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.
Michael Mann will never allow any but the most tightly scripted questions, by someone who is completely trusted.
Otherwise, someone might ask him: “What is your ethical position on someone who claims to be a Nobel laureate, but knows he isn’t?”
Or: “Is it ethical to publish a paper based on a corrupted proxy (Tiljander), when you were informed beforehand that it was no good?” There are many other examples — if someone could simply ask. But Mann is so terrified of that possibility that he will never allow anyone the opportunity. A court venue is the only way to pin him down.
Mann’s history shows to what lengths he will go to avoid being exposed for the charlatan he is. He even finagled his way into one of his “exoneration” hearings beforehand, where he was allowed to help formulate the questions he would be asked!
So much for iumpartiality. No hostile witness has ever been allowed into any investigation into Mann’s “ethics”. This one will be no different. But I suspect that Mann will be giving ammunition to Mark Steyn no matter what he says about ethics.
Michael Mann is a petty, vindictive, spiteful, slippery weasel, and he is filled with intense hatred for any and all critics. But he is not stupid, and this event will be just as tightly scripted as all the others. Only a very clever individual would be able to penetrate his defensive armor.
But if someone finds a way, it would certainly make the news!
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
This is like Bill Clinton lecturing on marital fidelity.
Class ED11D-02 – Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists; well, almost, maybe, sort of, in a Climate Science type manner.
Section 1 – How to force data to comply with your grant needs.
– many ways to homogenize, osterize and staterize data.
Section 2 – Weak resume? We’ll describe a dozen ways to put the sparkle and heat into your cover.
– The internet and some imagination is your friend!
Section 3 – How to deal with competition and doubters
– Sue anyone and everyone to silence naysayers.
– – How to find the best venue for your lawsuits
– – Ways to wow the judges with your stellar cover, (Section 2)
Section 4 – Replication is for weak sissies!
– – Best ways to gladhand interested parties
– – Never share, never divulge, deny all attempts at independent replication as incompetent
Section 5 – How to respond to inquiries and commentary.
– – Never be afraid to use the lowest and most vulgar names for less than devoted groupies.
– – Never over compliment anyone not your superior
– – No one is your superior
Section 6 – Mainstream Media is your friend
– – How to cultivate devoted love slaves amongst poor and hungry reporters.
– – Best way to write leads for the reporters, examples given; (Plagiarists will be prosecuted!)
/sarc
+1
ED11D-02 Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists
Monday, December 15, 201408:15 AM – 08:30 AM Moscone South 102.
Is that a typo, or it is really only a fifteen minute seminar? I guess there isn’t much ground to cover when it comes to ethics and Climate Science.
I’m guessing Mann will be covering Dodging FOIA Requests, since he seems such an expert at it.
“… the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted… ”
From the “Free Dictionary” http://www.thefreedictionary.com/adapted
“Adapted: v.tr. 1. To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation”
Yes indeed, their codes of ethics can be readily adapted, as can their “science”.
Somehow, the intransitive verb example from the same source
“v.intr. To become adapted: a species that has adapted to a low-oxygen environment.”
seems to fit, too.
“…professions such as medicine and engineering offer a model”
Do you see doctors using drama to convince people that AIDS will destroy the world and molding public policy by recommending that sex should be taxed?
As I recall, this is not far off from the view that was promoted in the 1980s.
Maybe so, but here they are touting that kind of drama and reaction as the preferred ethical model.
The ocean ate the climate science ethics along with the warming.
That’s what caused the hiatus of ethics?
“Scientists often have little or no training in ethics or philosophy…..”. And consequently they don’t know it’s wrong to tell a lie, as Mann has so aptly demonstrated?
“Presently, no one can legally compel a research scientist to be ethical”
This, for me, is the most important message in there. Mann would love nothing more than to be able to compel scientists, through force, to be “ethical”, with “ethics” defined by Mann and his ilk. Of course, “denial” of climate science wouldnt be ethical.
Science then becomes a matter of politics and morals.
Wow, that is a scary thought. Mann does have an ugly authoritarian streak so…
I suggest y’all spend your time on worthier stuff than to write about Mann and ethics. He is not going to change. So give him a break.
First and foremost Michael Mann deserves ridicule for his poor judgment and unethical behavior over the years.
Now this added hypocrisy.
This isn’t funny. It’s the fox guarding the chicken coop and an attempt to white wash his image.
Markl, you’re absolutely right, it is not funny. These people are willing to degrade your lifestyle and make nearly everything you do more expensive, or even unaffordable (Affordable Climate Act, anyone?), keep millions – or billions – of people in poverty, and deny your kids any hope of prosperity, all while raising your taxes so they can keep slurping on the federal teat to continue their posh lifestyle of flying to conferences in Bali under the guise of saving the Earth for those same people whose future they’re ruining.
Adaptable ethics, indeed.
Hey, maybe I’ll use an assumed name to avoid going afoul of legal Mann-erisms.
Ok, run this joke past me again.
This Mann said to the Peacock.
Damn good ethics we have….
“We will show that the principles of professional ethics can be readily adapted….” No doubt.
Here, scientists speaking out to advance political causes *despite* the science is the feature, not the bug. This is rather like North Korea, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan taking turns chairing the U.N. committee for human rights.
You have to see this from the Alarmist perspective. They are so steeped in alarmist science and so influenced by the group-think that goes on in academic circles that they truly believe the case is closed and that anyone sufficiently educated on it would be utterly convinced.
Then they look out at polls showing that much of the public is unconvinced or rates it as a very low priority, and they are puzzled how best to fix it. In the face of such public ignorance, they can’t merely continue down their current path of Ivory Tower research and let the ignorance go unchallenged. They must they take a more activist role in trying to convince the public to be concerned, but how?
What better person than Michael Mann to instruct academics on how to propagandize the public. He makes people feel oppressed by a big bad group of Oil-funded Deniers, to perk up their alarm bells about being duped. He presents the most convincing case he can put together, using selectively edited graphs, the most alarming models, the cuddliest Polar Bears, etc. In a normal academic environment this might be frowned upon, but this is WAR against the DENIERS, and to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs. If they compromise their credibility along the way, it is a small price to pay in sounding the alarm and forcing the world to take action before it’s too late.
It’s almost like someone yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because they are concerned about some oily rags in the corner and most of the people are blissfully unaware of the potential danger they are in if a fire should ignite.
Well said, but one little change. They will yell “Fire” in the crowded theater because there might be some oily rags in the building because they’ve seen rags in the theater and there might have been some oil in or near the building at some point, but they haven’t seen any yet. Scale, probability and proof are not real high on their decision tree.
I’m not sure what to make of that statement.
“Drama” may be of significant importance at the SyFy Channel and other science fiction writings but in science?
Is Mann a presenter because he’s a model Drama Queen?
Maybe not enough of the “97%” have actually bought into the “C” in “CAGW”?
Or maybe the CAGW version of science is more about acting and pretending than observing and analyzing?
Maybe they should offer honorary climate science degrees to those guys and gals who do infomercials?
“…and if you buy now, we’ll DOUBLE your carbon credits!!!!! (just pay extra shipping and handling and taxes and freedoms and ….”
Drama.
Good spot. Why is “Drama” important?
That has to be a sociological subject, not a scientific matter.
I bet someone could write a song about Mike Mann doing “Professional Ethics” lectures.
Similar to “Hide the Decline” song. Maybe combine the two? Professional Ethics in hiding the decline.
This is like Erwin Schrödinger running a “no kill” cat shelter.
That the authors of this self-serving pablum don’t see that all risks must be described:
– Risks of following a particular course of action.
– Risks off not following a particular course of action
– Risks of not pursuing alternatives
– Risks in the uncertainty of the research itself
– Risks of bad or incomplete data
– Risks of forecasting
– Risks of trending
– Risks of prediction
– Risks of low level of problem definition
– Risks of a too broad problem definition
After assessing all the risks, legal precedent must then I guess insist that a risk/reward report be built by a disinterested third party which is handed over to politicians who can then abuse the report in accordance to their ideology and need for votes.
This is ivory tower academic navel gazing. Nowhere could such law ever be practically written, except in the la-la land where Mann is a Noble prize winner.
How about starting with following basic scientific principles for crying out loud. Better yet how about a refresher course for these idiots on Science 101?
I wonder if Mann is going to bring climate-gate emails as examples of ethical behavior….
I think a goal here is the public’s trust: “All who accept membership in the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants commit themselves to honor the public trust. In return for the faith that the public reposes in them, members should seek continually to demonstrate their dedication to professional excellence” We could say you have to trade something to obtain the public’s trust. Many other professions have done so. You allow yourself to be more regulated and you get something back. If the AICPA has a bias, it is to support their members when they have followed their ethical guidelines. When might their members need support? When entities such a the IRS or the SEC are looking at them. So we can think of the AICPA as not an arm of the government but a counter to it. I of course am not speaking for the AICPA, just giving my own opinion.
I assume, “that long-established codes of ethics in the learned professions of medicine and engineering” refers to bloodletting by leaching and building a house of cards.
They have been getting away without ethics for so long, why start now?
Or, maybe, with luck, the lecture will be silent.
How is this Irony?
i hope he mentions me.
Ethics, ith that eatht of London?
Yeth
… and I meant to add, it’s the only way.