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.
Snotrocket on February 22, 2012 at 3:03 am
JJ says on February 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm…
I propose JJ’s comment as comment of the post! Absolutely nailed it.
Seconded!
I hope this letter from Willis Eschenbach has made Dr. Gundersen and her task force aware how much is at stake.
Time is of the essence, but there is still plenty of time to do it properly, once.
It might be wise to determine if any new skills, experience and independence are required in the task force and whether each current member is happy to continue with such an important task ahead; I would expect that it will be more onerous than was originally thought.
To me, it looks like a different ball game. We, in Britain, have had railway organisations without any engineers on the board, so we should be aware that a team without the proper mix of experience can fail, even though everyone may have good intentions.
This reappraisal should not, however, be an excuse for procrastination.
I thought this was about Gleick but it wasn’t. I thought it was interesting anyway – http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2012/02/22/the_high_priests_of_ecodestruction/page/full/
The High Priests of Eco-Destruction
Willis Eschenbach: Because if your Task Force doesn’t have the ba
You should write so as not to offend people who do not already have a commitment to one action or another. Of the many letter that they receive, this one will go into the “ignore” pile.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:19 pm
jb says:
February 21, 2012 at 9:39 pm
“I share your seniment, but I think this letter would have had greater impact if it were not so “over the top.”
Yeah, you’re likely right, jb, I probably should have rubbed her tummy and blown in her ear before warning her that she needs to act …
The problem is, I’m terminally honest, and I’m not going to sugar coat it. Sorry. I don’t know how to do “under the top”. It comes out of my electronic pen looking like mashed potatoes made from dehydrated potato powder instead of real potatoes, and sounding like a strongly worded resolution from the UN deploring low self-esteem among career criminals.
So … I invite you to write a much nicer version and send it to her. I’m sure compared to me, you’ll sound quite reasonable. In fact, I encourage everyone to do so, let her know that I’m a knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing reformed cowboy who is way over the line … but be sure to add that like me, you are concerned about the heat-death of climate science from chronic malfeasance.
w.”
W,
I like your letter. And terminally honest is pretty accurate for you, as usual. I would have preferred a little brutality, however. Some of those posting have come up with some great ideas. For instance, firing whomever was responsible for hiring this Gleik idiot in the first place. So, in some ways, to some of us extremist deniers you were “under the top”. Which, all in all, may make your piece “just right” in any event. Don’t be so sensitive. Now there’s a word I’ll bet you don’t hear describing you too often!
I think my previous post is still applicable, but has been trumped by this post:
“Hu McCulloch says on February 22, 2012 at 7:38 am
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.”
Willis Eschenbach’s letter requires a response. Something needs to be done about it!
Signed, disgusted, from the scientific community.
maz2 says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:45 am
Gleick Watch.
Is this the Peter Gleick?
c/o American Bar Association.
_____________________________
He has withdrawn according to an ABA rep.
I think you are too soft. It is a fact that the “AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity” had a Chairman who engaged in extremely, easily proved, unethical activities. Therefore, such Task Force is inefficient, corrupt and useless. And also arguably damaging, since it tries to represent an ethical position it cannot hold.
Therefore, such task force must be removed as soon as possible. Something as soft as a change of Chairman is not enough. Maybe a complete purge could be enough, but I very much doubt it.
Good open letter (a little childish at times, IMHO, this issue being dead serious), but I think you aim too low. This is unforgivable, and all that “Task Force” should be disinfected with 99% hydrochloric acid.
Viv Evans says:
February 22, 2012 at 3:07 am
Thanks, Viv, but allow me to disagree for a couple reasons. First, the cause is either noble or it is not, but that is not based on what either the supporters or the opponents of the cause do. That is based on the cause itself.
More importantly “Noble cause corruption” is a very valuable distinction between those led to corruption by say greed, those led to corruption by necessity, and those led to corruption by the seduction of the idea that they were saving the world.
Of those, noble cause corruption is by far the worst, and thus worth distinguishing. It is the worst because those led by noble cause corruption put no ethical boundaries at all on their actions, are unrepentant when caught, and try to get all of their followers to emulate them … none of which are generally present in garden-variety corruption.
So I say the phrase “noble cause corruption” is a useful one, it allows us to point out where the real danger lies.
All the best,
w.
John Brookes says:
February 22, 2012 at 3:34 am (Edit)
To paraphrase an acquaintance of mine …
What a horrible comment. What business do you have writing to me?
I’m sure you see the problem … or not, but that’s all the explanation you’re gonna get.
w.
Hexe Froschbein says:
February 22, 2012 at 4:43 am
Hexe, first, thanks for your interesting response to my comments.
And I agree with you, that we need to have simple, clear explanations for people to assist them in understanding the complexities of the climate, as well as the complexities of the politics surrounding the climate. I think I have succeeded as well as anyone in making the abstruse parts of both climate and politics more understandable for the interested lay person.
However, as I mentioned above, public eduction was not the point of my letter. It had a very different goal. My letter was 1) to remind Dr. Gundersen that actions have consequences, 2) to let her know that there is both huge opportunity as well as huge risk in her position, and 3) to warn her that people will be judging both her and AGU on the actions of the Task Force.
As such, I was speaking first and foremost to her, and not to the folks watching the show and eating the popcorn.
Hope this clarifies things. Yes, we still need the simple clear arguments … but this is a paper with another purpose.
All the best, and thanks for defending your position and giving me a chance to explain mine.
w.
Who in the world makes these rules for effective debate?
Debate without passion is useless.
When the opposition can dictate what speach we use we are lost.
If it is true shout it from the roof tops and don’t censure who you are in the process.
The false civility being imposed on us is censorship by another name.
As to the letter, well done. We need more voices like yours.
Excellent open letter Willis! Keep on drinking upstream from the herd….
In fullfilling her new position I hope Ms G will keep in mind; “Based on studies, it is observed that trainees and junior colleagues model their professional behavior, to a large extent, on what their leaders do, not what they say.” – The Role and Activities of Scientific Societies in Promoting Research Integrity – A REPORT OF A CONFERENCE April 10, 2000 Washington, DC [PDF]
Pamela Gray says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:35 am
Thanks, Pamela. You may be right. I considered long and hard about the strikeouts, as I do with all the parts of my writing that depart from the norl. My final choice was to leave them in, obviously.
I did so because the truth is that I’m angry. Now, I can write all calm and dispassionate, which as you say would better fit the gravity of the case … but that would be a lie, wouldn’t it? Because I’m not all calm and dispassionate about it at all.
So at the end, I thought that being honest about how I felt about the issues was more important that being all courtroom solemn and churchy about it … particularly since the issue in question is honesty. I do my utmost not to lie, even by omission, on any given day. But when the topic is honest and integrity, being personally honesty about how I feel about the issues is even more important.
So, judgement call, and that’s how I judged it, and yes, I can certainly see your side of the question.
All the best,
w.
I fear that we are much more likely to see this committee declare that denying AGW is unethical, and any scientist doing so will be sanctioned. That seems much more in keeping with the parties involved.
Perhaps we should all send heartland a donation to help offset their cost of litigation against Gleick.
Thank you, Willis, for your reply.
I accept your argument for using ‘Noble Cause Corruption’ because of the distinction it makes between the ordinary corruption and this one, which leads its perpetrators to abandon all ethical restraints.
However, I am not quite on board when you say this:
“First, the cause is either noble or it is not, but that is not based on what either the supporters or the opponents of the cause do. That is based on the cause itself.”
I maintain that even the most noble cause becomes ignoble when its defendants have to resort to corruption and the abandonment of all ethical considerations and restraints to further it.
There are numerous, and rather bloody instances of such corruption in human history, of causes which were regarded as noble.
Using ‘noble cause corruption’ to distinguish this from the garden variety makes sense – provided we then, whenever possible, point out that this behaviour has damaged not just the perpetrators but the cause itself, especially for those who believed in it.
Thanks again, Willis, and I did like your letter vey much indeed!
Mike Hebb says:
February 22, 2012 at 6:38 am
Thanks, Mike. Specifically? She should vigorously put the Task Force on the jobs laid out in the Task Force’s mission statement quoted above. Nothing special. Just do what the task force was set up to do, instead of mailing it in.
w.
dp says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:05 am
We’ve been waiting breathlessly for you to “take another whack at it”, but so far, all you’ve done is bitch and moan about what a poor job I’m doing. Lead, follow, or just get out of the way.
Armchair Admirals coming out of the woodwork today …
w.
Steve from Rockwood says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:13 am
Likely you are right about the deaf ears, Steve, but I’m constitutionally incapable of watching a slow-motion crash without doing something about it. I may not succeed, and often I don’t … but at least I sleep well at night knowing that I have done what I could, that I have raised my voice in protest or in support, and that I’ve lit my candle. One candle doesn’t light up the world, to be sure, or even the room, but … I sleep better.
w.
Septic Matthew says:
February 22, 2012 at 8:49 am
Thanks as always, Matthew. See my response to Pamela above.
In addition, you seem to think that I wrote the letter for some vague “people” who receive “many letters”. I didn’t.
I wrote it for Dr. Gundersen. I suspect she will receive very few (if any) other letters like this one, and that she will not ignore it. She may or may not act on it, but she will not ignore it, particularly on the basis you claim.
And I want her to know I’m angry. I want her to know that I think that between them the committee features fewer balls than the average sandlot baseball game, which usually has only one. I want her to know that I find the silence surrounding the actions of the Climategate un-indicted co-conspirators reprehensible, particularly from the self-appointed guardians of scientific integrity.
In other words, I’m not trying to convince her, or anyone else. I’m not trying to get her to like me. I’m not running for office, it’s not a popularity contest.
I’m trying to warn her of the dangers, and point out the huge opportunity. And that’s a very different game.
w.
“I hate Communism most for its cold-blooded murder of the truth! Pravda doesn’t mean truth. Pravda means whatever serves the world Communist revolution.”
-Robert A. Heinlein
This is just SO adaptable to the warmists.
Viv Evans says:
February 22, 2012 at 10:12 am
Thanks for defending and explaining your position, Viv. Let me see if I can give you an example. I’d say for me, the cause of preventing trachoma from wood cooking fires is a pretty noble one.
Now, someone could be doing that and later be shown to have done something very unethical, say knowingly sold a bunch of faulty stoves that didn’t reduce black carbon at all. Their actions might even increase the incidence of trachoma.
But does their perfidy somehow make the cause of ending trachoma less worthy, less valuable, less noble?
I say no. I say the cause is the cause, and there will always be people to game the system and cheat and lie and steal in the name of a host of things.
But that doesn’t make ending trachoma any less worth doing, or any less noble. The value and the nobility of the cause is inherent in the cause itself. It is not something which is diminished (or increased, for that matter) by the actions of humans professing to believe in the cause.
w.
PS—It is instructive to consider the flip side of the situation. Here’s a sample question. Does playing a video game ethically and with integrity somehow transform playing video games into a noble calling?
I’d like Linda Gundersen to have a look at Inhofe’s list of highly-respected scientists, including Nobel prizewinners, who don’t believe in AGW or at least in CAGW.
I still get the feeling that people like her are likely to be completely screened from such realities, but might these days know about WUWT.
Willis, any chance of adding this up top where Linda might see it? It’s a 2009 list and there may be a more uptodate one but that should do for starters.
How did the Warmists ever manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. ;>)
This whole episode makes me wonder just how tainted their pal reviewed papers are. Wire fraud – now you know why I keep calling them climate bandits.
Willis
Your writing style is mine before I had the passion beaten out of me by the civil service and other large organisations.
Passion is good. Writing with passion (and for that matter so is speaking) is good and if you intend to offend, which I nearly always did, then it’s good. However, if you intend to offend beware, because your intended audience will likely switch you off and you will have gained nothing except a reduction in blood pressure, but hey, that’s good also. 🙂
By the way Willis, go for it with all the passion you can muster? I’m right alongside