"It’s unfortunate that the bitter, personal attacks on his colleagues and their work contributed to what he called a lapse of his own personal judgment and ethics."This just isn't a time to for yeah-buts and they-do-it-too's. There just isn't any place for Gleick's illicit actions -- lying, at the least -- in science. And he is still a scientist, even if he is also an activist. This is the same thing that disturbed me about Michael Mann's apparent search for an journalist to "investigate and expose" Steve McIntyre. Science has its ethics, just as golfers are expected to call penalties on themselves even when no one else sees their foul. Gleick did, but only eventually and only when the suspicions grew. It wasn't right in the first place. It certainly undercuts Knoblach's sentence in the same message, that Gleick is "a strong advocate for the important role science plays in society."
Maybe I have a rose-colored view of what science is supposed to be. But I do.
5 comments:
People just aren't getting this. It's amazing who is willing to do anything in support of what they think is right. They don't even realize how this type of do anything because we are right attitude breeds distrust. This is true zealot behavior and the zealots are showing themselves in supporting Gleick and his actions.
This isn't science, it is politics. Please don't confuse the two.
Dr. Jay Cadbury, phd.
Dave,
haven't read much of your work but I am impressed. The entire field of climate science is being dragged through the mud and none of them seem to care. Several months ago, I emailed Dr. Isaac Held from Princeton. I think he is one of the top climatologists in the field but he seems to agree with the conventional thinking that there only a few bad apples out there who are misrepresenting the science.
I am wondering if his views have changed.
"Maybe I have a rose-colored view of what science is supposed to be."
Learn something new everyday. I did not know rose-colored was a synonym for accurate.
I appreciate your efforts to clarify/remind us what science is supposed to be all about...in addition to refraining from manipulating studies to achieve a predetermined outcome, willingly sharing ALL data with others for replication purposes, civilly entertaining/debating opposing theories while seeking truth over personal gain in all its alluring forms.
Your post gives me hope Gleick's deplorable actions could turn out to be the best lesson in scientific ethics he has yet produced.
Everyone seems to be asking, how could a SCIENTIST do such a thing? The answer, I think, is that Gleick is an quasi-religious ideologue first and a scientist second. This is a failing all too common in the field of environmentalism, with its inherent appeal to the emotions.
Post a Comment