I’m off on travel today, but I wanted to take this opportunity to give readers a chance to talk about a variety of topics and to discuss something that has been of interest to me over the years: professional and scientific societies.
We’ve seen the pronouncements on climate change and the internal strife generated from organizations like the American Physical Society. As you may recall APS pushed a climate change agenda to their membership via a position statement. When one of their prominent members, Dr. Hal Lewis, decided to resign in protest, the APS doubled down.
A number of people who don’t like this sort of thing have resigned from professional societies they used to belong to for similar reasons, so my question is this:
If you could create a scientific society today in the physical sciences, what would you do to make it the best you could and to give it a measure of immunity from the political downsides of the climate wars?
Also, an unrelated note: the “Top Headlines” will return Monday.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Q: What is the objective of the Chevrolet Division of General Motors?
A: To make money.
Which all finance/economics/business students should get immediately.
To borrow a phrase, all corporations will drift toward this objective.
The directors of professional and scientific societies are doing what the think will make the most money.
@otsar: Why have a scientific society at all, why not a series of web sites and blogs, where papers may be dowloaded for free, comments sent back to the author for their perusal and perfection of the paper. Each author can have their own web site or blog, linked to other sites of similar interest.
This is the way things appear to be going any way. The choke points (publishers, societies with agendas, paywalls, etc) will have to adapt, or become more irrelevant.
The main reason that scams such as “climate change” draw as much support as they do is that a large part of the public simply don’t have the attention span necessary to acquire real scientific literacy, and aren’t willing to put in the effort to get it. And what’s worse, most of the so-called journalists who claim to be, and ought to be, informing that group are members of it themselves.
So long as this is so, there are going to be societies, books, and media outlets that purport to tell the whole story; and whether they’re honest or not, or diligent or not, they’ll accumulate followers. Leaving it up to each person to do his own research simply won’t work in two senses. (1) It won’t work where “work” means to correctly inform most of the public, because most people don’t have the knowhow even to identify trustworthy sources. They’ll just go along with someone they know. (2) It won’t work where “work” means to get most of the public to accept the fact that no source is very reliable long term, because most of the public isn’t willing to believe that, and will latch onto some source and trust it uncritically.
I’m not saying the problem of eco-scams itself is hopeless. I am saying that there’s no way to get all those intellectually lazy people to accept correct information about eco-scams; and taking away their right to vote, even if possible, would be worse than the disease.
So the only way to solve the problem of eco-scams is to impose constitutions that deny any government agency the power to shut down industries or impose sumptuary laws, as the scammers want to do.
The first thing I would do is find someone extremely rich to fund research of members, no ideological strings attached, so the members would not have to grovel and prostitute themselves to get research money. Then, perhaps, people in my society could say what they think and publish unbiased results without worry that they might say the wrong thing and lose their funding source.
If you could create a scientific society today in the physical sciences, what would you do to make it the best you could and to give it a measure of immunity from the political downsides of the climate wars?
========
First, tell the politicians to take a hike.
@urederra:
prōductus computātrō is the best I can craft. It translates to “computer product”
When I was studying architecture some 20 odd years ago, a 5th-year course required a visit to an architectural firm. The architect I met with told me that after you graduate, you learn that the A students teach, and the B students end up working for the C students. While somewhat said in jest, there is a great deal of truth to this.
Many (most?) professional societies are comprised to two types of members. 1) those who feel obligated to join, but don’t really participate and 2) serial joiners (think high school student council president types).
Rule one of any institution is to increase it’s power and scope – often to it’s detriment. It’s a pull that those who gravitate to leadership cannot resist.
I haven’t seen much mention of the recent June SIPN Arctic Ice predictions, to which WUWT contributed. Wang at CFS and WUWT stand out as the big optimists, at over 6.1 M sq km minimum. Next is 5.5; median is 4.7.
Say nicky, could you stay on topic please? For example, which societies are you aware of, which have a lot of dissent going on over the unproven theory of AGW?
I would require a DECLARATION OF INTERESTS.
Here is a non-scientist called Lord Stern who tells us that co2 warming is worse than he thought!!! Do a little digging and you can see why HE says it’s a terrible thing. He is an ECONOMIST afterall. They deal with money and all that dontcha know.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/260-ton-for-carbon-the-price-of-salvation/#comment-1663660
There are many, many Warmists with vested interests. But the biggest group are Climastrologists with their mouths firmly clamped to the teat of public ‘climate change’ funding. Their vested interests are easy to understand – produce works of art that backs the Warmist governments of the day. It really is that simple and that is why they keep telling me about the ‘mountain of evidence’. Of course there’s a mountain, there would be a mountain if it was the other way round too.
It would have the only person I trust as its sole member…me…….and mayby al and mike
If this is about Kenji’s vote, just advise him to heed his conscience. He, more than most is aware of the paws. Or was that the “concerned scientists”?
It is worth mentioning (DesertYote comment was close) an edited quote from urban dictionary about O’sullivan’s law:
“O’Sullivan’s Law states that any organization or enterprise that is not expressly right wing will become left wing over time. The law is named after British journalist John O’Sullivan.
Television shows are the best examples of this. 24, House. Charitable foundations are worse but harder to see.
One of the reasons for this is leftist intolerance versus right-wing tolerance. Right wingers are willing to hire openly left-wing employees in the interest of fairness. Left-wingers, utterly intolerant, will not allow a non-Liberal near them, and will harass them at every opportunity. The result over time is that conservative enterprises are infiltrated by leftists but leftist enterprises remain the same or get worse.
Another reason is that the parasitic nature of Liberals/Leftists attracts them to existing money.
An enterprise can stave off O’Sullivan’s Law if their creators keep it in mind and remain vigilant and truthful. ”
I think this explains a lot of what is going on.
Nick Stokes says:
June 21, 2014 at 5:17 pm
I haven’t seen much mention of the recent June SIPN Arctic Ice predictions, to which WUWT contributed. Wang at CFS and WUWT stand out as the big optimists, at over 6.1 M sq km minimum. Next is 5.5; median is 4.7.
==============
Patience, the consensus has been recorded.
Now lets see how She plays her cards.
Steve from Rockwood’s comment, recently fired professor Caleb Rossiter’s experience at American University, and the recent rejection of Judith Curry’s essay by American Geophysical Union are probably all indications of the economic blackmail the political thugs promoting AGW are using in promoting global fascism and suppressing legitimate climate science.
I’d like to believe that scientists of Hal Lewis’s stature have retained the clout required to promote ethical science in professional societies since Lewis resigned from APS in 2010, particularly as a UCSB physical science alumni.
Unfortunately, as AGW has lost scientific credibility, all forms of censorship have increased – media reporting, employment, funding, and journal publication of legitimate climate research.
It’s easy to say that members of a professional society should be expected to support positions that are scientifically defensible, and Feynman’s definition is a good one.
The major issue, I think, is the level of impact that anti-science politically-oriented funding and hiring has on the membership pool. The number of physical scientists who have crossed over to the dark side and are advocating PC social science labeled as climate-science is scary, but hopefully it will reverse as the CAGW-alarmism farce is increasingly exposed as part of an evil political process.
A professional society should be to encourage professionalism in its members. It is not a union.
Jeff L makes a good start: “That all members be bound to present data, analysis methods and code for all published materials”. It should set a code of ethics and ensure that its members follow it. It might also include obvious administrative trivia such as “any statement by the society representing its members must be approved by its members”.
BillyV says
That is so right, where the media is concerned. For example, News Ltd Publications employ from all sides of politics here in Australia, whereas, the Government owned ABC and privately owned Fairfax Publications are almost exclusively of the left.
I prefer the Organization of WUWT readers!
I do not think there is any way to write society charters to eliminate politics and selfish self-interest in these societies; they exist specifically to promote their selfish self-interests and to influence politics. All you can do is vote with your feet; I quit the National Society of Professional Engineers when I realized their “ethics” were designed to protect engineering firms instead of the public welfare, and I quit the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers when I realized their agenda was to award building designs not based on actual energy use per square foot, but on expensive “improvements” to already wasteful designs. ASHRAE’s new HQ building is a monument to the egos of architects and management who have to have glass corner offices with no regard to the energy inefficiency of using glass. A recent survey of energy certified buildings in Washington DC revealed that these “certified” buildings actually used more energy than non-certified buildings. The meddling by these societies is harmful to the public. In my state, if you build a new unattached garage, and decide to run power to the garage for the automatic garage door opener, by law, you now have to insulate the garage!
Nick Stokes says:
June 21, 2014 at 5:17 pm
I haven’t seen much mention of the recent June SIPN Arctic Ice predictions, to which WUWT contributed. Wang at CFS and WUWT stand out as the big optimists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>..
Southern hemisphere ice anomaly approaching a record for the satellite era….
Odd you didn’t mention that as well?
Nick Stokes;
Wang at CFS and WUWT stand out as the big optimists,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
We must live in an inverted upside down bass ackwards world where guessing there will be more ice is considered “optimistic”.
u.k.(us) says: June 21, 2014 at 6:16 pm
“Patience, the consensus has been recorded.
Now lets see how She plays her cards.”
Indeed, and I make no prediction myself. But WUWT has had several threads on 2014 Arctic ice prospects, including two in anticipation of June SIPN (here and here) so I thought it’s actual appearance was worth noting.
Hank Paulson, former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs, and now chairman of the Paulson Institute, which he founded in 2011 to promote sustainable economic growth and a cleaner environment around the world(?), is very, very concerned about CAGW, & willing to repeat the tired old CAGW memes in the Paper of Record(?):
Hank, like other CAGW-ers before him, co-opts “BUBBLE” to mean something entirely other than the CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS TRADING BUBBLE we should fear more than any of the extreme weather events Hank is pushing here:
21 June: NYT: The Coming Climate Crash
Lessons for Climate Change in the 2008 Recession
by HENRY M. PAULSON Jr.
THERE is a time for weighing evidence and a time for acting. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned throughout my work in finance, government and conservation, it is to act before problems become too big to manage.
For too many years, we failed to rein in the excesses building up in the nation’s financial markets. When the credit bubble burst in 2008, the damage was devastating. Millions suffered. Many still do.
We’re making the same mistake today with climate change. We’re staring down a climate BUBBLE that poses enormous risks to both our environment and economy. The warning signs are clear and growing more urgent as the risks go unchecked…
We need to act now, even though there is much disagreement, including from members of my own Republican Party, on how to address this issue while remaining economically competitive…
***(LOL)I was secretary of the Treasury when the credit bubble burst, so I think it’s fair to say that I know a little bit about risk, assessing outcomes and problem-solving…
Already, observations are catching up with years of scientific models, and the trends are not in our favor…
Fewer than 10 years ago, the best analysis projected that melting Arctic sea ice would mean nearly ice-free summers by the end of the 21st century. Now the ice is melting so rapidly that virtually ice-free Arctic summers could be here in the next decade or two…
Even worse, in May, two separate studies discovered that one of the biggest thresholds has already been reached. The West Antarctic ice sheet has begun to melt…
It is true that there is uncertainty about the timing and magnitude of these risks and many others. But those who claim the science is unsettled or action is too costly are simply trying to ignore the problem. We must see the bigger picture…
I’m a businessman, not a climatologist. But I’ve spent a considerable amount of time with climate scientists and economists who have devoted their careers to this issue. There is virtually no debate among them that the planet is warming and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible….
In a future with more severe storms, deeper droughts, longer fire seasons and rising seas that imperil coastal cities, public funding to pay for adaptations and disaster relief will add significantly to our fiscal deficit and threaten our long-term economic security…
Let’s not ignore the climate BUBBLE.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/22/opinion/sunday/lessons-for-climate-change-in-the-2008-recession.html?_r=0
the money keeps flowing…
21 June: Daily Texan: UT engineering program receives $12 million to research reducing greenhouse gas emissions
The University’s Center for Frontiers of Subsurface Energy Security, led by engineering professor Larry W. Lake, received a $12 million grant from the U.S. Department of Energy, also known as the DOE, to continue researching carbon storage challenges aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
The four-year grant is a continuation of a five-year, $15.5 million grant awarded by the DOE in 2009. Although 31 other Energy Frontier Research Centers across the nation received grants, UT is the only university in Texas to have been awarded one…
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/06/20/ut-engineering-program-receives-12-million-to-research-reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions
This will be of interest here, read and enjoy.
“There is a tendency for members of Western Societies to consider science as an accomplishment – a set of settled, known facts and values. Accompanying this attitude is one which considers Scientists (with a capital “S”) to be authoritative and wise, knowledgeable in many things other than their specialty. It is a stereotype established by some of the notable scientific figures (and communicators) of the past and present: Einstein, Sagan, Hawking… and perpetuated by a media which treats the notion of scientific expertise as knowledge itself. The very presence of three little letters after a name –- P-h-D – is taken by many to be a mark of authority, and the “Scientist” is accorded credibility and wisdom well beyond their due.”
http://www.baen.com/Why_Science_is_Never_Settled.asp
Australia is an even bigger patsy, with all our MSM believing Obama is battling CAGW to save the planet!
21 June: Toronto Sun: Lorrie Goldstein: Obama’s fossil fools
Canada, were being played for a patsy on the oil sands.
It’s being orchestrated by an unholy alliance headed by U.S. President Barack Obama, aided and abetted by American Democratic billionaires, hypocritical Canadian and U.S. environmentalists and Canada’s opposition parties.
While Obama acts like Hamlet on approving the Keystone XL pipeline, and while the rest of the usual suspects rail against the Northern Gateway pipeline, or Keystone, or both — proxy fights for the real issue, which is the development of Canada’s oil sands — Obama is upping U.S. fossil fuel production like stink.
And no one among the usual suspects is calling him on it.
It’s not like Obama hasn’t given them ammunition.
Here’s Obama speaking in March, 2012 at the Cushing Pipe Yard in Cushing, Oklahoma:
“Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years … Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75% of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.
“So we are drilling all over the place … In fact, the problem … is that we’re actually producing so much oil and gas … that we don’t have enough pipeline capacity to transport all of it to where it needs to go — both to refineries, and then, eventually, all across the country and around the world. There’s a bottleneck … because we can’t get enough of the oil to our refineries fast enough. And if we could, then we would be able to increase our oil supplies at a time when they’re needed as much as possible.
“Right now, a company called TransCanada has applied to build a new pipeline to speed more oil from Cushing to state-of-the-art refineries down on the Gulf Coast. And today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done …
“So, yes, we’re going to keep on drilling. Yes, we’re going to keep on emphasizing production. Yes, we’re going to make sure that we can get oil to where it’s needed.”
The pipeline Obama’s referring to is the southern half of the Keystone XL…
***But instead of keeping more coal in the ground, the U.S. has upped its coal exports to record levels. Obama isn’t reducing U.S. emissions. He’s exporting them…
That’s his job.
What’s surprising is how many hypocritical Canadians are helping him do it, at the expense of our economy.
http://www.torontosun.com/2014/06/21/obamas-fossil-fools