From the ‘truth is stranger than fiction department’, reporting from San Francisco at the AGU Fall Meeting
ED11D-02
Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists
Monday, December 15, 201408:15 AM – 08:30 AM Moscone South 102
Several authors have warned that climate scientists sometimes exhibit a tendency to “err on the side of least drama” in reporting the risks associated with fossil fuel emissions. Scientists are often reluctant to comment on the implications of their work for public policy, despite the fact that because of their expertise they may be among those best placed to make recommendations about such matters as mitigation and preparedness. Scientists often have little or no training in ethics or philosophy, and consequently they may feel that they lack clear guidelines for balancing the imperative to avoid error against the need to speak out when it may be ethically required to do so. This dilemma becomes acute in cases such as abrupt ice sheet collapse where it is easier to identify a risk than to assess its probability. We will argue that long-established codes of ethics in the learned professions such as medicine and engineering offer a model that can guide research scientists in cases like this, and we suggest that ethical training could be regularly incorporated into graduate curricula in fields such as climate science and geology. We recognize that there are disanalogies between professional and scientific ethics, the most important of which is that codes of ethics are typically written into the laws that govern licensed professions such as engineering. Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical, although legal precedent may evolve such that scientists are increasingly expected to communicate their knowledge of risks. We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted to define an ethical code that could be voluntarily adopted by scientists who seek clearer guidelines in an era of rapid climate change.
source: https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm14/meetingapp.cgi#Paper/11679
h/t to Steve Milloy
Like this:
Like Loading...
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Does this not send a message to the whole climate alarmist industry.
You can be as unethical as you want and you still get to lead ethical lectures. Its more than just, we won’t care. It is, you will be rewarded the more unethical you are.
That is this science In a nutshell.
That is message that has already been heard so many times its become boring.
Translation: “C’mon guys – don’t err on the side of caution like real scientists – go sex up your data for fun and profit.”
Comedy gold. I wonder how the audience will keep a straight face.
It’s like O.J. Simpson giving a lecture on how to maintain a happy marriage.
Homer Simpson on the benefits of a vegan diet
Or a Priest’s wedding Homily
(advice from outside of the realm of personal experience)
So if I’m a guy, my urologist can’t be a woman, right? And all OBY-GYN’s must be women as well? It never ceases to amaze me some of the simplistic arguments people will make. Many priests are certified professional counselors and perfectly capable of offering advice beyond the standard fare one might expect from someone in that position. In either their professional or religious capacity, they see a great deal of the human condition as it pertains to marriage. It would take someone of exceptional obtuseness to fail in gleaning some wisdom from such experience, even if second hand.
I’m implying that Mann will be speaking from education instead of personal experience. A Priest will give the same excellent spiritual advice as a married member of the clergy, but, (excepting formerly married Priests) he must replace his own experience with that of others he has seen or training he has received. Sorry, didn’t intend to infer any negativity with my analogy.
@Dawgtomis
OK, I see your point and grant it is true. Yes, it’s a bit of a hot button for me, and others can find hours of amusement in that if I let them.
OJ giving a lecture on what you can do to cut your alimony expenses.
jimmaine December 15, 2014 at 1:12 am
Yeah…Catholic Priests have a code too.
Oh…wait…
Jim,
Would you like to reconsider that statement? I take it that you are referring to child sex abuse by Catholic priests rather than the fact that all Catholic priests recognise that they commit sins. (Recent Popes, after all, have regularly been to Confession on a weekly basis. No Catholic claims to be sinless.) Yes, a small minority of Catholic priests (I think that the estimate in the USA is 4 per cent) have behaved abominably. But what you are implying is that all or most Catholic priests behave in this way. Not only do you have no basis for such an insinuation but the implication is a grave slur on the vast majority of Catholic priests.Would you make the same slur about ministers of other religions because some of them have committed the same crimes? Would you make the same slur about Scout leaders because some of them have committed the same crimes? Please think about the consequences of what you are saying. If, as you imply, Catholic priests, not just a small minority, are guilty of ignoring the morality they preach and in the way that I suspect that you are implying, then you are encouraging uninformed people to treat in an offensive manner any Catholic priest they meet. You are encouraging the kind of behaviour that priests can come across when people shout abusive terms at them. One other point I would make is that this is a blog about climate. If you have a problem about the Catholic Church I suggest that you use other places to express it. Please keep to the topic in hand. That also goes for any other commenter who uses this blog simply to express their dislike of religion. There are plenty of blogs around which discuss religion. Use them for your comments, not this blog.
I hope your 4 percent is considerably high!!! That would mean there are thousands of victims out there that haven’t come forward. The cases so far seem to total fewer than 20 priests in the US (over the last 50+ years) accounted for 99% of the problems. I think that would be more like 0.04%. Still too many, but the mishandling by the Bishops is what really blew up the public narrative.
Owen in GA,
Could you provide any sources for the data you have given.
My source, by the way is the John Jay Report.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/child-and-youth-protection/upload/The-Nature-and-Scope-of-Sexual-Abuse-of-Minors-by-Catholic-Priests-and-Deacons-in-the-United-States-1950-2002.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay_Report
The John Jay Report refers to accusations (note accusations, not proof) against 4,392 clergy. I don’t where you get your 20 from.
As for the claim that there must be ‘thousands’ that have not come forward, that’s easily said. Anybody can make any claim they like on that basis.
As for the Bishops (again, not all Bishops, just a minority) who did not handle the abuse accusations in the most appropriate way, you are right but let’s stick to Jim’s claim. It’s unfair and ought to be withdrawn.
Alba,
I have only counted the ones that hit the press as being publicly defrocked. I haven’t read the Jay report. Accusations are very difficult to assess as they may be overblown or they may only be the tip of a huge iceberg. A priest’s job traditionally placed them in one on one situations with their congregants, so it is very hard to ascertain the truth of any given accusation. I am not Roman Catholic, but have relatives who are, so have watched at a distance this whole thing, and it has been a real roller coaster ride of emotion for them.
The Episcopal Church put into place some serious guidelines for working with youth in particular that assures there is never one adult alone with children. This came about in part because of the RC problems coming to light, and in part due to finding our own problems with some of the youth programs.
That 4392 number is higher than I would have suspected, and as there are only about 60,000 priests in the US, that implies about 7% have been accused. YIKES! that is horrible. (I don’t know how many have been priests during this whole period so the divisor should be higher than the 60000+/- currently serving, so maybe 5% isn’t that far off)
Aiui, there are 22,500 RC priests in Italy, and there has been no “paedophile-priest” scandal there – yet. 4% of 22,500 = 900 active paedophile priests. They pretty much run Italy’s social services: where there are children, there’s an RC priest.
Will he be addressing the ethical deletion of emails to destroy audit trails?
Irony, hubris, deceit, all in one lecture.
It would be worthwhile flying from Melbourne just to heckle him.
No they are not. What expertise does a climate modeler or tree ring investigator have for protecting cities from sea level rise? Endless similar questions. I would have thought engineers are in the best position for that sort of thing. In fact they have been doing it for many, many years now.
If we had listened to them on “mitigation and preparedness” we would be prepared for a warmer world than observations show. Antarctica would have a reduced extent according to the IPCC projections etc.
it’s a 15minute talk :
So after discussing his ethics and morals, there will be 14 minutes and 50secs left for him to elaborate a bit
on sheep mountain
I think your being to kind
I can only assume this is from the ‘It takes a thief to catch a thief’, theory of learning.
In other words: “We have to lie, and lie big. It would be unethical for us to do otherwise, because we are planetary saviors and we know best, but we need the sheeple to believe us when we say there is a planetary emergency, otherwise nothing will be done about it. The ends justify the means.”
He has actually one-upped Schneider. There is now no choice between being a scientist and lying. Lying is now the official standard ethical choice.
Amazing.
I guess its part of a trying to repaint and re-invent, don’t be surprised if he is given an “ethical medal” or award for his services, after all when you look at the Climate-gate emails he was busy soliciting others to put him in for awards and he would do the same.
Curious thing that people that are deeply into what others might see as unethical efforts to keep their nose in the grant trough, are the ones that seek awards to hang on their wall or pad the cv, Perhaps its a psychological act of self delusion, or evidence of ethical flaws in their makeup and a desire for grandeur well beyond their actual capabilities.
Just cushions to their own conscience? and desperation to try and ward off the inevitable fall into shunned disgrace. Got to try it on I guess.
It is unethical to disagree with the alarmists.
Really, what he is saying here is that it is unethical not to be an alarmist:
“… the need to speak out when it may be ethically required to do so.”
His cohort here is a professor of philosophy from a 3rd rate university.
http://people.uleth.ca/~kent.peacock/
He lists WInston Churchill as one of the thinkers he most admires. Can’t be all bad.
Well, he does serve as a good example of a bad example.
The story may be apocryphal, but I recall reading that the Spartans would actually pay someone to be the town drunk. His purpose was to serve as a bad example to the youth of Sparta.
I had to first check to see if this was labelled satire, because it is just so crazy that he would be leading an ethics session.
This is not what he means. He wants them to be ethical and sound the doom bell louder..
Ethics is exactly what he says it is.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Mikie knows ethics.
Would it be ethical to hack the PA system and play a few verses of “Hide the Decline?”
Not sure about ethics, but it would certainly be illegal.
I would like to hear about the ethics of slandering fellow scientists on Twitter.
In my fifty five adult years i have heard of several bankers some recently ‘ jumping ‘ from the tenth floor . I suppose a bit of honour, conscience and integrity may be the cause , but i have never heard of a politician or university professor ‘ jumping ‘ !
Smug creep.
One could say he’s the Jerry Sandusky of Climate Scientist ethics.
Way to go Bruce.
Stir the pot.
Now that’s funny.
I hope Mark Steyn sees your comment.
The Cosa Nostra have a code of ethics too, so it would seem that any group of shady, conspiritorial, rent-seeking, con-men can be ethical.
I don’t consider the mafia to be ethical. It’s more a matter of honor among thieves. I don’t want my family members touched, so I won’t touch your family members.
To me someone is ethical, or they aren’t, there’s no middle ground. That would be cherry picking.
Everything in liberal-land is backwards.
Fen’s Law:
Liberals believe none of the things they lecture the rest of us about.