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.
I am in total agreement Willis.
Snotrocket says (February 22, 2012 at 2:38 am)
(1) Gleick has not been fired from anything.
(2) No major climate scientist has commented apart from Dr. Curry, who judging by Chris Colose’s comments on her blog, is now officially blackballed from being ‘one of us’ in climate circles.
(3) No apology (or indeed mention) on news organisations like the BBC.
(4) No one apart from bloggers has condemned Gleick for *still* lying through his teeth. He holds to his claim that the ‘fake document’ was sent to him, but it was the stylistic features of the document that allowed Steven Mosher to finger him in the first place. He wrote it; now he’s denying it through his ‘official spokesman’.
Is everyone in the world of officialdom now just a time-serving liar?
JJ says: February 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm…
I propose JJ’s comment as comment of the post! Absolutely nailed it.
BTW: In a discussion with an acquaintance, who having a Masters in English Literature in History believes he has a better intellectual grasp of argument than mere bloggers, he expounded on the theory that, in all discourse there is first hypothesis, followed by thesis, antithesis and finally, synthesis, when all are agreed. Not being impressed, I was able to add another ‘thesis’ to his ‘logic’: it is ‘prothesis‘: that point in time when your argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on!
I’d like to respectfully suggest that the phrase “Noble Cause Corruption” be retired.
Corruption is corruption, and even the most nobel cause becomes ignoble as soon as corruption is needed and used to defend and/or promote it.
Scientific integrity at its finest. “Your honour, the Devil made me do it.” :>(
Warmists and farters are the same. They accuse others of doing exactly what they are doing.
What a horrible letter. What business do you have writing to her?
Of course climate change is occurring. What I want to know is whatever happened to global warming? This is the question they so ‘deftly’ avoid with the lame use of the word climate change. B.S.
[snip. Invalid email address. ~dbs, mod.]
I initially thought Willis’s letter was a trifle over-combatitive…but then I thought, well, if it is what he really thinks, he should indeed write it and send it.
To those of you who don’t agree…go ahead and write your own letter!
I can see the AGU not reviewing their outlook but merely thinking “How can we best MANAGE this? We have to be SEEN to be doing something.”
Sadly, it would be a triumph of hope over experience to expect the change of attitude Willis demands.
I will put my $5 on “looking the other way and pretending it doesn’t exist.”
Oh, and what jonathan frodsham says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:36 pm
with bells on. Sadly.
Kudos for trying though Willis.
I’d guess they would not (perhaps sensibly) take action till it is clear what legal actions will be forthcoming. After all, if Dr Glieck is convicted of fraud, their decision will be taken for them (assuming AGU have the universal ability to expel members so convicted), so earlier discussion would be pointless (and risk politicising their self-perceived secure position).
The best I’d expect at the moment would therefore be that they will state they will monitor the situation. I would certainly expect the AGU will not let Dr Gleick use his affiliation with them for while until they feel the time is right for them to clear thing up.
Watchman says (February 22, 2012 at 4:12 am)
————
He has already admitted obtaining personal information (names of donors & staff, personal details) by deception.
Given the tough line being taken by police forces around the world re internet fraud, this alone should be cause to charge him.
“While this incident is regrettable, it should not obscure the fact that climate change is occurring”
How can any, any scientist, write such utter gobbledegook nonsense? And one from the “geophysical”?
“or interfere with substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
What discourse? They don’t allow it. They refuse to discuss it.
They’ve stopped being scientists, have now become another church in the great new belief system the AGWChurch, demonising the basic food of us carbon life forms and blaming us for producing it!
“The American geophysical Union (AGU) is a nonprofit organization of geophysicists with over 50,000 members from over 140 countries. The AGU’s activities are focused on the collection and dissemination of scientific information in the interdisciplinary and international field of geophysics. The geophysical sciences include four fundamental areas: atmospheric and ocean sciences, solid-Earth sciences, hydrologic sciences, and space sciences. The AGU’s mission is to promote the scientific study of Earth and its environment in space and to disseminate the results to the public; to encourage cooperation among scientific organizations involved in geophysics and related disciplines; to initiate and participate in geophysical research programs; and to advance the various geophysical disciplines through scientific discussion, publication, and dissemination of information. In December 2003, the AGU clearly stated its position on global warming, explicitly pointing to human activities as determining factors in changing the Earth’s climate.”
http://what-when-how.com/global-warming/american-geophysical-union-global-warming/
Task force on science integrity? What the hell is that supposed to mean when they’ve decided on an unproven belief system opposed to science integrity? When they have imposed their belief system on an established scientific organisation and find merely regrettable that they’ve been caught out by one of numerous examples of criminal behaviour against science discourse by members of their Church?
Will your letter get through to her? Maybe it would to the other “50,000 members from over 140 countries” – let her show how to lead a task force on science integrity – she could circulate your letter to all the members with a link back to your post…
They are climate fundamentalists. The truth doesn’t matter. Anything goes for their cause.
Willis, I know you write good and interesting stuff, this is why I come here to read and comment on it. 😉
However, people’s attention span is short and you only get a few moments of their time to make your ideas take root in their thinking.
Can I show your letter to my educated but naive friends as proof that those climate alchemists are fraudsters? Nops, because they are not in the loop and would need to understand too many side issues to fully comprehend your message here. For me, those are the people we need to reach, it’s not all that different from any other advertisement campaign.
For once we have an issue that is not complex (in the scientific sense) that even total laymen can understand and that can be communicated in publicity friendly soundbites that inspire critical thinking (and outrage) in people who normally would not be able to follow the technical arguments. Let’s use it, we don’t often get this chance!
That letter is pure Willis, well done Mr. Eschenbach. Another commenter mentioned that in view of Gleick’s AGW zealotry blinding him to the ethical, legal, and personal repercussions that were sure to follow his actions, it is not unreasonable to question his published works. Since confirmation bias is almost a certainty. I wonder if the journals in which Gleick has been published would have the integrity to re-examine his papers.
Let me think about that, naaaah, never happen.
It needed to be said, you said it. Now thousands of other scientists need to step up to the plate and demand an accounting. Thanks.
JG
Well said, again, professor (I use the word purposefully).
Great letter !!!
Well, as powerful as the AGU appears to be, hopefully the new chair will see that inaction will not only put the AGU in a bad light, it also will reflect on HER employer – the USGS.
After all, her job there is listed as: Director, Office of Science Quality and Integrity.
So, Dr Gundersen, what would you do if Dr. Peter Gleick worked for the USGS? If his actions reflected discredit on the USGS, would you only express “disappointment” that he acted in a way that is inconsistent with your organization’s values?
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Mark McDonald says:
February 21, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Then why on earth are you not out doing just exactly that, instead of wasting time bitching about what I do?
Gotta love the Armchair Admirals …
Aye, Captain. Well and properly done and written, Willis. Gunderson has no choice, but hypoxia is imminent.
This is great. We have a nice, long list of government and university geologists. Most of my grandfather’s graduate students went into the private sector. But, that was 1927.
I often wonder how many generations will be needed to dismantle the government/university system of science. I am not optimistic.
Great letter Willis! Once again you are piercingly clear, and yet, as you so eloquently put it, the Armchair Admirals are back criticizing, “improving” your message. One would think a disturbingly large percentage of the population had studied “marketing.”
‘a new broom sweeps clean’ is the supposition.
I think there is an opportunity here to hold AGU to task.
given AGU is an ethics group we would expect the dissemination of a code of ethics.
we would expect ideals such as integrity, disclosure, transparency, and respect, to be sacrosanct. .
we would expect grievance procedures, complaints officers, disciplinary boards, and sanctions for transgressors.
we would expect referrals to appropriate authorities for criminal breach of ethics.
are these items in place ?
we would expect a review and redrafting of established protocols as a matter of urgency.
I would call for an anonymous volunteering of grievances re malpractise, from scientists and affected groups and individuals, within and without the AGU.
I would focus in particular on the curriculum and practises of teaching climate change in schools.
I would review the work of transgressors, retrospective to a period of years.
dear all,
‘it’s the squeaky wheel that gets oiled’. ‘go hard on the issue, soft on the person’. ad hom attacks do have their place (in a hostile environment), but largely demonstrate a failure of communication and intent to debate issues.
I don’t think we’re here to gloat are we ? enough of the smug, it does not advance our cause, which is the dissemination and uptake of accurate climate science ! to push the point, we’re here to be righteously outraged, not to exchange pleasantries. stop smiling !
maintain the high ground, and work on those people skills !
now if some of you fine people would put those ‘woulds’, reframed as ‘are’s … ?’ into polite letters to the AGU, we might achieve some results.
greetings from oz.
The following is from today’s Wikipedia version of Dr. Gleick’s info page:
(Introduction)
>>Dr. Peter H. Gleick (born 1956) is a scientist working on issues related to the environment, economic development, international security, and scientific ethics and integrity[1], with a focus on global freshwater challenges. He works at the Pacific Institute in Oakland, California, which he co-founded in 1987. In 2003 he was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship for his work on water resources. Among the issues he has addressed are conflicts over water resources [2], the impacts of climate change on water resources, the human right to water, and the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation. In 2006 he was elected to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. On February 16, 2012 Dr. Gleick resigned from the American Geophysical Union Task Force on Scientific Ethics citing “personal, private reasons”. [3] On February 20 he confessed he had obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses[4].<<
1.
So, Dr. Gleick is so worried about "…………. the problems of the billions of people without safe, affordable, and reliable water and sanitation."
Doesn't he realise that if a good part of the money, trillions of it, that has been (ineffectivley) spent on fighting climate change was spent on building water processing plantsin the third world, this problem would have been greatly reduced?
2.
Wikipedia has failed to include the fact that Dr. Gleick not only "obtained documents…under false pretenses" but actually falsified, faked a document in his zeal to try to discredit scientific organisation.
Shame on Wikipedia.