Sparsely attended. Usual ethics suspects are not here.
Lots of what if scenarios, such as what to do if you find your sponsor is fudging data and as a student you feel trapped by the “smoking gun” (their label).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kinda of like having a grilling classes at a PETA convention.
Well, probably better attended than the HONESTY, TRUTH, INTEGRITY sessions
I guess they wanted to get that part out of the way as quickly as possible.
The irony.
Peter “Exhibit “A'” Gleick wasn’t there. No wonder!
Ethics smethics.
We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics.
I’m sure the culprits will claim to know it all already. Only bigger and more so.
The missing heat is hiding under the ethics. No wonder they can’t find it.
What a hoot!
I was at this ethics session. The audience was divided into 4 groups. Each group was given Mickey Mouse (in my view) ethicaly hypothetical scenarios to evaluate and present to the other groups. My group had a plagiarism case.
Overall, it did give me the opportunity to see that the audience was not generally subjective in ethics.
If there is another ethics workshop like this one, I would decline attending on the basis that it did not deal with actual critique of ethic controversies in climate science.
John
Ethics are only really important if, you know, people are, um, going to be directly affected by whatever it is you’re telling them. Or something.
That is funny.
No case studies? I’m shocked, shocked! that there are no case studies going on in that establishment.
John Whitman
Yes. It’d have been much more interesting to examine the participant response to a hypothetical case like, oh I don’t know, to pick a scenario at random from the air, being bored one afternoon and feeling anxious to advance the Cause, do you:
A. Pick up the phone and commit wire fraud against Heartland in an effort to steal documents,
B. Forge further documents to support the documents you obtained by wire fraud,
C. Seek guidance and motivation from the SkS sooper secret forum,
D. All of the above
Did I say that out loud? Whoops. 🙂
Ah, I was wondering what ethics could possibly do with it. Easy answer though: If you value honesty over your career, then document and report. If you prefer having basic things — like food — then you do not commit to any shenanigans. And you do not commit to fixing any shenanigans. But advertise your non-commitment.
Two words to help fill the place — Open Bar
Isn’t it quicker and easier to just model ethics?
A synopsis of CAGW ethics:
The ends justify the means.
“Ethics Change is real and it’s happening now!”
Obviously not many feel compelled to consider ethics in their professional activities!
That’s Peter Gleick’s luggage in the picture. If you look closely at the attached baggage tag he has already checked-in for his next itinerary.
FAT-DUM-LIA.
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
They didn’t get Peter Gleick to teach them about the ethics of forgery, character assassination, and identity theft?
Which one is the fraudster Gleick?
To often when people are willing to talk about ethics it’s to find a justification for their own falling short of a standard outside themselves. They want to be their own standard. I think they call that “situational ethics”. Or maybe “The end justifies the means”?
Last year, I went to the ethics workshop and asked about AGU’s handling of Gleick. See Climate Audit here http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/ . The chair of the Ethics Committee, whose predecessor had been Gleick himself, said that Gleick’s conduct was not within the purview of the Ethics Committee, whose responsiblity, according to her, was the develop of a new ethics policy, not the enforcement of any existing ethics policies.