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.
@henrythethird says: February 21, 2012 at 8:37 pm
“Well, already the AGU has shown it’s lack of bal … scientific integrity by issuing the following:
“…AGU is DISAPPOINTED that Dr. Gleick acted in a way that is inconsistent with our organization’s values….”
Ahem. Agreed. “Disappointed” is how I feel when I break a fingernail. This term is off base by at least an order of magnitude. A more appropriate term would have been, “AGU is AGHAST…” followed by swearing on the ghosts of Newton, Copernicus, and Einstein that they’d get to the bottom of it.
Sharpshooter says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm
Unfortunately, their statist funding will likely INCREASE, such that misconduct, to and beyond the level of fraud and thuggery, will not incur any negative consequences.
By the statists, for the statists. In a few days, they’ll be laughing at their opponents.
==========
/signed
I’m more concerned about the rest of the membership rather than just one figurehead.
Do they move in “lock step” or stand for integrity. I would like the hear each member respond.
I do hope that Heartland is well lawyered. Kahane (sp?) is a pretty brutal guy…and will counter punch hard….he’ll be in attack mode from day 1. Unfortunately I don’t think Heartland has deep pockets…and the alarmists will do serious and wide-spread hate on them.
Also, I’ve read a couple of places the speculation that this has something to do with the education wars wrt AGW. So, in my researching I found a little piece at HuffPo about the time NCSE was hiring Gleick (and Mark McCaffrey) to fold in AGW to their fight for Teaching Evolution portfolio
The author is pretty agitated about teaching AGW…and only the correct AGW in schools…and how really, this is just the creationist thing all over again
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/18/climate-change-skeptics-science-teachers_n_1214049.html
and if you are interested in looking at their principles…look here, at McCaffrey’s old shop
http://www.cleanet.org/clean/literacy/index.html
Another excellent posting Willis – probably your best – reinforced by your remarks at 10:19pm.
Having long been a cynic, a characteristic moulded by experience, what’s likely to happen – as some organisms do naturally – is the priority becomes the defence, continuance and expansion of the body.
Do I hear someone saying, “This could have been avoided if only we’d had bigger grants”?
http://www.usgs.gov/humancapital/documents/ecd_guidingprinciples.pdf
Dr. Gundersen has considered integrity issues within the enormous USGS. She’s not the CEO of some $2 million dollar a year advocacy group. I would never assume she was the second choice. Instead, I would guess the selection of the chairman went something like this:
Meeting leader: “Thank you all for agreeing to serve. We need to select a Chair”
Dr. Gleik: “Pick me! Pick me!”
Dr. Gundersen: “I’m pleased that Dr. Gleik is willing to take on this responsibility. Many of us have very full plates at this time. Thank you, Dr. Gleik! ”
Nomination.
Vote.
It’s just a guess but I think an educated guess.
Willis, you are who you are and we appreciate that. I don’t think Dr. Gundersen would be moved much by your tone but your message is, as always, clear and amusing.
“If he hasn’t resigned they can toss him out (but not out a window)”
Ah, “aus dem Fenster werfen ” rather than “defenestration” ? Seems to me that our Willis was thinking in German when he wrote “defenstration” anyway, hence the now corrected typo. 🙂 😉
I notice they edited the page so quickly they forgot to remove her name lower down. Somebody got told to delete his details FAST!
Excellent letter WIllis, i too wish her and her team the best, ethics seems to be a branch of classical greek to most scientists.
‘Sharpshooter says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:53 pm
By the statists, for the statists. In a few days, they’ll be laughing at their opponents.’
Not this time Sharpy, if HI have its way, the statism in this case will be the melted out by the Lawyers. Possibly a criminal one at that.
And Lawyers love putting the finger on scum as a lot of them do have optimistology tendancies.
.
These are all “preselected” AGW members. There will be no change, I promise.
“presumably she is the second most honest member” Right on the nail.
Anthony,
This or some form of it should be at the top of your site. It is the best form of the old saying that I have seen.
You letter is way too long and wordy, too informal and emotional. The key to writing effective put-downs is to stay short and pithy, so that your reader is entertained and informed, and outraged by the facts presented, instead of your opinions — people value them, but generally much prefer to make their own mind up, which is a good thing(tm). 3-4 short paragraphs is the optimal size for such letters.
Also, your letter just plays to the gallery, it will not convince hardened climate fraudsters nor will it help to educate the victims who have been hoodwinked by the climate fraud crew either.
@Paul Marco
>>Are you kidding? It’s all politics. They will circle the wagons.
Precisely, they’ve gotta try to protect what they have. The only thing that will change the AGU will be when more of their membership resigns in protest, and maybe that won’t even do it. It’s too bad. Scientific integrity is on the ropes right now.
Ethics and Integrity Task Force has the same meaning as the Free and Democratic Republic of Eastern Germany. I would not have written an open letter to Ulrich or Honecker. We have to wait till the wall comes down.
nice try will, however if the scientific community had any integrity at all the AGW hoax would never been unscrutinized in the first place.
Science has devolved into a political cult. now has a new priestess.
I think Rick Santorum may have been right when he talked about evil in the environmental movement.
They say that the camera never lies but, the contents of the box very rarely (if ever) live up to the picture on the box. The high sounding words which form the policy and stratergy of these organisations are just like the pictures oh the boxes. I have yet to find one that I think would fool Willis.
Say it like it is or move on. Thanks Willis.
Not directly related to the AGU, but certainly to ethics:
Have we had a comment yet from
Donald A. Brown
Associate Professor Environmental Ethics, Science, and Law,
Director,Collaborative Program on Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change, Rock Ethics Institute,
Penn State University
126 Willard,
University Park, Pa, 16802
717-802-xxxx (cell); 814-865-xxxx (office)
dab57@psu.xxxx
who asked if an ‘ethical analysis of the climate change disinformation campaign’ would see this as ‘a new kind of crime against humanity’?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/29/penn-state-to-lecture-on-climate-ethics/
Presumably he would see Gleick’s identity theft, fraud, and publication of personal details of Heatland employees and donors all over the web as entirely ethical, and justified by the ‘Greater Cause’ of ‘Saving the ****ing Planet’.
Perhaps someone in the area could ask him tomorrow: ‘Dr. Donald Brown, associate professor of environmental ethics, science, and law at Penn State University will present a lecture, “Turning Up the Volume on the Ethical Dimensions of Climate Change,” at the Erie Art Museum, Thursday, Feb. 23, at 7 p.m., with an audience Q&A to follow.’
No breath holding for a decent answer. AGW and ehics just don’t seem to mix.
Laurie says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:32 am
Thanks, Laurie. Actually, I was not looking to move Dr. Gundersen, not trying to persuade her. Instead I was trying to warn her of the dangers of inaction, for AGU and for her own reputation. I am constitutionally incapable of watching someone drive a bus off a cliff without shouting “HEY! LOOK OUT!” … particularly when I’m a passenger on the bus.
And you are correct that when I do that, I am more concerned with volume and clarity than with quiet persuasion.
What she does with the warning is up to her. I encourage her to seize the huge opportunity she has. She’s devoted her life to issues of scientific integrity. She now has the chance to be an actor in that field, to carpe the daylights out of the diem, to actually be that strong voice that the issue needs and wants. What a chance, she has the bully pulpit, she could be the strong voice for scientific honesty and transparency.
Not holding my breath …
w.
Hexe Froschbein says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
Y’know, Hexe, I’m one of the more widely read climate bloggers on the planet, with about a million page views last year, writing for the best and most widely read science blog on the web, and you are a commenter.
Care to guess why?
Because one of us actually knows how to write an interesting open letter.
w.
Well put Willis. Being a cynic I reckon that the fact Gleick thought he could get away with it suggests the board of the AGU has not really talked much about ethics or worse is a feeble pushover for someone like him. Don’t hold your breath waiting for action!
Hexe Froschbein says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
I think it will help educate folks who have been fooled.
However, I fear that changing the opinions of what you describe as “hardened climate fraudsters” requires something more akin to a tactical nuclear weapon than to an open letter …
w.
Doug Proctor: February 21, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Great comment Doug. So very ‘visual’. I was able to relate to it on so very many levels. I particularly liked the opening metaphor:
stan stendera: February 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm
I can only agree whole-heartedly with that statement. OTOH, I have a cap that would be the perfect adornment for Dr Gleick et al. On it are inscribed the words:
I would add one thing to Willis’s letter: a plea. A plea to Dr Gundersen that the very first thing she implements as part of her role as ‘Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics’ is to BAN the use of the unethical epithet ‘Denier’ in all AGU communications and papers etc. Her committee would do well to define ethical labels that the community could come to use, which would ‘ethically’ describe those who are adherents to the hypothesis and those who are agin it.
Finally, I have spent the last few days, like many here, reading thousands and thousands of words about ‘Fake-gate’. In all that, it was inevitable that there would be a crushing denoument, a final reckoning. And it has come to pass. However, nowhere have I actually read that the AGU or any other scientific body associated with Dr Gleick has either sacked him or asked for his resignation. They have merely hidden behind the fact that he is no longer in post. That’s cognitive disonance – in spades.
“presumably she is the second most honest member”
ROFL.
Those people and organizations that have defended Gleick since he admitted wire fraud suggests to the outside world that faking results and meddling with data is perceived as an acceptable way of getting the job done. A delusional God syndrome must be systemic amongst Gleick’s peers.
“AGU Task Farce on Scientific Integrity”
Man, you own 😉
FD