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...
Related
‘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 @ 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.
in some state universities in the USA, all professors regardless of field are required to pass an annual ethics examination as part of their appointment, including tenured faculty.
Where? I really like to know and no sarc. (I have grand kids).
I just did my annual ethics refresher here in Georgia. (Though disappointingly it only had obvious things like don’t steal from the state, don’t lie on your grant hours, nothing about drawing the appropriate conclusions from trash data or in general following the scientific method.)
This is quite common in corporate environments as well. In that case it is CYA, if an employee causes harm to a customer the corporation can say. “Well we told him that was not allowed…”
“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.”
“Arctic sea ice volume holds up in 2014″
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399079
“Arctic sea ice may be more resilient than many observers recognise”
Things just not going to plan…
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/79721000/jpg/_79721234_cryosatmap1.jpg
Snap !! We both posted the same link at more or less the same time lol
Yes, notice the BBC have not had the usual reporters in the arctic these past two autumn melt maximums.
… and then the BBC said ..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30399079
“Look, Santa! It bounces!“
The Orwellian aspect of it all bothers me deeply.
We may have been mistaken that 1984 and Animal Farm were warnings. They seem to have made great ‘how to’ manuals for the totalitarian inclined…
Well, we have learned one thing today: Mann has a sense of humour, using his name and the word ‘ethical’ in the same sentence.
Of course, what is really sad are all those gullible people, who will attend what they believe is a potentially enlightening lecture.
It may turn out to be more enlightening than you expect. There are these things called Freudian slips…. Mikey may have a hard time keeping his subconscious contents from bursting forth when he least expects it.
Mann is a sad person who is totally deluded. In part that must be his own personality, but in large measure it must be the kinds of people who surround him.
I understand that when a Roman general had a triumphal procession someone would stand at his side and whisper into his ears something like “you are not a god”. The Romans 2000 years ago understood the corruptive effect of sycophantic admirers, but not Mann.
Scottish Sceptic,
The phrase was:
Respice post te, hominem memento te (“Look behind you! Remember that you are but a
Mannman!”)[Close enough to ‘you are not a god’.]
Here is my check list were I on the Climate Change Select Committee of the House of Commons, London:
1. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning sources of primary, undoctored temperature data sources, both on land, on ocean surfaces and derived using satellite-based technology.
2. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning methods used to ‘homogenise’ data sets, the methods used and the controversies over the ensuing results of such homogenisation. In particular, such a reading list should include how a single number for ‘global mean temperature’ is reached, how controversial such a number is and whether any political imperatives come into play when generating it.
3. Please provide an unbiased source of global funding for climate science since 1990, including all the terms and conditions for awards, the outcomes sought and the selection panels used to award the funding.
4. Please provide an unbiased analysis of global media coverage of ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’ to set the scene for claims that anything other than the media reporting of climate science is ‘setttled’.
5. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning temperature fluctuations in geological time, over the past 20 millennia and since 1000 AD.
6. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning the assumptions made in all the proxy data sets generated using tree ring analysis, pine cone analysis etc etc and whether such assumptions are generally regarded to be inviolable and valid outside the gilded life of academia.
7. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning correlations between temperature and the following:
i. Solar activity.
ii. Oceanic Oscillations.
iii. Cloud cover.
iv. Carbon Dioxide.
v. Other means of affecting magnetic modulations of the earths stratosphere (with the subsequent effects on Jet Stream power, oscillation around a mean latitude etc etc)
8. Please provide an inbiased reading list concerning the nature of climate computer models, their performance over the past 25 years, the assumptions intrinsic to them and the limitations of their performance. Please indicate how many more years of ‘modelling’ will be required to generate models which actually predict the following five years of climate accurately (even using such a simple measure as ‘global temperature’).
9. Please provide an unbiased reading list concerning the political settlements made in the past 25 years concerning global financial redistribution based on climate change. Please ensure that a clear list of winners and losers emerge under such scenarios and correlate UN policy with such lists in terms of ‘one country one vote’ procedures at UN HQ in New York.
10. Please provide an unbiased reading list analysing the scientific contributions to the IPCC Framework Documents and comparing them to the political claims made in the ‘Summary for Policy Makers’. Please ensure that lies, hand-waving, grubby compromises and the desecration of the scientific method are flagged up, highlighted in red and the subject of specific sections of any analysis presented.
11. Please provide an unbiased reading list comparing the outputs of the IPCC to the NGPCC ‘organisations’. Please highlight the critical difference in assumptions made whether either or both reports focus in an unbalanced way on particular input variables and whether either or both organisations are funded in ways which renders outputs overtly political rather than scientific.
12. Please provide an unbiased analysis of paid-for advertorials in the UK and US Press, documenting the depth of money spent by climate zealots vs climate skeptics in attempting to manipulate public opinion. Please ensure that editors of UK titles are placed under no illusions that failure to comply with such investigations will lead to serious consequences in terms of ‘Freedom of the Press’, since Freedom of the press is not ‘freedom to subvert government policy based on lies’…..
That would do for a start.
I’m sure Professor Mann would be delighted to be part of such a thorough, rigorous, unbiased, truly scientific evaluation of his field. Even if it led to a 90%+ reduction in funding for carbon dioxide-led warming studies using computer models……..
Great list, only it will be ignored.
When someone asks if man is causing global warming.. they say YES!
When you ask, how do you know? They say Michael Mann told me so.
OK. That is the extent of their knowledge. IMO
What he really means of course is that other scientists are not supporting the cause strongly enough for his liking. This is the “soft” approach – making excuses, they just need some training (or is that indoctrination). Is the next step to “name and shame” the recalcitrant ones?
Correct–this is his means of nudging people into his “If you see something, say something” mindset.
Those who have violated their own consciences try to drag everyone else down with them so their guilt is not so apparent. Or, as Richard John Neuhaus famously remarked, “Where orthodoxy is optional, sooner or later it will be proscribed.”
Michael Hammer on December 15, 2014 at 1:24 am
– – – – – –
Michael Hammer,
You have analysed Mann’s strategy well. Mann is advocating more alarmism from the body of the science community.
John
In olden days a glimpse of hockery
Was looked upon with some mockery
Now heaven knows,
anything goes
Good authors too who once knew better peer review
Now forge and splice and throw down the lew
anything goes
The world has gone mad today and good’s bad today
And black’s white today and day’s night today
When most guys today that media prize today
Are just silly self-promos
So though I’m not a great Stats-man
I know that you’re bound to answer
When I save the world,
anything goes
When you are trying to save the world from ————– anything goes.
Fill in the blank with your choice — Global Warming, Capitalism, Christians. Man-bear-pig etc
I don’t think too many people would know the old song your tag line comes from. Nice little poem. Good poets borrow, great poets steal. You are definitely a thief.
As an ethical admission I am an atheist but I don’t feel any pressing need to save the world from Christians.
Eugene WR Gallun.
So, the guy who still refuses to share his data, code, and methods with the scientific community is going to tell us about ethics in science. This is the same guy whose work was paid for by tax money to begin with but claims he will never let the word see what he did. Hmmmm, his take on the very meaning of science should be enlightening.
‘Fox on Hen-House Operations’ will be the followup presentation.
Hen House Protection Service
Sylvester Fox & Co.
We’ll do the guarding for you
Open 24 hours
Many of the comments here have failed to understand what is meant by this use of the word ‘ethics’, that or I have missed the sarcasm. The key line is, “…… 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.” In other words it’s intended to promote the old Schneider, Greenpeace, et al doctrine, It is unethical not to be alarmist, not to exaggerate, not to denigrate opponents, not to smooth or nudge or cherrypick data.
Bingo!
Mann will present that he is ethical because if he showed his data and code, people would not be properly alarmed.
After all, in the words of the prophet, Al Gore, “There is no controlling legal authority.”
He is placing in the public domain a claim that climate scientists cannot be held to any standard of ethical behaviour because they have not signed onto an ethical code. Therefore being accused of behaving unethically is not a sanctionable offence, even if true.
Frankly, I doubt this tack would work. Recipients of grants have to subscribe to standard ethical conduct clauses.
Preaching about them is helpful actually. The more climate scientists learn that unethical and fraudulent behaviour will no longer be tolerated, the better.
Thankyou. Good point.
Eugene WR Gallun
Peter, you nailed it. He wants “Authority” (e.g. government) to force scientists to to “offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.” I would anticipate he’d next enact the complementary requirement that would sanction any scientists not toeing the line. (Many politicians, activists and even scientists have already suggested the latter.)
The phrase that clarifies his narrow (and warped) definition of “ethical” is “Scientists………….speak out when it may be ETHICALLY REQUIRED to do so.” (my caps).
Thus the sentence “Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical.” only relates to speaking out, not to silly things like sharing data, claiming honors, hiding declines to name just a few.
There is no hint that he understand what the real meaning of “scientific ethics” is.
BTW, I would prefer scientists do science and leave policy to policy makers.
I cannot force myself to find anything funny in something that smells like the end of civilization. Sorry.
CO2 is odorless……………. ;^D
Alberta Slim
Laughing out loud.
Lucifer doing a lecture on striking matches.
While you’ve a lucifer to light your fag,
Smile, boys, that’s the style.
What’s the use of worrying?
It never was worth while, so
Pack up your troubles in your old kit-bag,
And smile, smile, smile.
Oh mann…
The most famous works of Kafka were :-
The Trial and The Metamorphosis , it will be interesting to see if current litigation brings about any kind of change in the manner of brutish man.
…Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical…
Sounds to me like he’s preparing the ground for a legal defence of some kind. I wonder what…?
No, this is Lysenkoism at its most pure. Labor camps await scientist who won’t shout out the party line — oops, I mean support the Consensus. He wants Show Trails of disagreeing scientists and then off to the gulag.
This hardly sounds like an ethics symposium as a launchpad for advocacy.
There is no evidence that ‘Climate Scientists’ are interested in ethics……. money, yes, ethics, no.
Looks like it’s the co-author giving the talk:
http://i62.tinypic.com/sqpmhk.png
Given current weather conditions as I look out of my window (man-made California drought being ended by man-made California deluges), it could be a poor turnout. The bridges are going to be nasty this morning.
** Rolls over and goes back to sleep after making note to self: Stop logging on to WUWT when getting up for a pee in the middle of the night **
You mean it will be ‘Mann the slides’?
Curious. Try replacing “abrupt ice sheet collapse” with other risks that may or may not be improbable.
-This dilemma becomes acute in cases such as Invasion by Flying Saucers where it is easier to identify a risk than to assess its probability.
-This dilemma becomes acute in cases such as The Internet becoming Self-Aware and Creating Terminators where it is easier to identify a risk than to assess its probability.
-This dilemma becomes acute in cases such as a New Viral Black Death where it is easier to identify a risk than to assess its probability.
You can justify anything if you don’t care about whether the downside is actually going to happen.
By ignoring probability you open the door to the decline of the human race. Every time someone leaves their house, they risk bodily harm or death, car accident, catching a flu, being robbed, beaten or murdered, tripping and breaking their neck and a host of other risks. Fortunately for humanity, we are able to balance those risks against probability and actually keep functioning.
Is it really only 15 minutes long? That seems far too long for Mann to discuss his ethics.
“The right to search for truth
implies also a duty
one must not conceal
any part
of what one has recognized
to be true” – Albert Einstein
Do you think Dr Mann will be giving this quote in his lecture?
Maybe Mann has an ethics trick up his sleeve as well, how to hide decline of scientific standards. He is, after all, a distinguished torturer of data. Why would ethics be any different.
Sounds like you believe Mann would agree with your definition of ethics
I wouldn’t count on that.
Last ditch effort to try to convince people that all his BS is real and he still has credibility. Bit like the band playing on the deck of the Titanic.
Does this not send a message to the whole climate alarmist industry.
You can be as unethical as you want and you still get to lead ethical lectures. Its more than just, we won’t care. It is, you will be rewarded the more unethical you are.
That is this science In a nutshell.
That is message that has already been heard so many times its become boring.
Translation: “C’mon guys – don’t err on the side of caution like real scientists – go sex up your data for fun and profit.”
Comedy gold. I wonder how the audience will keep a straight face.
It’s like O.J. Simpson giving a lecture on how to maintain a happy marriage.
Homer Simpson on the benefits of a vegan diet
Or a Priest’s wedding Homily
(advice from outside of the realm of personal experience)
So if I’m a guy, my urologist can’t be a woman, right? And all OBY-GYN’s must be women as well? It never ceases to amaze me some of the simplistic arguments people will make. Many priests are certified professional counselors and perfectly capable of offering advice beyond the standard fare one might expect from someone in that position. In either their professional or religious capacity, they see a great deal of the human condition as it pertains to marriage. It would take someone of exceptional obtuseness to fail in gleaning some wisdom from such experience, even if second hand.
I’m implying that Mann will be speaking from education instead of personal experience. A Priest will give the same excellent spiritual advice as a married member of the clergy, but, (excepting formerly married Priests) he must replace his own experience with that of others he has seen or training he has received. Sorry, didn’t intend to infer any negativity with my analogy.
@Dawgtomis
OK, I see your point and grant it is true. Yes, it’s a bit of a hot button for me, and others can find hours of amusement in that if I let them.
OJ giving a lecture on what you can do to cut your alimony expenses.
jimmaine December 15, 2014 at 1:12 am
Yeah…Catholic Priests have a code too.
Oh…wait…
Jim,
Would you like to reconsider that statement? I take it that you are referring to child sex abuse by Catholic priests rather than the fact that all Catholic priests recognise that they commit sins. (Recent Popes, after all, have regularly been to Confession on a weekly basis. No Catholic claims to be sinless.) Yes, a small minority of Catholic priests (I think that the estimate in the USA is 4 per cent) have behaved abominably. But what you are implying is that all or most Catholic priests behave in this way. Not only do you have no basis for such an insinuation but the implication is a grave slur on the vast majority of Catholic priests.Would you make the same slur about ministers of other religions because some of them have committed the same crimes? Would you make the same slur about Scout leaders because some of them have committed the same crimes? Please think about the consequences of what you are saying. If, as you imply, Catholic priests, not just a small minority, are guilty of ignoring the morality they preach and in the way that I suspect that you are implying, then you are encouraging uninformed people to treat in an offensive manner any Catholic priest they meet. You are encouraging the kind of behaviour that priests can come across when people shout abusive terms at them. One other point I would make is that this is a blog about climate. If you have a problem about the Catholic Church I suggest that you use other places to express it. Please keep to the topic in hand. That also goes for any other commenter who uses this blog simply to express their dislike of religion. There are plenty of blogs around which discuss religion. Use them for your comments, not this blog.
I hope your 4 percent is considerably high!!! That would mean there are thousands of victims out there that haven’t come forward. The cases so far seem to total fewer than 20 priests in the US (over the last 50+ years) accounted for 99% of the problems. I think that would be more like 0.04%. Still too many, but the mishandling by the Bishops is what really blew up the public narrative.
Owen in GA,
Could you provide any sources for the data you have given.
My source, by the way is the John Jay Report.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
The John Jay Report refers to accusations (note accusations, not proof) against 4,392 clergy. I don’t where you get your 20 from.
As for the claim that there must be ‘thousands’ that have not come forward, that’s easily said. Anybody can make any claim they like on that basis.
As for the Bishops (again, not all Bishops, just a minority) who did not handle the abuse accusations in the most appropriate way, you are right but let’s stick to Jim’s claim. It’s unfair and ought to be withdrawn.
Alba,
I have only counted the ones that hit the press as being publicly defrocked. I haven’t read the Jay report. Accusations are very difficult to assess as they may be overblown or they may only be the tip of a huge iceberg. A priest’s job traditionally placed them in one on one situations with their congregants, so it is very hard to ascertain the truth of any given accusation. I am not Roman Catholic, but have relatives who are, so have watched at a distance this whole thing, and it has been a real roller coaster ride of emotion for them.
The Episcopal Church put into place some serious guidelines for working with youth in particular that assures there is never one adult alone with children. This came about in part because of the RC problems coming to light, and in part due to finding our own problems with some of the youth programs.
That 4392 number is higher than I would have suspected, and as there are only about 60,000 priests in the US, that implies about 7% have been accused. YIKES! that is horrible. (I don’t know how many have been priests during this whole period so the divisor should be higher than the 60000+/- currently serving, so maybe 5% isn’t that far off)
Aiui, there are 22,500 RC priests in Italy, and there has been no “paedophile-priest” scandal there – yet. 4% of 22,500 = 900 active paedophile priests. They pretty much run Italy’s social services: where there are children, there’s an RC priest.
Will he be addressing the ethical deletion of emails to destroy audit trails?
Irony, hubris, deceit, all in one lecture.
It would be worthwhile flying from Melbourne just to heckle him.
No they are not. What expertise does a climate modeler or tree ring investigator have for protecting cities from sea level rise? Endless similar questions. I would have thought engineers are in the best position for that sort of thing. In fact they have been doing it for many, many years now.
If we had listened to them on “mitigation and preparedness” we would be prepared for a warmer world than observations show. Antarctica would have a reduced extent according to the IPCC projections etc.
it’s a 15minute talk :
So after discussing his ethics and morals, there will be 14 minutes and 50secs left for him to elaborate a bit
on sheep mountain
I think your being to kind
I can only assume this is from the ‘It takes a thief to catch a thief’, theory of learning.
In other words: “We have to lie, and lie big. It would be unethical for us to do otherwise, because we are planetary saviors and we know best, but we need the sheeple to believe us when we say there is a planetary emergency, otherwise nothing will be done about it. The ends justify the means.”
He has actually one-upped Schneider. There is now no choice between being a scientist and lying. Lying is now the official standard ethical choice.
Amazing.
I guess its part of a trying to repaint and re-invent, don’t be surprised if he is given an “ethical medal” or award for his services, after all when you look at the Climate-gate emails he was busy soliciting others to put him in for awards and he would do the same.
Curious thing that people that are deeply into what others might see as unethical efforts to keep their nose in the grant trough, are the ones that seek awards to hang on their wall or pad the cv, Perhaps its a psychological act of self delusion, or evidence of ethical flaws in their makeup and a desire for grandeur well beyond their actual capabilities.
Just cushions to their own conscience? and desperation to try and ward off the inevitable fall into shunned disgrace. Got to try it on I guess.
It is unethical to disagree with the alarmists.
Really, what he is saying here is that it is unethical not to be an alarmist:
“… the need to speak out when it may be ethically required to do so.”
His cohort here is a professor of philosophy from a 3rd rate university.
http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/
He lists WInston Churchill as one of the thinkers he most admires. Can’t be all bad.
Well, he does serve as a good example of a bad example.
The story may be apocryphal, but I recall reading that the Spartans would actually pay someone to be the town drunk. His purpose was to serve as a bad example to the youth of Sparta.
I had to first check to see if this was labelled satire, because it is just so crazy that he would be leading an ethics session.
This is not what he means. He wants them to be ethical and sound the doom bell louder..
Ethics is exactly what he says it is.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Mikie knows ethics.
Would it be ethical to hack the PA system and play a few verses of “Hide the Decline?”
Not sure about ethics, but it would certainly be illegal.
I would like to hear about the ethics of slandering fellow scientists on Twitter.
In my fifty five adult years i have heard of several bankers some recently ‘ jumping ‘ from the tenth floor . I suppose a bit of honour, conscience and integrity may be the cause , but i have never heard of a politician or university professor ‘ jumping ‘ !
Smug creep.
One could say he’s the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Scientist ethics.
Way to go Bruce.
Stir the pot.
Now that’s funny.
I hope Mark Steyn sees your comment.
The Cosa Nostra have a code of ethics too, so it would seem that any group of shady, conspiritorial, rent-seeking, con-men can be ethical.
I don’t consider the mafia to be ethical. It’s more a matter of honor among thieves. I don’t want my family members touched, so I won’t touch your family members.
To me someone is ethical, or they aren’t, there’s no middle ground. That would be cherry picking.
Everything in liberal-land is backwards.
Fen’s Law:
Liberals believe none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.
‘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.’
Is it more ethical to err on the side of drama? IOW, should climate scientists tend towards hysteria, choosing that as the more ethical approach?
Maybe we shouldn’t complain, it appears Dr. Mann now realizes ethics does not pertain to his chosen field. (Well, he’s saying it now but he’s known it for awhile). More significant is his pretense that medical/ engineering ethics might be useful to guide the ethics-free climate scientist. (I say pretense because Mann surely is not really proposing to constrain his own conduct, instead he is paying respect to ethics just as the hypocrite pretends to respect the good). And he’s not proposing to apply his (absence of) ethics to medicine and engineering. Imagine your doctor prescribing the most expensive surgery now to counter the future risk of ebola, or your engineer requiring you to build your greenhouse underground due to risk of asteroid hit.
Briefly OT, this morning newspaper has AP story that rising temp reduces economic growth, very sciency, new statistical technique and everything. Photo with article shows roofer in AZ dated July 25. Article does not perceive the grand irony: Climate activists demand we kill economy now to avoid possibility of killing it in future. Good to know that the roofer’s productivity fell off precipitously when it went from 112F to 113F.
I hear they’ve also nailed down Charles Manson to give a lecture on population control.
“Was that wrong? Should I not have done that? I tell you, I gotta plead ignorence on this thing, because if anyone had said anything to me at all when I first started here that that sort of thing is frowned upon…”
[ ?? .mod]
george costanza from seinfeld…right after his boss confronted him for sleeping with a member of the custodial staff…
Now there’s someone that’ll fit right in with Mann and the team of ethics instructors.
Although George’s ethical standards could be somewhat difficult for the team to achieve.
Mann “knows” ethics and what passes for exemplary behavior in the scientific community:
“I’m very pleased to learn that Peter [Gleik] has been exonerated,” – http://www.politico.com/morningenergy/0612/morningenergy513.html . As has been commented above, it’s a disservice to attendees that Gleick will not impart his wisdom on ethical “considerations” one needs to forgo when transitioning from research to activism.
But even his employer – Penn State – has exemplified Mann’s ethical magnificence when it boldly proclaimed, “Clearly, Dr. Mann’s reporting of his research has been successful and judged to be outstanding by his peers [like Gleick]. This would have been impossible had his activities in reporting his work been outside of accepted practices in his field [like Gleick’s practices].” – http://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf .
Why, in the sentence immediately preceding the quote above, Penn State promotes prominently the fact that Mann won the 2007 Nobel Peace Price for his highly scrutinized work in the field of climate science. How could an unethical person ever win such an award…? Obviously, the could not.
Therefore, Mann is the man for any and every lecture on ethics… What… ever.
That a professional organization has to be told how to be ethical (by Mike Mann, no less!) is really all you need to know about the AGU…
I hope it’s scheduled to immediately follow Al Gore’s lecture on “Ethics for the left wing”.
Me reading about Michael Mann giving professional ethics lectures for climate scientists reminded me of my wife’s experience in a drug rehab center.
A lot of drug rehab center counselors/therapists are ex-addicts – don’t know the percentage. My wife was a Physician Assistant who had a rotation at Eagleville, PA years ago, and stated that some of the staff were still doing drugs and doing therapy nonetheless.
I guess you don’t have to be ethically clean to give lecturers on the subject.
Don’t forget, the AGU gave an award to Gleick and had him as a speaker soon after Gleick-gate.
It’s worse than we thought with all this prickly ethics stuff to boot, so send more money.
Anybody remember Bizarro World from the old Superman comics? I believe that at birth baby Mann was switched with the baby Mann of Bizarro World. What other explanation could there be for Mann now lecturing on ethics? His Bizarro message could be summed up as —
Cheat and lie
And then deny
More seriously we are seeing Socialist ethics on display. The end justify the means. If you believe in a noble cause then all methods to win to it are justified. Or to put it another way —
Pie in the sky justifies forced labor camps.
Socialism drives out professionals and promotes party hacks. Look at our universities. They are filled with Socialist party hacks who got their jobs through a wink and a nod and not through intelligence and ability. The dumbing down of America began with the Socialist dumbing down of our colleges and universities.
Mann is totally Bizarro.
Eugene WR Gallun
.
Eugene WR Gallun
If every use of the word “socialist” in your post were replaced by the word “capitalist” then it may be possible to agree with your post.
But, of course, your post was intended as a thread bomb so was worded to be an untrue flame.
Richard
Thanks for the laugh, richard
Please list the US colleges and universities that are filled with capitalists instead of socialists, I’d like to send my daughter to one.
Hillsdale is a good place to start, Nancy.
I rarely disagree with you Dr. Courtney, but, in this case, you are flat wrong.
Friends:
Consider the real causes of problems if you really want to deal with the problems.
An inability or an unwillingness to think is demonstrated by assertions that issues are all the fault of socialists, or capitalists, or the left, or the right, etc..
Rational discussion is disrupted by making such assertions because they are without foundation and enrage those ‘on the receiving end’. This was clearly demonstrated by the responses to my post which merely pointed out the truth that the assertions of Eugene WR Gallun concerning “socialists” could be applied with equal accuracy to “capitalists”.
Richard
We can’t find any ethics for the last decade, and it’s a travesty that we can’t. Now I finally get it.
Laughing out loud
Our next guestt: Madoff
on The Code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct for investment professionals
Stay tuned!
It is a topic he has to have read about in the online and popular presses, surely. My guess is he will liberally cite Dr. Curry’s work in this area. Truthfully I’m more interested in reviewing his references than his interpretation of what they mean. He’s bound to get something upside down along the way and I prefer to read about first-hand experiences rather than a rehash of what others have done. I do wonder if Dr. Muller of BEST will read it. He’s another who’d best remain silent on the topic of ethics.
Climate ethics must be like business ethics, as exemplified in this joke:
“A father is explaining business ethics to his son, who is about to go into business. “Suppose a woman comes in and orders a hundred dollars worth of material. You wrap it up, and you give it to her. She pays you with a $100 bill. But as she goes out the door you realize she’s given you two $100 bills. Now, here’s where business ethics come in: should you or should you not tell your partner?” (Henny Youngman)
Would be good if they’d give out copies of ‘The Baloney Detector’ as part of the lecture.
Maybe slip it into the slide show while rigging up the music mentioned upthread.
Why do you give this man, or anything connected to him, any media coverage?
Because it needs to be shown what a corrupt hellhole government science has become.
So they are reluctant to sound the alarm? Best placed to make recommendations?
Is this for real? Are you sure you weren’t reading The Onion?
Holy Crap!
We could use a good cartoon of the Three Faces of Eve in climate science.
No mistake here. Dr. Mann embodies the ethics of the whole Nobel-winning crowd.
First hide the decline, now hide the ethics.
First they have to find them. Next milk carton though. Still need to find climate change.
Yeah, run around in circles screaming the sky is falling NOW NOW NOW is to “err on the side of least drama.” You can’t make this stuff up can you? Reality is stranger than any fiction writer could imagine.
Gleick and Mann should give a keynote address to the entire AGU. That organization proves once again that its “ethical” standards are in the toilet!
On a cheerier note, my 9yo daughter and her friends very much enjoyed the family-event pre-conference yesterday, it was great to see her deeply engaged well beyond the attention span I customarily credit her with…
Perhaps this lecture will be entitled “Ethics how to have none and still get away with it ”
A guide to user poor science and worse mathematics to win a Noble Prize.
Michael Mann will never allow any but the most tightly scripted questions, by someone who is completely trusted.
Otherwise, someone might ask him: “What is your ethical position on someone who claims to be a Nobel laureate, but knows he isn’t?”
Or: “Is it ethical to publish a paper based on a corrupted proxy (Tiljander), when you were informed beforehand that it was no good?” There are many other examples — if someone could simply ask. But Mann is so terrified of that possibility that he will never allow anyone the opportunity. A court venue is the only way to pin him down.
Mann’s history shows to what lengths he will go to avoid being exposed for the charlatan he is. He even finagled his way into one of his “exoneration” hearings beforehand, where he was allowed to help formulate the questions he would be asked!
So much for iumpartiality. No hostile witness has ever been allowed into any investigation into Mann’s “ethics”. This one will be no different. But I suspect that Mann will be giving ammunition to Mark Steyn no matter what he says about ethics.
Michael Mann is a petty, vindictive, spiteful, slippery weasel, and he is filled with intense hatred for any and all critics. But he is not stupid, and this event will be just as tightly scripted as all the others. Only a very clever individual would be able to penetrate his defensive armor.
But if someone finds a way, it would certainly make the news!
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
This is like Bill Clinton lecturing on marital fidelity.
Class ED11D-02 – Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists; well, almost, maybe, sort of, in a Climate Science type manner.
Section 1 – How to force data to comply with your grant needs.
– many ways to homogenize, osterize and staterize data.
Section 2 – Weak resume? We’ll describe a dozen ways to put the sparkle and heat into your cover.
– The internet and some imagination is your friend!
Section 3 – How to deal with competition and doubters
– Sue anyone and everyone to silence naysayers.
– – How to find the best venue for your lawsuits
– – Ways to wow the judges with your stellar cover, (Section 2)
Section 4 – Replication is for weak sissies!
– – Best ways to gladhand interested parties
– – Never share, never divulge, deny all attempts at independent replication as incompetent
Section 5 – How to respond to inquiries and commentary.
– – Never be afraid to use the lowest and most vulgar names for less than devoted groupies.
– – Never over compliment anyone not your superior
– – No one is your superior
Section 6 – Mainstream Media is your friend
– – How to cultivate devoted love slaves amongst poor and hungry reporters.
– – Best way to write leads for the reporters, examples given; (Plagiarists will be prosecuted!)
/sarc
+1
ED11D-02 Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists
Monday, December 15, 201408:15 AM – 08:30 AM Moscone South 102.
Is that a typo, or it is really only a fifteen minute seminar? I guess there isn’t much ground to cover when it comes to ethics and Climate Science.
I’m guessing Mann will be covering Dodging FOIA Requests, since he seems such an expert at it.
“… the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted… ”
From the “Free Dictionary” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adapted
“Adapted: v.tr. 1. To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation”
Yes indeed, their codes of ethics can be readily adapted, as can their “science”.
Somehow, the intransitive verb example from the same source
“v.intr. To become adapted: a species that has adapted to a low-oxygen environment.”
seems to fit, too.
“…professions such as medicine and engineering offer a model”
Do you see doctors using drama to convince people that AIDS will destroy the world and molding public policy by recommending that sex should be taxed?
As I recall, this is not far off from the view that was promoted in the 1980s.
Maybe so, but here they are touting that kind of drama and reaction as the preferred ethical model.
The ocean ate the climate science ethics along with the warming.
That’s what caused the hiatus of ethics?
“Scientists often have little or no training in ethics or philosophy…..”. And consequently they don’t know it’s wrong to tell a lie, as Mann has so aptly demonstrated?
“Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical”
This, for me, is the most important message in there. Mann would love nothing more than to be able to compel scientists, through force, to be “ethical”, with “ethics” defined by Mann and his ilk. Of course, “denial” of climate science wouldnt be ethical.
Science then becomes a matter of politics and morals.
Wow, that is a scary thought. Mann does have an ugly authoritarian streak so…
I suggest y’all spend your time on worthier stuff than to write about Mann and ethics. He is not going to change. So give him a break.
First and foremost Michael Mann deserves ridicule for his poor judgment and unethical behavior over the years.
Now this added hypocrisy.
This isn’t funny. It’s the fox guarding the chicken coop and an attempt to white wash his image.
Markl, you’re absolutely right, it is not funny. These people are willing to degrade your lifestyle and make nearly everything you do more expensive, or even unaffordable (Affordable Climate Act, anyone?), keep millions – or billions – of people in poverty, and deny your kids any hope of prosperity, all while raising your taxes so they can keep slurping on the federal teat to continue their posh lifestyle of flying to conferences in Bali under the guise of saving the Earth for those same people whose future they’re ruining.
Adaptable ethics, indeed.
Hey, maybe I’ll use an assumed name to avoid going afoul of legal Mann-erisms.
Ok, run this joke past me again.
This Mann said to the Peacock.
Damn good ethics we have….
“We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted….” No doubt.
Here, scientists speaking out to advance political causes *despite* the science is the feature, not the bug. This is rather like North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan taking turns chairing the U.N. committee for human rights.
You have to see this from the Alarmist perspective. They are so steeped in alarmist science and so influenced by the group-think that goes on in academic circles that they truly believe the case is closed and that anyone sufficiently educated on it would be utterly convinced.
Then they look out at polls showing that much of the public is unconvinced or rates it as a very low priority, and they are puzzled how best to fix it. In the face of such public ignorance, they can’t merely continue down their current path of Ivory Tower research and let the ignorance go unchallenged. They must they take a more activist role in trying to convince the public to be concerned, but how?
What better person than Michael Mann to instruct academics on how to propagandize the public. He makes people feel oppressed by a big bad group of Oil-funded Deniers, to perk up their alarm bells about being duped. He presents the most convincing case he can put together, using selectively edited graphs, the most alarming models, the cuddliest Polar Bears, etc. In a normal academic environment this might be frowned upon, but this is WAR against the DENIERS, and to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. If they compromise their credibility along the way, it is a small price to pay in sounding the alarm and forcing the world to take action before it’s too late.
It’s almost like someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because they are concerned about some oily rags in the corner and most of the people are blissfully unaware of the potential danger they are in if a fire should ignite.
Well said, but one little change. They will yell “Fire” in the crowded theater because there might be some oily rags in the building because they’ve seen rags in the theater and there might have been some oil in or near the building at some point, but they haven’t seen any yet. Scale, probability and proof are not real high on their decision tree.
I’m not sure what to make of that statement.
“Drama” may be of significant importance at the SyFy Channel and other science fiction writings but in science?
Is Mann a presenter because he’s a model Drama Queen?
Maybe not enough of the “97%” have actually bought into the “C” in “CAGW”?
Or maybe the CAGW version of science is more about acting and pretending than observing and analyzing?
Maybe they should offer honorary climate science degrees to those guys and gals who do infomercials?
“…and if you buy now, we’ll DOUBLE your carbon credits!!!!! (just pay extra shipping and handling and taxes and freedoms and ….”
Drama.
Good spot. Why is “Drama” important?
That has to be a sociological subject, not a scientific matter.
I bet someone could write a song about Mike Mann doing “Professional Ethics” lectures.
Similar to “Hide the Decline” song. Maybe combine the two? Professional Ethics in hiding the decline.
This is like Erwin Schrödinger running a “no kill” cat shelter.
That the authors of this self-serving pablum don’t see that all risks must be described:
– Risks of following a particular course of action.
– Risks off not following a particular course of action
– Risks of not pursuing alternatives
– Risks in the uncertainty of the research itself
– Risks of bad or incomplete data
– Risks of forecasting
– Risks of trending
– Risks of prediction
– Risks of low level of problem definition
– Risks of a too broad problem definition
After assessing all the risks, legal precedent must then I guess insist that a risk/reward report be built by a disinterested third party which is handed over to politicians who can then abuse the report in accordance to their ideology and need for votes.
This is ivory tower academic navel gazing. Nowhere could such law ever be practically written, except in the la-la land where Mann is a Noble prize winner.
How about starting with following basic scientific principles for crying out loud. Better yet how about a refresher course for these idiots on Science 101?
I wonder if Mann is going to bring climate-gate emails as examples of ethical behavior….
I think a goal here is the public’s trust: “All who accept membership in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants commit themselves to honor the public trust. In return for the faith that the public reposes in them, members should seek continually to demonstrate their dedication to professional excellence” We could say you have to trade something to obtain the public’s trust. Many other professions have done so. You allow yourself to be more regulated and you get something back. If the AICPA has a bias, it is to support their members when they have followed their ethical guidelines. When might their members need support? When entities such a the IRS or the SEC are looking at them. So we can think of the AICPA as not an arm of the government but a counter to it. I of course am not speaking for the AICPA, just giving my own opinion.
I assume, “that long-established codes of ethics in the learned professions of medicine and engineering” refers to bloodletting by leaching and building a house of cards.
They have been getting away without ethics for so long, why start now?
Or, maybe, with luck, the lecture will be silent.
How is this Irony?
i hope he mentions me.
Ethics, ith that eatht of London?
Yeth
… and I meant to add, it’s the only way.
http://news.sciencemag.org/earth/2014/11/updated-appeals-court-overturns-manslaughter-convictions-six-earthquake-scientists
If an earthquake scientist can be convicted of manslaughter and serve 2 years in prison because he undersold the risk of an imminent disaster, can Global Warming scientists be convicted of fraud or worse for overselling the risk of imminent climate catastrophe?
What about the poor guy that got a vasectomy because he was so distraught about imminent climate doom? Does he have a civil case against the alarmists once the gig is up?
Truly, we have a new generation of vipers on our hands.
Harry Passfield said
Google the first author “Kent Peacock Lethbridge”. We have a new clown desperate for his 15 minutes of fame; Mann’s name is enough to get him that even if Mann provides no other input to the show.
the Italian siesmologist who was prosecuted and convicted is instructive here.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6106/451.summary?sid=37eaf82f-f81c-4f2e-bf6a-9b4c136ba38c
but I somehow doubt this is what Mann has in mind, as every scientist and civill engineer realizes that the prosecutors in the L’Aquila case were wrong, not the scientists. Mann seems to suggesting the prosecutors got it right.
Not hilarious at all … but rather, an absolute disgrace.
If Mann had been, say, a professional accountant, he would have long been hauled before his professional body’s disciplinary committee and punished for engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct, for unprofessional behaviour, and for bringing science into disrepute with his sham ‘hockey stick graph’. This would have happened because Mann would have been in breach of the professional body’s code of ethics.
But scientists are not members of a professional body. We know this because they do not need a practising certificate issued from any scientific association in order to practice as a scientist. And they do not have to abide by a code of ethics issued by a professional accounting body.
And that’s why it is an absolute disgrace, that unethical ‘termites’ can engage in false science and behave unethically. The bottom line is that it seems scientists are not accountable to anyone, and it is high time they were held accountable to an authority.
Speaking of climate “drama”:
http://petapixel.com/2014/11/12/melting-away-decade-arctic-antarctic-photography-camille-seaman/
I see they are having a big book-signing today in NYC of the new picture-book “Melting Away”, with Gavin Schmuck moderating.
Because nothing says “global warming” quite like a melting iceberg.
Mann lecturing on climate science ethics.
Should be a very short talk.
Unless he makes up stuff.
“Professional ethics”, the ethics you get paid for…
In a world where nations such as Saudi Arabia, Libya and Iran are on the United Nation’s committee for human rights…
What actually happened during the 15 minutes?
“ED11D-02 Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists”
So this will be a 1 hour overview short course…
Immediately following “How To Lie With Statistics”; an intensive immersion course…
Reading the description, it is clearly intended to be an indoctrination into activism and a disparaging of the traditional neutral search for the truth that typified traditional Science.
(For those offended by my “How To Lie With Statistics” jab: That was an actual section name in my university statistics class… though the intent was to teach us how to spot lying with statistics.)
It is analogous to Obama lecturing on “Ethics For Socialist Community Activists”.
…..Or Bill Ayers lecturing on “Ethics for Communist Explosive Technicians”.
Its like….
Pol Pott giving a lecture on supporting Rural Communities
Mao giving a lecture on Agrarian economics
Saddam Hussein lecturing on Sectarian Tolerance
Tony Blair lecturing on Positive male role models
Obama lecturing on balancing the budget (or is that budgie?)
Fidel Castro lecturing on Economic growth
Idi Amin lecturing on the paleo diet
Stalin giving a lecture on Human Rights
Donald Rumsfield lecturing on Raising living standards (He heard razing)
China lecturing the world on Collaborative Community Urban Development
Malthus lecturing on Compassion
Angela Merkel lecturing on balanced energy markets
Saudi Royal family lecturing on first aid.
I could, but must not, go on….