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.
Re: Steve C: February 21, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Just to complete the quote:
“substantive scientific discourse regarding climate change.”
Why do i keep thinking of the statement: ‘we will keep it out of print even if we have to re-define what peer-review is’
Dr. Jones
At 9:19 PM on 22 February, manuel had written:
Peter Gleick had been the American Geophysical Union’s choice to lead the organization’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity, indicating:
(1) The A.G.U. as a body had perceived a definite problem with scientific integrity in those disciplines with which the Union is concerned;
(2) Dr. Gleick was the best qualified and most trustworthy of the Union’s membership to manage the review of such concerns and thereby to recommend corrective measures.
This having been the case, it may be reliably inferred that the A.G.U. as a whole is institutionally unqualified to undertake either review of Dr. Gleick’s most recent malfeasances or continue the pretense of acting to address matters of “Scientific Integrity.”
Therefore the A.G.U.’s Task Force on Scientific Integrity must not merely have its chairman and its membership dismissed but it needs to be dissolved completely, with no further arguably spurious measures undertaken by the Union until a thoroughly transparent review can be undertaken and completed by science professionals who are NOT members of the A.G.U. and have, in fact, expressed reasoned skepticism of the anthropogenic global climate change contention as embraced by Dr. Gleick in Dr. Gleick’s public promulgations on the subject.
This emphatically adversarial external review of the A.G.U.’s particular and general violations of “Scientific Integrity” are absolutely required. Until such an examination of the Union’s policies, procedures, and other professional malpractice can be conducted, there can be no trust reposed in the institutional reliability of the American Geophysical Union, and the organization itself might as well be defunded, deprived of all legal status as a non-profit entity, and dissolved.
No one can trust Dr. Gunderson or any other member of the A.G.U.’s leadership – particularly those members of the Task Force on Scientific Integrity who had been working under Dr. Gleick as chairman – to discipline themselves.
Were the remediation of the A.G.U.’s “Scientific Integrity” false front left to me,
Willis,
Be careful what you wish for. If your asking for greater scrutiny and higher levels of integrity you only give greater power to the gatekeepers. It’s fun at the moment while your opponents are getting it in the neck but that time will pass. We’ll be left with a debate that is further closed down. The problem here is the debate has collapsed into one about morals, ethics and nefarious motives on both sides. The solution isn’t to further emphasize these aspects.
I posted this in another forum and it is appropriate here as well.
It has always been one of my top two concerns related to the entire hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming that the scientific community itself becomes compromised and then discredited due to the allure of money and “fame” attached to being a crusader for “saving” the “planet”. This is, as others have pointed out, the trap of the noble cause syndrome as well as what president Eisenhower so eloquently and prophetically spoke about over 50 years ago…
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Wise words.
I suspect this may be true of all the established scientific organizations that have gotten in bed with the CAGW mythology. It’s time for the dissidents to get up and leave, and form new alternatives, not just to the AGU, but to the AAAS, and all the others.
In order to embrace CAGW and the political imperatives of its adherents, an organization has to forsake science and embrace ideology; the AGU is effectively no different from a ‘Soviet GU’. It’s a procrustean bed from which the organization cannot get up. Time for ‘heretics’ and ‘deniers’ to form a new one, re-dedicated to the principles—and uncertainties!—of free scientific inquiry.
/Mr Lynn
Politics is is the cancer of science. Every organization that tries to promote something is by definition political. Generations of “scientists” have been trained in a system that is inherently political. It is only co-incidental that a few scientists practice and teach scientific integrity. Take a look at all the lawsuits that have arisen due to drug side effects. Medical science involves human lives, but is being corrupted by politics and the FDA. People die because of that corruption.
Think of what our world would be like if the field of mechanical engineers had the same level of integrity as the “climate scientists”
The solution is to cut out the cancer. Scientists should be too busy doing their jobs instead of sitting in meetings reviewing pointless issues. Stop funding bad science.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Keith Minto says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.
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.
Concise and apt.
I generally don’t quote other’s comments, yielding instead to a recurring self-delusion that I can explain it more strongly and clearly. However, there was no way I was going to be able to beat that. As an obituary for the AGW alarmists, that’s as good as it gets.
w.
I couldn’t agree more. That short sentence deserves to be, not just the QOTW, but probably the Quote of the Century so far. It should be printed up in VJ Day headline font, nicely laminated and handed out to every graduate in every scientific discipline right along with their diploma, and its advice would probably be just as apt for every other graduate, no matter what their field of interest is.
In the years I’ve spent engaged in this farcical controversy I’ve always been fairly agnostic about the science. My perception has always been that the state of the “science” is so inadequate to the scale of the question that any of the numerous hypotheses put forward in this regard are at least arguable, even if none of them are convincingly so. What has placed me firmly in the “denialist” camp has been the alarmist community’s demand for “solutions”, which are ill-conceived, ineffective and undeniably damaging in the present moment, to avoid “catastrophic” future developments whose certainty is almost infinitesimal. But another, and perhaps more powerful, objection I’ve had is the growing spread of this “noble cause corruption”. The threat to liberty and prosperity presented by the CAGW scam is great, but in the end humanity will probably be able to recover from even the worst damage that it can inflict. What will be much harder to recover from is the destruction of human ability to trust anything, even things that may prove to be true that we should.
Most of us are familiar from our childhood with the fable of “The Little Boy
Who Cried Wolf” which is usually taught as a lesson in the danger of being a liar. What is rarely discussed in those lessons is the damage done to the people of the little boy’s village who, as a result of his repeated lies, lose the capacity to respond appropriately when real danger presents itself. If, as seems increasingly evident, humanity ends up in a similar state because of all of this, it will be the real “crime against humanity” that these folks need to answer for because we are undoubtedly faced with numerous real and present problems which we should actually be addressing. When one of those problems rises to the point where we not only should but must respond to it, if that response cannot be organized because our capacity to do so has been lost along with our capacity to trust, we will reap the whirlwind from the wind of lies that we have sown.
Willis Eschenbach says:
February 22, 2012 at 2:29 am
Hexe Froschbein says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:30 am
…
Y’know Willis, the Witch has an interesting blog – you should take a look:
http://i-am-not-nice.blogspot.com/
“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.”
If people learn nothing from this whole affair it should be this.
Because I don’t have time time to develop sufficient expertise on every subject (be honest neither can most of you) I near universally accept the mainstream scientific consensus. I’m not a vaccine/evolution/anything “denier”. I don’t think the moon landings were fake, or that 9/11 was an inside job.
Without the antics of the AGW proponents (remember the burden of proof is on them) I’d be singing from either the AGW or CAGW hymn sheet right now. Certainly a lot of the antics of opponents of AGW theory also leave a lot to be desired.
On the arguments, my head (as much as a lay person can say about such things) says they probably have got the science right (perhaps over-exaggerated) but I look at their behavior and doubt enters my mind.
And I don’t think they really understand this. They don’t understand we are not scientists, so what we (mostly) have to go on when we listen to them is trust.
And they are flunking that course quite badly.
P.S. Also props to Mosher. 8).
Willis – we got enough Gonzo Journalism from PG this week. Responding in kind won’t move the ball down field. I happen to be pretty fair writer but didn’t write a response because I know I’m too wrapped up in the outcome to be objective. Like you I too would have gone Gonzo. The era of Kerouac, John Howard Griffin, Hunter S Thompson, and Ayn Rand is over. Anger sells but doesn’t convince – that is why RealClimate is wallowing. While there’s nothing I enjoy more than a stream of consiousness rant, cooler heads must prevail for the good of the science in the current conflict.
You often remind us you are a cowboy and sometimes it shows. When you’re on your game you’re damn good but this one landed in the park and rolled foul. Challenging your target to repent and do things your way is hardly mending fences. You don’t want her to succeed any more than I do and it came through.
Willis Eschenbach: 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
If I were her, or in her position, I would ignore it. Hence my inference that she would ignore it.
If she does not receive at least 20 emails on the topic, I will be surprised. Maybe we’ll have the opportunity to ask her. The people whom I know in positions like hers receive many more emails than they can handle. The volume of emails related to crises goes way up in time of crisis.
Does she also believe that we run around proudly thinking of ourselves as being the ‘Anti-climate’ camp?
Yeah, Gleick, I say it all the time, “Down with Climate!”
I wonder if Dr. Gundersen will have the gumption to drop by here and respond to Willis’s open letter.
But I’m not holding my breath.
/Mr Lynn
dp says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:03 pm
You say you don’t write when you are “too wrapped up in the outcome”. Me, that’s the time I cannot escape writing.
You say the problem is that I’m too angry, too passionate about the issues.
I say the problem is that people are neither angry enough nor passionate enough about the issues. We’re watching the slow-motion destruction of an entire field of science, and people like you keep counseling me to play patty-cake and not write when I am moved and go all California on people … not my style, dp.
You say that ” Anger sells but doesn’t convince – that is why RealClimate is wallowing.” … if so, explain to me why I’m easily the most popular guest poster on this web site, and yet when I’m angry, I’m angry, and people know it.
What “doesn’t convince” in my opinion is me pretending I’m angry when I’m not, or pretending I’m not angry when I am. What convinces best is called “honesty” where I come from.
I don’t want you to retire from the fray when your blood is boiling, dp. All that point of view does is leave the field to some kind of cold-blooded logical analysis without any human being behind it. Yes, I’m angry about this, and no, I’m not going to pretend I’m not.
Finally, I have said many times that I weigh and ponder each word very carefully. I am not unwilling to take an honest position at the edge of the field, in order to legitimize and shelter other less radical points of view, points of view that I often agree with. Compared to me, they look totally reasonable …
I also am happy to take extreme positions because it lets others know that their vision may not be clouded after all, that there may indeed be a reason why they feel angry too.
So I would strongly encourage you and everyone, as I have before, to avoid facile assumptions that my posts are uncontrolled emotions or bursts of anger, or that I’ve yielded to my inner cowboy. Nothing could be further from the truth. I choose my words, my steps, and my positions with great care. I say as much as I want and no more than that. I honestly express my feelings, but not blindly— I do it with precision and in the way I think will have the greatest effect. Y’all greatly underestimate the thought I’ve put into every one of my posts.
For example, in this post, I wanted a jarring tone. I didn’t want it to be just another comment. I wanted Dr. Gundersen to have trouble reading it. I didn’t want it to slip past. I wanted to push her a bit, challenge her, perhaps even to anger her. I didn’t want her to be able to dismiss it, I wanted to get under her skin a little, to come at her from a direction unknown to her.
Was I successful? Neither you nor I have a clue as to that. Was that the right tack to take? Heck, I don’t know that either. It was my best judgement about what might engage her.
Finally, should I reshape all of that because some random anonymous internet poster called “dp” thinks I’m off the rails?
Not gonna happen, my friend. Sorry.
All the best,
w.
“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’?”
Hmmm. . . . someone else we haven’t heard from is Professor Kathleen Hayhoe, the self described “Climate Change Evangelist” professor at Texas Tech who has made a career out of trying to merge the bad news about carbon dioxide and warming with the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ; witness her book ““A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions”, written with her pastor husband.
I wonder if she’s bothered at all by Professor Peter Gleick’s prevarications, given that if she is as she claims to be, she believe’s Peter Gleick’s father is the devil. . . . . .
Antonio Lorusso (@amlorusso) says:
February 22, 2012 at 12:57 pm
On the arguments, my head (as much as a lay person can say about such things) says they probably have got the science right (perhaps over-exaggerated) but I look at their behavior and doubt enters my mind.
========================================
Antonio, if they had the science right…….you would not have made that post….on this blog….and no one would be debating it
Septic Matthew says:
February 22, 2012 at 1:09 pm
See, that’s why I would write an entirely different letter to you, Matthew … I write individual letters, not generic ones. Read my post above to understand more about my choices.
I greatly doubt that she can ignore my letter. She may deny it, she may react to it, she may be angered by it, I doubt greatly that she will answer it … but ignore it?
Hardly. She knows all her friends read it. She knows what’s at stake now, she can no longer pretend all is well. She knows that her leadership will watched and her actions weighed.
Ignored? No way.
w.
Willis says to Dr. Gundersen:
which is true, but IMO doesn’t go far enough. I think she, and her panel, will ultimately be judged on whether they can break free of the ideological bed into which the AGU (and similar organizations) have inserted themselves, and affirm that integrity in science means much more than condemning an obvious miscreant like Gleick. They must proclaim a renewed dedication to the basics of the scientific method: transparency, replicability, and a refusal to accept any conclusion (especially forgone ones) at face value; above all, they must insist that members never submit research goals and methods to any political or ideological tests, no matter how attractive or well-intentioned.
Anything less, and the panel and the organization it represents should be cast away with the historical debris of misguided and misbegotten attempts at enforcing orthodoxy.
/Mr Lynn
This may be O/T but I think not.
This whole problem started way back in the ’50s & ’60s with the stupid PC idea that every child gets a prize!
Well the fact is, everyone fails at some time. Educating past their grade is a waste of time & money! All this it’s too challenging is just bull$h1t! Learn to handle failure young, you’re going to do a lot of it in your life.
I think it was education minister Ed, (load of,) Balls, who said something along the lines of, “I want every child to be above average.”
Says it all!
DaveE
‘”Willis Eschenbach says:
February 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm
“Keith Minto says:
February 21, 2012 at 8:57 pm
I read that article from Megan McCardle in the Atlantic, and the last part of that quote stuck in my mind.
‘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’.
Concise and apt.”
I generally don’t quote other’s comments, yielding instead to a recurring self-delusion that I can explain it more strongly and clearly. However, there was no way I was going to be able to beat that. As an obituary for the AGW alarmists, that’s as good as it gets.”‘
This I use as my sig line, to remind myself as much as others, about the underlying purpose of discussion….
‘In any controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth, and have begun striving for ourselves’.- Siddartha…
Willis Eschenbach: Ignored? No way.
You over-rate yourself. Sorry, but I think you do.
She has now received at least 150 letters these last 2 days, and she will skip most of them.
Septic Matt,
I am curious how you arrived at such a specific number. Do you have inside info? Guessing? Assuming?
Is it just me…. or does Dr. Linda Gundersen REALLY look like Michael Mann…. in earrings and a long dark wig?
Septic Matthew says:
February 22, 2012 at 7:31 pm
I over-rate myself? Perhaps so, perhaps not, it’s one of the most difficult things I know of to measure. I have no doubt that I, like most people, generally overestimate my own abilities … and curiously, that has stood me in good stead for a lifetime. Let me give you an example.
I grew up on a very remote cattle ranch, where if something broke we had to fix it. When I left the ranch, I was convinced that I could “fix anything but a broken heart” as we used to say … totally untrue, of course. It was a wild overestimation of my own abilities, but it’s the kind of delusion that if you keep it up long enough, you wind up able to … well … fix pretty much any dang thing, including an occasional broken heart over the years.
So yes, it’s quite possible that I over-rate myself … but I’ve never worried much about that.
And yes, her email inbox must be very full, 150 emails as you say is not out of the question at all. But then … my letter’s not in her email inbox, is it?
As far as I know, she has only received one public open letter, one that her friends will read and ponder, an open letter that has already garnered ten thousand page views …
People from both sides of the climate debate read this blog in general, including my work, for a simple reason—it’s interesting. Whether you are a believer in the AGW hypothesis or not, there’s a lot to see at WUWT, a lot to consider, a lot to learn, a lot to object to, at this site.
So yes, Matthew, I’m quite certain she will read it. Anyone who is seriously involved in climate reads WUWT, you’d be mad not to, if only to see what us crazies are up to now. How do I know? Because my work and other work published at WUWT is read, discussed, screamed at, and eviscerated all over the climate blogosphere. I’m actually astounded, I occasionally will do a search under my name, and I find that Tobis or the lagomorph or some other AGW site is busily abusing me at a rate of knots … no comments on my post itself, but they be hatin’ on me elsewhere … kinda gives me a warm feeling, knowing that my words are sparking discussions even when I’m not around.
In any case, what she does when she reads it, as I have mentioned, is up to her. I truly hope that she seizes the brass ring. She is in an incredibly fortunate position, and could easily this into being a powerful voice for honest, transparent science.
Or not.
w.