How the unethical Anthony Watts goes for the ethical Michael Mann
Sou | 12:29 AM r
You might have noticed I've not written about the numerous Anthony Watts' articles from AGU14 yet. That's because there aren't any. From Day 1 the only "reports" from Anthony are two tweets - here and here, unless you count his latest Michael Mann bashing ( archived here), which looks as if it was written before Anthony went to AGU.
At WUWT a day or so ago, the ethically-challenged Anthony Watts thought it's "hilarious" that Professor Mann should give a talk about professional ethics. Anthony doesn't have an ethical bone in his body when it comes to climate discourse. I doubt he understands the meaning of the word " ethics".
Yesterday, Michael Mann and Kent Peacock gave an invited talk: ED11D-02 Professional Ethics for Climate Scientists. It wasn't posted on the virtual options website, which is a shame because it's an important topic. Below is the description:
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.
The topic of having professional ethics for scientists isn't new. Here is a list of principles proposed by the then chief scientific adviser in the UK, Professor Sir David King - in 2007:
- Act with skill and care, keep skills up to date
- Prevent corrupt practice and declare conflicts of interest
- Respect and acknowledge the work of other scientists
- Ensure that research is justified and lawful
- Minimise impacts on people, animals and the environment
- Discuss issues science raises for society
- Do not mislead; present evidence honestly
I'm not sure if this went anywhere - perhaps a reader knows? It includes the issue of discussing "issues science raises for society" - though it's not clear that it means speaking out in public.
It strikes me that the aspect that the Mann & Peacock talk touched on can be likened to the dilemma posed to medical practitioners on matters such as mandatory reporting, which has come into vogue in various countries around the world over the past few years. It's not quite the same thing, but there are some similarities. They are dissimilar in that mandatory reporting requires breaking patient confidence. They are similar in that both involve speaking out on matters of concern to the public at large, rather than keeping quiet.
Anthony Watts has demonstrated on many occasions that he has little regard for ethics. (You could argue that entire venture of WUWT is unethical.) In that article about Michael Mann, Anthony demonstrates he has no regard for ethics. He implied that Michael Mann had done wrong, when it was Anthony Watts and his fellow disinformers who have been defaming people like Michael Mann for years, making up lies about them. And the reasons they do that are variously:
- ideological - the "free marketers" don't want to see policies in place that will protect the environment - which breaks lots of ethical clauses
- greed - Anthony has said publicly that the reason he disavows climate science is because he doesn't want to pay (more) tax
- pseudo-religious - examples being those who belong to the Cornwall Alliance
- it's their job - some people are employed to spread disinformation about climate science. They are just doing what they are paid to do by "donors" such as fossil fuel barons
- political/greed - some politicians say what their benefactors tell them to say - otherwise they won't get the contributions that assure their election to office.
None of the above reasons would be considered ethical. Anthony Watts would know that if he knew anything about ethics. I suspect he doesn't. Ethics may be developed from a set of values and a socially accepted morality, but a set of ethics is not exactly the same as "morals".
Anyway, it would be good to see scientific codes of ethics include clauses relating to speaking out in public on matters of concern to the public, such as global warming.
As an aside and talking of speaking out (and free speech, which we weren't, but anyway...), I notice Anthony has flip flopped. After several WUWT articles heavily promoting HotWhopper in recent weeks, now he's done an about face and blocked me on Twitter (again). Not that I've ever "followed" him on Twitter. I haven't. Maybe he unblocked me by accident for all that time and has only just realised. Or maybe he just wants a break from reading HotWhopper tweets about WUWT, to give his eyes a rest :)
Another question: is it ethical is it to seek money to go to an event but then not report it or report it dismally and late?
blog.hotwhopper.com |
