AGU President’s message
We must remain committed to scientific integrity
27 February 2012
During the third week of February our global community of Earth and space scientists witnessed the shocking fall from grace of an accomplished AGU member who betrayed the principles of scientific integrity. In doing so he compromised AGU’s credibility as a scientific society, weakened the public’s trust in scientists, and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.
Peter Gleick resigned as chair of AGU’s Task Force on Scientific Ethics on 16 February, prior to admitting in a blog post that he obtained documents from the Heartland Institute under false pretenses. His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. It is a tragedy that requires us to stop and reflect on what we value as scientists and how we want to be perceived by the public. Here are a few things that come immediately to mind:
- The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved. The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions. Public trust is essential because it provides the foundation for society’s willingness to invest in scientific exploration and discovery. It is the responsibility of every scientist to safeguard that trust.
- As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct. Long before the Heartland incident, we recognized the need to have clear and broad principles and procedures that expressed the value of scientific integrity and ethics embodied in our new strategic plan. More than ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full range of scientific activities our members engage in. The task force, now under the leadership of Linda Gundersen, director of the Office of Science Quality and Integrity at the U.S. Geological Survey, will complete its work with a renewed sense of urgency in view of recent events. Union leadership will ensure that these standards of ethical conduct are widely communicated to the membership and that they become an integral part of AGU’s culture.
- All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.
This has been one of the most trying times for me as president of AGU, as it has been for many AGU volunteer leaders, members, and staff. How different it is than celebrating the news of a new discovery or a unique scholarly achievement. These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.
Mike McPhaden
from a tip received via email h/t to Dr. Leif Svalgaard
=============================================================
UPDATE: 4:10PM 2/27 In related news, the author of The Ethics of Climate Change, James Garvey has written a defense article on Peter Gleick at the Guardian. saying:
Was Gleick right to lie to expose Heartland and maybe stop it from causing further delay to action on climate change? If his lie has good effects overall – if those who take Heartland’s money to push scepticism are dismissed as shills, if donors pull funding after being exposed in the press – then perhaps on balance he did the right thing.
Bishop Hill points out the Met Office Scientist that tell Garvey and the Guardian to basically go stuff it:
This comment from the Guardian thread:
Mr Garvey
I am a climate scientist at the Met Office Hadley Centre and also a lead author with the IPCC (NB. the opinions I express here are my own though – I am just telling you that for context).
I would ask you to refrain from bringing my profession into disrepute by advocating that we act unethically. We already have enough people accusing us, completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets. A rabble-rousing journalist such as yourself telling us that we should “fight dirty” does not help our reputation at all. “Fighting dirty” will never be justified no matter what tactics have been used to discredit us in the past.
Inflammatory remarks such as yours will only serve to further aggravate the so-called “climate wars”. People’s reputations are already being damaged, and we know that some climate scientists get highly distasteful and upsetting mail through no fault of their own. If people like you continue to stir things up further, it is only a matter of time before somebody actually gets hurt, or worse.
Please keep your advice to yourself, we can do without it thank you very much.
Richard Betts (Prof)
Indeed. Mr. Garvey, with AGU’s president saying “His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.” please do shut up. – Anthony Watts
The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?
He’s been visible in the climate battles sporadically and peripherally, but he’s been a very big presence in preventing water infrastructure development in California.
Is this really the first time he’s pulled something like this?
Has he engaged in past misbehavior that’s gone unreported, and in having gotten away with it he was emboldened to pull a scam on Heartland?
I wonder…
“These rare and sad occasions remind us that … ”
.. it could also be only the tip of the iceberg.
mrsean2k says:
“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives” seems, in itself, like an unequivocal condemnation to me. He doesn’t otherwise describe or praise motive – something of a mitigation trotted out by various apologists – he says that whatever the motive was, it cannot be a balancing factor.
I’m can’t really see any other interpretation and I applaud him for that much at least.
I can’t really applaud it, given that he put it down in Paragraph #2, while the company line statement about “…the reality of the Earth’s changing climate” is right up top.
That apologist language shouldn’t have been in there at all. Every communication thus far by McPhaden/AGU about this incident contains a variant of it. Their absolute inability to discuss the Gleick affair without reaffirming the warmist crede demonstrates why there was a Peter Gleick problem in the first place. These people cannot divorce their science or their ethics from their politics. That is why they were comfortable putting a well known political actor like Gleick in the chair of their “ethics and integrity task force” in the first place, and why there will be absolutely no effective change in AGU practices.
Peter Gleick as chairman of the “ethics and integrity task force” is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem.
In the county within which I live, a key County Government Official is on trial for corruption. Many other County Officials have confessed to being a part of the corruption — to get reduced sentences. Dozens more were part of the schemes and are losing their jobs.
So many people in County Government were guilty that one concludes — nearly ALL the County and CIty Officials MUST have known about this — they must ALL be corrupt. Moreover, the News Media HAD to know about it — but, “said nothing”.
Yet, those not caught are “throwing their former co-conspirators under the bus” — righteous indignation is everywhere. The News Media covers the trial daily with all due seriousness.
My point? Climate Science has degenerated to the same level. If one gets caught, his/her accomplices feign indignation and “throw the former co-conspirator under the bus”. But, its all for show. The corruption continues unabated.
Mr. McPhaden,
You say, “The vast majority of scientists uphold these values every day in their work. That’s why opinion polls show that public trust in scientists is among the highest of all professions.”
I would like to let you know that I have seen a significant drop in the public opinion based upon the global warming/climate change debate. The science community is losing intergity and trust. Please stop the hemorrhage.
The above refers to his book review rant. How else did Glieck show himself unsuitable to chair an ethics committee before Glieck’s recent transgressions?
Grauniad has MM up & leading from the rear with his AGW glossolalia.
See comments Tuesday next for his Gleick moments.
“Mann will be answering questions live online from 4pm GMT on Tuesday – that is 11am EST.”
…-
“Live Q&A: Climate scientist Michael Mann on the ‘Hockey Stick’ controversy”
“Leading climate researcher Prof Michael Mann answers your questions on being on the front-line of the climate debate”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/feb/27/michael-mann-climate-change-live-q-and-a
Dr S is entitled to his own opinions on this, or any other matter.
This is an ethical issue and Dr S’s opinions should have no more weight than mine. (Maybe less, as I am an Engineer and, thus, an ethical being).
FWIW, I find the behaviour of Peter Gleick to be unethical, immoral, disgraceful, unacceptable, etc.
Scientists and trust? Have you talked to a seed-freak lat3ely about GM foods?
Jeremy says:
February 27, 2012 at 3:18 pm
…and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.
Hrumph, in spite of their recognition of how bad Gleicks actions were they still seem to think it’s a game of politics and public relations. Whence did their skepticism of their own viewpoints become so lost?
“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/
That’s when they officially stopped being scientists.
======================================================
Mike McPhaden
“■As a community of scientists, we must hold each other to the highest ethical standards. This is why AGU established its Task Force on Scientific Ethics, in 2011, to review and update existing policies and procedures for dealing with scientific misconduct.”
You are not scientists. You aid and abet the scientific fraud that has been proved to be the foundation of this your religious/political belief.
■”The success of the scientific enterprise depends on intellectual rigor, truthfulness, and integrity on the part of everyone involved.”
You have no part in that since you’re promoting a idea, not even a hypothesis, a belief without any real world science to support it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/22/omitted-variable-fraud-vast-evidence-for-solar-climate-driver-rates-one-oblique-sentence-in-ar5/
“My training is in economics where we are very familiar with what statisticians call “the omitted variable problem” (or when it is intentional, “omitted variable fraud”). Whenever an explanatory variable is omitted from a statistical analysis, its explanatory power gets misattributed to any correlated variables that are included. This problem is manifest at the very highest level of AR5, and is built into each step of its analysis.” Alec Rawls
Like the Hockey Stick, and the rest, intentional scientific fraud.
CO2 is not a Greenhouse Gas that Raises Global temperature. Period!
by Dr. Tim Ball on February 15, 2012
“My concern as a climatologist was that too many pieces didn’t fit or were ignored in the complex weather systems that, on average, are climate. Most troubling initially was the effective omission of water vapor as a greenhouse gas ”
http://drtimball.com/2012/co2-is-not-a-greenhouse-gas-that-raises-global-temperature-period/
■”All of this must be done with an eye to the future and to nurturing the next generation of Earth and space scientists. Today’s students must learn, especially through the example of senior scientists, that adherence to high standards of scientific integrity applies in all that we do: from research practices, to peer-reviewed publications, to interactions with colleagues, and to engaging with the public and policy makers. The lofty goal we set for ourselves of providing benefit to society through our research can be achieved only if we pursue our mission with the utmost honesty, transparency, and rigor.”
Geophysical? What, and you’ve never noticed that the whole of the Water Cycle has been taken out of the fictional fisics cartoon energy budget you promote?
What sort of example is that setting to students? What will they think of your fine words when they find out just how intentionally conned they’ve been by your religious/political belief masquerading as science brainwashing them through education?
What high standards of integrity? Or, and I suppose it might be possible, you are just completely clueless about your subject.
JEM says:
February 27, 2012 at 4:29 pm
“The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?”
I too have thought about this. I think it is a combination of hubris – recall, this is a certified ‘genius’ according to somebody – and history.
The Team has got away with faking hockey sticks, data, and scary AGW fairy tales, so I suspect that he thought he could get away with this too.
Ironically these ‘climate change experts’ don’t realize how much the political climate has changed and are in a sad state of real and desperate denial.
And judging by this lame weaselly apology, the AGU doesn’t get it either.
Eric in NC
February 27, 2012 at 3:41 pm
“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives. ”
So, we are to conclude that Glieck’s motives, which were to discredit the HI
and its supporters for expressing views not within the confines of The Cause,
were acceptable to the AGU? A very telling statement.
###
Very!
I’m glad you were able to articulate the idea so well. I had no idea how to state it myself.
I can’t find it now–maybe I’m looking in the wrong place…
I thought I saw something along the lines of : They have had their chance with Glieck, now I would like to see a nice solid skeptic.
I would like to see a nice solid scientist.
I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here.
I won’t buy his product, ( a sort of insurance against the “non-zero” risk that small warming might, but might not, have serious, but unpredictable, consequences) but I appreciate that his salesmanship doesn’t assume my stupidity, malice, or lack of interest. I’ll keep listening to what he has to say.
There’s a few others in the market for whom I have vastly less time and regard.
Isn’t this just one big ad hominem distraction to the scientific debate of climate change? One scientist independently running a phishing attack to obtain board papers from an NGO is hardly evidence for a scientific argument involving thousands, if not tens of thousands, of scientists and thousands of papers and studies. Gleick did something wrong, he was punished. Ranting about it and not getting back to the science makes this website look like it is grasping at straws.
to Mike:
The difference is this Gleick rose too high even into institutions where ethics
is playing a role…..and there are still plenty of the likes of the Gleicks in the AGW
crowd, which some persons still label as honest scientists….
Therefore, this post is important to show with whom we are dealing…..
JJ
February 27, 2012 at 4:32 pm
####
Comments like your latest really do make this one of the best science sites.
It is essentially UNETHICAL for McPhaden to assert that Gleick’s transgression is unfortunate because it gives fuel to the firestorm that challenges CLIMATE CHANGE. He asserts that HIS position is disadvantage by Gleick’s action. McPhaden remarks are merely selfish!
Well, here are my questions, Mr. McPhaden ,…
Gleick supposedly resigned his position as the Chair of the AGU’s “Ethics” committee on Feb. 16. He acknowledged at least some of his “transgressions” on February 20. Yet it appears to have taken a full week of “reflection” before you were able to add 2+2.
What took you so long, Mr. McPhaden? Could it be that you were hoping against hope that some other crisis would overshadow Gleick’s actions – and how they are perceived by the public? Were you hoping that the cheerleading MSM coverage would sway public opinion in Gleick’s favour?
And here’s another question, Mr. McPhaden, … considering Gleick’s known disgraceful involvement in l’affaire Wagner (circa August 2011), whatever might have prompted the AGU to even consider that he was a suitable candidate for Chair of the AGU’s “Ethics” committee – let alone appoint him to such a position?
I believe Gleick’s appointment was announced in November 2011. Were the powers that be at the AGU oblivious to his indefensible, intellectually dishonest – and very public – “review” of a book he gave no indication of having read?
Seems to me that “transgressions” against scientific integrity have, in fact, been condoned by the AGU for quite some time.
‘and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.’
Weasel words when you were consistently warned members like Gleick were the very pre-existing ideological fuel in question.
I only got to the last of the first paragraph with his obvious support for CAGW and his rueful almost excuse for the Gleick’s perfidity.
IOW, can’t change the leopards spots, doncha know!
@Jay Davis
February 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm
>>When I got to “and produced fresh fuel for the unproductive and seemingly endless ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” at the end of the first paragraph, McPhaden blew it as far as I’m concerned. That statement alone shows he has absolutely no interest in any scientific debate with regards to “climate change”. To him, the science is settled.
Ditto.
These people have lost all awareness of what science is. How did this guy get to be president of the AGU? Oh yeah. He got there by being a politician. The search for truth be damned. The membership needs to recall him.
They really need to get rid of this president.
In any case, I was motivated to look at their bylaws and apparently everyone that gets “elected” is first nominated by a small group of people – including the last president.
The only way past this is to get 1% of the AGU membership to sign a petition for someone else to be on the ballot.
Essentially, this union seems to be setup to give funding, prestige and power to a select group of people who get to choose their own friends as successors. They can then use their position to support any position that fancies them.
AGU membership should either leave en masse, demand democratic reforms to their system, or get a petition going to get some real leadership in there instead of sycophantic politburos.
“These rare and sad occasions remind us that our actions reverberate through a global scientific community and that we must remain committed as individuals and as a society to the highest standards of scientific integrity in the pursuit of our goals.”
If these occasions are so rare, why the need for the establishment of ethics committees?
Isn’t the establishment of such committees a defacto admission of the wide spread politicization and corruption of science?
Mike says:
February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm
###
You really are a funny boy.
I was a member of AGU for over 25 years. In 2004 I dumped them and ACS. Both have become lobbying organizations for global warming, and are run by politicians. Both of these outfits need to lose a significant number of their membership if they have not done so already.