AGU, Gleick, Climate Science, and Baseball Steroid Use

Please Turn Around, Dr. Gundersen, You’re Blowing Your One Chance!

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

I was ruminating about Peter Gleick, and the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity, when I came across a very apropos quote. This is from another arena of life entirely, that of professional baseball. No one was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year. Voters seem to have been turned off by the steroid scandals, which involved some of the players eligible this year. The pitcher Curt Shilling was what you might term “collateral damage”—he had nothing to do with steroids, was always clean, and yet he didn’t get in to the Hall of Fame this year. Shilling has his supporters and detractors, but yesterday he made one of the most mature comments I could ever imagine. I can only hope that climate science holds players as honest and responsible about their own profession as is Curt Schilling. He said:

“If there was ever a ballot and a year to make a statement about what we didn’t do as players — which is we didn’t actively push to get the game clean — this is it.”

“Perception in our world is absolutely reality. Everybody is linked to it. You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

“Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it. As a player rep and a member of the association, we had the ability to do it and we looked the other way, just like the media did, just like the ownership did, just like the fans did. And now this is part of the price that we’re paying.”

curt schillingIn the same way that selective blindness happened in baseball regarding steroid use, mainstream climate scientists and the AGW supporting blogosphere and the media and the journals and in the latest example, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), all of them have “looked the other way” regarding such things as the scientific malfeasance of the Climategate folks, and more recently the actions of Dr. Peter Gleick. Let me briefly review the bidding of the Gleick saga.

Dr. Peter Gleick was the Chair of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Task Force on Ethics and Integrity in AGU Scientific Activities. As he tells the tale, he received a document from an anonymous sender purporting to come originally from the Heartland Institute. He wanted to verify the accuracy of the document. So far, so good. At that point, it seems like a man with integrity would go to Joe Bast at Heartland and say “Hey, Joe, I got this crazy letter. Is any of this true?”. If Peter was rebuffed there, he could consider other options.

Not Peter. Instead of taking the straight path, he went corkscrew. He called up some poor hapless secretary at the Heartland Institute, and impersonated a Company Director in order to obtain confidential company Board of Directors briefing papers. There’s a technical name for that kind of action. It’s called “wire fraud”.

Now, if Peter’s tale were true, about wanting to verify the accuracy of the document he’d received, you’d think he’d look at the actual papers he obtained through wire fraud. Then he’d compare the authentic Board briefing papers to the document he’d received, and then throw the document he’d received in the trash.

Why? Because it was an obvious forgery. Both the style and the content, including critical details, differ radically from the other documents he had, documents he knew were authentic for a simple reason—because he had stolen them himself.

Once he saw that the document he’d received was fraudulent, you’d think Peter would have stopped there and destroyed everything. But not our Chair of Scientific Integrity. Corkscrew wins again. Instead of taking it all straight to the shredder, he took the document, mixed it in with the authentic documents, and secretly and anonymously emailed them all to various recipients without any mention that one of them was fraudulent.

Now, I don’t know if there’s a crime in the latter part. Stealing secret business documents is one crime. Is revealing them to the public a second crime, particularly when there is one known forgery added to the bunch? Distribution of a forged document? I don’t know about crime, but I do know … that’s slime.

Fast forward a few months. After being exposed and having no other way out, Peter confessed to all except forging the initial document, and he may be right. It doesn’t matter. None of it justifies wire fraud and an attempt at scurrilously damaging Heartland’s reputation by his circulation of a very deliberately deceptive package of documents including a known forgery.

So Dr. Gleick resigned from the Task Force. He’d demonstrated he didn’t have enough integrity to be Chair of the AGU group charged with considering and encouraging Scientific Integrity. He was replaced as Chair, presumably by the person among the other Task Force members with the next highest amount of integrity. This was a woman named Dr. Linda Gundersen.

In a post I wrote almost a year ago, called “An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen“, I congratulated Dr. Gunderson on what I saw as a difficult post to fill. I pointed out the very public nature of her promotion, due to the precipitous and most theatrical pratfall of her predecessor, Dr. Peter Gleick. I also noted that she had a huge opportunity, which was to start by having the task force consider the lack of scientific integrity of her predecessor.

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.

Now, lest you think that my claim that “the world is already watching” in the quote above is mere hyperbole, I suggest you google ‘Dr. Linda Gundersen’, no need for quotes. Note that the most highly ranked link, first on the Google list, is my post “An Open Letter to Dr. Linda Gundersen” here on WUWT.

I closed that post by saying:

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.

In short, I did what I could to let her know that I wished her success, that her actions in this regard wouldn’t go unnoticed, and to encourage her to take the path of scientific integrity and at a minimum to perform and make public a non-adversarial inquiry into, and the lessons learned from, the downfall of her predecessor.

I thought that it was critical to deal with Glieck’s actions because they perfectly exemplify a huge problem in climate science, called “noble cause corruption. This occurs when someone is so convinced of the correctness and the importance and the nobility of their cause that they start shading the numbers, just a little at first, not much, just highlighting … and in the later stages of noble cause corruption they may well find themselves manufacturing the numbers wholesale, without any idea how they got to that point. It’s not your usual kind of corruption, the kind for money or fame. Instead, it’s corruption in the service of a “noble cause”, as they tell themselves. The problem, of course, is that noble cause corruption is still … well … corruption. Lethal and antithetical to science.

Climategate revealed that beyond fudging the numbers, some climate scientists were so convinced that they were saving the earth that they were willing to secretly commit a variety of highly unethical and even illegal acts in the furtherance of their noble cause. That’s the end result of noble cause corruption that starts with shading a few numbers, or as I sometimes call it as regards climate science, “Nobel cause corruption”.

Now, a year later, I find that my pessimism regarding Dr. Gundersen was wholly justified. Steve McIntyre went to the latest AGU meeting. He discusses some of what went on in a post worth reading, entitled “AGU Honors Gleick“. Dr. Gundersen, it seems, has done absolutely nothing regarding l’affaire Gleick. Well, not quite nothing. Sounds like she did a very credible impersonation of Pontius Pilate, wherein she washed her hands of the whole business, says it’s nothing to do with AGU in the slightest. No reprimand, no UN-style “strongly worded letter”, no commentary. No discussion of the issues exposed by the affair, no interview with the currently un-indicted Dr. Gleick to try to clear the waters, not what Steve McIntyre calls the scientific equivalent of a “one-game-suspension”, not even some vague, plain vanilla statement deploring the kind of actions without mentioning any names. Nothing.

Now that would be bad enough. But it gets worse. The AGU leadership honored Gleick by inviting him to make a presentation! That’s double-plus ungood, as the man said.

It’s bad enough that the AGU leadership did not censure him, or even discuss his actions in the abstract to see what lessons might be learned.

It is a whole other message, however, to invite him to speak. That is an honor. That sends that message that the AGU understands poor Dr. Peter. It says he took one for the team, and that wire fraud in the defense of a noble cause is no big thing … So much for the scientific integrity of the AGU, in this case at least they just showed they have none at all.

Finally, remember, this is not just some ordinary member of AGU that has done something totally lacking in integrity. It’s not even just an AGU official who stands self-condemned of a huge ethical lapse. Heck, it’s not even just a member of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity being found with his hand in the cookie jar. This is the Chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity, caught red-handed and self-confessed … and Dr. Gundersen says this has nothing to do with the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity or the AGU?

Really?

In any case, Dr. Linda Gunderson, in a move that I truly don’t understand, has now taken one for the team as well. She has stood as the steadfast bulwark against the malevolent creeping scourge of scientific integrity, by refusing to even consider the process whereby she got the job that she holds …

Ah, well. I suppose it must have earned her, if not the respect, at least the gratitude of her colleagues. They must have been afraid for a minute that she might do something. Glad that’s straight. Her name must serve as a beacon of hope among wire fraudsters everywhere, at least the ones with integrity. I just hope that keeps her warm at midnight, when she considers the cold wind of history whistling through the shredded remains of her own reputation …

Finally, it’s not too late, she could pull out of the nose dive. Dr. Linda could still do the right thing. She could still open a discussion about noble cause corruption, and what it has done to the field of climate science. She could still talk about the increase in scientific fraud, and what that means to science itself.

Heck, every good theoretical paper needs an example. So she could even talk about how noble cause corruption and blind fanaticism blighted first the Climategate unindicted co-conspirators, then Dr. Peter’s career, then Dr. Linda’s career, and eventually has cast a shadow over the AGU itself …

Alternatively, she could write up a piece and publish it here on WUWT, I’m certain Anthony would have no objections. She could tell us all just why she has done nothing regarding Dr. Gleick’s actions. That’s what I’d do in her shoes. Well, no, actually if I were in her shoes, I’d open a non-adversarial inquiry, to see what we could all learn from Dr. Peter’s fall. But my point is, the game’s not over yet, she could pull through, and I would be very happy to see her do so.

Or not. She could do nothing. But it’s not just her. The problem is the silence of all the rest of the lambs. As Curt Schilling said,

You either are a suspected user or you’re somebody who didn’t actively do anything to stop it. You’re one or the other if you were a player in this generation.

Dear friends, science is in trouble. Retracted papers and inadequate peer-review and horribly slanted papers and even forged papers are all on the rise. If the AGU is unwilling to stop honoring those who actively promote forged documents, then why should anyone place any credence any of them? People are becoming disillusioned, losing faith and trust in science because of the unethical, unscientific, immoral, and sometimes even illegal actions of people like Dr. Gleick and the Climategate crowd … and Dr. Linda Gundersen and the AGU leadership seem to have put themselves firmly in the camp that Curt Schilling called those who “didn’t actively do anything to stop it”.

I’m not made that way. Now I admit, I can’t do much, any more than many of us can … but I will not go gentle into that good night, and I encourage you not to either. This is me raging against the dying of the scientific light. We all need, in Curt’s words, to “actively push to get the game clean.”

w.

APPENDIX: The actual charge of the AGU Task Force, from here:

Task Force on Ethics and Integrity in AGU Scientific Activities

Charge

The Task force will:

• 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.

• 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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
ThinkingScientist

Well argued post. The closing comment “I will not go gentle into that good night, and I encourage you not to either. This is me raging against the dying of the scientific light.” is excellent and is the reason I keep arguing and posting, and have done for over 12 years. It is almost as though we are witnessing the reversal of the enlightenment. The “benightment” of science, caused by…climate change!

MattN

Not much more to add…

Steveta_uk

Willis, it would seem you missed this:
http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/climate-weather/stories/the-global-warming-hot-list-for-2013

In February, confidential documents intended for Heartland’s board were leaked, showing a network of payments to climate skeptics and funding for a school curriculum designed to cast doubt on climate science. In a Grisham-esque turn, prominent scientist/activist Peter Gleick admitted obtaining the documents by posing as a Heartland board member and apologized for his ethical lapse.

He apologised, so that’s all right, then. /sarc

David L

I think we expect too much from academia. While interned as a graduate student there were plenty of examples of less than honorable activities among the professors and students, across disciplines and universities. I had first hand accounts of professors presenting false and wrong data at national conventions. The student who collected the data told them it was wrong because if mistakes she made but the professor didn’t care, she still wanted to tell the story. Later this prof was made president of an ivy league school.
A friend of mine while a post doc couldn’t replicate the results of prior students. He found out that the prior students fabricated the results and brought it to the attention of his professor. The professor, a lead person in his field, told him to mind his own business. The case was brought before the professional organization and after a few bitter years was quietly swept under the carpets.
Academics is not a noble profession. They are in their own little sick and twisted world.

Speed

And I’m sure It wouldn’t interest anybody, outside of a small circle of friends …
— Phil Ochs, 1940 – 1976

Bravo22C

I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?

Paul Schnurr

Well, he did lose his job. I’m trying to remember, did Heartland bring any civil action against him?

Bloke down the pub

Good to see that if US sport is not more ethical than US science and academia, then it is at least more aware of it’s failings.

meltemian

Expecting an admission of any sort of wrongdoing, even “noble cause corruption” sounds like a case of “hope over experience” to me. Well we can but hope.

Mike (from the high desert of Western Nevada)

Bravo, Bravo22C

BrianJay

Actually you come top in Bing to. Mind you the next spot after the WUWT banner is for a Gynecologist named Gundersen. But they are all looking after c***s aren’t they

@ThinkingScientist:
Yes, exactly. I was wondering about this, so did a long dive through the various philosophical roots of what was, and what science is becoming, and from what roots. It’s long, but gets there. From the conclusion here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/isms-ocracies-and-ologie/

In Conclusion
We’ve taken a very broad sweep of the -isms of this world, a few of the -ologies, and even an -ocracy or two.
[…]
For the traditional path to America as founded, it is not a very long, nor tortuous path. The Ancient Regime, to The Enlightenment, with perhaps a light seasoning of Naturalism in the sciences.
For the other paths, that lead through oh so many failed experiments of history, there is a broad and deep kaleidescope of names, of -isms, of advocates and ideation. Clarity and success, not so much…
[…]
For folks not so interested in The Socialisms, but interested in restoring America, I hope this brief survey lets you rapidly focus on what to promote, and to some extent what to avoid. The review of The Socialisms will give a more detailed list of things that have not worked so well… and connections to their philosophical roots.
My bias is to the side of The Enlightenment and Naturalism. I’ve seen little to indicate anything since then has been an improvement… So simply knowing that lets me not be so ‘buffaloed’ if someone starts to spout about “humanist positivism” or the superiority of “moral relativism in the post-modernist reductionist age”. I can simply look at them and calmly state: “I prefer the liberty and humanity of a Naturalist Enlightenment as it works much better.”

The “Naturalist Enlightenment” philosophy is being actively subverted and replaced by broken world view based on bad roots like “humanist positivism” and “moral relativism” which hold such broken ideas as that there is no actual right and wrong, so as long as your motive was pure, so was your action. You can see the result of that… I lauds noble cause corruption.
In a follow on piece I looked at the philosophical roots that lead to the socialisms (that feed into those ‘alternative’ philosophies):
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/socialism-utopia-workers-paradise/
This is where, after tracking it all backwards through history I reach the first seed, then recapitulate the journey forward in summary:

And with that, we reach the final end of the beginnings of Socialism. In a work of fiction, aimed at an indirect criticism of the King, resulting in an “Off with his head” moment.
So now you know.
Now, just for fun, “play it forward” in your mind. From a work of fiction, to attempts at real world Utopian Communes that regularly fail, to Mr. Mills ideas about control, to a 1/2 finished economic theory about value and labor turned into a base belief, to a Marxist twist into a struggle of the classes (class warfare) and on to the USSR – Stalin and the various purges, Fascism, Nazism and The Progressive push for euthanasia and forced sterilizations, eventually to Mao and The Cultural Revolution (one could toss in Pol Pot and the Khmer rouge for another 3 million dead… but that would be piling on…)

It is no less than a frontal assault in coordination with a ‘5th column’ on the ideals of The Enlightenment. That is the “root cause” of it all.

HK

Bravo22C:
I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?
Totally agree. And if Heartland have given up on this, can they just explain why? We had plenty from Heartland at the start saying, essentially, “we’re working on it”. Since then, effectively nothing.

MikeB

Sorry Willis, this is OT, but there is an interesting editorial in the Daily Mail this morning.

Editor Accuses Met Office Of ‘Crime Against Science And The Public’

http://www.thegwpf.org/editor-accuses-met-office-crime-science-public/

Gail Combs

For what it is worth Al Gore’s Book “Earth in the Balance” was written by ex- EPA Administrator Carol Browner. She is notorious for wiping the EPA computer files despite a court injunction signed by U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth requiring the agency to preserve its records.
Hubby just picked up a copy at a thrift store for $0.50. My husband (a technical writer) thought it was very well written so he went digging to find out who actually wrote it.
Carol Browner, BTW is a lawyer not a scientist. Obama selected Browner as Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change Grist describes Browner as President Obama’s former “energy czar”

mycroft..shared winning of nobel peace prize, EU resident,

Good post Willis.
The mantra it’s not just bad men that make bad things happen its he good men that do or say nothing fits here very well!

lurker passing through, laughing

AGW is a symptom of a larger corruption in society.

knr

“Nobel cause corruption” only covers some of it , other actions can be directly related to the professional and personal benefits they brought to those that did them . Minor academics became big time players with easy access to research funds and position that otherwise they would never have seen . Some have even turned their advocacy into nice little earners by charging lots of cash of ‘interviews and speaking engagements.
But the overall issue to to true , not just the actions of those that did which is the problem but of those that did not but said nothing about those that did . Indeed in the longer term its that problem that may cause most damage to science in general when it comes to public trust.

bernie

Bravo, Willis.
You and Mr. Shilling echo the pithy “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Generally attributed to the ever relevant Edmund Burke.

Joe Public

Perhaps Gleick could follow Lance Armstrong, & have an “unburdening session” with Oprah Winfrey

richardscourtney

Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:
You each query why the Heartland Institute (HI) has not brought charges against Gleick. All your points were answered in a recent post on WUWT in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/06/quote-of-the-week-the-glieck-tragedy-continues/
To avoid you needing to find it, I copy that post from a HI representative below.
Richard
———————-
Jim Lakely (Heartland Institute) says:
January 7, 2013 at 1:37 pm
I noticed that some previous comments ask why Heartland hasn’t “pressed charges” against Peter Gleick for his crimes. On behalf of The Heartland Institute, let me explain why.
Only the government can “press charges” in the U.S., and so far it has chosen not to bring criminal charges against Gleick. Heartland retained counsel experienced in federal criminal prosecutions and who have dealt often with prosecutors in the office of the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, in Chicago. Heartland’s counsel thoroughly researched the case and met repeatedly with prosecutors, asking them to prosecute Gleick for the serious violations of federal law he committed.
Despite our efforts and despite Gleick having confessed to at least one crime, our appeal for prosecution was dismissed. We are told the government has no obligation to prosecute crimes even when the culprit confesses and the victim asks for prosecution. This is called “prosecutorial discretion.” We’re hoping the new US attorney in Chicago, along with prosecutors in Washington DC will take a new look at the case. We are holding off any civil suit until and in case a criminal prosecution is launched. In any event, we plan to release the presentation we compiled on Peter Gleick soon to let the general public decide if justice has been served.
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute

Frank K.

Great article Willis.
However, Climate “Science” missed its opportunity to “come clean” on many previous occasions – the most important of which was the movie that helped Al Gore get rich, “An Inconvenient Truth”. I remember that this was a required “science” movie that my son HAD TO WATCH in grade school(!!), even with all of its mistruths and exaggerations. Hardly anyone in the Climate “Science” community said a peep. There was too much on the line – mainly money and rock star-like fame. Then came the Nobel prize and more money. The greed and fame won the day (and still win the day) with these people.
So, having the AGU honor Glieck after all of his completely unethical behavior is just more of the same. In fact, I think it speaks volumes about the ethical standards of the AGU itself. Perhaps those AGU members who wish not to be associated with this will complain, but I doubt it. There’s too much money involved…

MangoChutney

If the US Attorney is refusing to go ahead with the prosecution against Gleick, for whatever reason, then Heartland must bring a civil case.

A tiger can’t change his stripes, a leopard can’t change his spots, and these people can’t change who they are.

Jeff B.

But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.

Mike McMillan

Craig Biggio had 3060 hits, and didn’t get voted into the Hall of Fame. We wuz robbed.
Maybe he should change his name to Kardashian.

TRBixler

In our society today wealth and fame outweigh integrity. Only chumps play the game straight, that includes politics, business and sports. It is a sign of the times. Not a good sign but a sign none the less. Carbon credits anyone?

M Courtney

It has become clear that the AGU is not a honourable organisation. It has gained a proven record of encouraging corruption.
So why do people stay members? There are social benefits; it is the sign of respectability in the field and it has a noble heritage plus, I’m sure the conference was fun.
But that does not match the shame from partaking in the disgrace.
The analogy to membership of the Communist Party in Stalinist Russia seems apt.
Why haven’t people resigned yet?

DaveA

“Now, if Peter’s tale were true…”, and that’s a very big IF!
I hope other readers are all aware of the Gleick/Heartland story because the way Willis has told it here has been very kind to Gleick, who almost certainly doctored up that one document himself to make amends for the ho-hum real Heartland documents.

Gina

Good post, and Thank you. Keep fighting the good fight.

Gail Combs

David L says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:07 am
…..Academics is not a noble profession. They are in their own little sick and twisted world.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You completely missed the point. Academia SHOULD be a noble profession. They SHOULD be held to the highest level of morality and ethics because these are the teachers of our young. As the role models of the next generation their morality and ethics are critical.
The fact that you give them a pass and shrug your shoulders show just what type of ethical decay sets in when Academia is NOT held to high standards.
It is the reason I say the whole mess should be defunded. Academia has proven they are Michael Manns, Peter Gliecks and Jerry Sanduskys. The fact that Academia covered-up for these men and who knows how many others shows they whole edifice is rotten to the core and should be dismantled.
Climategate and Gundersen’s actions show even when caught read handed the Academics feel they are gods and not answerable to lesser men. They forget that ultimately we hold the purse strings. If we scream loud enough and raise enough of a fuss Congress WILL defund Academia because they are looking for a bone to throw to the rank and file.
Gundersen’s actions just gave us more ammunition to make those demands, if not in this administration in the next.

Jack Savage

“Now, lest you think that my claim that “the world is already watching” in the quote above is mere hyperbole….”
Sorry, Mr. E. I think that statement goes against the point you are trying to make. It is patently obvious that the world is NOT watching. If only it were. In this matter and many others. Not one person in a thousand on the street in the UK could tell you who either Peter Gleick or Dr. Gundersen are or even what the initials AGU stood for. Not even the narrower scientific world is watching. Even the even narrower climate science world is only watching with half an eye or deliberately averting their gaze.
That is the problem.

Tim Clark

Willis,
What a masterful expose. How long does it take you to write essays that methodically eviserate delinquents.
{ Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:52 am
Until summer 2008 she was a member of Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society,[61][62][63] although the commission’s web site still had her listed as a member in January 2009.[64]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Browner }
Therein lies the “Noble cause” of not only Carol, but Gleick and Gunderson.
For some perspective, this type of scientific behavior is not new. While at a major University twenty years ago, I knew associates who would skew the numbers slightly to make a study with ~5.4% significance into one with ~4.98%, or 10.5 to 9.7. This would give them another three or four years on the dole. Or submit bogus expenditure receipts to the granting agencies. I’m suggesting it occurs more than one could imagine.
“Unfortunately I fall into the category of one of the players that didn’t do anything to stop it.”

Joe Crawford

While it all probably started with ‘noble cause corruption’, I’m afraid it has now grown into ‘pocket book corruption’. With, as someone has stated previously on this site, some 80 billion dollars at stake or already spent and every university in the country with a department of ‘Climate Science’, there is just too much money involved to worry about minor issue such as scientific integrity.

Nix

I’m sure the chair and members were listed on the task force page (http://www.agu.org/about/governance/committees_boards/scientific_ethics.shtml) last time I looked but not any more. Peeking into the html code, I see that they’ve just commented-out the list.
Our friend P.Gleick is still listed as Chair together with L.Gundersen (who is also a member). Go figure.

Ed MacAulay

re richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:
The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.

Gail Combs

Bravo22C says:
January 10, 2013 at 4:16 am
I agree entirely with the author of this post, but there is one thing that troubles me. Why has no action been taken against Gleick by either the Heartland Institute or the authorities?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Heartland is trying for criminal charges first but the government is refusing so far.
The reason why is Wire Fraud is a serious offencse if you do a search you find it bundled under:

The 2011 FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL

These sections address basic forms of property offenses: theft, embezzlement, fraud, forgery, counterfeiting (other than offenses involving altered or counterfeit bearer obligations of the United States), insider trading, transactions in stolen goods, and simple property damage or destruction. (Arson is dealt with separately in Chapter Two, Part K (Offenses Involving Public Safety)). These guidelines apply to offenses prosecuted under a wide variety of federal statutes, as well as offenses that arise under the Assimilative Crimes Act.

§2B1.1. Larceny, Embezzlement, and Other Forms of Theft; Offenses Involving Stolen Property; Property Damage or Destruction; Fraud and Deceit; Forgery; Offenses Involving Altered or Counterfeit Instruments Other than Counterfeit Bearer Obligations of the United States
(a) Base Offense Level:
(1) 7, if (A) the defendant was convicted of an offense referenced to this guideline; and (B) that offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more…
.
.
.
15. Cross Reference in Subsection (c)(3).—Subsection (c)(3) provides a cross reference to another guideline in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a general fraud statute, and the count of conviction establishes an offense involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly covered by another guideline. Sometimes, offenses involving fraudulent statements are prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or a similarly general statute, although the offense involves fraudulent conduct that is also covered by a more specific statute. Examples include false entries regarding currency transactions, for which §2S1.3 (Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements) likely would be more apt, and false statements to a customs officer, for which §2T3.1 (Evading Import Duties or Restrictions (Smuggling); Receiving or Trafficking in Smuggled Property) likely would be more apt. In certain other cases, the mail or wire fraud statutes, or other relatively broad statutes, are used primarily as jurisdictional bases for the prosecution of other offenses. For example, a state employee who improperly influenced the award of a contract and used the mails to commit the offense may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. Such a case would be more aptly sentenced pursuant to §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions).….

That may not be the correct section but it gives a feel for what Gleick should be facing if the US government was functioning under the Rule of Law instead of the Rule of Man.

HK

Thanks richardscourtney – I had missed that. I’ll admit I’m surprised that there is nothing more they can do.

I remember when I first started reading this blog in 2007, most here (and especially Anthony) still felt that the warmists were simply mistaken, and that if they could just see the data and the models they would certainly change their minds. We could all still think of them in friendly terms, as fellow devotees of science who simply had misinterpreted the data.
Now it’s impossible to deny that they know just as much as we know and they don’t care. They know because they are the ones who have to intentionally fake the data, intentionally slant the models, intentionally cover up and paper over the outright criminal behavior by their compatriots.
They know they’re faking it all. They don’t care at all about that, because it is all in support of their true agenda, which can no longer be hidden.
These people are not simply mistaken – they are our enemies, and the enemies of anyone who still cares for truth and decency in this world. We have to fight them in every way we can, without ceasing.
Because that is how they are continuing to fight us.

RACookPE1978

All: Under Obama’s (In)Justice Department, each regional prosecutor’s office is completely controlled by appointed (liberal democrats) subject to review and approval by Washington. Chicago is the heart of that empire, and is the most likely to be corrupt.
“Discretion” therefore means “We will selectively prosecute you” if you are not a member of our political party, if you do nor support our liberal political party, or are doing things to our selected political party that make us look bad or feel uncomfortable. Thus, the Selective Justice Dept refuses to prosecute thugs photographed standing outside a Philadelphia voting precinct with sticks who were threatening voters – because those thugs were in the liberal party. The prosecutors attacked a conservative who asked a question in public embarrassing to the candidate, but refused to investigate the newspapers and politicians who released his private records and files that were used to humiliate that person.
The InJustive Department today IS entirely political run, politically and racially biased, and WILL refuse to aid anyone who opposes their regime in Washington.

Simon

Willis, another great post.
One group that has been particularly guilty of letting the scandal pass whilst turning a blind eye are the churches. Many indeed have even jumped on the CAGW bandwagon in an attempt to try and be ‘modern’ and ‘with it’, i.e. supporting a perceived up-welling of “something must be done to protect precious Earth”, but have singularly failed to apply a critical eye to the issue such that ‘truth’ may prevail.
I have particular interest in the Church of England, being my ‘home’ church, and in particular their ‘Shrinking the [CO2] Footprint’ programme that uncritically accepts the IPCC’s alarmist pronouncements. This program is endorsed by the Archbishops Environmental Council, so goes to the top. It will be somewhat of a humiliation for them when the full impact of the recent revelations by the UK Met Office and NASA that CAGW isn’t a problem after all.

Tom G(ologist)

I know that using the “E” word is strongly discouraged but I am going to risk censure. Those people who are trying to eliminate, or at least water down, the teaching of, well, you know what, in our [public] schools have been making the case for years that biological and geological scientists have been excluding them so that their lack of scientific integrity could not be exposed to legislators and the general public. They have made the claims that the science of “E” biology is run by a cartelle of irreligious zealots… yada yada yada.
The ultimate and inevitable downfall of climate science is going to damage science in general in far-reaching ways which will reverberate throughout our society. Those people are anti-science and they will exploit every opportunity to persuade people that every branch of science should be mis-trusted.

PaulH

Alternatively, she (Dr. Gunderson) could write up a piece and publish it here on WUWT, I’m certain Anthony would have no objections.
That would never happen, as that would be an acknowledgement that WUWT exists and is relevant… something the AGU could never bear to do.

Gail Combs

Jeff B. says: @ January 10, 2013 at 5:30 am
But people who vote for Democrats don’t want the game clean. They’d rather just see their team win all the time, even immense cost to the game and fans.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That is simplistic.
You are missing the fact the media controls the message and the Bankers control the media. Unfortunately most socialists do not understand it is the bankers who are pulling their strings via the media they control.
The socialists mistakenly think bankers are Capitalists but they are not. “Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bank-rolled by prominent Wall Street financiers.” He drew this cartoon in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch showing Karl Marx standing in Wall Street accepting the congratulations of the financial luminaries of the time such as J.P. Morgan (Owner of the US Media), his partner George W. Perkins, John D. Rockefeller, and Teddy Roosevelt.
SEE: WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
The only winners for the last hundred years have been the bankers and their buddies. Both the socialists and the ‘capitalists’ have been played for fools. (Capitalism died with the passing of the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. We all became serfs to the bankers at that moment.)

MikeR

“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.”

DirkH

Tom G(ologist) says:
January 10, 2013 at 6:45 am
“Those people are anti-science and they will exploit every opportunity to persuade people that every branch of science should be mis-trusted.”
If your science is based on TRUST it sure ain’t no science in the first place.

Mike Smith

Brilliant article.
However, I’m going to suggest the problem is not limited to baseball and climate science. I submit that the same thing is happening throughout all of our social institutions. Government (at all levels), churches (naughty priests), universities (e.g. Penn), banks (e.g. sub prime loans), large corporations and more. Think about it! Sadly, you’ll probably find it heartbreaking but the fact is that all of our social institutions are failing us.

Coach Springer

“… didn’t actively do anything to stop it”.? The AGU/Gunderson actions and inactions go beyond doing nothing active. “Conspire with” and “cover up” would be more accurate, but then they might sue? As we are dealing with systemic corruption armed with money and lawyers, it’s easy to see how we can find ourselves doing less than truth would call for.

Gail Combs

Ed MacAulay says:
January 10, 2013 at 6:08 am
re richardscourtney says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:07 am regarding Bravo22C, Paul Schnurr and HK:
The second part of the question: why has Heartland not sued Glieck?
Can’t find it now, but read a few days ago that donations to Heartland have gone up since Glieck’s scam. Thus Heartland can not show damages; and would not receive any compensation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not necessarily.
Heartland DID lose some big donors when the activists ‘swarmed’ them and they decided for business reasons to no longer donate to Heartland. That is a direct cause and effect that can be proven. The total went up because of all the little donors but you would then have to prove in court that the Glieck’s scam and not the bill board was the reason.
This means you have to put each and every one on the stand and ask WHY. My answer would be I like the idea that they ran a billboard and they host true science conferences.

troe

Curt Schilling’s should be the AGU ethics chair. Willis should write the reports.