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 only people I will believe on climate science are the ones who say: “I don’t know” …. all the rest are charlatans, liars or fraudsters.
I am sick and tired of watching idiot after idiot stand up in public and make an absolute fool of themselves by claiming total certainty where it clearly does not exist. For a member of the public to say it, is just daft. For a member of a scientific institution to do it is criminal.
EJ says: February 27, 2012 at 10:26 pm
I have to wonder why the AGU needs a high highfalutin committee on ethics.
It is because the ethics of science is scepticism … and because they want to be alarmists they need to change the ethics of science to allow them to say what they want to say.
In other words, they want to change science so it isn’t so categorical about only stating what is known for certain … and they want to add some bits in like …. unless its for the greater good off all mankind (i.e. gets another grant)
How can we trust these guys’ data? How do we know when they stop/start lying? Can they work out some kind of signal, “heads up, from here on in, it’s all true”. What point is that? Does it exist?
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the data turned out to be totally cooked.
I went back for a second reading, and to my first reaction (3:45 pm) of ‘pompous’, I would now add ‘cold and callous’. Could he not have found it in his heart to have just a little compassion for one of his own, a loyal agitator for climate alarm just like the AGU itself, albeit one driven to criminal distraction by his vivid fears for the world? I thought Gleick himself displayed an alienation from ordinary, everyday trust and generosity to others in his exchange of emails re his invitation to speak at that Heartland event. A similar lack of ordinary humanity is here in this vainglorious pronouncement from on high at the AGU. These people clearly have an extremely high opinion of themselves. I just wish I could share it, but instead I fnd them somewhat detached from reality as I see it, not only in science but also in their apparent lack of empathy. A bit too far up themselves for them to be able to relate to others very well.
Quick thought before reading in depth
Could someone here draft a letter to send to McPhaden that can have the backing of the whole readership here, I mean with the fire of Willis but with the considered reflection and courtesy level of Steve McIntyre?
With all those fantastic, wonderful, heartwarming bloggie stars of excellence we now have, it really behoves orthodox Science to take note of the sceptics’ blogs. Many of us came here years ago, years before Gleick made himself into a blazing icon of everything currently amiss with Science. When Monbiot actually reads CiF and Grauniad actually allow dissenters to post, and check their facts first, and…. there is a long list of reparations to make.
McPhaden, you need to see how Gleick is an icon of something in yourself, and in current Climate Science altogether, and you need to show us you understand this, before we can believe you. You need to open the dialogue again.
“The real question is this: what made Gleick think he could get away with this?”
Don’t hold your breath. It looks like he just might.
I do not believe a word of what he said. In the good old days we did not have Task Forces on Scientific Ethics. This is ludicrous, a sign that there is something seriously wrong with the AGU. Gleick should not be fired from the Task Force because he precisely did what its objective is. If someone tells you without invitation how ethical he is, you have all reasons to suspect he is not.
Will the AGU learn anything from this episode?
I don’t think so!
Even Mike McPhaden is prone to ‘Gleickisms’ when he stated in an official AGU repsonse to an op-ed entitled “No Need to Panic about Global Warming,” published by The Wall Street Journal, that, “(1) Climate change is real, and in all likelihood is being caused by human behavior; (2) There is wide-spread consensus on this point, with 97 percent of the climate science community agreeing; (3) That consensus is rooted in a foundation of scientific knowledge gained through careful, thoughtful, and thorough research, not political or ideological rhetoric.”
“97 percent of the climate science community”, eh?
It highlights that in order to lie to others you first have to lie to yourself.
http://www.agu.org/news/features/2012-2-3_AGU-responds.shtml
pouncer says:
February 27, 2012 at 4:52 pm
I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here
Have you asked yourself why RBetts suddenly appeared on the blogs? I have and i don’t have an answer. His stance is quite interesting but he walks a line very close to his master’s, not that I blame him forn that.
He still promotes the precautionary principle although behind some much distorted language and he still promotes CO² global warming which will likely become dangerous. Don’t kno when, how or where but it will and he is still totally convinced that computers can forecast the future.
So err yes, please to see him blog here but don’t go the the top with a shrine or anything like that.
For me, a formerly chartered physicist, he is a fair distance from being a true scientist.
Mike, his career may be in doubt, but the punishment should match the harm or deterrence value. Someone with a lot more knowledge of the facts will have to decide that, most likely in the civil courts.
The AGU seems to be in good hands with a Gleikendoppelganger. McPhaden’s letter further damages my view of the AGU…to elect Gleik once is human; twice looks like carelessness. Kudos to Prof. Betts though…good to hear from an honorable scientist on that side of the debate.
Allan MacRae says:
February 27, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Wow – two statements in recent days saying the Alberta oilsands just aren’t that bad – this one released by AGU and the other by UVic climate modeler Andrew Weaver.
Are the global warming alarmists running for the exits? Is the lucrative global warming scam getting just too hot to handle?
Not at all. The ‘big oil’ were prime originators of the green antipathy for big oil, the bigger picture was big oil’s and nuclear’s antipathy to the cheaper coal and so efforts put in place to take out this competitor. To this end they galvanised the greens to be ‘anti-fossil fuels’ which is where the demonising of CO2 came in, they set up the IPCC and CRU to fiddle with temperature records (see Margaret Thatcher involvement), their own huge resources and military/industrial/government strength making them more or less bullet proof from any flak that might come their way from the greenies so encouraged.
Recently however, fracking has become economically viable, so the oil and gas industries have begun to separate themselves out from the meme “fossil fuels evil” and leave the target coal alone evil, because they’d organised the green useful idiots so effectively they’re now a pest in this new venture.
All this simply because certain “Scientists” will not hand over real data and methods! We live in sad scientific times!
My emphasis added. Why do they state the obvious? I want them to give me 3 examples of skeptical climate scientists who deny that climate changes.
Now let’s look back at Hansen’s 1988 temperature projections and compare them to the last 10 years. Now let’s look back at the alleged feedback mechanism, the scary hotspot not, Himalayas 10 years no change, Kilimanjaro land use area, etc. What a scam!!! Follow the money >>>>>
“. . . the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.”
Do tell.
Aside from that, I think it was a pretty hard-hitting statement, considering that as the head of a major professional society he has to be politic in his every utterance. Cut the guy a little slack.
It would be nice if Mike McPhaden, and the ethics in science bodies actually applied this rigour to the Hockey Team, who through their own admissions, in their own emails to each other, have engaged in less morally and ethically questionable practices alongside failing to adhere to the scientific method by hiding data, skewing data, misrepresenting data and sticking doggedly to dogma, instead of science. Their attitude to closing down journals which had the temerity to publish scientific papers which they disagreed with, getting editors fired, etc etc…. None of these things lend credibility to their side of the debate.
Now woth Gleick’s criminal activity, it makes their side even less credible.
“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.”
———————————————————————
Since when was the goal of science to provide benefit to society? How does astronomy, or paeleontology, provide benefit to society? He doesn’t even understand what science is.
Gary Hladik says:
February 27, 2012 at 3:59 pm
Mike McPhaden’s statement illustrates with devastating clarity how an unethical fanatic became chair of AGU’s “Task Force on Scientific Ethics”, and why Gleick’s successor is unlikely to be an improvement.
————————————————
Spot on. Also, what JJ said.
When I read this press release (speaking as someone who has drafted many of them) it struck me that it was just a standard bureaucratic response. Lots of waffle, motherhood statements, now move along, nothing to see here.
Except for the weird reference to a ‘firestorm’ – which implies indiscriminate destruction, and the reference to motivation. Let’s unpick them.
A firestorm is the opposite of a debate. Everything in its path is destroyed. By implication, those who disagree with the AGU’s views are creating a firestorm. This apocalyptic language jars with the smooth bureaucratese of the rest of the document, and is very telling. A flicker of suppressed rage, perhaps?
As for the reference to motive, suppose a senior AGU official had killed his wife in a jealous rage after finding her in bed with a lover. Would the AGU issue a statement saying that it was reprehensible, irrespective of motive? Or suppose that person had committed fraud when money was tight – would they say (sadly shaking their heads) that it was wrong, irrespective of motive?
Maybe they would. And if so, it highlights that the AGU is more about covering its own @ss than about ethics. And that they have no concept of ethics at all, as apparently fraud and identity theft need to be considered in terms of ‘motives’ before making a decision about whether they are wrong. Surely the ethical statement would be the one they put out, minus any reference to motives. Especially as, leaving aside what Gleick chooses to say, no-one can possibly know what his motives were.
“Gleick was right, it’s just that he got found out”, to paraphrase McPhaden.
Note that nowhere in El Prez’s statement does it say that scientists must disclose all sources, data and computer model programs to anyone asking for them. That’s all you need to know that nothing has changed.
Looking in detail at various blogs, what comes through is the polarisation of the Lefty-PR camp and science. The former are desperately hanging onto the belief that negative publicity for their hero Gleick will rub off onto their anti-hero – HI, so they have ‘won’.
This is delusional activity by the same part of society active in the ‘Occupy’ movement and various other Marxist-related activist groups, including the likes of Greenpeace and WWF etc.
Science, as typified by Richard Betts of the Met. Office, who I had considered to be a PR hack operating under the guise of science just like Gleick, has clearly decided to make a stand, a line in the sand just like at the Alamo.
Behind this we have science, marshalling itself under the banner of objectivity and ‘Nullus in Verba’, has decided to eject those who have abused the trust of the scientific community. On BH I have commented that a quid pro quo for climate science is that it must open up a debate with the wider scientific community.
It is a fact that any professional with a proper training in heat transfer and IR physics cannot accept the irrational adoption in climate science on the basis of 19th century peer review of the Arrhenius’ hypothesis that all IR is thermalised locally and by the process of ‘back radiation’ and multiple counting you get dangerous positive feedback in the climate system.
This physics is wrong. Arrhenius was wrong. Take it away and the climate modelling won’t need to hide it by imaginary high cloud albedo from a combination of artificially high parameters compared with reality and incorrect aerosol optical physics from Sagan via Hansen.
The politicians will not like it. Next move is to you Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Gillard. Are you going to persist in the carbon trading scam or are you like the Canadians going to accept that the IPCC has been lying for decades as part of its political agenda?
” 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”
In other words, protect the flow of public funding. AGU knew exactly who Peter Gleik was when he was appointed to the chair of the ethics task force. AGU is a political, advocacy organization and Peter Gleik was chosen because he best represents their goals.
pouncer: “I’m not seeing near enough kudos for Mr (Dr?) Betts around here.”
As eyesonu notes, Richard Betts says that people have been accusing climate scientists “completely incorrectly, of being frauds, green / left-wing activists or government puppets.” [my emphasis]
But Richards Betts has spent enough time on sceptic blogs to know that such accusations have often turned out to be true. ‘Hide the Decline’, to take the most famous example, was scientific fraud: it involved the deliberate concealment of adverse data, the post 1960 proxy curve.
These alleged global warming alarmist fraudsters have been ‘getting away with murder’ for far too long.
Maybe, at last, we will see this one do time for his crime.
It may then send a message to these climate charlatans that the stage has been set for a taste of the future… when the inevitable class action is taken against the IPCC over its fraudulent science.
There is and can only be one issue of note. Scientific integrity is corrupted by policy motives. They can’t get it back by talking about it. Reptitive, but it needs to be said whenever this form of pollution gets ingested.
“…the reality of the Earth’s changing climate.” Even skeptics allow as to the Earth’s changing climate, but where is it changing? Why should I accept this statement from anyone? The Arctic ebbs and flows, maybe, but even that seems warmly contested. Where else? Please point to some real world evidence of a changing climate. It has been a nicely mild winter here in the northeast, but we’ve had mild winters before. Cold ones too! It changes from year to year. Is this evidence of a ‘changing’ climate we are told the world is experiencing?
Rosco says:
February 27, 2012 at 3:47 pm
A few years ago, a researcher for the EPA was caught planting evidence of an endangered animal in a study area, in order to justify a ruling that would have declared the land protected and off limits to development. Nothing ever happened to her.