Respected climate scientist refutes false claim that tree died due to climate change, and the pressure to not do so
Toby Nixon writes:
The Seattle Times ran a hysterical story about how climate change killed a large tree at the Washington Park Arboretum in Seattle. Cliff Mass, professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Washington and no climate change skeptic, demolished the Times story in a strongly-worded blog post.
But perhaps more importantly, he goes on to describe the kind of pressure to which he is subjected to not post such corrections because of the ammunition it gives to “deniers”. It is an excellent exposition on the corruption of the scientific method that is rampant in climate science — not just the suppression of dissent, but the suppression of every small corrections of the most exaggerated claims.
Mass writes:
So what about temperature? Let’s examine the maximum temperature trend at the same Seattle Urban location for summer (June through August). There is a slight upward trend since 1895 by .05F per decade. Virtually nothing.
What about the period in which the poor lived (it was planted in 1948)? As shown below, temperatures actually COOLED during that period.
You get the message, the claim that warming summer temperatures produced by “climate change” somehow killed this pine is simply without support by the facts.
So the bottom line of all this is that the climate record disproves the Seattle Times claim that warming and drying killed that pine tree in the UW arboretum. There is no factual evidence that climate change ended the 72-year life of that tree. The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probably explanation.
Why is an important media outlet not checking its facts before publishing such a front page story? Linda Mapes is an excellent writer, who has done great service describing the natural environment of our region. Why was she compelled to put a climate change spin on a story about the death of a non-native tree?
Now something personal. Every time I correct misinformation in the media like this, I get savaged by some “environmentalists” and media. I am accused of being a denier, a skeptic, an instrument of the oil companies, and stuff I could not repeat in this family friendly blog. Sometimes it is really hurtful. Charles Mudede of the Stranger is one of worst of the crowd, calling me “dangerous” and out of my mind (see example below).
I believe scientists must provide society with the straight truth, without hype or exaggeration, and that we must correct false or misleading information in the media. It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing.”
Read the whole thing: http://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2017/05/seattle-times-climate-change-article-is.html
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Welcome to the Spanish Inquisition. Never query the Orthodoxy.
Speaking truth to power is never without risk.
The left speaks power to truth.
Warren,
Didn’t you mean: Welcome to the Global Inquisition. Never query the Orthodoxy.
The pseudoreligion of “CAGW” and its Inquisition, thousends of Torquemadas and willing denouncers!
FACTS by DEFINITION are TRUE. It is NOT necessary to qualify them by calling them TRUE facts!
Statements or opinions which are NOT true are NOT FACTS!
PLEASE,PLEASE, PLEASE let’s THINK before we jump onto the keyboard and spew vitriol or just plain garbage.
What the world needs now is thoughtful, reasoned analysis of the events of the day, a return to civility in our language usage and personal interactions rather than what some commentators are doing now.
Good thoughts, good intentions, good actions from and to all.
All we need to do now is to convince those preaching the AGW orthodoxy to do so with “Thoughtfully Reasoned CIVILITY” in their language.
Johana, what about “alternative facts” (per Kellyanne Conway?)
One more step is necessary in the ‘true’ part of the logic chain – if something is ‘true’ it can usually be verified by repeating the experiment which showed it to be true. In other words there must always be an verified experimental basis for a thing to be true. No experiment to successfully repeat the phenomena – no truth!
Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. 😉
Lynda V. Mapes spells her name with a “Y”.
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/farewell-giant-pine-climate-change-kills-a-champion-at-washington-park-arboretum/
Chimp, the actual article is a hoot!!…..everyone needs to read it
The pine was killed by beetles and drought…..two more of the same pines are still alive and doing fine at the arboretum…they plan on installing irrigation now
bugs = normal
other pines = normal
drought = normal
Global warming is highly selective
Agree with this and Hultquist below.
As a tree person myself, I really get frustrated when a journalist makes news basically on a single dead tree. 72 years is not very much for a tree, and given trees don’t walk around, if you plant it at a non-suitable location, it will easily die. Arboretums loose trees to beetles every now and then. What is important is how well forests grow. As I mentioned a few days ago, forest productivity has steadily increased over decades in boreal forests of Finland. It only takes good forestry to ensure that. And 410 ppm of CO2 helps of course.
You could think an arboretum has the best forestry available, but it has different goal than productivity. In arboretums, there is a small number of tree individuals which are usually mostly not indigenous to that area. They are often from a different climatic zone and planted in a less-than-optimal way. If we’d for the productivity, we’d select tree species that actually suit for the place, and cut down most trees that won’t do well. But in an arboretum, we want to show what a tree looks like, so we try to keep them alive even if they are off their natural habitat.
So when a tree dies in an arboretum, it is a bit like a dolphin that died in a tank. If you don’t like it dies there, you should not have put it there in the first place.
Urban people see trees as individuals, and try to use a polar bear type framing to support claims of DAGW
You don’t need to speak. Be like a tree. Scientists and mothpieces are paid to make distance between solutions now, for profit later. The 93% not talking know how environs are working for us, and how both side of climate war are ready to plunge us all into terrible outcomes. Establish concensus amongst yourselves, and the rural people are served. No dolphin died in a tank.
What does bugs=normal and drought=normal mean? If warmer winters mean larger bug populations, that places increased stresses on trees. Have you heard of the pine beetle devastation in the US and Canada? If more occurrences of drought happen, that means more stress on trees. I am not saying these were the cause of this tree’s death, but it is simplistic to just hand wave and say bugs=normal and drought=normal.
Your statements “other pines=normal” and “global warming is highly selective” is very unscientific. For any kind of stressful situation – beetle attack, caterpillar infestation, drought – not all trees will die. Some are better able to withstand the stress than others.
Uh, Chris, please link all of that to increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. CAGW depends upon it.
@ur momisugly Chris
Perhaps you missed the part were the good Dr. Nixon states that the temperatures in that area had actually cooled since the tree was planted 72yrs ago… but nevermind the facts.
Glad you enjoyed the good hoot.
Wonder if Ms. Mapes feels the least bit chastened.
I’m guessing not. Reporters are notorious for laughing off and even reveling in their mistakes which hurt and misinform people.
J “nevermind the facts” please point me to the links for the following: 1) nighttime low temperatures in the winter in that area since the tree was planted 2) rainfall figures for summer months since the tree was planted, including longest gaps between rainfall.
Pinus rigida (pitch pine) is native east of the Mississippi River (more or less).
That it has lived for 72 years in the Puget Sound region — marine west-coast environment — is a testament to Gaia’s benevolence.
Tonight we’ll have a glass of Washington (non-native) Syrah wine to toast the magnificence of this immigrant.
Happy Mother’s Day!
In its native environment, what is the life expectancy of a pitch pine? How much does that differ from how long that tree lived in the Pacific Northwest?
Just curious.
’bout 100 years
when talking about life expectancy the mean isn’t useful in predicting what kind of outlier a single death is. I’d like to see the histogram. I suspect 75 years is well within 2SD.
Mean, SD, kurtosis, skew, and even an actual histogram are the metrics needed.
Peter
In favored locations, 300 years
The Pacific Northwest, West of the Cascades, tends to be MUCH milder than just about anywhere east of the Mississippi. You don’t get the hot and cold extremes. You also don’t get as much rain. The rain you DO get tends to be all day drizzle, of a few tenths of an inch on average. Unlike EotM where you’ll get torrential downpours of an inch or more on a regular basis.
I grew up in Virginia, and long for the violent thunderstorms that were so awesome to watch when the power went out. Been out in Western Washington for 15 years, and only seen such a thing maybe twice.
“It is an excellent exposition on the corruption of the scientific method”
It has nothing to do with corruption of the scientific method. It is about correcting factual errors in a newspaper. Plus a complaint about how some activists feel that his dealing with the “exaggerators” is impolitic.
The activists however claim to be scientists, which clearly they are not, if they object to the scientific method, which requires telling the truth, regardless of the false ideology of CACA.
oh but the Left has adopted a “Take no prisoners, offer no quarter, Never surrender an inch of ground at any cost” mentality for protecting the Climate Change orthodoxy.
The climate inquisition has JCurry’s and Pielky, Jr’s professional academic scalps as trophy for heretical climate thoughts. They put everyone on notice, including Dr Mass, not to step over the line by these tactics. As a result it deivesthem ever-leftward; toward more extreme positions.
J’ever wonder why this IS? Think; for 30 years the CAGW pitch has caused massive changes in how our society sees itself in relation to the Earth. Vast amounts have been invested in industries and products that can only survive in the marketplace in the presence of the CAGW worldview. How many people will be buying Tesla or SolarCity products if they know we have many centuries’ worth of cheap natural gas freely available? The Left operates on GUILT. No guilt, they have no platform, no stick to beat the Ruled Classes into submission with. The day you look an SJW or radical “green” dead in the eye and say “So?” you are pushing back against the madness.
“Never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
It is left as an exercise for the reader to determine the origin of the above quote.
Sounds like Douglas Rushkoff.
Goldrider, CAGW is about depopulation, nothing else. Open your mind and eyes and it stares you in the face. All you have to do is think about the consequences of destroying healthy energy generation in favor of that which will not work unless you have a battery the size of the moon. All the while the temperature is dropping – the oceans can give up heat to “adjust” the temperature just so long before their store starts to run out. With a diminished capacity to generator energy, you can’t heat in even a mini ice age enough to avoid millions if not billions of lives lost to hypothermia and starvation.
I agree — it’s not about corruption of the scientific method. It’s about the corruption of the media.
Much of the problems in the climate discussion is rooted in such media distortions. Media is supposed to have standards before printing nonsense. They don’t seem to care if it’s in error.
Corruption of the scientific method is when they decide on the conclusion and then determine the data in to support the conclusion. A newspaper article doesn’t really fit that criteria. It’s more like corruption of media ethics.
http://ethicaljournalismnetwork.org/who-we-are/5-principles-of-journalism
she failed on all five counts.
To my mind, it’s “compartmentalization”; The Gores and such say we’re doomed, the Manns and such say you can see climate change all around us, the Lyndas and such say they see some right there, and there, etc., the Mudedes and such attack anyone who questions anyone involved, and the Stokes and such say it ain’t corruption of science . . (And I say bullshit ; )
And you would be RIGHT! Two nights ago the temperature here was 38 F. By Thursday it’s likely to be 85.
No one will die. Now, show me the carnage from this 1.5 degree increase since 1850. Where are the bodies, the buildings under water, the deserts, the famines? The truth is the Warmists ain’t got JACK, and they know it. Pull the grants and they’ll have to go find honest work, that’s the bottom line.
Actually I think you are technically correct.
It’s pretty clear that the scientific method, or any reasonable transmogrification thereof, was not involved.
What we do have is journalistic malfeasance. When DT tells a whopper, the left, and the press, jump all over it. When leftish journalists do the same, apparently they get a bye. 🙁
I’m pretty sure that Trump tells some whoppers on purpose, just to enjoy the MSM reaction. Like throwing fish to trained seals.
When I worked for the feds it was pretty obvious that contractors were leaving a few easy-to-spot, easy-to-fix qa deficiencies. The theory seemed to be that they had to give the inspectors something to find or the inspectors might find real problems or even make things up just to show that they were working.
It’s worth reading the Hitch-Hikers’ Guide to the Galaxy. Zaphod Beeblebrox is made president of the galaxy in order to distract people from the real power mongers. When DT was elected, I thought he would do an excellent job at that, and I think he is. DT=ZB…
Brilliant!
I’m pretty sure I knew ZB in a different incarnation … only one head though.
Nick, your “exaggerators” are, in truth, outright li@rs. It seems to be the modus operandi of climate alarmists, purported scientists or not. Activists are not to be trusted; they are selling/promoting anything that supports a particular policy agenda.
Cherry picking again Stokes? It’s all you corrupt lot ever do.
I think Nick is correct. This is not a “corruption of the scientific method”. While such a corruption does occur, it is generally in the development of predetermined conclusions — usually by distorting the data to fit the conclusion they want. (Example — It is warmer, there is flooding therefore, the flooding must be caused by AGW.)
This newspaper article is a violation of journalist ethical standards (Yes — these still exist: https://www.spj.org/pdf/spj-code-of-ethics.pdf) and it is a violation of generally accepted standards of academic free speech. While both are wrong, neither rises to the failures of the scientific method.
I am not sure he will live that long.
What is the life expectancy of a climastologist ?
Notice how Nick dismisses the abuse as just “some activists”.
Only as long as their next grant funding. When the grant money dries up, they generally tend to blow away
A classic example of ‘Group Think’; which no-one in the ‘group’ will be able to comprehend.
If the pine were planted in AD 1948, it lived only ~69 years, this being the Year of Our Lord 2017.
They were hiding the decline.
If a tree falls in the park before it’s time, can we blame CO2 for it?
The pine might not have lived even 69 years had it not enjoyed a steadily increasing supply of airborne plant food during those decades.
Its.
Autofill strikes again.
Chimp so true.
A line sapling was planted. It must have been 3 years old when TRANSPLANTED…
Exactly.
Do you really think that a newly-fallen pine nut was stuck in the ground in an arboretum in 1948? Or is it possible that a three year old seedling was (trans) planted in 1948?
Why would the seedling need to be three years old?
A seedling was planted. Says so in the article.
Yes, but it doesn’t say that the seedling was three years old. Maybe that was known to be the case at the park.
I’m less familiar with pine seedlings, although I’ve planted a lot of them, than with Doug fir, stands of which are commercially regenerated from year-old container-grown seedlings, two-year-old transplants grown for the first year in containers, two-year-old bare root seedlings or three-year-old transplants.
Maybe with just one off and a non-native species, they waited for the seedling to get bigger and hardier. In which case, my bad.
So what Chimp? My dad had a life expectancy of 75 years yet he died and 50. I didn’t blame climate xhange
” I didn’t blame climate xhange”
Then you must be a SkepticDenier, in the pay of big oil,
Good God Gore (GGG) teaches us that climate change will kill us all by –
storm, fire, drowning or pestilence……do you doubt his word ?
For 1saveenergy: Remember that Al Gore blamed climate change for the extinction of the coelacanth. (Think about it. Kind of apposite to this subject line.)
Was that before or after Prince Albert objected that a picture of the Earth from space was hung upside down?
“It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing.””
I’m glad someone thinks so. In Australia, a few years ago, the Melbourne Age published an editorial stating expressly that they wouldn’t print stories that might detract from the consensus for climate action. Amazingly the next day numerous sheep continued to buy it. However, over time its readership has declined so much that it is shedding staff. Hopefully it is in its death throes.
If you go to a sheep shearing and can’t see the sheep, you’re the sheep.
You are right Timothy I can vouch for that as I have had many letters to the Melbourne Age not published when all I was doing was attempting to correct blatantly false claims made by contributing articles on climate change
eg “that the Antarctic would be free of ice within a decade”
I pointed out that the Antarctic is 1.7 times the size of Australia (thus about 1.7 times the size of the contiguous USA ) and is covered in ice averaging 3 kilometres deep indicative of the fact there is one heck of a lot of ice to be melted.
My calculations suggested if the current rate of warming of just a peninsula of the Antarctic ( a small fraction of the continent ) was to occur allover ( although there is no apparent reason why it would) it would take 160,000 years to melt all the Antarctic ice sheet !
But the Age did not want its readers to be confused with such views running counter to the prevailing orthodoxy so my letter did not appear
“Telling the truth telling aids the climate deniers.” That’s something your mother probably told you to do.
Mr. Mass, the actions of those in your camp should give you a clue to both the motivations and the veracity of their claims. Perhaps you should dig deeper. But beware as you will be branded a heretic, and the wrath bestowed upon you by your former brethren will be a shock.
Zealots view this as a partisan war where disinformation is a necessary and justified tactic for winning. Conjured urgent catastrophe is the indispensable backdrop in the framing.
Goes back to the Dilbert cartoon earlier today.
The left has adopted a Climate Change orthodoxy that must not be questioned in the slightest even by the priest-class. To do so is called heresy or blasphemy.
Roger Pielky, Jr is a good example of someone the climate gestapo silenced for climate heresy. Not for doubting the CO2 science, but for questioning the economic impact.
The next step past heresy is apostasy, or to be labeled an apostate, as in someone who (a former member) renounces the religion altogether. Then there are climate infidels.
Label me an infidel. Proudly.
Mr. Mass would make an excellent director of the EPA, NOAA etc.
The politics of the position would quickly beat any attempt at moderation out of him. Which is why Trump put in Pruitt as he has no professional or reputational need to get along with the watermelons who must now follow him or quit.
This makes me think how future ages will look back with amazement how science got so big, so rich, so powerful and yet so retro-medieval that so many things could get blamed on something that was so evidently not even happening.
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I think future ages will understand quite readily how areas of current science got so corrupted: Money (as in “lots of…”), and precisely zero consequences for being wrong.
And before that, careerism. When “scientist” became a career unto itself, it opened the door for self-interest to get in the way of pursuing knowledge.
Cliff Mass picked up and linked with his own comments my CE guest post Shell Games some time ago, which savaged a completely wrong series of Seattle Times articles on ocean acidification and the Pacific Oyster. Upside down stupidly wrong science. Added New Guinea corals to complete same titled essay Shell Games in ebook Blowing Smoke. (Well, actually subtracted it, since the book essay was finished before the simplified more focused guest post was extracted for CE. Sent the lot to Seattle Times requesting a correction. Never heard back. Proof positive of MSM bias.
I nominate Nick Stokes as WUWT’s prime denier of reality, all types.
Naw. Disagree.
I respect Nick’s analytical and math skills. Top notch. Just can’t free himself of the consensus that blinds him.
Griff, on the other hand, would be my pick.
Why restrict Nick’s title to just WUWT?
I rather like leaving the WUWT focus out completely. “I nominate Nick Stokes as a prime denier of reality, all types
Is Lynda a sister to Mary Mapes? The CBS “journalist” who didn’t verify the Killian documents before running the story.
I don’t know, but Mary Mapes is from WA State.
That is why I asked. Journalistic malpractice runs in the family? That would be too rich.
Odds are good, I’d say.
You could call the paper and ask.
“Why was she compelled to put a climate change spin on a story about the death of a non-native tree?”
That is the story here, the ‘why’ and the ‘spin’, (un)fortunately we all already know the answer too well.
a tree died….obviously it was global warming 😉
Yes, apparently it is a tragedy when one tree dies due to climate change but in another Seattle article by Lynda it ok to cut “locally sourced” wood for burning. Lyinda Mapes, seeing her writing style, she is about passion, not science.
The Harvard Forest Woods Crew has readied the winter wood supply. Harvard Forest heats its buildings with locally sourced firewood from the Forest, thanks to the crew’s labors. (Lynda V. Mapes/The Seattle Times)
http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/seeing-the-forest-for-the-trees-what-one-oak-tells-us-about-climate-change/
Passionate, understatment….almost environmental P’o’r’n like. Copy and Pasted from the article.
“John, I need a tree,” I wrote him early on…“Here,” John said. “This might be a good one,” he said, putting his hand on the big oak……I tipped my head back to see its broad crown. It was big, that was for sure…Dave Orwig, a master tree corer at the Forest, to bore deep into the oak….The big oak talked back with a krrreck as Orwig drilled the bit nearly to the tree’s heart. With a swift tug, he pulled out a long core of wood from the dark depths of the tree into the sunlight.
yup, I think she grew up in the 70’s, that is for sure – Duncan
Climate change is so sensitive and fragile a movement that any doubts will kill it? Is that what the true believers are now preaching?
if the profe wants to get some mileage out of it, he should feign jaded cynicism of the uberliberal, otherwise he might have to dye his hair or wear a pussy hat.
in any case, now that this new vein of outrage has been discovered, i do expect a flood of autistes to don their berets and birkenstocks and start a little schism. on the personal level, it’s really pursuit of celebrity at any cost.
That’s “vaghat,” gnomish. I gave that description of the confused protesters to all on WUWT awhile back.
Anthony, there seems to be a word missing below the first diagram.
What about the period in which the poor (TREE?) lived (it was planted in 1948)?
it beggars belief that there are such gullible people on this planet. The change in temperature in Seattle from the lowest on a winter day, to the highest on a Summer day, must be 80 degrees F or more, and the author of this article suggests that a 0.8 degree in warming since this tree was planted is the cause of its demise? how are we ever going to restore sanity when these types have had a religious like (CAGW) conversion?
It hasn’t warmed in Seattle since the tree was planted. That is the point of the second chart.
Speaking of trees, lets not forget how the CAGW movement have tried to blame the Mountain Pine Beetle Epidemic on global warming. From Colorado to the vast boreal forests in northern Canada, the mountain pine beetle has run amuck with vast swaths of mature mostly monoculture pine forests. You hear this everywhere by the climate doomsters, but it is so far from the truth that even some official Government Foresters have to tell the truth.
The real problem is that when the pine forest is at a fairly advanced age by 90-100 years old, it is very susceptible to hosting the pine beetle larvae. The forest actually becomes food for the beetle outbreak and actually creates the beetle invasion. It has happened throughout history, and while it used to be somewhat controlled by fire, we now actively engage fire suppression so the problem just grows. Which creates a larger fire problem which when we do get an out of control forest fire it makes the fire problem worse and then they blame the fire on climate change. Can’t win for losing with these liars.
The CAGW crowd says that warming is responsible for this since we no longer get long cold snaps that freeze the pine beetle larvae dead. They forget to mention that it was mainly in the 1960’s and 1970’s most recently that we got these extended cold snaps of -40 that did sometimes control and freeze the larvae to death. But that hasn’t been the norm for all history, albeit the LIA most definitely did have some very severe winters. The pine beetle infestation is normal course for Mother Nature, and a simple comparison would be if you planted your entire garden to cabbage, would you blame GW/climate change if you get cabbage worms?
Ron, the pine in this news article was actually killed by pine beetles…says so in the article
Not sure what you are trying to say Latitude? I re-read the article above 3 times and see no mention of pine beetles killing the tree. What I read was that the tree in Seattle died as a result of global warming raising temperatures which was the point of the whole post. Did I miss something somewhere?
I thought the scientist who crushed the global warming theory of the original newspaper article said “The fact that a non-native species was planted in a dry location and was not watered in the summer is a more probably explanation.” And then he gets flack for pointing out it wasn’t watered. Maybe why the tree was stressed and succumbed to a beetle attack…
Anyway, I was talking about tens of millions of pine trees dying in our forests that the alarmists try to blame on CAGW which isn’t true.
@ur momisugly Ron Williams 6:41
Farewell giant Pine by Lynda V. Mapes
Pitch Pine
Habitat
Native Range
Pitch pine grows over a wide geographical range-from central Maine to New York and extreme southeastern Ontario, south to Virginia and southern Ohio, and in the mountains to eastern Tennessee, northern Georgia, and western South Carolina. Because it grows mostly on the poorer soils, its distribution is spotty.
In the Northeast, pitch pine is most common on the sandy soils of Cape Cod, Long Island, and southeastern New Jersey, and in some sections of sandy or shallow soils in Pennsylvania (19).
Climate
The climate in the range of pitch pine is humid. Average annual precipitation is usually between 940 and 1420 mm (37 and 56 in) and is well distributed throughout the year. Length of the frost-free season ranges from 112 to 190 days and temperatures range from winter lows of -40° C (-40° F) in the northern part of the range to summer highs of more than 38° C (100° F) in most sections (9).
https://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pinus/rigida.htm
=================================================================================
Seattle climate couldn’t have killed the tree.
Not much of a tree. I had a bigger one than that die in my back yard.
There is no doubt that there has been a corruption of the scientific method. Just look at these recent studies of Antarctica, SLR, Arctic etc. How much longer can they continue with their BS and corruption?
http://notrickszone.com/category/antarctic/#sthash.aOQHVaoK.C6csB6ND.dpbs
http://notrickszone.com/category/arctic/#sthash.qy2vRrZJ.dpbs
…It is not our role to provide inaccurate information so that society will “do the right thing”…
Stephen Schneider disagreed. He said it is up to scientists to decide the balance between effectiveness and honesty.
…On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both…
I have read this quote from Stephan Schneider a number of times. I agree with the first sentence.
“On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but — which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts.”. Sorry Mr. Schneider, there is no other hand.
The rest is nothing but a rationalization for ignoring professional ethics with an “ends justifies the means” argument. In the licensed practice of engineering, such an ethical lapse could easily be deemed malpractice and result in suspension or revocation of license and a fine. Would you want to drive over a bridge designed by an engineer who failed to disclose doubts and uncertainty about the adequacy of the design? Maybe there should be a licensing board and statutory standards of ethics with required regular refresher courses for “scientists”.
Rick C
What, in your view, would constitute professional malpractice by a climate scientist?
It seems to me that as much dosh is being spend on the paid professional advice of this lot, they should be help professionally responsible for errors, omissions and false statements.
I realise of course that ‘climate scientists’ are not a ‘professional’ group – it seems they are open to pretty much anyone – but surely there are consequences for a paid group rendering opinions for a consideration? Is receiving compensation creating a common law social contract requiring that the advice include known problems and that caveats must be supplied, in the same document?
I have an Ontario registered PE son who is liable for the consequences of improper or incomplete advice. I don’t see how a bunch of climate scientists, if there is such a thing, demanding special privileges to be heard, to the exclusion of other scientists, all the while being exempt from common law ‘good faith’ rules or professional ethics policies.
Climate scientists should be held accountable for policies and directives they help create, by their paid advice, when that advice is improperly constituted and, possibly, biased for profit.
The whole point of being a member of an exclusive club is to be considered first, and to be considered capable of rendering policy-worthy professional advice.
Maybe there should be a licensing board and statutory standards of ethics
===================
we are told the science is settled. as such, climate change is no longer a scientific problem. scientists have no training in how to solve problems. they are trained in how to investigate problems.
engineers are trained to solve problems and thus are licensed. it is long past the time when the scientists should have stepped aside and the engineers called in.