From the ‘truth is stranger than fiction department’, reporting from San Francisco at the AGU Fall Meeting
ED11D-02
Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists
Monday, December 15, 201408:15 AM – 08:30 AM Moscone South 102
Several authors have warned that climate scientists sometimes exhibit a tendency to “err on the side of least drama” in reporting the risks associated with fossil fuel emissions. Scientists are often reluctant to comment on the implications of their work for public policy, despite the fact that because of their expertise they may be among those best placed to make recommendations about such matters as mitigation and preparedness. Scientists often have little or no training in ethics or philosophy, and consequently they may feel that they lack clear guidelines for balancing the imperative to avoid error against the need to speak out when it may be ethically required to do so. This dilemma becomes acute in cases such as abrupt ice sheet collapse where it is easier to identify a risk than to assess its probability. We will argue that long-established codes of ethics in the learned professions such as medicine and engineering offer a model that can guide research scientists in cases like this, and we suggest that ethical training could be regularly incorporated into graduate curricula in fields such as climate science and geology. We recognize that there are disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics, the most important of which is that codes of ethics are typically written into the laws that govern licensed professions such as engineering. Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical, although legal precedent may evolve such that scientists are increasingly expected to communicate their knowledge of risks. We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted to define an ethical code that could be voluntarily adopted by scientists who seek clearer guidelines in an era of rapid climate change.
source: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/11679
h/t to Steve Milloy
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted to define an ethical code that could be voluntarily adopted by scientists who seek clearer guidelines in an era of rapid climate change.’
It seems one M Mann is seeking such guidance, but only if we have an era of “rapid climate change”.
In the business-as-usual mode it will not be required.
“rapid climate change” ?
Isn’t M. Mann the guy using the same slides since 2009 (or whenever it was).
… since 2005
He’s been using the 2009 slides since 2005?
lee-
ethics will not be required nor desired
Wait, we have to adapt our moral system to facilitate the global warming propaganda? Wow.
An ethical man knows what is right; a moral man does what is right.
Mann is nowhere near moral and can only pretend to be ethical, being that he basically lies for a living. At the level of a sociopath, I guess he could be considered ethical but not moral. That’s really stretching it ’til it cries.
Worse than a street walker since they most likely have no other way to make a living.
Any ethical code that could be “voluntarily adopted” could be voluntarily ignored as well, depending on which action best promotes the “cause.”
Elsewhere, they seem to imply that it is more ethical to “speak out” than it is to “avoid error,” and they use the possibility of “abrupt ice sheet collapse” as an example. It sounds like an ethics code that favors alarmism to me, with the ends justifying the means. Don’t worry so much about making an error as long as your message supports the cause. The message is more important than the facts.
Mann is the before part of the before and after ethics example in the AGU ethics conference right?
LOL!
It’s not April Fool’s day yet, is it?? 🙂
This from the brochure for an activity conducted by one of the most notorious drama queens in the whole Climategate exposure.
Certainly the mathemeretricious Mikey might have “little or no training in ethics or philosophy” (kinda like teaching night landing techniques to a kamikaze pilot, don’tchathink?), but those of us who do – particularly training in the philosophy of science – are the ones who’ve been debunking this preposterous bogosity over the past thirty-five years.
The fact that it’s not April Fool’s come early is just too rich for words.
Sad news.
Mikie’s the after training picture.
Peter’s the before.
Sad news.
More wasted climate money for no gain.
Wouldn’t their ‘desire to help others and serve society’ be enough?
Some people think that “controlling society” is “serving society”.
Petty dictators (figuratively speaking) like Mann is a good example.
In reference to this statement: “We recognize that there are disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics, the most important of which is that codes of ethics are typically written into the laws that govern licensed professions such as engineering”, here is the link to California Board for Professional engineers, Land surveyors, and Geologists:
http://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/pubs/forms/index.shtml
In reference to this statement: “Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical,. . .”, words escape me.
“Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical, …”
Let us hope that remains the case in the future. I have little faith that those given such a legal power would share my concept of ethics.
I presently use (and edit) Wikipedia for information, and I have BBC bookmarked for world news. Both are useful as long as you’re aware of where they’re coming from and compensate. The first targets of any legal authority empowered to protect us from unethical behavior would likely be the Singers and Lindzens, not the Gores and Manns.
The free flow of information is important, more so to us than to the establishment.
I agree 100% Mike. In a bit wider view, any time the government wants to regulate something it is good to keep in mind that at some point they will use it in a way you didn’t expect and/or don’t want. That it is why the second amendment exists. Not because they weren’t aware or didn’t care that criminals use guns, rather they knew the government would use guns to subjugate the people.
+10
This mann-guy has almost missed his calling; why is he wasting his promotional talents with rational and not-so-rational science types in San Francisco? He could make millions running a Climate-Born-Again Ministry in Florida where he could displace the oft quoted term “Carpet Bagger” with “Mann Bagger” although they basically are the same!
I’d call him a “Climate Bagger” it’s closer to “Carpet Bagger”, most people wouldn’t even notice the difference but most people don’t even know who MM is even with his not so “Noble peace(of s..t) Price. sorry but the whole thing about AGW and watching press reports after Lima about them “staying up all night” and “sweating” over the agreements ( more likely sweating out booze) has made ill. I think as maybe many people are thinking that all this is getting really tiresome. How do these people even can stand in front of a camera and say this bull is beyond me, maybe they realize no one is watching exept WUWT? and other skeptics?
“C-bagger”. Rhymes with…oh, you know.
Because we are all going to die, he could write a book “The Descent of Mann”
‘Several authors have warned that climate scientists sometimes exhibit a tendency to “err on the side of least drama” in reporting the risks associated with fossil fuel emissions. Scientists are often reluctant to comment on the implications of their work for public policy, despite the fact that because of their expertise they may be among those best placed to make recommendations about such matters as mitigation and preparedness.’
Comedy gold! Someone has a sense of humour.
Wish it was humor. These people are dead serious.
I do not find this even a bit funny.
The consequence of people like MM is grave (even graver than “climate change”).
This kind of bizarre upside down behavior, where the accused of being un-ethical gives lecture about ethics is almost like Al Kaida operatives will give lecture on peace keeping.
Maybe this will be presented as a review of past misbehavior by the (reformed) presenters? It would be similar to having a cured drug addict visiting high schools to warn about them about the harm caused by drugs?
I think this exercise is a ploy so he can say in court he is an authority on ethics in science. He is going to have a very tough time defending against the Mark Steyn counter-suit – maybe it will help.
It is a bit like the head of the Gambino Family fund raising to support the victims of organized crime. It reflects the deepest of internal conflicts. When it comes to climate science, his work is the object lesson, not the source of guidance.
“The true lover yearneth for tribulation even as doth the rebel for forgiveness and the sinful for mercy.”
Fernando, I think it’s more like having a current drug addict show up high as a kite to shoot up on stage and tell everybody that it’s a fun and healthy lifestyle… puke his gust out and then hand out samples.
That statement is absolutely amazing. They haven’t been right yet. Not one single time. Yet the ones that are REALLY right and REALLY smart haven’t even spoken up yet?
Expertise?…words fail.
I feel like I’m watching the Python Cheese Shop skit.
http://youtu.be/mLNrLI3OBwg
Is there a standard error of drama?
No, but now we have a standard for deviation.
Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical
H*ll yeah Dr Mann! Tell it like it is!
We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted to define an ethical code that could be voluntarily adopted by scientists who seek clearer guidelines in an era of rapid climate change.
Good on ya, Dr Mann! As soon as an era of rapid climate change appears, we can expect the scientists to voluntarily become ethical. But what, Dr. Mann, are you implying about the current ethics of your colleagues?
It doesn’t state scientists would become ethical by your definition. It says they will define a code of ethics. Most people have such a code. But some have a flexible code. Others use very strict codes, for example “pashtunwali”, which leads Pashtun tribesmen to offer refuge to american soldiers even if the Taliban don’t like it. The Sicilian “omertà”, and the ethical code of the Yanomami are other examples. This means an ethical code can be defined to allow a scientist to show temperature graphs which haven’t been updated in 7 years. Like this:
http://21stcenturysocialcritic.blogspot.com.es/p/screen-shot-mann-at-cabot-with.html
Yeah…Catholic Priests have a code too.
Oh…wait…
It’s often valuable to listen to the perspective of an outsider.
This ranks among the likes of Blair as UN peace keeper, and Gordon Brown being touted for President of the World Bank – utterly farcical. There seems no end to the sardonic humour being foisted upon us.
“Should climate scientists advocate for policy?”
Interesting clip with revealing commentaries by –
Gavin Schmidt
Judith Curry
Richard Betts
http://sustainabilitymedialab.com/post/57614399179/this-is-the-archive-video-of-the-full-google
I thought Judith was the only one who came away with any credibility….
Or giving the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama for what he “might” do.
Golly but i must be old! When ah were a lad they had these things called “peer review” which was actually a real review by real researchers and scientists in the same fields of endeavour; and wot’s worse, they was liable for critical review as well.
And did I mention that they’s were obliged to confuse every issue with the relevant facts too as well
Ho, ho. ho!
In the modern public service you aren’t allowed to report a negative result – if you do, it look like you wasted money. Being seen to waste money is career suicide. So pal review is much safer.
Go on Anthony, ask him “under what circumstances is it scientifically correct to hide the decline?” 🙂
Nah, Anthony would never get near him, and he wouldn’t respond if he did. Much easier would be to part outside the lecture hall and ask attendees as they leave:
So, as a consequence of Dr Mann and Dr Peacock’s lecture, do you think you will be changing your personal approach to ethics?
Sort of an “are you still beating your wife” question, but I bet a lot of them will answer in ways that would make us howl.
Love it 🙂
Let me fix that:
So, as a consequence of Dr Mann and Dr Peacock’s lecture, do you think you will be
changing your personal approach toadopting some form of ethics in your CAGW research?(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Professional ethics from a man who pretends to be a Nobel Laureate?
Such irony
What next, lecturing in statistics. Another area he knows nothing about!
“What next, lecturing in statistics”. You’ve hit a huge nail on the head there ConfusedPhoton.
Example: Given the choice, which of the following is more ‘ethical’ for environment experts/climate scientists to say:
“Since the industrial revolution began in 1750, CO2 levels have risen by more than 30% and methane levels have risen more than 140%. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than at any time in at least 800,000 years. CO2 has now reached 400ppm of all atmospheric gas.”
or
(b) “Although it has increased slightly, CO2 still represents only 1/2,500th of all the air we breath* – and of that small amount CO2 that’s present in the atmosphere, almost 97% (96.775%) of the gas is entirely naturally occurring. Only 3.225% of CO2 is man-made.
Given the choice, I know which statistic I would prefer people to hear.
*(for laymen) 1 x million divided by 400 is 1 x 2,500th of all the air in the sky.
In a way.
I think you can safely say the human-induced part of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than a quarter, so the above statement is not much true even if it is accurate. You know this, right? Not all readers do.
What’s your source for that 3.225% figure? That jumped out for me too. Thanks.
You should also amend each with something like “CO2 is what plants must have to live, just like animals must have oxygen. CO2 is also what plants use to create the oxygen that keeps all animals alive as well, too little CO2 and everything on the planet dies.”
“I think you can safely say the human-induced part of CO2 in the atmosphere is more than a quarter,”
You cannot safely say that, you can only make an assertion, not a proof of fact.
Everyone plays with the numbers and different approaches to the question yields different results because in the end we don’t know how CO2 interacts with sinks and natural variability. Making assumptions about those mechanisms and then using those assumptions to make assertions is not a safe way to do anything.
(For Hugh & Sabertooth) Firstly, as some WUWT regulars know, CO2 is my driving obsession when it comes to disproving AGW/CAGW. For over five years, building a substantial dossier of research, calculations and the myriad ways we make CO2 has been enlightening. One reliable source for anthropogenic CO2 emissions is at Geocraft.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Scroll down to article 4 (Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations of greenhouse gases). The percentage figures quoted are anthropogenic CO2 @ur momisugly 3.225% of total atmospheric CO2. The same figure that I used above.
Geocraft also provides all reference sources for each of their calculations. I trust this answers your question.
In related news, Bernie Madoff is offering financial planning seminars.
Don’t laugh! Its happened.
Alan Bond, the Australian “entrepreneur” [ ??? ] of yachtings America Cup fame spent four years in a Western Australian prison after helping himself to $1.2 billions of OPM from a company he had taken over.
That as well as being heavily involved in a highly corrupt long running political set up known as “WA inc”.
Bond spent the time in jail giving economic and financial and financial planning lectures, the contents of which you might like to have a guess at, to his fellow crims,
Some of those lectures were titled along the lines of “Never give a sucker an even break”.
And Enron will be reactivated to trade carbon credit for Obama and keep the books for the CIA
The opening title should always be
“Its worse than we thought”
Much much worse
I wonder if this has anything to do with Mann’s court cases and this will then be paraded before the court.
Will the court hear an argument that this is evidence that Mann is regarded by fellow scientists as ‘beyond reproach’ where ethics are concerned ……….
I wonder ………..
+ 1
I think you’ve hit the nail squarely on the head. This statement will be supported by the 97% and will be handed in as evidence! I would use it if I was a lawyer which thank the lord I am not. I hope we are ready.
And if anyone does get to ask Dr Mann a question, here is mu suggestion:
Dr. Mann, if the world was coming to an end, and you knew it, and billions of lives could be saved if you could convince politicians to take certain actions, would it be ethical to refuse to show them your data and code that would provide this time them?
that would provide this PROOF to them?
(I hate my fingers).
Well, if climate scientists are to follow medicine, they will leaner ‘First, do no harm’…
+10
Oh dear, ‘…they will learn, ‘First, do no harm’…’
Auto-correct can be a nuisance, Don!
You betcha!
Reading through them, there’s already a few typos in this thread. It’s part of our WUWT ‘ethical’ code. I’m just as guilty.
what will judy curry say about that?
Pot kettle black. And stupid is as stupid does.
GiveXXXX? no, attend.
I wonder how many will turn up?
That’s exactly what I was wondering
For what reason was Peter H. Gleick excluded from the lecturing team? He seems to have at least as much direct experience of these matters as anybody.
Gleick was probably hired to give Mann some extra pointers in ethics.
These guys are impervious to their irony.
Ironyclad?
Dammit! You beat me to it!
Must have been a tough choice between Mann & Gleick…..
“OK, Heads it’s Michael, tails it’s Peter.”
He is a Monument in his Own mind. When they bury him, it will be face down so he can see where he is going. He’d take the pennies off his father’s eye. Like good uranium, he glows in the dark. He’s been caught kissing himself in a mirror. He only brightens up when a news camera is on. His best lines are someone else’s. His ego is so big it floats like a led balloon, a screen door in a submarine. When he dies they won’t need a coffin just a giant standard screw driver. He opens his mouth and the Sun disappears.
Like a dipped Ice cream Cone. One only has so much time before his truth melts away and the truth is known.
Perhaps they should preface the ethics session with that [in-] famous Stephen Schneider quote:
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
… read by Peter Gleick…
… and set to music, of course.
Entitled: “Two-handed Ethics, a Primer”
Kurt in Switzerland
I guess Mikie wouldn’t have known about one of the all time leaders in ethical behavior Mr. Stevie Schneider who thought scientists were somehow bound to the scientific method. (Who it appears learned ethics from one Peter Gleick who was just trying to decide how honestly to present his findings).
Not that they follow the scientific method or even agreed with it, Stevie might have even said he only thought he was ethically bound to the scientific method but, since he ignored it long enough that thought went away.