorce their science or their ethics from their politics. That is why they were comfortable putting a well known political actor like Gleick in the chair of their “ethics and integrity task force” in the first place, and why there will be absolutely no effective change in AGU practices.

    Peter Gleick as chairman of the “ethics and integrity task force” is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem.

  54. Allen63 says:

    In the county within which I live, a key County Government Official is on trial for corruption. Many other County Officials have confessed to being a part of the corruption — to get reduced sentences. Dozens more were part of the schemes and are losing their jobs.

    So many people in County Government were guilty that one concludes — nearly ALL the County and CIty Officials MUST have known about this — they must ALL be corrupt. Moreover, the News Media HAD to know about it — but, “said nothing”.

    Yet, those not caught are “throwing their former co-conspirators under the bus” — righteous indignation is everywhere. The News Media covers the trial daily with all due seriousness.

    My point? Climate Science has degenerated to the same level. If one gets caught, his/her accomplices feign indignation and “throw the former co-conspirator under the bus”. But, its all for show. The corruption continues unabated.

  55. Jeff Wiita says:

    Mr. McPhaden,

    You say, “The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions.”

    I would like to let you know that I have seen a significant drop in the public opinion based upon the global warming/climate change debate. The science community is losing intergity and trust. Please stop the hemorrhage.

  56. Doug Allen says:

    The above refers to his book review rant. How else did Glieck show himself unsuitable to chair an ethics committee before Glieck’s recent transgressions?

  57. maz2 says:

    Grauniad has MM up & leading from the rear with his AGW glossolalia.

    See comments Tuesday next for his Gleick moments.

    “Mann will be answering questions live online from 4pm GMT on Tuesday – that is 11am EST.”

    …-

    “Live Q&A: Climate scientist Michael Mann on the ‘Hockey Stick’ controversy”
    “Leading climate researcher Prof Michael Mann answers your questions on being on the front-line of the climate debate”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a

  58. jlc says:

    Dr S is entitled to his own opinions on this, or any other matter.

    This is an ethical issue and Dr S’s opinions should have no more weight than mine. (Maybe less, as I am an Engineer and, thus, an ethical being).

    FWIW, I find the behaviour of Peter Gleick to be unethical, immoral, disgraceful, unacceptable, etc.

  59. Larry says:

    Scientists and trust? Have you talked to a seed-freak lat3ely about GM foods?

  60. Myrrh says:

    Jeremy says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    …and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

    Hrumph, in spite of their recognition of how bad Gleicks actions were they still seem to think it’s a game of politics and public relations. Whence did their skepticism of their own viewpoints become so lost?

    “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/

    That’s when they officially stopped being scientists.
    ======================================================

    Mike McPhaden

    “■As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct.”

    You are not scientists. You aid and abet the scientific fraud that has been proved to be the foundation of this your religious/political belief.

    ■”The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved.”

    You have no part in that since you’re promoting a idea, not even a hypothesis, a belief without any real world science to support it.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/

    “My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.” Alec Rawls

    Like the Hockey Stick, and the rest, intentional scientific fraud.

    CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!
    by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012

    “My concern as a climatologist was that too many pieces didn’t fit or were ignored in the complex weather systems that, on average, are climate. Most troubling initially was the effective omission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas ”
    http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/

    ■”All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.”

    Geophysical? What, and you’ve never noticed that the whole of the Water Cycle has been taken out of the fictional fisics cartoon energy budget you promote?

    What sort of example is that setting to students? What will they think of your fine words when they find out just how intentionally conned they’ve been by your religious/political belief masquerading as science brainwashing them through education?

    What high standards of integrity? Or, and I suppose it might be possible, you are just completely clueless about your subject.

  61. Al Gored says:

    JEM says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm

    “The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?”

    I too have thought about this. I think it is a combination of hubris – recall, this is a certified ‘genius’ according to somebody – and history.

    The Team has got away with faking hockey sticks, data, and scary AGW fairy tales, so I suspect that he thought he could get away with this too.

    Ironically these ‘climate change experts’ don’t realize how much the political climate has changed and are in a sad state of real and desperate denial.

    And judging by this lame weaselly apology, the AGU doesn’t get it either.

  62. DesertYote says:

    Eric in NC
    February 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. ”
    So, we are to conclude that Glieck’s motives, which were to discredit the HI
    and its supporters for expressing views not within the confines of The Cause,
    were acceptable to the AGU? A very telling statement.
    ###

    Very!

    I’m glad you were able to articulate the idea so well. I had no idea how to state it myself.

  63. Larry says:

    I can’t find it now–maybe I’m looking in the wrong place…

    I thought I saw something along the lines of : They have had their chance with Glieck, now I would like to see a nice solid skeptic.

    I would like to see a nice solid scientist.

  64. pouncer says:

    I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here.

    I won’t buy his product, ( a sort of insurance against the “non-zero” risk that small warming might, but might not, have serious, but unpredictable, consequences) but I appreciate that his salesmanship doesn’t assume my stupidity, malice, or lack of interest. I’ll keep listening to what he has to say.

    There’s a few others in the market for whom I have vastly less time and regard.

  65. Mike says:

    Isn’t this just one big ad hominem distraction to the scientific debate of climate change? One scientist independently running a phishing attack to obtain board papers from an NGO is hardly evidence for a scientific argument involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists and thousands of papers and studies. Gleick did something wrong, he was punished. Ranting about it and not getting back to the science makes this website look like it is grasping at straws.

  66. DesertYote says:

    JJ
    February 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    ####

    Comments like your latest really do make this one of the best science sites.

  67. GogogoStopSTOP says:

    It is essentially UNETHICAL for McPhaden to assert that Gleick’s transgression is unfortunate because it gives fuel to the firestorm that challenges CLIMATE CHANGE. He asserts that HIS position is disadvantage by Gleick’s action. McPhaden remarks are merely selfish!

  68. hro001 says:

    27 February 2012

    It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public.

    Well, here are my questions, Mr. McPhaden ,…

    Gleick supposedly resigned his position as the Chair of the AGU’s “Ethics” committee on Feb. 16. He acknowledged at least some of his “transgressions” on February 20. Yet it appears to have taken a full week of “reflection” before you were able to add 2+2.

    What took you so long, Mr. McPhaden? Could it be that you were hoping against hope that some other crisis would overshadow Gleick’s actions – and how they are perceived by the public? Were you hoping that the cheerleading MSM coverage would sway public opinion in Gleick’s favour?

    And here’s another question, Mr. McPhaden, … considering Gleick’s known disgraceful involvement in l’affaire Wagner (circa August 2011), whatever might have prompted the AGU to even consider that he was a suitable candidate for Chair of the AGU’s “Ethics” committee – let alone appoint him to such a position?

    I believe Gleick’s appointment was announced in November 2011. Were the powers that be at the AGU oblivious to his indefensible, intellectually dishonest – and very public – “review” of a book he gave no indication of having read?

    Seems to me that “transgressions” against scientific integrity have, in fact, been condoned by the AGU for quite some time.

  69. observa says:

    ‘and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.’

    Weasel words when you were consistently warned members like Gleick were the very pre-existing ideological fuel in question.

  70. Don Horne says:

    I only got to the last of the first paragraph with his obvious support for CAGW and his rueful almost excuse for the Gleick’s perfidity.

    IOW, can’t change the leopards spots, doncha know!

  71. Jay Curtis says:

    @Jay Davis
    February 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    >>When I got to “and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” at the end of the first paragraph, McPhaden blew it as far as I’m concerned. That statement alone shows he has absolutely no interest in any scientific debate with regards to “climate change”. To him, the science is settled.

    Ditto.

    These people have lost all awareness of what science is. How did this guy get to be president of the AGU? Oh yeah. He got there by being a politician. The search for truth be damned. The membership needs to recall him.

  72. TheGoodLocust says:

    They really need to get rid of this president.

    In any case, I was motivated to look at their bylaws and apparently everyone that gets “elected” is first nominated by a small group of people – including the last president.

    The only way past this is to get 1% of the AGU membership to sign a petition for someone else to be on the ballot.

    Essentially, this union seems to be setup to give funding, prestige and power to a select group of people who get to choose their own friends as successors. They can then use their position to support any position that fancies them.

    AGU membership should either leave en masse, demand democratic reforms to their system, or get a petition going to get some real leadership in there instead of sycophantic politburos.

  73. Integrity???? says:

    “These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.”

    If these occasions are so rare, why the need for the establishment of ethics committees?

    Isn’t the establishment of such committees a defacto admission of the wide spread politicization and corruption of science?

  74. DesertYote says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    ###

    You really are a funny boy.

  75. otsar, says:

    I was a member of AGU for over 25 years. In 2004 I dumped them and ACS. Both have become lobbying organizations for global warming, and are run by politicians. Both of these outfits need to lose a significant number of their membership if they have not done so already.

  76. jack morrow says:

    Warmists and Nothing
    They say we are facing runaway temperatures They say we the oceans are rising because the poles and the glaciers and the tundra are melting and swarms of mosquito’s are coming.They claim the science is settled and back it up with false science and now false documents. Non of these things are happening . What can they do about it? NOTHING.

  77. Steve from Rockwood says:

    Ignoring the obvious AGW bias, this was a serious slap in the head. McPhaden is holding out no olive branches. Gleick is firmly under the bus. Marks were left. The going forward statement is “come on guys, don’t do this again or we’ll shoot you too”. If I worked for this guy and did what Gleick did, I certainly wouldn’t feel welcome near the departmental wine cabinet.

  78. observa says:

    ‘If these occasions are so rare, why the need for the establishment of ethics committees?’

    Well you know how it is with the pal-reviewers… dots…connect.

  79. eyesonu says:

    With regards to Mike McPhaden President, AGU

    Your attempt at damage control shows the true colors of the AGU leadership and causes more damage to AGU. Is there a venue for the rank and file members to toss you and the rest of your embedded structure into the street and perhaps salvage at least a little credibility of the AGU. Your statement along with the very fact that Gleick was appointed for any position clearly shows the group think in AGU’s leaders. Has there ever been a survey of what the rank and file members really support? Could a hijacking of AGU be cause for support of ‘the cause’?

  80. Sad, all that time to learn, and he knows only to repeat what he has been told.

    Very, very sad indeed.

  81. w.w.wygart says:

    “James Garvey has written a defense article on Peter Gleick at the Guardian. saying:

    Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing.”

    Mr. Garvey’s self-serving, consequentialist “ends justifies the means” rationalization of Gleicks actions rests not only upon his own subjective assumptions regarding the the absolute correctness of the veracity theory of CAGW and the malevolent intents of the Heartland Institute, but also seems to rest directly upon the lies told in the faked memorandum as truth of the Heartland Institutes supposed malfeasance – a very circular rationalization indeed.

    It is one thing, and a very risky thing at that, to base a consequentialist rationale upon an untempered reliance on your own infallibility and the infallibility of your cause, it is another to rest it upon a lie told by your own partisan as well. Lying for the sake of truth never produces truth. Ultimately the moral and intellectual failure of this argument boils down to, ‘We’re right, its already beyond dispute and anyone who disagrees with us must be silenced or suppressed by any means and all means’. The costs of this rational to our democracy and civil society cannot be borne.

    W^3

  82. Ian W says:

    Climate ‘scientists’ are to ethics as elephants are to hang-gliding.

  83. Eric (skeptic) says:

    theduke asks: Why not just say, “His transgression must be condemned. Those who would condone it are enemies of science.”

    Because his transgression didn’t have much (anything) to do with science. He simply lied to Heartland in several emails to obtain documents for political purposes. It has nothing to do with being an “enemy” of science.

  84. Steve from Rockwood says:

    otsar, says:
    February 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    I was a member of AGU for over 25 years. In 2004 I dumped them and ACS. Both have become lobbying organizations for global warming, and are run by politicians. Both of these outfits need to lose a significant number of their membership if they have not done so already.

    otsar, I used to be a member of the SEG (geophysicist not geologist). I even co-authored a paper in Geophysics (1999). In 2003 I submitted an expanded abstract to the annual SEG meeting. I received my submission number, print screened and waited. Six weeks later my name was not in the accepted abstracts (for the first time in 7 years). I called and apparently I was the first person to have ever been rejected by a server malfunction. The server accepted my submission but the paper was never forwarded to any reviewers. Coincidentally the person in charge of accepting submissions was working with my main competitor (I ran a commercial survey business at the time).

    I understood that this “glitch” I had fallen victim to was a random, one-off problem that could not have been predicted. I was offered a poster paper position, which I respectfully declined.

    That year I quit every professional association I had joined (4 or 5). Screw them if they think I’m that stupid. Has it hurt my career? No. I don’t waste time on such things anymore.

    Ahhh, that felt better…

  85. SSam says:

    “We must remain committed to scientific integrity”

    It seems a previous AGU representative making this sort of statement turned out to be a self serving lying [expletive deleted].

    Why should we trust that this one is any different?

    Note: The deleted expletive was done by [me], not the moderator.

  86. Carl Brannen says:

    How about a standard of ethics for scientists which consists of “try to stay out of jail”. That might be a lot easier to measure.

  87. observa says:

    “Is there a venue for the rank and file members to toss you and the rest of your embedded structure into the street and perhaps salvage at least a little credibility of the AGU.”

    I was about to suggest disgusted members of the current AGU resign en masse and hive off into a new body more aptly titled The Traditional Science AGU but on second thoughts, perhaps not re the nomenclature. How does the Ancient Order Of American Geophysicists sound?

  88. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Mike (“One scientist independently running a phishing attack to obtain board papers from an NGO is hardly evidence for a scientific argument involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists and thousands of papers and studies.”)

    You are basically correct although the rest of what you said is not (e.g. Gleick has not been punished yet). The argument about the science ought to be separated from Gleicks actions here. Other than Gleick and whoever he harmed, the rest of us ought to stay out of it.

  89. theduke says:

    JJ at 4:32: Their absolute inability to discuss the Gleick affair without reaffirming the warmist crede demonstrates why there was a Peter Gleick problem in the first place.

    Exactly. The propaganda never ceases.

  90. eyesonu says:

    A couple of thoughts quoted from Richard Betts’ comment:

    “I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically.”

    “We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets.”

    “A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all.”

    ““Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.”

    Mr. Betts, please read the above quotes from your comment. Sir, your profession has acted unethically. “Fighting dirty” has been a tactic used by your profession from the start. You seem to be trying to overlook the revelations of Climategate I and II, IPCC, Mann, Jones, etc. as well as a multitude of other ‘lapses’ by / within your profession. There is very little ethics or truth within your peer group. You appear to detest someone openly rationalizing your profession’s very tactics. Can you not see the view from a perspective other than your own?

    As far as Mr. Garvey goes, he has a textbook liberal view of things that others like myself would refer to him as a ‘fruitcake’ in a private conversation. Mr. Betts, your profession treats his views as if were a religious text of some sort. It must be very disturbing to have someone openly reveal the secret code of the global warming empire. Blasphemy you say. I say get out of that cult while you can or get the cult out of your profession.

  91. Alexander K says:

    An organisation that can overlook the very obvious hubris and lack of ethics displayed in Gleick’s scurrilous rant disguised as a review about a book he had patently not read and his attack on a British climate scientist when Gleick disapproved of her new blog’s title, ‘All Models Are Wrong (but some are useful) when appointing Gleick to the lead role of their professional ethics committee suggests a high level of moral and ethical blindness in the structure of the AGU, top to bottom.
    Their President’s apologia displays that lack of morality and ethics, plus the AGU’s hewing to the alarmist line and displays the president as nothing more than a pompous ass.

  92. Jeremy says:

    “It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public.”

    Huh?

    Peter admits to wire fraud. He appears to have lied in a forged memo? He writes nasty reviews in Amazon.com about books he clearly has not read. He blogs that “we desperately need debate” and then privately declines same.

    And the AGU has to stop and reflect????

    With no statements to the contrary, one can only assume that Peter Gleick is still a member of the AGU, presumably in good standing with his 2012 membership dues fully paid?

    With this kind of weak statement from the leadership at AGU, one can only assume that if Peter Gleick had NOT been caught then there were no negative consequences???

    What about Heartland? What about Heartland donors? Not even ONE WORD mentioned by the AGU President of the WRONG perpetrated against them by a high-profile AGU member? (The ENTIRE AGU statement is ONLY about the tragic consequences for the AGU and the “cause”!)

    WOW WOW WOW Flabbergasted!

  93. Joachim Seifert says:

    to Mike:
    The difference is this Gleick rose too high even into institutions where ethics
    is playing a role…..and there are still plenty of the likes of the Gleicks in the AGW
    crowd, which some persons still label as honest scientists….
    Therefore, this post is important to show with whom we are dealing…..

  94. RobW says:

    “ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” By reality does the esteem president mean over a decade of no warming of the atmosphere, a cooling of the troposphere, the cooling of the oceans, the stabliity of the global ice sheets, ALL while CO2 rose 5%.

    Please esteem president, How in the world can you support AGW when the entire globe is showing you the theory is wrong. And you wonder why the public is losing respect for science. LOOK IN THE MIRROR!

    Here’s a hint from one scientist to another, check the +/-sign on the feedback variable.

  95. pat says:

    Mr. McPhaden -
    it’s time for scientists concerned about scientific integrity to demand the UN (and other official institutions/agencies/MSM etc) abandon all attempts to co-opt the generic “climate change” to mean “anthropogenic global warming”:

    UNFCCC: FULL TEXT OF THE CONVENTION
    2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
    http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php

    how utterly absurd that we should be told to think climate was “variable” before it “changed”!

    you say:

    “Public trust is essential because it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.”

    which i think is what concerns you most.

    funny how both these CVs have been updated 27 Feb 2012!

    Last updated: February 27, 2012
    The TAO Project – Michael James McPhaden
    ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE
    Click here for complete CV – (PAT – LINK POSTED BELOW)
    NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/mmcv.html

    (COMPLETE) CURRICULUM VITAE February 27, 2012
    Michael James McPhaden
    NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
    http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/cvmmlong.pdf

  96. evanmjones says:

    “betrayed the principles of scientific integrity”

    What is “scientific integrity”? He lied in an email to Heartland, that speaks to integrity, but not science. Gleick is being tossed under the bus because he is inconvenient now, the poll numbers are against him.

    *Squish*

  97. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm
    “Gleick did something wrong, he was punished. Ranting about it and not getting back to the science makes this website look like it is grasping at straws.”

    Gleick wasn’t punished by now. The lawsuits haven’t begun.

  98. Mike says:

    Joachim:
    It doesn’t matter who you are dealing with. He could be the most unethical jerk around, but if he is a competent scientist with sound evidence then he should be listened to. The problem arises if he fakes (or is wrong about) the science, and if he has, it is this that should be attacked and pointed out. In this case, the science isn’t even involved.

    Obtaining board papers is a reason to dislike the guy, it does not strengthen or weaken a position on climate change in anyway, it merely impacts popularity. No matter how much fun it is to turn it into one, the science of climate change is not a political debate or popularity contest.

    As I mentioned before, if this website wants to maintain a semblence of scientific integrity it needs to avoid ranting on unscientific issues.

    Eric:
    Define punishment. The guys career will probably never be taken seriously again…

  99. RobW says:

    “More than ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full range of scientific activities our members engage in.”

    Here are a few hints of where to start.

    1) ALL data from every publication is made available to any scientist who requests it.

    2) ALL computer programs/models that claim anything in any publication are available to any scientist who requests it.

    3) There is never any excuse to block opposing views (forcing change of editors, boycotting journals etc)

    4) Extend reasonable effort to engage in civil debate with critics of any scientific position.

    5) Explain in very clear language why historic data has been changed and admit every single case where this has occurred.

    6) Admit there is no such thing as “settled science” and “static climate”.

    The continuation of the present assault on science by far too many in climate science can not continue.

    It is far past the time where: ‘Why would I show you my data when all you want to do is find fault in it’ is called science.

    Sir you are a president of (once esteemed) scientific organization, act that way!

  100. Alberta Slim says:

    Myrrh says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm
    “your comment about M McPhaden……..”

    I wish that you would send those comments [and any expansions]
    by way of a letter to him personally, and see if he will reply.
    Then give all of us a report here on WUWT.

  101. Mooloo says:

    Thomas says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:50 pm
    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

    So, can I read into this statement that McPhaden basically *approves* of the motives involved in the phishing attack, but finds the tactics unsavory?

    No, you can’t. “Regardless of motives” is just that, regardless. They are to be disregarded totally.

    A person being weaselly would say “despite his motives” or “ignoring his motives for the moment or similar, which implies that they might be good.

    We can be sceptical without being cynical. If someone writes a clean piece of prose then it should be assume to say what it says, not what you want it to say or think that he meant to say. He is clear that it was a disgraceful action, and nothing in his writing suggests it was morally, politically or socially acceptable.

  102. Scott says:

    What is truly amazing is that the AGU employed the idiot in the first place.

  103. benfrommo says:

    Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers.

    I think we are missing the big picture here. Its not that AGU and others are really wrong, I mean the measurements and the facts bear that as witness. And yes, we could probably argue that point all day long and the ethical problems of the scientists here as well, but the fact remains that even if we assume that humans are causing the climate change we have witnessed since 1950, the AGU and others have failed TERRIBLY to solve this problem.

    These organizations and activists have had over 20 years to solve the issue of AGW and have failed miserably when all along policy makers have had a solution to carbon emissions within reach. Nuclear power adopted in a similar fashion as seen in France could have cut emissions by 50% or more with the amount we spend on subsidies (200 Billion a year globally and climbing) and that is just a start. That money could also have gone into other messes such as high-speed rail, rail infrastructure, and of course electrical vehicles, so in essence the wasting of money on wind turbines, solar turbines and similar has basically shown that organizations such as AGU are not only failures, but ineffective at solving problems.

    This is larger then just whether they are wrong or right. This is whether they can be trusted with any decisions at all. If they can not even solve such a simple solution that I can spell out here in 5 minutes, then they are not good scientists but political hacks who do not deserve the title of scientists but rather deserve the title activists and who deserve the title failures.

    Why in the world should we trust them to advice our policy makers or teach our children their facts when they can not even solve such a simple problem as carbon emissions when the problem has been easilly solveable since AGW was invented/known about?

    That is the cardinal question then and it still is today. These organizations that adopt positions that we must do something to stop AGW miss the entire picture that we could have done something yesterday and we could do something today without money and without central control. None of those are required to solve this issue and it never was required all along. The fact that the problem still exists is central to this issue today.

  104. G. Karst says:

    A Master is responsible for his Servant. GK

  105. DirkH says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    “As I mentioned before, if this website wants to maintain a semblence of scientific integrity it needs to avoid ranting on unscientific issues.”

    The debate is over?

  106. Streetcred says:

    Genghis says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:14 pm
    As the Chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics, Peter Gleick personified the AGU’s ethics or more accurately the lack thereof.

    I have no idea how AGU can regain any semblance of being an ethical organization after this incident. Mike McPhaden’s resignation would be a good first step in the systematic house cleaning that has to occur.
    ================================

    My sentiments exactly … some severe scrubbing is required. Gleick clearly represents what the management of the AGU consider to be the ‘right stuff’. I fail to understand why its membership tolerates such a poor level of conduct and administration.

    As an aside, my professional institute (with a Royal Charter) publishes a summary of every disciplinary hearing that it conducts complete with the offenders name and the disciplinary committee decision … and they are not shy to boot members out.

  107. Jeff Alberts says:

    “…and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    What an empty statement.

    As others have pointed out, of course regional climates are changing. They always have and always will.

    We all know what he meant to say, but with zero evidence that today’s climate is somehow worse than the past, he’s simply making a political statement about a scientific subject, without supporting facts.

    Hey Mr AGU Dude, howzabout you guys stick to science, and not take political stances on scientific issues.

  108. jfk says:

    “shocking fall from grace”
    “He compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists”

    That seems about the right tone to me, so good for the AGU president. I hope to hear no more from this Gleick buffoon. I believe that 90+% of all climate scientists are honest and relatively sane and I hope they will not hesitate to distance themselves from this criminal.

    I found this whole episode funny at first but when I put myself in the shoes of someone like Prof Betts above it seems more tragic.

    Does it strike anyone as funny that Gleick was exposed in matter of days, but FOIA’s identity remains unknown? There are some clues in the text he wrote as well, and it seems like only a few people would have sufficient access to do what FOIA did.

  109. DirkH says:

    jfk says:
    February 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    “That seems about the right tone to me, so good for the AGU president. I hope to hear no more from this Gleick buffoon. I believe that 90+% of all climate scientists are honest and relatively sane and I hope they will not hesitate to distance themselves from this criminal.”

    Gleick acted in the consensus spirit: For years, they have concentrated on stamping out dissent. Gleick tried the exact same thing – only that his choice of means was unfortunate.

    Gleick is not an outsider for this movement even though they now deem it necessary to ostracize him. This is not honest; and they will continue to extinguish critiques with any means they deem appropriate.

    The hundreds of millions of USD that the Hewlett foundation gives to climate action networks are used to propagandize the goals of the CO2AGW movement, yet they complain bitterly about the 4 mill budget of Heartland. Their goal is clear: ALL funding for them and NO funding for their critiques.

    They don’t want a debate, they don’t want to be criticized, they don’t want ANY criticism, not one word of it, and the AGU boss complains not about Gleick’s motives but about the fact that Gleick’s lone wolf action backfired.

    He’s kicked out because he failed.

  110. wermet says:

    Mike says: February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    … Gleick did something wrong, he was punished. Ranting about it and not getting back to the science makes this website look like it is grasping at straws.

    Peter Gleick has not been punished yet! He has not had a criminal trial yet. In fact, he has not even been arrested. He has not even been served with a civil law suit (as far as we know).

    The only thing that has happened to Gleick is that he has suffered the figurative equivalent of shooting himself in the foot (or head) and had to go to the trama center. Yes, the visit has cost him time, effort and loss of prestige, but this is not punishment! He did it to himself and now he has to live with the consequences! When Glieck is imprisoned and/or forced to pay restitution to Heartland and others, then and only then will I consider that he has been punished!!!

    PS. I was originally going to use the word “respect” instead of “prestige” above, but then I remembered that I did not have respect for him before Fakegate.

  111. Mr Lynn says:

    Once an organization supposedly devoted to objective science has been politicized by agenda-driven ideologues, short of a major coup overthrowing the leadership, there is little hope of reform.

    The best strategy is for dissidents to start a new, competing organization, dedicated anew to the principles which the old one has forsaken. If I were a member of the AGU, that’s what I would do. Find a group of like-minded colleagues, renounce our membership, and start an NAGU.

    Try it, and I bet you’ll find increasing numbers of scientists joining you.

    /Mr Lynn

  112. Allan MacRae says:

    I believe that the AGU and its Transactions journal EOS have much to answer for.

    I published the following article in E&E in early 2005. Full article at
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/

    I am unaware that the AGU has ever “come clean” on its past transgressions, some of which are outlined below. Please correct me if I missed suitable corrective action by the AGU or EOS.

    My comment to the AGU President is:

    The AGU should publicly acknowledge and apologize for its ethical transgressions, such as those described in my aforementioned 2005 E&E article.

    Once the AGU has cleaned up its own house, then it may be qualified to comment further on the contentious issue of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming.

    Until it makes suitable amends, I regard the AGU as ethically contaminated, and unfit for human consumption.

    Regards, Allan

    Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
    The global warming debate heats up
    Allan M.R. MacRae

    [Excerpt]

    But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

    Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.
    Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2.

    Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

    Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.

    Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.

    In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.
    In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.

    ………………………….

  113. DirkH says:

    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

    It would have been honest to explicitly state that Gleick’s motives – to stamp out the opposition – were wrong. By disregarding them, the AGU boss can avoid examining his own motives (for hiring Keith Mooney, for instance).

  114. DirkH says:

    jfk says:
    February 27, 2012 at 8:02 pm
    “Does it strike anyone as funny that Gleick was exposed in matter of days, but FOIA’s identity remains unknown? There are some clues in the text he wrote as well, and it seems like only a few people would have sufficient access to do what FOIA did.”

    Different level of abilities and preparation. FOIA carefully assembled his manifesto from sentences found on the internet, thwarting any attempt at idiosyncratic analysis.

  115. eyesonu says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 7:06 pm

    Partial quote from your comment:

    “It doesn’t matter who you are dealing with. He could be the most unethical jerk around, but if he is a competent scientist with sound evidence then he should be listened to.”

    “Define punishment. The guys career will probably never be taken seriously again…”

    ====================

    Gleick is most assuredly without ethics or credibility. He is not the only ‘scientist’ around so no need to listen to and try to interpret anything he has to say as to whether there may be some truth to it.

    As far as your judgement of punishment, your and others defense of Gleick would seem to suggest he is a hero / martyr and can do no wrong. Perhaps you and your peers have issues with reality.

  116. Policy Guy says:

    Caught in a sea of lies.

  117. Michael Larkin says:

    Hmm. What did anyone expect McPhaden to do? Roll over and admit that CAGW is a bunch of hysterical nonsense? Like it or not, he believes it isn’t. Just as strongly as I believe it is. Had the shoe been on the other foot, and a climate sceptic been caught with his pants down, someone on my side would have been condemning him whilst still maintaining that it was all nonsense.

    IOW, bearing in mind his beliefs, McPhaden has gone as far as I would have expected. What I will say, however, is that this is the last in a long line of incidents in which alarmists have been caught with their pants down, but one of the few where that has been admitted, and I celebrate that because it will erode the alarmist position. As McPhaden himself said:

    “During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists…”

    Ponder the gravity of what is being said. It is being acknowledged that credibility has been compromised, and that the public’s trust in scientists has been weakened. This is a remarkable admission. Celebrate it with me, because it’s one small step towards the recovery of scientific integrity. Still a long way to go, but Rome wasn’t built in a day.

  118. novareason says:

    “That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions.”

    According to whom? I can’t find “Scientists” listed among the top trusted professions. Google searching shows them only in the Australian data, and they’re still only 15th. And I’m sure Public Policy Scientists would be less trustworthy.

  119. Thomas says:

    Mooloo et all:
    I really hope you are right, but I’m DirkH on this. I can’t help thinking that the only reason you bring motive into it is when are looking for (or sympahetic to) mitigating factors.

    His lamenting of the “ideological firestorm” doesn’t make me think that he really gets it..(stifling debate is bad, whether by trying to deprive others of funding by exposing their donors, or by keeping them out of journals by rigging the peer review process). I hope he does, but I’m not certain we can establish that fact soley based on this press release.

  120. EJ says:

    Stop it! with all due respect

    I have to wonder why the AGU needs a high highfalutin committee on ethics. Most scientists, if they have to practice outside their sphere, have to provide critics with their data and methods for reproducibility. If it isn’t reproducible, the hypothesis fails. The data is what it is. What ethical questions are raised here? Science ethics are easy.

    It isn’t until the Union (you scientists) get into politics and the feeding of the public trough that ethics need to be studied. Does it matter if I am a whore, a priest, a drunk, a-political, a specialist, unethical, an expert or Ranger Rick if my hypothesis is verified by reproducible observations by others? No, it doesn’t matter. All I have to do is provide my data and methods. End of story. This is the scientific method. It’s been around for hundreds of years. It’s worked really well.

    Stop it!

    The AGU should never become an advocacy society. The Union (you scientists) seem to be morphing into a political party, abandoning the noble pursuit of science. The AGU (you scientists) should quit wasting money on this nonsense. Aren’t there better, more scientific pursuits that the Union (you scientists) could support?

    Do you really need to spend tens of thousands of dollars studying and arguing about ethics? Are scientists suddenly that unethical that we need more laws to force ethical behavior?

    Really?

    I don’t think so.

  121. DirkH says:

    DirkH says:
    February 27, 2012 at 9:14 pm
    “(for hiring Keith Mooney, for instance).

    Oh. It’s Chris Mooney, not Keith Mooney. Apologies. Author of
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science
    and its sequel
    http://www.unscientificamerica.com/

    He seems to have found his market niche. Ironic that someone who thinks one theory is scientific and a countertheory is unscientific considers himself a defendant of science. His own lack of understanding enables him to shift units to people who share this deficit.

    An INTERESTING marketing scheme.

  122. rk says:

    The guy is a bureaucrat, and this is how bureaucrats talk. Muddle the mind, gloss over the truth, etc. Use more words than fewer words.

    He’s pretty much a lifer in the AGW movement…he was even on some project looking at the rapid changes in the oceans (you know like the conveyer belt)…so he’s spent his life writing, and getting grants and generally getting paid for AGW,…and he’s been very successful at it. He is a very prestigious man….and, must, be the voice of the community.

    So this is not the place to get simple truths (What he did was wrong.)…that’s too simple.

  123. Allan MacRae says:

    Wow – two statements in recent days saying the Alberta oilsands just aren’t that bad – this one released by AGU and the other by UVic climate modeler Andrew Weaver.

    Are the global warming alarmists running for the exits? Is the lucrative global warming scam getting just too hot to handle?

    Please note there has been no global warming for about a decade – some say for as much as 15 years.

    People might begin to notice… … “Thay honey, the car won’t thtart again thith morning, and my tongue is thtuck to the darned aluminum door again too – I don’t think it’s getting warmer anymore!”

    Keep it up, you warming dervishes, these road-to-Damascus conversions might purge your troubled souls. God may forgive your transgressions, although some of us mere mortals may doubt your sincerity.

    But maybe, if you are truly honest, one day we’ll have a real debate about the science of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming.

    ____________

    http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2012/2012-12.shtml

    Oil sands pollution comparable to a large power plant
    February 22, 2012
    AGU Release No. 12-12
    For Immediate Release

    WASHINGTON — It takes a lot of energy to extract heavy, viscous and valuable bitumen from Canada’s oil sands and refine it into gasoline and oil. Companies mine some of the sands with multi-story excavators, separate out the bitumen, and process it further to ease the flow of the crude oil down pipelines. About 1.8 million barrels of oil per day in 2010 were produced from the bitumen of the Canadian oil sands – and the production of those fossil fuels requires the burning of fossil fuels.

    In the first look at the overall effect of air pollution from the excavation of oil sands, also called tar sands, in Alberta, Canada, scientists used satellites to measure nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide emitted from the industry. In an area 30 kilometers (19 miles) by 50 kilometers (31 miles) around the mines, they found elevated levels of these pollutants.

    “For both gasses, the levels are comparable to what satellites see over a large power plant – or for nitrogen dioxide, comparable to what they see over some medium-sized cities,” said Chris McLinden, a research scientist with Environment Canada, the country’s environmental agency. “It stands out above what’s around it, out in the wilderness, but one thing we wanted to try to do was put it in context.”

    The independent report on the levels of these airborne pollutants, which can lead to acid rain if they are in high enough concentrations, is a part of Environment Canada’s efforts to monitor the environmental impact of the oil sands’ surface mines, McLinden said. While some land-based measurements have been taken at particular points by other researchers, and a NASA airplane made another set of localized measurements, no one had calculated the overall extent of the oil sands’ air quality impacts including the giant dump trucks, huge refining facilities where the bitumen is processed, and more.

    To do that, McLinden and his colleagues turned to satellite data. Several satellites orbiting Earth detect sunlight that passes through the atmosphere and is reflected back up to the space. Based on the patterns of reflected wavelengths, scientists can calculate the concentration of certain gasses – in particular nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. It’s a relatively new way to study pollution over small areas, he said.

    The study is published today in Geophysical Research Letters, a publication of the American Geophysical Union.

    The scientists found that sulfur dioxide amounts peaked over two of the largest mining operations in the Alberta oil sands, with a peak of 1.2×1016 molecules per square centimeter. Nitrogen dioxide concentrations reached about 2.5×1015 molecules per square centimeter. When researchers looked at the concentrations over the years using older satellite information, they found that the amount of nitrogen dioxide increased about 10 percent each year between 2005 and 2010, keeping pace with the growth of the oil sands industry.

    “You’d certainly want to keep monitoring that source if it’s increasing at that rate,” McLinden said. “There are new mines being put in, they’re pulling out more oil.”

    It’s important to examine the overall impact of the excavation and processing from the oil sands, said Isobel Simpson, an atmospheric chemist with the University of California at Irvine. She was not involved in this study, but previously participated in the airplane-based research of air quality over the oil sands.

    “There are so few independent studies of oil sands,” Simpson said. The new study is something scientists haven’t been able to do before—to “see the big picture and the birds-eye view of the impact of emissions from the oil sands industry,” she said. She called for broader, future studies that would measure additional pollutants and map their extents. With the oil sands industry expanding, she said, the area needs more monitoring.

  124. Rogelio says:

    Until AGU and APS withdraw their statements on the AGW they will never gain credibility, period.

  125. janama says:

    Only in Australia – Lewandowsky tries to justify Gleick’s actions. (sigh)

    http://theconversation.edu.au/the-morality-of-unmasking-heartland-5494

  126. Brian H says:

    Bah. “regardless of his motives” essentially and inevitably condones said motives. Which were to advance the Cause, and discredit a source of credible critiques. These loons just can’t resist slipping a covert claim to moral superiority into their pronouncements.

  127. Scottish Sceptic says:

    The only people I will believe on climate science are the ones who say: “I don’t know” …. all the rest are charlatans, liars or fraudsters.

    I am sick and tired of watching idiot after idiot stand up in public and make an absolute fool of themselves by claiming total certainty where it clearly does not exist. For a member of the public to say it, is just daft. For a member of a scientific institution to do it is criminal.

  128. Scottish Sceptic says:

    EJ says: February 27, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    I have to wonder why the AGU needs a high highfalutin committee on ethics.

    It is because the ethics of science is scepticism … and because they want to be alarmists they need to change the ethics of science to allow them to say what they want to say.

    In other words, they want to change science so it isn’t so categorical about only stating what is known for certain … and they want to add some bits in like …. unless its for the greater good off all mankind (i.e. gets another grant)

  129. Shona says:

    How can we trust these guys’ data? How do we know when they stop/start lying? Can they work out some kind of signal, “heads up, from here on in, it’s all true”. What point is that? Does it exist?

    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the data turned out to be totally cooked.

  130. John Shade says:

    I went back for a second reading, and to my first reaction (3:45 pm) of ‘pompous’, I would now add ‘cold and callous’. Could he not have found it in his heart to have just a little compassion for one of his own, a loyal agitator for climate alarm just like the AGU itself, albeit one driven to criminal distraction by his vivid fears for the world? I thought Gleick himself displayed an alienation from ordinary, everyday trust and generosity to others in his exchange of emails re his invitation to speak at that Heartland event. A similar lack of ordinary humanity is here in this vainglorious pronouncement from on high at the AGU. These people clearly have an extremely high opinion of themselves. I just wish I could share it, but instead I fnd them somewhat detached from reality as I see it, not only in science but also in their apparent lack of empathy. A bit too far up themselves for them to be able to relate to others very well.

  131. Quick thought before reading in depth

    Could someone here draft a letter to send to McPhaden that can have the backing of the whole readership here, I mean with the fire of Willis but with the considered reflection and courtesy level of Steve McIntyre?

    With all those fantastic, wonderful, heartwarming bloggie stars of excellence we now have, it really behoves orthodox Science to take note of the sceptics’ blogs. Many of us came here years ago, years before Gleick made himself into a blazing icon of everything currently amiss with Science. When Monbiot actually reads CiF and Grauniad actually allow dissenters to post, and check their facts first, and…. there is a long list of reparations to make.

    McPhaden, you need to see how Gleick is an icon of something in yourself, and in current Climate Science altogether, and you need to show us you understand this, before we can believe you. You need to open the dialogue again.

  132. Stephen Richards says:

    “The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?”

    Don’t hold your breath. It looks like he just might.

  133. Mindert Eiting says:

    I do not believe a word of what he said. In the good old days we did not have Task Forces on Scientific Ethics. This is ludicrous, a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the AGU. Gleick should not be fired from the Task Force because he precisely did what its objective is. If someone tells you without invitation how ethical he is, you have all reasons to suspect he is not.

  134. mac says:

    Will the AGU learn anything from this episode?

    I don’t think so!

    Even Mike McPhaden is prone to ‘Gleickisms’ when he stated in an official AGU repsonse to an op-ed entitled “No Need to Panic about Global Warming,” published by The Wall Street Journal, that, “(1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.”

    “97 percent of the climate science community”, eh?

    It highlights that in order to lie to others you first have to lie to yourself.

    http://www.agu.org/news/features/2012-2-3_AGU-responds.shtml

  135. Stephen Richards says:

    pouncer says:

    February 27, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here

    Have you asked yourself why RBetts suddenly appeared on the blogs? I have and i don’t have an answer. His stance is quite interesting but he walks a line very close to his master’s, not that I blame him forn that.
    He still promotes the precautionary principle although behind some much distorted language and he still promotes CO² global warming which will likely become dangerous. Don’t kno when, how or where but it will and he is still totally convinced that computers can forecast the future.
    So err yes, please to see him blog here but don’t go the the top with a shrine or anything like that.

    For me, a formerly chartered physicist, he is a fair distance from being a true scientist.

  136. Eric (skeptic) says:

    Mike, his career may be in doubt, but the punishment should match the harm or deterrence value. Someone with a lot more knowledge of the facts will have to decide that, most likely in the civil courts.

  137. Joanna says:

    The AGU seems to be in good hands with a Gleikendoppelganger. McPhaden’s letter further damages my view of the AGU…to elect Gleik once is human; twice looks like carelessness. Kudos to Prof. Betts though…good to hear from an honorable scientist on that side of the debate.

  138. Myrrh says:

    Allan MacRae says:
    February 27, 2012 at 10:45 pm
    Wow – two statements in recent days saying the Alberta oilsands just aren’t that bad – this one released by AGU and the other by UVic climate modeler Andrew Weaver.

    Are the global warming alarmists running for the exits? Is the lucrative global warming scam getting just too hot to handle?

    Not at all. The ‘big oil’ were prime originators of the green antipathy for big oil, the bigger picture was big oil’s and nuclear’s antipathy to the cheaper coal and so efforts put in place to take out this competitor. To this end they galvanised the greens to be ‘anti-fossil fuels’ which is where the demonising of CO2 came in, they set up the IPCC and CRU to fiddle with temperature records (see Margaret Thatcher involvement), their own huge resources and military/industrial/government strength making them more or less bullet proof from any flak that might come their way from the greenies so encouraged.

    Recently however, fracking has become economically viable, so the oil and gas industries have begun to separate themselves out from the meme “fossil fuels evil” and leave the target coal alone evil, because they’d organised the green useful idiots so effectively they’re now a pest in this new venture.

  139. Pete H says:

    All this simply because certain “Scientists” will not hand over real data and methods! We live in sad scientific times!

  140. Jimbo says:

    ……and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.

    My emphasis added. Why do they state the obvious? I want them to give me 3 examples of skeptical climate scientists who deny that climate changes.

    Now let’s look back at Hansen’s 1988 temperature projections and compare them to the last 10 years. Now let’s look back at the alleged feedback mechanism, the scary hotspot not, Himalayas 10 years no change, Kilimanjaro land use area, etc. What a scam!!! Follow the money >>>>>

  141. PaddikJ says:

    “. . . the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    Do tell.

    Aside from that, I think it was a pretty hard-hitting statement, considering that as the head of a major professional society he has to be politic in his every utterance. Cut the guy a little slack.

  142. Ken Hall says:

    It would be nice if Mike McPhaden, and the ethics in science bodies actually applied this rigour to the Hockey Team, who through their own admissions, in their own emails to each other, have engaged in less morally and ethically questionable practices alongside failing to adhere to the scientific method by hiding data, skewing data, misrepresenting data and sticking doggedly to dogma, instead of science. Their attitude to closing down journals which had the temerity to publish scientific papers which they disagreed with, getting editors fired, etc etc…. None of these things lend credibility to their side of the debate.

    Now woth Gleick’s criminal activity, it makes their side even less credible.

  143. johanna says:

    “The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.”
    ———————————————————————
    Since when was the goal of science to provide benefit to society? How does astronomy, or paeleontology, provide benefit to society? He doesn’t even understand what science is.

    Gary Hladik says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm

    Mike McPhaden’s statement illustrates with devastating clarity how an unethical fanatic became chair of AGU’s “Task Force on Scientific Ethics”, and why Gleick’s successor is unlikely to be an improvement.
    ————————————————
    Spot on. Also, what JJ said.

    When I read this press release (speaking as someone who has drafted many of them) it struck me that it was just a standard bureaucratic response. Lots of waffle, motherhood statements, now move along, nothing to see here.

    Except for the weird reference to a ‘firestorm’ – which implies indiscriminate destruction, and the reference to motivation. Let’s unpick them.

    A firestorm is the opposite of a debate. Everything in its path is destroyed. By implication, those who disagree with the AGU’s views are creating a firestorm. This apocalyptic language jars with the smooth bureaucratese of the rest of the document, and is very telling. A flicker of suppressed rage, perhaps?

    As for the reference to motive, suppose a senior AGU official had killed his wife in a jealous rage after finding her in bed with a lover. Would the AGU issue a statement saying that it was reprehensible, irrespective of motive? Or suppose that person had committed fraud when money was tight – would they say (sadly shaking their heads) that it was wrong, irrespective of motive?

    Maybe they would. And if so, it highlights that the AGU is more about covering its own @ss than about ethics. And that they have no concept of ethics at all, as apparently fraud and identity theft need to be considered in terms of ‘motives’ before making a decision about whether they are wrong. Surely the ethical statement would be the one they put out, minus any reference to motives. Especially as, leaving aside what Gleick chooses to say, no-one can possibly know what his motives were.

  144. Mardler says:

    “Gleick was right, it’s just that he got found out”, to paraphrase McPhaden.

    Note that nowhere in El Prez’s statement does it say that scientists must disclose all sources, data and computer model programs to anyone asking for them. That’s all you need to know that nothing has changed.

  145. Mydogsgotnonose says:

    Looking in detail at various blogs, what comes through is the polarisation of the Lefty-PR camp and science. The former are desperately hanging onto the belief that negative publicity for their hero Gleick will rub off onto their anti-hero – HI, so they have ‘won’.

    This is delusional activity by the same part of society active in the ‘Occupy’ movement and various other Marxist-related activist groups, including the likes of Greenpeace and WWF etc.

    Science, as typified by Richard Betts of the Met. Office, who I had considered to be a PR hack operating under the guise of science just like Gleick, has clearly decided to make a stand, a line in the sand just like at the Alamo.

    Behind this we have science, marshalling itself under the banner of objectivity and ‘Nullus in Verba’, has decided to eject those who have abused the trust of the scientific community. On BH I have commented that a quid pro quo for climate science is that it must open up a debate with the wider scientific community.

    It is a fact that any professional with a proper training in heat transfer and IR physics cannot accept the irrational adoption in climate science on the basis of 19th century peer review of the Arrhenius’ hypothesis that all IR is thermalised locally and by the process of ‘back radiation’ and multiple counting you get dangerous positive feedback in the climate system.

    This physics is wrong. Arrhenius was wrong. Take it away and the climate modelling won’t need to hide it by imaginary high cloud albedo from a combination of artificially high parameters compared with reality and incorrect aerosol optical physics from Sagan via Hansen.

    The politicians will not like it. Next move is to you Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Gillard. Are you going to persist in the carbon trading scam or are you like the Canadians going to accept that the IPCC has been lying for decades as part of its political agenda?

  146. bkjinset says:

    ” Public trust is essential because it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust”

    In other words, protect the flow of public funding. AGU knew exactly who Peter Gleik was when he was appointed to the chair of the ethics task force. AGU is a political, advocacy organization and Peter Gleik was chosen because he best represents their goals.

  147. Jane Coles says:

    pouncer: “I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here.”

    As eyesonu notes, Richard Betts says that people have been accusing climate scientists “completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets.” [my emphasis]

    But Richards Betts has spent enough time on sceptic blogs to know that such accusations have often turned out to be true. ‘Hide the Decline’, to take the most famous example, was scientific fraud: it involved the deliberate concealment of adverse data, the post 1960 proxy curve.

  148. Mervyn says:

    These alleged global warming alarmist fraudsters have been ‘getting away with murder’ for far too long.

    Maybe, at last, we will see this one do time for his crime.

    It may then send a message to these climate charlatans that the stage has been set for a taste of the future… when the inevitable class action is taken against the IPCC over its fraudulent science.

  149. Coach Springer says:

    There is and can only be one issue of note. Scientific integrity is corrupted by policy motives. They can’t get it back by talking about it. Reptitive, but it needs to be said whenever this form of pollution gets ingested.

  150. Ron says:

    “…the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” Even skeptics allow as to the Earth’s changing climate, but where is it changing? Why should I accept this statement from anyone? The Arctic ebbs and flows, maybe, but even that seems warmly contested. Where else? Please point to some real world evidence of a changing climate. It has been a nicely mild winter here in the northeast, but we’ve had mild winters before. Cold ones too! It changes from year to year. Is this evidence of a ‘changing’ climate we are told the world is experiencing?

  151. Joachim Seifert says:

    To Mike: Concerning Gleick, You are right in principle only, the person is the person and the theory is the theory, two different shoes….For this:.
    A good example Karl Marx, he made his money with investments and the stock exchange and never claimed to be a Marxist… on the other hand, there is the Marxist theory, which should be
    judged without looking at the inventor….
    The Gleick scandal case is different: He claimed the highest standards and tried to sneak into a high moral office, where he was about to push CAGW theory….also claiming high moral standards
    for “CAGW scientists”….as you…..here, CAGW persons and theory are intertwined: The pushers
    and the spirit are one……see Gleick….
    It seems “unfair” to put other climate scientists into the category of “the likes of the Gleicks”,
    but the problem is: If scientists hang out with Gleick, sitting in the same boat, support, associate, share the spirit etc. pp. with his likes,
    then they should not complain that they will be judged as Gleicks….
    JS

  152. MarkW says:

    Rosco says:
    February 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm

    A few years ago, a researcher for the EPA was caught planting evidence of an endangered animal in a study area, in order to justify a ruling that would have declared the land protected and off limits to development. Nothing ever happened to her.

  153. Jimbo says:

    “…he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”

    Do bears sh** in the woods? Whatever happened to global warming (CAGW / AGW)? LOL.

  154. MarkW says:

    “1) ALL data from every publication is made available to any scientist who requests it.”

    1a) You don’t get to define who is and isn’t a scientist.

  155. 1DandyTroll says:

    So, essentially, the fall was what was shocking but not the betrayal of the principles of scientific integrity and neither, of course, was the behavior reprehensible since the behavior isn’t a question for AGU.

    If they now set out to communicate the need for ethical conduct now they didn’t really have the concept of right and wrong before. What’s the concept of right and wrong worth if you merely communicate the need for it, but not enforce it?

    No wonder they’re confused for, apparently, even their mission has changed to something “lofty”, rahter ‘an still just promoting discovery.

  156. Allan MacRae says:

    [Myrrh says: February 28, 2012 at 1:51 am …]

    Myrrh, I re-read your note to see if I missed your intent – I was hoping it was a satire of the usual ridiculous attacks on “big oil”.

    If it was satire, perhaps you could leave a few more clues.

    If it was not satire, then your hypothesis highly unlikely to be correct.

    Oil is no longer a good choice to produce electricity, except in a few isolated parts of the world – typically islands, isolated cities, and some countries with relatively primitive oil industries that produce large quantities of low-grade “resid” (aka “mazut”). Oil is too valuable as a transportation fuel to be used in electrical generation. Different grades of coal are primarily used for steelmaking and to produce electricity. Oil and coal do not compete in significant markets, and have not done so for many decades. The last oil-fired power plant in the developed world (that I am aware of) was built in the 1970’s. Oil just became too expensive for electrical power generation. Oil price in 1971 was US$3.60 per barrel, compared to about $100 today.

    As a percentage of total global electricity generation, oil-fired power has fallen dramatically from about 21% in 1971 to less than 6% in 2007, according to the OECD.

    Electricity from coal and peat have grown slightly in market share from ~40 to ~42%. Natural gas-fired power has grown from ~13% to ~21%, and nuclear power has grown from ~2% to ~14%. Hydro has declined in market share, from ~23% to ~15%. “Other’ power generation, including highly-subsidized, worthless wind and solar power have grown from ~1% to ~3%.

    The energy business is driven by fundamental economics – the cheapest fuel that produces reliable electricity on demand wins. The only exception that I am aware of to this hard economic rule is grid-connected wind and solar power, where our idiot politicians have instituted huge subsidies to force worthless, anti-environmental wind and solar power into the grid, with disastrous results.
    ___________

    World electricity generation by source of energy: As a percentage of world electricity generation

    http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2010/world-electricity-generation-by-source-of-energy-figure_factbook-2010-graph119-en

    1971 2007
    Coal/Peat 40.1 41.6
    Oil 20.9 5.6
    Gas 13.3 20.9
    Nuclear 2.1 13.8
    Hydro 23.0 15.6
    Other 0.7 2.6

    .

  157. “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”

    Please forgive the following cliché-ic formatting but that sentence knocks the bile into my mouth.

    THE MOTIVE FOR HIS TRANSGRESSION
    WAS TO MANUFACTURE AN IRRELEVANT SCANDAL
    WHERE NONE EXISTED TO SMEAR THOSE WHO DISPUTE HIS PET THEORY!!! !!!!! [pause to prevent rage related damage to my cardiovascular system]!!!!!!!!!!

    HIS
    MOTIVES
    WERE
    *V_I_L_E*!!!!!!!

    Why is that so hard for people to see?

  158. Allan MacRae says:

    Myrrh,

    Here is a much more likely history of the rise of eco-extremism, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    http://www.greenspirit.com/key_issues/the_log.cfm?booknum=12&page=3

    The Rise of Eco-Extremism

    Two profound events triggered the split between those advocating a pragmatic or “liberal” approach to ecology and the new “zero-tolerance” attitude of the extremists. The first event, mentioned previously, was the widespread adoption of the environmental agenda by the mainstream of business and government. This left environmentalists with the choice of either being drawn into collaboration with their former “enemies” or of taking ever more extreme positions. Many environmentalists chose the latter route. They rejected the concept of “sustainable development” and took a strong “anti-development” stance.

    Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.

    These factors have contributed to a new variant of the environmental movement that is so extreme that many people, including myself, believe its agenda is a greater threat to the global environment than that posed by mainstream society. Some of the features of eco-extremism are:

    • It is anti-human. The human species is characterized as a “cancer” on the face of the earth. The extremists perpetuate the belief that all human activity is negative whereas the rest of nature is good. This results in alienation from nature and subverts the most important lesson of ecology; that we are all part of nature and interdependent with it. This aspect of environmental extremism leads to disdain and disrespect for fellow humans and the belief that it would be “good” if a disease such as AIDS were to wipe out most of the population.

    • It is anti-technology and anti-science. Eco-extremists dream of returning to some kind of technologically primitive society. Horse-logging is the only kind of forestry they can fully support. All large machines are seen as inherently destructive and “unnatural’. The Sierra Club’s recent book, “Clearcut: the Tradgedy of Industrial Forestry”, is an excellent example of this perspective. “Western industrial society” is rejected in its entirety as is nearly every known forestry system including shelterwood, seed tree and small group selection. The word “Nature” is capitalized every time it is used and we are encouraged to “find our place” in the world through “shamanic journeying” and “swaying with the trees”. Science is invoked only as a means of justifying the adoption of beliefs that have no basis in science to begin with.

    • It is anti-organization. Environmental extremists tend to expect the whole world to adopt anarchism as the model for individual behavior. This is expressed in their dislike of national governments, multinational corporations, and large institutions of all kinds. It would seem that this critique applies to all organizations except the environmental movement itself. Corporations are critisized for taking profits made in one country and investing them in other countries, this being proof that they have no “allegiance” to local communities. Where is the international environmental movements allegiance to local communities? How much of the money raised in the name of aboriginal peoples has been distributed to them? How much is dedicated to helping loggers thrown out of work by environmental campaigns? How much to research silvicultural systems that are environmentally and economically superior?

    • It is anti-trade. Eco-extremists are not only opposed to “free trade” but to international trade in general. This is based on the belief that each “bioregion” should be self-sufficient in all its material needs. If it’s too cold to grow bananas – - too bad. Certainly anyone who studies ecology comes to realize the importance of natural geographic units such as watersheds, islands, and estuaries. As foolish as it is to ignore ecosystems it is adsurd to put fences around them as if they were independent of their neighbours. In its extreme version, bioregionalism is just another form of ultra-nationalism and gives rise to the same excesses of intolerance and xenophobia.

    • It is anti-free enterprise. Despite the fact that communism and state socialism has failed, eco-extremists are basically anti-business. They dislike “competition” and are definitely opposed to profits. Anyone engaging in private business, particularly if they are sucessful, is characterized as greedy and lacking in morality. The extremists do not seem to find it necessary to put forward an alternative system of organization that would prove efficient at meeting the material needs of society. They are content to set themselves up as the critics of international free enterprise while offering nothing but idealistic platitudes in its place.

    • It is anti-democratic. This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of radical environmentalism. The very foundation of our society, liberal representative democracy, is rejected as being too “human-centered”. In the name of “speaking for the trees and other species” we are faced with a movement that would usher in an era of eco-fascism. The “planetary police” would “answer to no one but Mother Earth herself”.

    • It is basically anti-civilization. In its essence, eco-extremism rejects virtually everything about modern life. We are told that nothing short of returning to primitive tribal society can save the earth from ecological collapse. No more cities, no more airplanes, no more polyester suits. It is a naive vision of a return to the Garden of Eden.

  159. Vince Causey says:

    What exactly is the need for an “science ethics committee task force,” I’d like to know? Since its inception, what exactly has this task force done? I note the absence of any task forcing being done on the unethical behaviour coming from the warmist camp, so I suspect that this ethics committee is no more than a euphemism for “le’ts get the b’stards at HI, because they are reprehensible.”

    Let us not forget that a description appended to a body often means the exaxt opposite in reality. Just as the most despotic states – those most tyrannical oppressors of human beings – like to use the appellate “democratic” or “peoples”, so the “ethics task force” is in reality “Black” or “Dirty” ops, whose sole purpose is to go after anyone who disagrees with their consensus on climate change.

    That is why Gleick was put in charge, because he has shown to be a ruthless master at dirty ops. It’s just that he turned out to be, whilst ruthless, not much of a master after all. It would have been as if the head of the CIA was caught piling up barrels of gunpoweder under Fidel Castro’s palace, in broad daylight. And to add insult to injury, the President of the US would then issue a statement saying “such action cannot be condoned, whatever his motives.” Ie, even though blowing up Castro is a good motive, let’s not be so dumb in future, ok?

    Nothing has changed, except to learn not to get caught.

  160. DonS says:

    Most commenters here today get a 4.0 on reading comprehension, a rare level indeed. There are, or course, a few exceptions. For me, this is the slimiest thing I’ve read on the subject. “Ideological firestorm” indeed.

  161. Dave says:

    Pot calling the kettle black. Am running out of patience with AGU.

  162. kwik says:

    Some direct questions to Mike McPhaden President, AGU;

    -What are your thoughts on the HockeyStick as used in Kyoto and “Hide the decline”?
    -What are your thoughts on avoiding the FOIA laws?
    -What are your thoughts on using models to project the future and use the results to make policy suggestions?
    -How many degrees do you think man-released CO2 has increased the temperature since, say, 1800? Do you think it’s a problem?
    -Whats your thoughts on Himalaya glaciers meltdown not happening?
    -Whats your thoughts on no hotspot found?
    -Whats your thoughts on negative feedbacks from cloud cover?

    That is, If you take what the Team say seriously. And you do, don’t you?
    Or?
    If you don’t, then please tell us. According to your new etics standards.

  163. JustABill says:

    Another nail in the coffin of the rotting corpse of “man made global warming.”

  164. Gary Pearse says:

    Gee, that broad ethics net should have a lot more fish in it than just one.

    “adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public … “

  165. woodNfish says:

    “we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.”

    The AGU wouldn’t know what scientific integrity is if it hit them the face. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/08/ipcc-reviewer-resigns-from-agu-saying-i-will-not-renew-my-agu-membership/

  166. Another Empty suit. Completely missing from McPhaden’s essay is the soul-searching open question of “How can it be possible that the head of our Ethics Committee commit an act most people would agree is a hideous breach of Ethics?”

    I don’t expect answers today, but you cannot understand any answer until you first state and understand the question. (Re: Deep Thought, Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Chap 28.)

  167. Dave in Canmore says:

    There seems to be a few interpretations of the phrase:
    “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives”

    If we were talking about a murder, no one would ever dream of attaching the clause “regardless of the motive”

    Seems pretty clear to me that this condemnation is pretty weak all around.

  168. Roger Knights says:

    “(1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing;

    Great–then 97% of the organized clime can be defunded come 2020.

  169. Louis Hooffstetter says:

    It’s abundantly clear from the climategate emails, Michaeal Mann’s refusal to release data, the CRU’s stonewalling of FOI requests, and now Gleik’s behavior, that scientific integrity is a rare quality among climatologists. I commend the few honest scientists in that pack of weasels that had the courage to speak out against their bad behavior and their bad science.

    Richard Betts deserves kudos for telling Garvey of the Guardian to stuff his “the end justifies the means” essay where the sun never shines. But as for the AGU finally paying lip service to scientific integrity in climate change, like so many others, I have to ask: ” Hello? What took you so long?” Forgive me for not feeling their profound sincerity.

    You may recall that in addition to the AGU, the following organizations also jumped on the global warming bandwagon to “support the consensus view on anthropogenic climate change”:

    American Association for the Advancement of Science
    American Chemical Society
    American Institute of Biological Sciences
    American Meteorological Society
    American Society of Agronomy
    American Society of Plant Biologists
    American Statistical Association
    Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
    Botanical Society of America
    Crop Science Society of America
    Ecological Society of America
    Natural Science Collections Alliance
    Organization of Biological Field Stations
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
    Society of Systematic Biologists
    Soil Science Society of America, and
    The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

    Their silence on this issue leads me to conclude that none of the above have any scientific integrity. I suspected as much before, but this confirms my suspicions.

  170. Roger Knights says:

    “fall from grace”? When did that guy EVER manifest grace?

  171. Malcolm Miller says:

    As far as the AGU was concerned, Gleik’s crime was to be caught. Otherwise he would still have their full support as an ‘ethics’ expert’ as well as, of course, a ‘climate expert’.

  172. In my essay Ends, Means and Justification or Not (http://retreadresources.com/blog/?p=976) posted on the 21st I nailed this then why on earth has it taken so long for others to at least begin to be critical?

  173. Myrrh says:

    Allan MacRae says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:39 am
    [Myrrh says: February 28, 2012 at 1:51 am …]

    Myrrh, I re-read your note to see if I missed your intent – I was hoping it was a satire of the usual ridiculous attacks on “big oil”.

    If it was satire, perhaps you could leave a few more clues.

    If it was not satire, then your hypothesis highly unlikely to be correct.

    Oil is no longer a good choice to produce electricity, except in a few isolated parts of the world – typically islands, isolated cities, etc….

    World electricity generation by source of energy: As a percentage of world electricity generation

    http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-factbook-2010/world-electricity-generation-by-source-of-energy-figure_factbook-2010-graph119-en

    1971 2007
    Coal/Peat 40.1 41.6
    Oil 20.9 5.6
    Gas 13.3 20.9
    Nuclear 2.1 13.8
    Hydro 23.0 15.6
    Other 0.7 2.6

    That’s the connection and that’s the reason for the change of tune now – fracking has become viable and the greenie idiots previously roped in, particularly by Thatcher later, to be ‘the anti-coal via demonisation of CO2′ were given the brief to be anti all fossil fuels, including oil, gas and nuke and now that’s an irritation.

    It wasn’t generally known that it’s always been ‘big oil’ funding this campaign, that’s been successfully hidden in having the greenies repeat ad nauseum that it’s the sceptics who were funded by them. It’s only recently being pulled together to show just how these non-coal industries and goverments have been directly funding the AGW scam.

    That’s what’s so funny about it, hey, we need the laughs.., the greenies were soo anti-nuke and Maggie so pro nuke, they were really giving her a hard time about nuclear, but she very cleverly harnessed their great momentum by coming up with the CO2 warming, going back to before the coal cooling. They’ve been doing the dirty work for big oil and nuke ever since!

    You can’t judge it by the market share now, look at the data you just posted – 1971 is when this was all planned – that’s when CRU was set up, by oil and nuclear, it continues to be funded by these – coal is the target. Hansen’s ‘death trains’ are still part of that original scenario, back then, in the ’70s it was coal bringing on the ice age.

    There’s quite a bit on CRU, still,
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020304/climategate-peak-oil-the-cru-and-the-oman-connection/

    CRU was set up to be anything the anti-coal cartel wanted, it’s from there the next decade that Jim Salinger began working on fiddling the New Zealand temperature records.

    Allan MacRae says:
    February 28, 2012 at 6:54 am
    Myrrh,

    Here is a much more likely history of the rise of eco-extremism, written by Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace.

    Yes? And look what he’s been doing since.. :)

    http://theenergycollective.com/dan-yurman/48629/new-book-patrick-moore
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/history/Patrick-Moore-background-information/
    http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0228-20.htm

    “Moore wrote his letter on March 16, 1971, two years after the group was founded, describing himself as a graduate student “in the field of resource ecology.” Clearly, then, Moore was not a founder of Greenpeace. Founders don’t write letters applying to join.”

    Not an original founder, he just sells himself as that. I’ve just, in looking for some links for this, found out that he was first Greenpeace Canada before briefly being in charge of the lot, I wonder if there’s a Maurice Strong connection and took Greenpeace in that direction? I don’t know, haven’t read enough about it to connect the dots.

    Could be that he was put into place in Greenpeace by the nuclear industry and friends thereof and now simply reverted back to it, the time he joined Greenpeace was when these were setting up CRU.

    Anyway, that ‘big oil/governments/..’ has funded the greenie movement including Greenpeace and CRU and got the fictional fisics of AGW introduced into schools, is a complex mix of interests coming together. But anti-coal has been there from the beginning, from before Keeling. Now the main reason for them being anti is that it is cheap and affordable, and they don’t want that for the masses or places like Africa.

  174. Myrrh says:

    p.s. I read this some time ago, found it again when looking for when Salinger was at CRU. That’s why there’s no easy answer to ‘who is behind it’, it sort of grew like topsy and got more organised and better funded the more bigger players, different ideologies/businesses jumped on the wagon.

    Some history: The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam

    By meteorologist John Coleman (Founder of The Weather Channel)

    The key players are now all in place in Washington and in state governments across America to officially label carbon dioxide as a pollutant and enact laws that tax us citizens for our carbon footprints. Only two details stand in the way: the faltering economic times and a dramatic turn toward a colder climate. The last two bitter winters have led to a rise in public awareness that there is no runaway global warming. A majority of American citizens are now becoming skeptical of the claim that our carbon footprints, resulting from our use of fossil fuels, are going to lead to climatic calamities. But governments are not yet listening to the citizens.

    How did we ever get to this point where bad science is driving big government to punish the citizens for living the good life that fossil fuels provide for us?

    The story begins with an Oceanographer named Roger Revelle. .. /continued: http://jonjayray.comuv.com/grapr10.html

    Around half way down.

  175. David A. Evans says:

    Dr. Svalgård.

    Despite what many may think, I know you are sceptical of the AGW meme.

    May I ask, as you are also sceptical of the “twas the Sun”, meme what you think it was/is?

    Or are you of the, “Don’t ask me neither fits the profile” meme?

    DaveE.

  176. Pat Frank says:

    Johanna, I’d argue that science as knowledge for its own sake is a benefit to society in that, if nothing else, it honors objective knowledge and fosters a social commitment to dispassionate understanding.

    But, of course, we can confidently suppose that benefit is not what Dr. McPhaden had in mind.

  177. Slacko says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 7:06 pm
    “No matter how much fun it is to turn it into one, the science of climate change is not a political debate or popularity contest.”

    That’s where you’re wrong, Mike. We did not choose the battleground. If it were purely about the science there would be no battle, and websites such as this would not need to exist. The AGU and others have clearly chosen to promote a political ideology above science and to elevate liars to positions of importance, so that’s where the fighting takes place.

  178. Allan MacRae says:

    Myrrh says: February 28, 2012 at 4:47 pm…

    Myrrh, you lost me some time ago.

    I sincerely doubt your hypothesis that “Big Oil” started the Global Warming Fraud.

    You have far too many unsubstantiated statements and too many great leaps of faith.

    I did see some “Big Oil” companies, notably BP and Shell, quickly embrace the political-correctness of Global Warming Mania as a competitive advantage, and use it to bludgeon their biggest competitor, Exxon, in the marketplace.

    Finally, Exxon too capitulated to political pressure and political correctness, a morally and intellectually feeble move that they will ultimately regret.

    Sorry – I guess I’m just a skeptical kinda guy.

  179. TomB says:

    Mike says:
    February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm

    Isn’t this just one big ad hominem distraction to the scientific debate of climate change? …. Ranting about it and not getting back to the science makes this website look like it is grasping at straws.

    Seems like an awfully long winded way of saying “Nothing to see here, move along!”

  180. John David Galt says:

    The whole debate seems pretty ad-hominem to me. After all, if the proponents had merely said that the earth’s climate changes over the centuries, I doubt if anybody would have disagreed. No, the proposition which started the whole thing was that man, and in particular the developed world, (a) is responsible for the changes and (b) must change his ways or everyone will die.

    This being so, the beliefs and attitudes of the major figures on each side are completely relevant, and those who have shown that they’re willing to lie (or even cherry-pick data) to get the results they want need to be named and shamed as not honest scientists.

    But the Heartland Institute and its people are neither major figures in the debate, nor have they ever claimed to be scientists. Michael Mann and his buddies, on the other hand, are and have.

Comments are closed.