Sparsely attended. Usual ethics suspects are not here.
Lots of what if scenarios, such as what to do if you find your sponsor is fudging data and as a student you feel trapped by the “smoking gun” (their label).
Sparsely attended. Usual ethics suspects are not here.
Lots of what if scenarios, such as what to do if you find your sponsor is fudging data and as a student you feel trapped by the “smoking gun” (their label).
Kinda of like having a grilling classes at a PETA convention.
Well, probably better attended than the HONESTY, TRUTH, INTEGRITY sessions
I guess they wanted to get that part out of the way as quickly as possible.
The irony.
Peter “Exhibit “A'” Gleick wasn’t there. No wonder!
Ethics smethics.
We don’t need no stinkin’ ethics.
I’m sure the culprits will claim to know it all already. Only bigger and more so.
The missing heat is hiding under the ethics. No wonder they can’t find it.
What a hoot!
I was at this ethics session. The audience was divided into 4 groups. Each group was given Mickey Mouse (in my view) ethicaly hypothetical scenarios to evaluate and present to the other groups. My group had a plagiarism case.
Overall, it did give me the opportunity to see that the audience was not generally subjective in ethics.
If there is another ethics workshop like this one, I would decline attending on the basis that it did not deal with actual critique of ethic controversies in climate science.
John
Ethics are only really important if, you know, people are, um, going to be directly affected by whatever it is you’re telling them. Or something.
That is funny.
No case studies? I’m shocked, shocked! that there are no case studies going on in that establishment.
John Whitman
Yes. It’d have been much more interesting to examine the participant response to a hypothetical case like, oh I don’t know, to pick a scenario at random from the air, being bored one afternoon and feeling anxious to advance the Cause, do you:
A. Pick up the phone and commit wire fraud against Heartland in an effort to steal documents,
B. Forge further documents to support the documents you obtained by wire fraud,
C. Seek guidance and motivation from the SkS sooper secret forum,
D. All of the above
Did I say that out loud? Whoops. 🙂
Ah, I was wondering what ethics could possibly do with it. Easy answer though: If you value honesty over your career, then document and report. If you prefer having basic things — like food — then you do not commit to any shenanigans. And you do not commit to fixing any shenanigans. But advertise your non-commitment.
Two words to help fill the place — Open Bar
Isn’t it quicker and easier to just model ethics?
A synopsis of CAGW ethics:
The ends justify the means.
“Ethics Change is real and it’s happening now!”
Obviously not many feel compelled to consider ethics in their professional activities!
That’s Peter Gleick’s luggage in the picture. If you look closely at the attached baggage tag he has already checked-in for his next itinerary.
FAT-DUM-LIA.
http://www.world-airport-codes.com/
They didn’t get Peter Gleick to teach them about the ethics of forgery, character assassination, and identity theft?
Which one is the fraudster Gleick?
To often when people are willing to talk about ethics it’s to find a justification for their own falling short of a standard outside themselves. They want to be their own standard. I think they call that “situational ethics”. Or maybe “The end justifies the means”?
Last year, I went to the ethics workshop and asked about AGU’s handling of Gleick. See Climate Audit here http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/ . The chair of the Ethics Committee, whose predecessor had been Gleick himself, said that Gleick’s conduct was not within the purview of the Ethics Committee, whose responsiblity, according to her, was the develop of a new ethics policy, not the enforcement of any existing ethics policies.
AGU Conference Ethics Free by 2015!!!!!!
Ethics Death Spiral
Children won’t know what ethics is in the future
clipe says:
December 9, 2013 at 2:48 pm
On closer look, it’s an old\expired baggage tag with the full round-trip routing.
FAT-DUM-LIA-GOT-COT
Steve McIntyre (December 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm) says: ” … the Ethics Committee, whose responsiblity, according to her, was the develop of a new ethics policy, not the enforcement of any existing ethics policies.”
Typical. Develop a fine, detailed set of standards, something that will look good on paper and skip anything resembling enforcement. That way your butt is covered without interfering with anyone else’s interpretation of those standards. Of course everyone knows ethics are situational and nobody’s ethics are any better than another’s.
Ethics MUST involve the revelation of TRUTH. Any hiding, manipulation, distortion, “spin”, of the TRUTH is unethical. Once a “scientist” has been caught in an unethical situation, he is, by definition, no longer a scientist. A true scientist respects the truth and abhors the “politics-of-the-day”.
Many phony scientists today value fame way above TRUTH. (Doesn’t PH stand for “phony” in most PhDs?)
We live in the new Dark Age of science.
An empty room like that could almost double as an echo-chamber….
……oh wait….
It’s only Monday- way too early for the Friday Funnies.
Kiss Of Death!
Like the new “Super Duper Scientific Infinitely Accurate Infallible — EARTH FUTURE.”
Wasn’t there a SciFi movie or TV show in the ’70 called “Future Earth?”
I wonder if the producers and company, Warner Brothers?, want to sue the AGU for
trademark, copyright and intellectual property thief.
That’s the AGU President and Execs today, a bunch of ’70s wackos lurking around the tenderloin for some squeeze at members and Government expense.
I bet they Kant even spell Nietzsche!
If you like your ethics, you can keep your ethics.
I wonder if the irony of even having such a session at the AGU meeting following former Ethics Chairman Gleick’s escapades (rapidly forgiven by the AGU, of course) is recognized by the AGU membership. The sparse attendance at the session hints that maybe it is.
Doing a rough head count, I’d guess there were 40 people in attendance (10/group x 4)?
What did you say the membership was? Eh? 62,000 scattered in 144 countries??
Lemme see, my denier-math says 40/62,000 = .064% ????????
I guess ethics isn’t exactly a high priority….
http://membership.agu.org/
Why didn’t you take a picture when the session was in full swing … this looks like the start, end or a break! How many people actually attended the event?
I would like to suggest a query. Question: If in the course of conducting your research you find/uncover convincing evidence/data contradictory to the hypothosis of AGW, would you still publish that evidence/data?
=======================================================================
John Whitman was there and said they divided into small groups. ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/09/agu-ethics-session/#comment-1496174 )
This picture looks like the one of those group-grope sessions.
I see three groups and a lone wolf in the picture. Assuming it was taken from the back corner of the room there might be one or two more groups out view.
Ethics are just morals for people who don’t have any…
A recent Nobel Prize winner with some ethics:
Dr. Richard Shekman, after winning the Nobel prize on Dec. 7, 2013 announces he will no longer publish in the luxury journals Nature, Cell and Science.
“I have now committed my lab to avoiding luxury journals, and I encourage others to do likewise.”
“Just as Wall Street needs to break the hold of the bonus culture, which drives risk-taking that is rational for individuals but damaging to the financial system, so science must break the tyranny of the luxury journals. The result will be better research that better serves science and society.”
Read his editorial here:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science
Bill from Ottawa says:
December 9, 2013 at 2:30 pm
Two words to help fill the place — Open Bar
+++++++++
Pippen would have been there has there been an open bar –and he’d be able to get it without driving this time.
They would’ve maybe benefitted from a hearty discussion of the current article by Curry: “Pathological altruism” (the do-gooder complex?).
John Whitman says: “(…) Each group was given Mickey Mouse (in my view) ethicaly hypothetical scenarios to evaluate and present to the other groups. (…) it did not deal with actual critique of ethic controversies in climate science.”
So this workshop was a farce; it should be the subject of next year’s edition.
If the picture covers half the room and there’s 22 people in the picture, Can’t we just “infill” and extrapolate there are 22 people in the other half, and thusly the session is in full swing……..unless of course, some of the attendees are hiding in the deep ocean, where it’s to dark to measure or photograph anything.
Poor little JR..
How can you defend the indefensible,
And that indefensible is the ethics of CAGW !!
Sorry, but your effort seriously lacked motivation! 🙂
AndyG55 says:
December 10, 2013 at 12:03 am
Poor little JR..
How can you defend the indefensible,
And that indefensible is the ethics of CAGW !!
Sorry, but your effort seriously lacked motivation! 🙂
Poor little andy … I’m not defending anything … I don’t like bias … no matter what side of the table it’s on.
When I saw the baggage in the picture I thought well at least that guy is keen – he hasn’t booked into his hotel yet!
The girl from Chelmsford who has a lisp knows more about Ethics than they do. Where’s Josh when you need him?
What I get from Steve McIntyre is AGU has ethics policies, and seeks additional policies, not because they implement them or enforce them, but because it is policy to have them. To be honest, I didn’t expect more.
For those commenters asking how many were in the audience for the ethics workshop, I counted ~ 25 to 26 people just before we broke into 4 groups. Several more people may have showed up after that.
John
Why does the AGU has a session on something they clearly do not believe in?
So, how many Gleick jokes can we come up with?
To suggest AGU and ethics are compatible is like suggesting the actions (as evident in the Climategate emails) of the cabal of scientists involved with IPCC AR3 and AR4, and clearly “guilty” of scientific malfeasance, were saints.
“I have my principles — and if you don’t like them, I have others!”