Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
Dear Dr. Gundersen;
I see that due to the highly theatrical auto-defenestration of your predecessor, Dr. Peter Gleick, you are now the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Scientific Integrity. I’m not sure whether to offer my congratulations or my condolences. Let me offer you both, as you have both huge opportunity and huge danger in front of you, and the reputation of your Task Force has already suffered serious damage.
Next, let me put it to you straight. As Dr. Gleick’s demise for wire fraud is just the latest demonstration, far too many climate scientists have all the scientific integrity of a desperate grifter whose con is going badly wrong. Consider for example the response from Dr. Gleick’s supporters to his actions, who in many cases have lauded him as a “whistleblower”, and some of whom stop just short of proposing him for climate sainthood.
So my question for you is this: what are you planning to do about this abysmal state of affairs?
Make no mistake. If Peter Gleick walks away from this debacle free of expulsion, sanction, or censure from the AGU, without suffering any further penalties, your reputation and the reputation of the AGU will forever join his on the cutting room floor. People are already laughing at the spectacle of the chair of a task force on scientific integrity getting caught with his entire arm in the cookie jar. You have one, and only one, chance to stop the laughter.
Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the bal … the scientific integrity to take up the case of its late and unlamented commander as its very first order of business, my Spidey-sense says that it will be forever known as the “AGU Task Farce on Scientific Integrity”. You have a clear integrity case staring you in the face. If you only respond to Dr. Gleick’s reprehensible actions with vague platitudes about “the importance of …”, if the Task Force’s only contribution is mealy-mouthed mumblings about how “we deplore …” and “we are disappointed …”, I assure you that people will continue to point and laugh at that kind of spineless pretense of scientific integrity.
Folks are fed up with climate scientists who lie, cheat, and steal to attack their scientific opponents, and who then walk away without the slightest action being taken by other scientists. As long as there are no repercussions from the scientific community for the kind of things Dr. Gleick has done, mainstream climate scientists will continue to do them. Indeed, Dr. Gleick’s own actions were no doubt greatly encouraged by the fact that you noble scientists were so full of bul … of scientific integrity that you all let the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators walk away scot-free, without even asking them the important questions, much less getting answers to those major issues.
You have the opportunity to actually take a principled stand here, Dr. Gundersen, and I cannot overemphasize the importance of you doing so. Dr. Gleick’s kind of unethical skullduggery in the name of science has ruined the reputation of the entire field of climate science. The rot of “noble cause corruption” is well advanced in the field, and it will not stop until people just like you quit looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist. I had hoped that some kind of repercussions for scientific malfeasance would be one of the outcomes of Climategate, but people just ignored that part. This one you can’t ignore.
Well, I suppose you can ignore it, humans are amazing, anyone can ignore even an elephant in the room … but if you do ignore it, in the future please don’t ever expect your opinions on scientific integrity to be given even the slightest weight. The world is already watching your actions, not your words, and you can be assured that those actions will be carefully examined. If you let this chance for meaningful action slip away, no one out here in the real world will ever again believe a word you say on the subject of integrity.
I cannot urge you in strong enough terms. Do not miss the boat on this one. The credibility of your panel is already irrevocably damaged by the witless choice of your first chair. The move is yours to make or not, the opportunity is there to take the scientific high ground. You will be judged on whether you and the Task Force have the scientific integrity to take action regarding Dr. Gleick, or whether you just take the UN route and issue a string of “strongly worded resolutions” bemoaning the general situation.
Let me close with a quote from Megan McCardle at The Atlantic:
When skeptics complain that global warming activists are apparently willing to go to any lengths–including lying–to advance their worldview, I’d say one of the movement’s top priorities should be not proving them right. And if one rogue member of the community does something crazy that provides such proof, I’d say it is crucial that the other members of the community say “Oh, how horrible, this is so far beyond the pale that I cannot imagine how this ever could have happened!” and not, “Well, he’s apologized and I really think it’s pretty crude and opportunistic to make a fuss about something that’s so unimportant in the grand scheme of things.”
After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.
I am hoping for action on this, but sadly, I have been in this game long enough to not expect scientific integrity, even from scientists who sit on scientific integrity task forces … and I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
In any case, my warmest and best wishes to you, Dr. Gundersen. I do not envy you, as you have a very difficult task ahead. I wish you every success in your work.
w.
APPENDIX:
From the AGU website, I find the following, and I encourage people to note the names of the participants in this scientific experiment. If they actually step up to the plate, if the Task Force and the AGU do take action regarding Dr. Gleick’s misdeeds, if they don’t just blow smoke and mouth smooth-sounding words, then these are the people to congratulate.
And vice versa.
AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics
Chair
Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia.
Members
David J. Chesney, Michigan Tech University, Houghton, Michigan
Floyd DesChamps, Alliance to Save Energy, Washington, DC
Karen Fischer, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island
Tim Grove, MIT Earth Atmosphere & Planetary Sciences, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Linda Gundersen, USGS, Reston, Virginia
Noel Gurwick, UCSUSA, Washington, DC
Dennis Moore, NOAA/PMEL, Seattle, Washington
Arthur Nowell, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Len Pietrafesa, Coastal Carolina University, Conway, South Carolina
Jeff Plescia, Applied Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland
Peter Schuck, NASA/GSFC CODE 674, Greenbelt, Maryland
Jagadish Shukla, Geo Mason-Center Ocean/Land Atmosphere, Calverton, Maryland
Vivian Weil, Center for Ethics, Illinois Institute of Technology, Chicago, Illinois
Staff Liaison
Randy Townsend
The Scientific Ethics Task Force is responsible for reviewing and guiding the Union’s standards, principles, and code of conduct on ethics and integrity in scientific activities.
Committee Charge
Review the current state of AGU’s scientific ethical standards in the geophysical sciences and those of other related professional/scholarly societies;
Based on this knowledge, update AGU’s protocols and procedures for addressing violations of its ethical principles;
As appropriate, revise and augment AGU’s current ethical principles and code of conduct for AGU meetings, publications and for interactions between scientists with their professional colleagues and the public;
Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles, and
Consider whether AGU should adopt a statement of ethical principles as a condition of membership or for participation in certain activities of the Union. If so, develop a recommendation on how the principles would be applied to AGU members and or participants in AGU activities.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
and the sooner you get started, and I mean ‘on actions’, the better !
Precisely. If “climate science” were really based on science, such “scientific integrity task forces” wouldn’t be needed; their very existence establishes the fact there’s a serious problem. But as it currently stands, the “foxes are guarding the henhouse” (they believe everybody else is lacking integrity), so I doubt this appeal will prompt a penitent answer. Still, good try, Willis.
What not just punish an appeal for hate mail?
Well, already the AGU has shown it’s lack of bal … scientific integrity by issuing the following:
“…February 21, 2012
AGU Release No. 12-11
For Immediate Release
In response to a blog post late yesterday, 20 February 2012, by Dr. Peter Gleick regarding documents purportedly from the Heartland Institute which he disseminated, AGU President Michael McPhaden issued the following statement:
“AGU is DISAPPOINTED that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values. AGU expects its members to adhere to the highest standards of scientific integrity in their research and in their interactions with colleagues and the public. Among the core values articulated in AGU’s Strategic Plan are ‘excellence and integrity in everything we do.’ The vast majority of scientists share and live by these values.
“AGU will continue to uphold these values and encourage scientists to embrace them in order to remain deserving of the public trust. While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
If Gleick is prepared to stoop so low in order to attack the “denialists”, it makes you wonder what he’s been doing with his science over the years.
Given that he believes that “the cause” is bigger than truth and integrity, is it credible that that attitude has not crept into his scientific endeavours?
Committees, Panels, Review Boards: all with the pomposity and false grandiosity of a street bum smoking a CUBAN cigar butt he found in the gutter.
The power to recommend, not the power to act. The titles and the day-timers and the business cards, but what comes of the oxygen they suck from the room? What actually happens?
We humans love our time in the sun. We create bureaucracies that serve no one but the bureaucrats. We speechify and qualify and pontificate. And then go home, have a scotch and applaud ourselves for the great work we’re doing. After all, we are all now on the same page, pulling in the same direction, together with the plan and the programme. The future is ours, once we get the memo out.
Oh, sorry. That was about politicians. Or the AGU, the UCS, the Royal Society, the David Suzuki Foundation and Al Gore. All such a sameness.
Presumably, Linda Gunderson is the second most ethical member of the AGU, after Peter Gleick.
Are you kidding? It’s all politics. They will circle the wagons.
One simple change which could be made in the midst of all this hubbub, is to be far more careful in throwing around terms designed to malign and obfuscate.
Two examples:
First Example: “Climate Change” i.e. the term used with no qualifiers.
What does this mean? The people warning about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) keep changing terms, and then accusing people not on board with their projections as being against science. Well, what science is that? What exactly is “Climate Change”?
Second Example: “Denier” i.e. anyone who appears to disagree with anything those on the AGU’s official side of this debate espouse. Denier of what? “Climate Change”? What definition of “Climate Change” are these supposed opponents “Denying”?
I, personally do not believe the proponents of CAGW have scientifically proven their conjecture.
I do, however believe that climate changes. What am I, the enemy?
Excellent letter, Willis! thank you!!
I won’t be holding my breath but they need to take more substantial action than simply removing him (or he removed himself according to their statement) from the Chair of their Ethics Committee. They will try to ignore the issue and make excuses to themselves, but the AGU needs to act.
Defenstration? I hope you ran that through a spell checker before actually sending it. Otherwise, great letter, that I hope doesn’t get defenestrated by the recipients.
[Fixed, thanks. ~dbs, mod.]
Now that’s what I call a letter, both barrels right between the eyes.
That letter along with Heartlands Wall Street Journal Video response, need to be combined and made easily accessible to all
Given Linda’s position, she is obviously a good politician … an expert in talking a lot and saying little. I wouldn’t expect anything useful from her.
In the committee remit: Propose sanctions for those who violate AGU’s ethical principles . How fortunate they are! They have a real-world test case to consider and respond to right off the top.
But indications are not very good so far …
I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.
Concise and apt.
“While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
They think it is approriate to push the company line in the midst of their announcement, instead of demonstrating embarassment over having chosen a weasel like Gleick to be the head of their “ethics task force”.
Just another instance of the problem, and proof they don’t get it.
“After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”
– A classic line! ++1
Excellent as always, Willis. However, the alacrity with which Ms Linda Gunderson was selected raises serious doubts regarding her impartiality. She is seen as a member of Gleick’s “team”, and as such can absolutely be counted upon to sweep this issue under the rug, and MoveOn.
Prove me wrong, Ms Gunderson. I double-dog dare you. If I’m wrong, then you will find Gleick to be a dishonest propagandist, with no regard for the truth. The ball is squarely in your court. Will you waffle? Or will you unequivocally condemn his egregious wrongdoing? Were you pre-selected as a reliable team player? Or as an ethical arbiter? You now represent the ethics of the AGU. The world is watching, and you will be judged on how you handle a self-confessed, dishonest conniver in your organization.
Dr. Linda Gunderson, Reston, Virginia. i close my case.
Well put, Mr. Eschenbach, but given that climate “science” is involved I feel that a friend’s favourite quotation applies:
“Happy is he who expecteth nothing.”
I’m afraid I’ve grown quite cynical of scientific bodies in recent years, and do not expect to see too many signs of integrity from the AGU.
One of my colleagues in another faculty recently reported having had an entire article of his lifted by two academics and plagiarized in its entirety in the Journal of Electromagnetic Waves and Applications. He reported having told his students about this, as a warning to them about the dangers of plagiarism, because these two frauds had been severely punished: they were prohibited from publishing in the journal again for three entire years!!!! (I don’t know whether to add a /sarc tag or not)
It seems that much of science, and indeed, much of academia, has become a welfare project for people just smart enough to get their Ph.D.s, and especially for those of the right – sorry, I mean leftist – activist inclinations. Professional standards, and the disinterested pursuit of truth and knowledge, have gone out the window.
Charges, convictions in a court of law , and imprisonment are imperative. Imprisonment and public destruction of their careers are the only real actions these climatologist have to fear! This flagrant criminality must be given the maximum legal punishments, lest the Rule Of Law be completely abrogated.
We need clear and unambiguous statements and actions from Dr. Laura Gunderson that she and the AGU will support full disclosure of all details and assist criminal actions against Gleick.
He has already resigned from the Task Force on blah blah blah. Perhaps also from the AGU. If he hasn’t resigned they can toss him out (but not out a window).
So, having severed all ties to him – what then? Sue him for damaging the AGU’s reputation. That might require they prove they have a reputation that could be damaged. I would advise the AGU to disband the Task Force on blah blah blah and then shut up. For the AGU, this would be the equivalent of dropping a concrete block in the ocean over the Mariana Trench.
Just based on the quotes available, I think Megan McCardle would make a better chair for the AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity than Dr. Gundersen.
MM: “After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you’ve lost the power to convince them of anything else.”
Dr. G: “While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
Unfortunately, I’ve become cynical enough to believe that “substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change” means agreeing (completely) with Saint Mann & Co, with the possible exception of discussing who’s name will go first on the next paper they release. They’ve already made it very clear what they think of our definition of “substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”