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.”
In 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.
Willis Eschenbach says:”Instead, what we see is that Steig gets the cover of Nature, and rather than being retracted, the correction is buried on p. 83 …”
Correction. Corrections are not retracted papers, they are mistakes. Usually typos; sometimes embarrassing mistakes. But not usually evil.
Willis Eschenbach says: “Second, a paper is only retracted when the scientist either is forced, or has the honesty and the balls to admit he’s wrong, and retracts the paper. It’s often done under some implied duress. So we’d expect the rate to be low. The question is whether the rate is rising or falling.”
But it _is_ pretty low. 1 in 10,000 is really low. If you wish to argue it’s 10x higher in reality, then I would still say that 1/1000 is really low.
If the rate is rising, and here I agree with you because you are correct, it is rising. It is about 10x higher now than in the 70s. So one question is when does it become a problem? Well, I would say, we are pretty far from any sort of problem level. So another question has to do with why it’s happening, and, I might have this wrong, but I get the feeling that you are suggesting that climate scientists are bending their scientific work because of their political activism. Tell me if I have that wrong. If so, it seems you are mixing scientific malfeasance with political activism. Gleick was not ever guilty of the former, so how can he be made an example of in the science world? How much of his data has been shown to be incorrect; actually, how many papers mentioned in Climategate were retracted? It is possible that breaking and entering can be considered independent of science.
I think this is where your sport metaphor breaks down. Lance Armstong is not under pressure because he stole samples from the UCI but because he cheated. Had he ONLY stole samples (I am making this up) he would have no trouble biking. So it is for Gleick. He can keep biking.
A general note of personal venture…
I joined AGU a number of years ago so that I could learn about earth’s climate. From the literature of paleo climatologists I learned a great deal. This part of climate science, in retrospect, has shown to me the value of objective inquiry using the scientific method. The climate of the last 2 million years is well known and worth everyone’s investigation because of the clear cycles of glaciation and the warming of inter glacial periods.
I left AGU after discovering that its leadership had abandoned objective, thoughtful inquiry noted by the paleo climactic published papers, to the models based, politically biased assumptions of the current so called “climatologists”.
It was a difficult decision because I had experienced the best of AGU, then found that the worst had taken over.
This organization is now a political entity that I chose to no longer endorse with my dues or interest. My current belief and opinion, based upon years of observation is that like Dr. Gleick, it has allowed itself to become corrupt and devoid of any integrity.
Why would we expect anyone within that structure so self police its integrity? Its has become a bad apple.
If any reader is a current member of AGU, I suggest that you spend your cash and attention elsewhere. In my opinion, this entity has burned its good name and is living on fumes.
Gail Combs says: “A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices”
Yes, I remember that famous paper well, the scientist is not a monk paper. I think you need to look at the questions in the survey, and then ask yourself if you have _ever_ made a questionable statement on your taxes, or have you _ever_ ran a red light. I mean, I would haf to say I have done one of two things that are ‘edgy’ in the old days, like photo dodge out the ugly background behind an embryo or stitch negative of two microscope planes together to make a prettier photo; technically that would be faking data, but the idea was to protray what my eyes saw. Nowadays, the journal companies have progs that detect that stuff, so no more. You just send in the ugly pictures, and be done with it.
But I am comfortable with the apparent difference between the number of retracted papers and the percentage of scientists who have _ever_ faked a data point.
Thankfully, science is ultimately selfcorrecting, so faked data doesnt live long unless it wasnt very important in the first place.
Here’s my scenario for how payback will happen.
After the powers that be run out of cans to kick, which might take two to four years, the looming economic crisis starts to bite, beginning with stagflation and accelerating into a depression.
The Democrats can’t win enough votes by blaming it on Bush (although he’s blame-worthy–as is Clinton, etc.), so the GOP sweeps congress and eventually the presidency.
Temperatures have declined each year since 2012.
Congressional investigations are held.
The Justice Dept. launches investigations and files charges.
Privately funded lawsuits increase.
Austerity is necessary. Climatology’s neck is on the chopping block (especially “impact” studies), as are government-funded initiatives to promote awareness, subsidize alternative energy, participate in international climate-related matters, cut CO2 emissions, etc.
Big Academia gets what’s coming to it in the form of a severe cutbacks in student loan programs and “overhead”-laden NSF funding. Perhaps a law is passed, or an executive order is issued, or a court ruling is obtained, that makes it hard or impossible for employers to require a college degree for a job. Cut-loose academics are encouraged to take to the fields doing harvesting and learning from the people.
This is something the warmists’ blind-eye enablers aren’t counting on. They think the go-along/get-along environment in which they flourish will just roll on forever, and that history is on their side.
We needn’t do anything but tend to our knitting . . .
. . . like Madame Defarge.
[Temps going down since 2012? Mod]
Willis Eschenbach wrote:
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?”
Considering that Joe Bast is untrustworthy, why would a reasonable person rely on the word of Bast?
Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 10:33 am
Meaningless junk.
Simple reality check.
Every bankster gets together and say “were taking control, black hitlers is our puppet and were going to put him in jail to prove were in control. FBI, DEA, ATF, US Military arrest blick hitler.” Black hitler say while waving and snapping his hand in front of his face “O no you won’t girlfriend, hommie don’t play that. FBI, DEA, ATF, US Military arrest the banksters.”
Now who do you think is going to be arrested? 99.9% sure its going to be the banksters. The government ALWAYS has supreme authority period no debate simple reality. When the bankers stop paying off the government the government will purge them. Thats reality. The bankers has ZERO power outside of that which is granted to them by the government. KEY WORDS “granted to them by the government”. Like everything else the government gives… it can quickly UNgive.
The bankers are merely a front for the government, they are 100% controlled by the government, the government 100% endorses what they are doing… which is why they are allowed to do it.
geran said @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 7:53 am
….Maybe this is too simplistic, but as I read the post, sipping my coffee, it seemed to me humans can be divided into three camps. One camp seeks to promote perversion and corruption, one camp seeks to oppose perversion and corruption, and the third camp only seeks to “just get along”.
It appears to be a never-ending battle….
The Pompous Git says: @ur momisugly
January 10, 2013 at 10:17 am
It is a great post; up there with W’s best. It’s also a never-ending battle as any historian can tell you….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Agreed. And it is those who win who get to write history. Think Richard the III.
Gail Combs says:
January 10, 2013 at 5:58 am
I know you meant “red handed” here, but perhaps getting caught “read handed” means found in possesion of a banned book? I suppose better that than “reed handed” (ouch!). 🙂
However to your point I really don’t see defunding academia as even remotely possible. Here in Georgia the “solution” to address the undeniable failings of the K-12 public schools was to pass a lottery to fund “hope scholarships” so the same institutions which couldn’t impart basic competence and useful skills in twelve years now get funded to continue their failings for another four. The results were absolutely predictable: high school grade inflation so more students would “qualify” for the scholarship, more students going to college and ultimately failing instead of entering the job market and picking up useful skills that way, and of course increased costs for colleges and universities creating recurring funding crises with the scholarship program, necessitating yet more funding. But if you even whisper that maybe the program should be scaled back, the howls of outrage are deafening.
Heck, even under the over-hyped pressure of the “fiscal cliff” we couldn’t get agreement to cut out the windfarm subsidies.
Besides, if we’re going to dream about defunding useless parisitic bureaucracies we should concentrate on the most important target first: the UN.
I’ve rather sadly come to the conclusion that to paraphrase Pogo “the enemy is us”. We like our pork and politicians have honed their craft of serving it up to us and making us believe we can’t survive without it.
It’s also rather sad that a professional athlete is not only more honest than a whole organization of professional scientists, but more perceptive as well. Unless of course I hear that Schilling hired a PR expert to write that statement for him …
Well even if he id, it still shows more common sense than Dr. Gundersen has.
trafamadore says: @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am
I do not cheat on my taxes and I have told my boss on more than one occasion I would not falsify data and put it on a Certificate of Analysis so a bad/questionable lot of material could be shipped. I have been fire for that ‘offense’ more than once.
I have taken a stand on honor and have put my job on the line so don’t give me your crappy weasel wording trying to twist things.
Jake Diamond,
You appear to be bearing false witness. If Joe Bast is untrustworthy, explain how, exactly. Be prepared to document your assertion.
Joe Bast stated, without proof, that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. There are many more examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity. He is not trustworthy, and the suggestion that Peter Gleick could have relied on Bast’s word is laughable.
Jake Diamond,
Joe Bast gave his opinion. But you are bearing false witness because you assert that you know the facts. You do not. Your statement purports to others that you know the truth. That is bearing false witness.
Willis,
Excellent post as usual. Very good use of the baseball analogy.
trafamadore comment at January 10, 2013 at 11:57 am is a classic example of exactly what is wrong with science today. The point of view that everyone cheats and cheating ‘a little’ is OK. However cheating has no place in science as it is antithetical to science. If you are going to cheat at science why don’t you just go rob a bank instead.
As this Introduction to the Scientific Method states:
In other words weaseling and questionable research practices are NOT SCIENCE!
Gleick took complex, premeditated, abnormal criminal actions. A man like this, short of psychological and moral rehabilitation, can simply never be trusted. But the “team” is protecting their hit-men; the team must win, after all. He did his job and tried to score some doped-up runs.
Frankly, Gleick won, because I think the Heartland smear stuck. Most of the media ended up complying, ignoring……after all they are on his team.
DesertYote on January 10, 2013 at 10:52 am
David L.
January 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
###
“Your understanding of history is atrocious…
BTW, that blessed period of time during the Age of Reason, with the establishment of the University system, was a historic fluke that was enabled by the very same Christian world-view you have been taught to denigrate.”
I studied European history from the fall of the Roman Empire to the 18th century. Also, I was raised a strict Roman Catholic.
Those two facts opened my eyes and left me far less impressed with religion. Inquisition anyone? Crusades? Burn the witches? Galileo’s home imprisonement for his sciwntific views? The list is endless.
I love touring the Medieval torture devices in the basements of the churches. What are they doing in there?
Stealy wrote: Joe Bast gave his opinion.
No. Joe Bast made an assertion as if it were a fact. He didn’t preface his statement with “in my opinion,” or “there is reason to believe that.” He stated quite plainly that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo. Of course Joe Bast couldn’t prove that statement, but he nevertheless made it. That is one of many examples of Joe Bast’s lack of integrity.
You should probably drop your argument at this point because you’re just making a fool of yourself.
D Böehm Stealey says:
January 10, 2013 at 1:11 pm
Jake Diamond,
Joe Bast gave his opinion……
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis Forensic analysis of the fake Heartland ‘Climate Strategy Memo’ concludes Peter Gleick is the likely forger
Willis,
Your article stimulates a needed discussion.
Whether one agrees with any, some or all the aspects of your appeal for integrity within the AGU and in climate science generally, it is important for bloggers like you to keep very very public the discussion of what integrity is and why it is critical to the scientific process. Thank you.
If I take professional scientific integrity to mean the intentional consistency in and between ones ideas, acts and ethics, then I find both Gleick and Gundersen have compromised their integrity significantly. I think that Gundersen’s loss of integrity is far greater than Gleick’s. Gleick’s act wrt HI is inanely stupid and blatantly fraudulent and he had to resign his chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity. Gundersen, as the current chair of the AGU Task Force on Scientific Integrity has retreated from the subject of Gleick’s integrity while he was an active AGU leader. In a leadership role focused on integrity, Gundersen avoids a major lack of integrity case. Gundersen’s integrity lapse has a much greater negative impact on trust in science than Gleick’s. Gleick stealthily undermined scientific integrity as an AGU integrity leader; Gundersen, as a current AGU integrity leader is showing the public AGU’s open disinterest in scientific integrity. Gundersen is far worse than Gleick when it comes to causing more lack of trust in science.
Gundersen’s behavior as an AGU integrity leader is a publically displayed shrug and a wink and a smirk and a whisper to Gleick ‘we don’t care’.
John
By the way, speaking of ethical behavior, in the interest of transparency and honesty, WUWT posts that deal with topics relating to the Heartland Institute and Joe Bast should include a statement that discloses the financial support Heartland has provided to Anthony Watts.
[Reply: And why should that be? No alarmist blogs provide such a statement. And in this case Anthony was paid for work performed — unlike the payola that other blogs receive. — mod.]
Gail Combs said @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 12:45 pm
And Marcus Tullius Cicero said:
Translated: “To know nothing of what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.”
Jake Diamond,
As Gail Combs shows, chapter and verse, you appear to be the fool in addition to bearing false witness.
RomanM says:
January 10, 2013 at 11:04 am
@mpainter:
Somebody explained somewhere that Heartland has no basis for a civil action, not having suffered any material damage. This makes sense to me, in fact contributions to Heartland increased in the wake of the Gleick incident.
I disagree with this statement.
It seems to me that if you can show that even a single donation has been lost due to the illegal actions of Mr. Gleick, that should be sufficient to sue for monetary damages.
Nope. Heatland would have to show it had incurred very substantial financial damage, and show that most all of the info leaked by Gleick was false. In this case neither is provable. A good majority of the docs are factual, and HL, given it’s substantial and provably undamaged ability to raise funds after the fact, almost certainly did not sustain enough financial damage to meet a minimal threshold for damages.
Again, do we really want to go the Mann route, lawyering up every time there is a perceived wrong done against us?
Gail COmbs wrote: Not only gave his opinion but backed it up with an outside consultant’s analysis
That would be a remarkable feat of clairvoyance if true. Joe Bast stated that Peter Gleick forged a two page memo several weeks before the opinion to which you link was available to him.
In any case, a third party opinion does not constitute proof.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says: @ur momisugly January 10, 2013 at 12:48 pm
Gail Combs says…
…….
However to your point I really don’t see defunding academia as even remotely possible. Here in Georgia the “solution” to address the undeniable failings of the K-12 public schools was to pass a lottery to fund “hope scholarships” so the same institutions which couldn’t impart basic competence and useful skills in twelve years now get funded to continue their failings for another four.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually individuals are defunding schools.
Home schooling removes students from the head count (according to the scuttlebutt) and The increase in the percentage of homeschooled students from 1999 to 2007 represents a 74 percent relative increase over the 8-year period and a 36 percent relative increase since 2003
And how the government is fighting back
Also I was talking of defunding Academics as in colleges and Universities.
Will it happen? I do not think so because Main Street does not run this country we just like to think we do.