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.
THE AGU is a joke. They don’t do real science. According to them Co2 and man caused global warming – case closed. Narrowminded people don’t make good scientists so don’t expect anything to change. The AGU will circle the wagons, lie through their teeth and continue on as before.
Scientific integrity in most of today’s so-called science institutions doesn’t exist.
Great letter Willis. Seeds on infertile ground however.
Prosthesis, n, a prostituted thesis.
Good open letter fervently penned. Except the strike-out parts. For what it’s worth, I would not suggest this device as a form of “voice” in a written debate that should reflect the seriousness of a court case. To be sure, strike-outs are used in court cases when testimony is to be stricken from the record. As a penned device it loses its formality alongside its importance and takes on a tongue-in-cheek informality. Responses and letters with regard to the issue at hand and that are meant to be taken seriously, should be scrubbed of all tongue-in-cheek voice.
A good warning regarding the opportunity at hand but little in the way of suggestions of what she might do specifically to regain credibility.
Willis:
Regarding the AGU’s response to Gleick’s crimes, we should all hope for the best but not expect too much.
Oops, should I say alleged crimes? Although Gleick has confessed, he hasn’t been convicted.
Excuse the excess in commenting, but this subject is not being addressed correctly. I want to talk about the real issue.
The Real Issue: Is this the very first time that Dr. Gleick has had a lapse of ethics? Is this the first time that the head of the American Geophysical Union has exemplified serious misjudgment?
The Issue isn’t Dr Gleick! It’s the AGU & it’s leadership. The AGU picked someone to run an ethics panel who is without ethics!
This can’t be the first time in Gleick’s lifetime that he’s demonstrated unethical behavior… that’s the issue. Therefore, someone knew his character & that person picked him for his character. He was picked because of who his is, who he was, what he thinks, what he will impose on others on the panel.
I am minded of the UN Human Rights Council adding Libya as a member. Not since that bit of news has there been anything so egregious as the head of the Scientific Integrity Council of the AGU being accused (innocent until proven guily, but …) of such an ethical breach.
While a letter of substance and expectation is required I fear this one, filled with theatrics, will make it appear as Willis’ inner drama queen vs the Carbon Queen. Somebody please take another whack at it.
@Pamela Gray says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:35 am
“Responses and letters with regard to the issue at hand and that are meant to be taken seriously, should be scrubbed of all tongue-in-cheek voice.”
I wholeheartedly agree, but, the overall conclusion of the post is misguided. It doesn’t go far enough. The outcome requested should not have been, ‘Please Ms Gundersen, do a wonderful job.”
The outcome that should be pressed is: The head of the AGU should resign for incompetence. He picked someone to head an ethics investigation that is prima facia unethical scoundrel.
We need to call for the resignation of the head of the American Geophysical Union, not wag a finger at Dr Gundersen?
Great letter! I hope she reads it.
I just finished reading Time Inc’s take on the scandal on Yahoo News. They think that global warming is settled and that the efforts of Heartland are aimed at producing a false ideology on global warming in school curricula that rivals the efforts to push creationism and evolutionary design. Therefore in the name of global warming religion, the efforts while illegal are justified as the leaks by wiki-leaks and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaks during the Vietnam conflict. Your letter is abundantly clear that the scientific integrity task force has a major mountain to climb with no hope of help from the AGW religious fanatics or the completely blind main stream press that unfortunately doesn’t understand the skeptic’s position on AGW. They don’t understand any of the science issues, rely on selected science sources, see Dr. Gleick as a hero “whistle blower” for the cause, believe this is a conservative-liberal disagreement, political, rather than a science integrity issue. I truly hope that the task force is up to the challenge
@Mindert Eiting
>>>We have to wait till the wall comes down.
Good point. The wall… is… coming… down. That is obvious. Once people are able to stroll back and forth across the ruins of this scam in freedom, then what has been broken (like scientific integrity) can be repaired.
Seeing as “climate science ethics” has overtaken “jumbo shrimp” as the ultimate oxymoron I expect no actions of significance from the AGU on this matter. I do hope that Heartland goes after Gleick with a vengeance though.
Great letter, Willis. You inspire me.
And the AGU roars: Quick, find me a beach! I need some sand to bury my head in!
It was more like a summary execution for treason than a defenestration. Sorta like Morant as scapegoat.
Now if skeptics had’ve lanched him, that would be a different story.
Too bad Peter G had not been required to post a ‘performance bond’ as a requirement for this position; perhaps going forward this can be made a requirement …
All that is needed for Mr.Green to invite the aggrieved parties to the White House and then they can be lectured about how to treat one another over a couple of beers. Fixed.
If the AGU (and the PI) do not ostracize Gleick publicly, this Church of the Global Warming is behaving just like the Catholic Church, where Cardinal Law shuffled pedophile priests from one diocese to another, saying the problem has been solved. Like Law, Gleich needs to be given a hole to climb into for the rest of his life.
Great letter W. but don’t hold your breath. These cult watermelon religion types will simply change the name of Gunderson’s group from “Task Fo/arce” to something else that sounds more enlightened. Dazzle them w/ BS – the Alinsky way.
Given that Gleick organized and chaired this Task Force, it is likely that he hand-picked most of its members for the alignment of their view of Scientific Ethics with his own. If so, the AGU should simply dismiss the entire Task Force, with no prejudice to its members other than Gleick.
Gleick Watch.
Is this the Peter Gleick?
c/o American Bar Association.
…-
“February 17, 2012”
“The American Bar Association issued the following news release:”
“Peter H. Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, will give keynote remarks at a Feb. 23 luncheon beginning at 12:30 p.m.”
“Emerging Water Law Issues Topic of ABA Conference in San Diego”
http://www.waterworld.com/index/display/news_display/1607357662.html
“JJ says: Presumably, Linda Gunderson is the second most ethical member of the AGU, after Peter Gleick.”
LMAO! You owe me a new keyboard.
jon shively says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:13 am
“Great letter! I hope she reads it.
I just finished reading Time Inc’s take on the scandal on Yahoo News. They think that global warming is settled and that the efforts of Heartland are aimed at producing a false ideology on global warming in school curricula that rivals the efforts to push creationism and evolutionary design. Therefore in the name of global warming religion, the efforts while illegal are justified as the leaks by wiki-leaks and Daniel Ellsberg’s leaks during the Vietnam conflict.”
Always remember – it does NOT matter what Time Inc. or Yahoo! thinks about anything, particularly climate change. You have a voice – and your voice is given power when you VOTE.
Please remember all of these shenanigans with Gleick and his sympathizers in November when you vote. We can vote to change the way the CAGW is funded. And please note that CAGW scientists are by and large funded by US, the taxpayers, at both the state and federal levels.
Frank K. says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:05 am
jon shively says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:13 am
“You have a voice – and your voice is given power when you VOTE.”
We need to do more than VOTE. We need to sacrifice.
My sacrifice is to contribute, for me, large amounts of money to conservative candidates & causes. Note the small “c.” It’s most important to know what someone will do when confronted with serious decisions.
Nothing is going to be done. Typical warmist ethics.
Falling on deaf ears Willis. The only thing that would cause the AGU to act is a trickle of resignations by prominent geophysicists followed by a flood of resignations from the regular members. When the AGU has no members left perhaps the board may attempt to do the right thing. Meanwhile, form the NAGU (New American Geophysical Union).
How and by whom was Gundersen appointed? By the same method and by the same people Gleick was appointed? For some reason I just don’t have any belief that there will be any change from a continuation of the same group-think in the leadership. Once the organization has been hijacked and the ranks filled with like minded participants there is most likely no hope for a return to sanity without a complete overhaul, which will not likely happen. Is there a venue for the membership to rise to create a complete restructuring of their leadership and policies?
Great letter Willis.
If you had been weaker, later on you would wish you had not.
As well, your responses to the whiners are great. Take no prisoners.
Yes, I would be surprised if the AGU does anything concrete.(Oops, concrete causes warming!)