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
Warmists and Nothing
They say we are facing runaway temperatures They say we the oceans are rising because the poles and the glaciers and the tundra are melting and swarms of mosquito’s are coming.They claim the science is settled and back it up with false science and now false documents. Non of these things are happening . What can they do about it? NOTHING.
Ignoring the obvious AGW bias, this was a serious slap in the head. McPhaden is holding out no olive branches. Gleick is firmly under the bus. Marks were left. The going forward statement is “come on guys, don’t do this again or we’ll shoot you too”. If I worked for this guy and did what Gleick did, I certainly wouldn’t feel welcome near the departmental wine cabinet.
‘If these occasions are so rare, why the need for the establishment of ethics committees?’
Well you know how it is with the pal-reviewers… dots…connect.
With regards to Mike McPhaden President, AGU
Your attempt at damage control shows the true colors of the AGU leadership and causes more damage to AGU. Is there a venue for the rank and file members to toss you and the rest of your embedded structure into the street and perhaps salvage at least a little credibility of the AGU. Your statement along with the very fact that Gleick was appointed for any position clearly shows the group think in AGU’s leaders. Has there ever been a survey of what the rank and file members really support? Could a hijacking of AGU be cause for support of ‘the cause’?
Sad, all that time to learn, and he knows only to repeat what he has been told.
Very, very sad indeed.
“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.”
Mr. Garvey’s self-serving, consequentialist “ends justifies the means” rationalization of Gleicks actions rests not only upon his own subjective assumptions regarding the the absolute correctness of the veracity theory of CAGW and the malevolent intents of the Heartland Institute, but also seems to rest directly upon the lies told in the faked memorandum as truth of the Heartland Institutes supposed malfeasance – a very circular rationalization indeed.
It is one thing, and a very risky thing at that, to base a consequentialist rationale upon an untempered reliance on your own infallibility and the infallibility of your cause, it is another to rest it upon a lie told by your own partisan as well. Lying for the sake of truth never produces truth. Ultimately the moral and intellectual failure of this argument boils down to, ‘We’re right, its already beyond dispute and anyone who disagrees with us must be silenced or suppressed by any means and all means’. The costs of this rational to our democracy and civil society cannot be borne.
W^3
Climate ‘scientists’ are to ethics as elephants are to hang-gliding.
theduke asks: Why not just say, “His transgression must be condemned. Those who would condone it are enemies of science.”
Because his transgression didn’t have much (anything) to do with science. He simply lied to Heartland in several emails to obtain documents for political purposes. It has nothing to do with being an “enemy” of science.
otsar, says:
February 27, 2012 at 5:35 pm
otsar, I used to be a member of the SEG (geophysicist not geologist). I even co-authored a paper in Geophysics (1999). In 2003 I submitted an expanded abstract to the annual SEG meeting. I received my submission number, print screened and waited. Six weeks later my name was not in the accepted abstracts (for the first time in 7 years). I called and apparently I was the first person to have ever been rejected by a server malfunction. The server accepted my submission but the paper was never forwarded to any reviewers. Coincidentally the person in charge of accepting submissions was working with my main competitor (I ran a commercial survey business at the time).
I understood that this “glitch” I had fallen victim to was a random, one-off problem that could not have been predicted. I was offered a poster paper position, which I respectfully declined.
That year I quit every professional association I had joined (4 or 5). Screw them if they think I’m that stupid. Has it hurt my career? No. I don’t waste time on such things anymore.
Ahhh, that felt better…
“We must remain committed to scientific integrity”
It seems a previous AGU representative making this sort of statement turned out to be a self serving lying [expletive deleted].
Why should we trust that this one is any different?
Note: The deleted expletive was done by [me], not the moderator.
How about a standard of ethics for scientists which consists of “try to stay out of jail”. That might be a lot easier to measure.
“Is there a venue for the rank and file members to toss you and the rest of your embedded structure into the street and perhaps salvage at least a little credibility of the AGU.”
I was about to suggest disgusted members of the current AGU resign en masse and hive off into a new body more aptly titled The Traditional Science AGU but on second thoughts, perhaps not re the nomenclature. How does the Ancient Order Of American Geophysicists sound?
Mike (“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.”)
You are basically correct although the rest of what you said is not (e.g. Gleick has not been punished yet). The argument about the science ought to be separated from Gleicks actions here. Other than Gleick and whoever he harmed, the rest of us ought to stay out of it.
JJ at 4:32: 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.
Exactly. The propaganda never ceases.
A couple of thoughts quoted from Richard Betts’ comment:
“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.”
Mr. Betts, please read the above quotes from your comment. Sir, your profession has acted unethically. “Fighting dirty” has been a tactic used by your profession from the start. You seem to be trying to overlook the revelations of Climategate I and II, IPCC, Mann, Jones, etc. as well as a multitude of other ‘lapses’ by / within your profession. There is very little ethics or truth within your peer group. You appear to detest someone openly rationalizing your profession’s very tactics. Can you not see the view from a perspective other than your own?
As far as Mr. Garvey goes, he has a textbook liberal view of things that others like myself would refer to him as a ‘fruitcake’ in a private conversation. Mr. Betts, your profession treats his views as if were a religious text of some sort. It must be very disturbing to have someone openly reveal the secret code of the global warming empire. Blasphemy you say. I say get out of that cult while you can or get the cult out of your profession.
An organisation that can overlook the very obvious hubris and lack of ethics displayed in Gleick’s scurrilous rant disguised as a review about a book he had patently not read and his attack on a British climate scientist when Gleick disapproved of her new blog’s title, ‘All Models Are Wrong (but some are useful) when appointing Gleick to the lead role of their professional ethics committee suggests a high level of moral and ethical blindness in the structure of the AGU, top to bottom.
Their President’s apologia displays that lack of morality and ethics, plus the AGU’s hewing to the alarmist line and displays the president as nothing more than a pompous ass.
“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.”
Huh?
Peter admits to wire fraud. He appears to have lied in a forged memo? He writes nasty reviews in Amazon.com about books he clearly has not read. He blogs that “we desperately need debate” and then privately declines same.
And the AGU has to stop and reflect????
With no statements to the contrary, one can only assume that Peter Gleick is still a member of the AGU, presumably in good standing with his 2012 membership dues fully paid?
With this kind of weak statement from the leadership at AGU, one can only assume that if Peter Gleick had NOT been caught then there were no negative consequences???
What about Heartland? What about Heartland donors? Not even ONE WORD mentioned by the AGU President of the WRONG perpetrated against them by a high-profile AGU member? (The ENTIRE AGU statement is ONLY about the tragic consequences for the AGU and the “cause”!)
WOW WOW WOW Flabbergasted!
“ideological firestorm surrounding the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” By reality does the esteem president mean over a decade of no warming of the atmosphere, a cooling of the troposphere, the cooling of the oceans, the stabliity of the global ice sheets, ALL while CO2 rose 5%.
Please esteem president, How in the world can you support AGW when the entire globe is showing you the theory is wrong. And you wonder why the public is losing respect for science. LOOK IN THE MIRROR!
Here’s a hint from one scientist to another, check the +/-sign on the feedback variable.
Mr. McPhaden –
it’s time for scientists concerned about scientific integrity to demand the UN (and other official institutions/agencies/MSM etc) abandon all attempts to co-opt the generic “climate change” to mean “anthropogenic global warming”:
UNFCCC: FULL TEXT OF THE CONVENTION
2. “Climate change” means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php
how utterly absurd that we should be told to think climate was “variable” before it “changed”!
you say:
“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.”
which i think is what concerns you most.
funny how both these CVs have been updated 27 Feb 2012!
Last updated: February 27, 2012
The TAO Project – Michael James McPhaden
ABBREVIATED CURRICULUM VITAE
Click here for complete CV – (PAT – LINK POSTED BELOW)
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/mmcv.html
(COMPLETE) CURRICULUM VITAE February 27, 2012
Michael James McPhaden
NOAA/Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/tao/proj_over/cvmmlong.pdf
“betrayed the principles of scientific integrity”
What is “scientific integrity”? He lied in an email to Heartland, that speaks to integrity, but not science. Gleick is being tossed under the bus because he is inconvenient now, the poll numbers are against him.
*Squish*
Mike says:
February 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm
“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.”
Gleick wasn’t punished by now. The lawsuits haven’t begun.
Joachim:
It doesn’t matter who you are dealing with. He could be the most unethical jerk around, but if he is a competent scientist with sound evidence then he should be listened to. The problem arises if he fakes (or is wrong about) the science, and if he has, it is this that should be attacked and pointed out. In this case, the science isn’t even involved.
Obtaining board papers is a reason to dislike the guy, it does not strengthen or weaken a position on climate change in anyway, it merely impacts popularity. No matter how much fun it is to turn it into one, the science of climate change is not a political debate or popularity contest.
As I mentioned before, if this website wants to maintain a semblence of scientific integrity it needs to avoid ranting on unscientific issues.
Eric:
Define punishment. The guys career will probably never be taken seriously again…
To Mike: Concerning Gleick, You are right in principle only, the person is the person and the theory is the theory, two different shoes….For this:.
A good example Karl Marx, he made his money with investments and the stock exchange and never claimed to be a Marxist… on the other hand, there is the Marxist theory, which should be
judged without looking at the inventor….
The Gleick scandal case is different: He claimed the highest standards and tried to sneak into a high moral office, where he was about to push CAGW theory….also claiming high moral standards
for “CAGW scientists”….as you…..here, CAGW persons and theory are intertwined: The pushers
and the spirit are one……see Gleick….
It seems “unfair” to put other climate scientists into the category of “the likes of the Gleicks”,
but the problem is: If scientists hang out with Gleick, sitting in the same boat, support, associate, share the spirit etc. pp. with his likes,
then they should not complain that they will be judged as Gleicks….
JS
“More than ever, AGU needs a clear set of guidelines that encompasses the full range of scientific activities our members engage in.”
Here are a few hints of where to start.
1) ALL data from every publication is made available to any scientist who requests it.
2) ALL computer programs/models that claim anything in any publication are available to any scientist who requests it.
3) There is never any excuse to block opposing views (forcing change of editors, boycotting journals etc)
4) Extend reasonable effort to engage in civil debate with critics of any scientific position.
5) Explain in very clear language why historic data has been changed and admit every single case where this has occurred.
6) Admit there is no such thing as “settled science” and “static climate”.
The continuation of the present assault on science by far too many in climate science can not continue.
It is far past the time where: ‘Why would I show you my data when all you want to do is find fault in it’ is called science.
Sir you are a president of (once esteemed) scientific organization, act that way!
Myrrh says:
February 27, 2012 at 4:46 pm
“your comment about M McPhaden……..”
I wish that you would send those comments [and any expansions]
by way of a letter to him personally, and see if he will reply.
Then give all of us a report here on WUWT.
Thomas says:
February 27, 2012 at 3:50 pm
“His transgression cannot be condoned, regardless of his motives.”
So, can I read into this statement that McPhaden basically *approves* of the motives involved in the phishing attack, but finds the tactics unsavory?
No, you can’t. “Regardless of motives” is just that, regardless. They are to be disregarded totally.
A person being weaselly would say “despite his motives” or “ignoring his motives for the moment or similar, which implies that they might be good.
We can be sceptical without being cynical. If someone writes a clean piece of prose then it should be assume to say what it says, not what you want it to say or think that he meant to say. He is clear that it was a disgraceful action, and nothing in his writing suggests it was morally, politically or socially acceptable.