Ethics, Stanford: A question of balance.

Stanford is having a “conversation” on ethics in the climate change debate.

Events at Stanford
A Conversation about the Ethics of Climate Change Research

Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. Yet the ethical issues facing scientists when they conduct research on climate change and communicate their findings to the public are rarely discussed. We invite you to join us in a panel discussion of these issues.

Golly, that sounds like a conversation that really needs to happen. Between all the “Pal Review”, the attempts to suborn editors and corrupt the peer review process, loss of data, “Irreproducible Results”, agenda driven science, grants being given to only one point of view, and even Peter Gleick and mail fraud / computer fraud; there’s a lot of “ethical issues” in the way “climate science” is being done. Oh, and Hansen both testifying that it’s OK to commit crimes and damage private property if your cause is just… And so much more.

Could be a very useful discussion.

Monday, May 21, 2012. 5:30 PM.
Approximate duration of 1.5 hour(s).
Building 380, Room 380c (Map)
General Public
Conference / Symposium
Center for Ethics in Society

This event is free and open to the public.

So who’s in this shindig? A nice balance of various points of view?

Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego and co-author of Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming

Noah Diffenbaugh, Assistant Professor in the School of Earth Sciences and Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford, and a Lead Author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Joseph Mazor, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Center for Ethics in Society at Stanford whose research focuses on environmental ethics

The conversation will touch on topics including the role of money in climate change research, the idea of “balance” and its relation to reasonable versus unreasonable disagreement, and the role of scientists in public debates about climate change.

Oh, I see. A stacked deck. Everyone from the same choir.

How much you want to bet it’s a “Hit Piece” who’s purpose is to cast the folks with legitimate issues about the broken research and science being done as evil stooges of Big Oil? I’ll bet there’s not going to be a peep about Climategate or Peter Gleick and FakeGate. Nary a word about folks cooking the books on which trees are used as proxy temperatures and hide the decline problems.

Well, not unless they come from the audience. Wonder if anyone from the Lukewarmers or Climate Realism side will show up? Might be nice to have some historians talk about the morality of hiding the Roman Optimum, the Medieval Warm Period and ignoring the impact of the Little Ice Age on creating a trend line when you start your line at the dead bottom of it. Perhaps having a geologist or two to talk about things like the Younger Dryas and how the Earth has been far hotter in the past, without any ‘tipping point’, and changed far faster both to hotter and colder without it being the end of life as we know it. Perhaps even asking THEM what they think of the kind of science being done by the Warmers and their “selective listening skills”.

No, can’t have that. Might actually have a debate break out with open enquiry and search for the truth. Perhaps even some folks questioning the morality of endlessly hiding data from Freedom Of Information Act requests and flat out lying about the existence of data.

I am going to see if I can work it into my schedule to visit. Don’t know if I’ll make it. We have several family events that happen about that date and I’ve not checked that schedule. Doubt if I’ll ask any embarrassing questions (unless an actual discussion breaks out from others…) but rather just lurk and observe. See just how strong the sucking their own exhaust in the bubble actually is.

Of course, if anyone ELSE lives near Stanford and can make it… ;-) You might even ask about the FOIA 2011 emails

Subscribe to feed

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW Science and Background, Political Current Events and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Ethics, Stanford: A question of balance.

  1. omanuel says:

    I have a few former graduate students in the Bay area. I would be happy to assist them or anyone else who can attend with the meeting and needs empirical facts to counter Deceptive Climate Science since 1946

    The legacy of Climategate-type deception – exposed in e-mails and documents in 2009 – can be traced to these surprising events sixty-four years earlier (2009-1945 = 64 yrs):

    1. August 1945: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were consumed by “Nuclear fires” that ended the Second World War.

    2. October 1945: The United Nations was established:

    _ a.) “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and”

    _ b.) “to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, . . .” [First sentence in Preamble to the UN Charter, 1945].

    3. 1946: The lofty ideals of the 1945 UN Charter – to save humans from the scourge of war and to reaffirm rights, dignity and worth of humans – was immediately betrayed in 1946 by actions to obscure the source of energy in atomic bombs – the source of energy that feeds the fountain of life with an abrupt, lock-step U-turn in scientific dogma on:

    a.) The Sun’s composition
    b.) Synthesis of our elements
    c.) The energy that sustains life

    Much later Sir Fred Hoyle would acknowledge, in his 1994 autobiography [3], the sudden change of opinions of astronomers and astrophysicists, specifically those of Sir Arthur Eddington and himself, before and after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were destroyed in August of 1945:

    Before: “We both believed that the sun was made mostly of iron, . . .” [ref. 3, page 153]

    Before: “The high-iron solution continued to reign supreme in the interim (at any rate, in the astronomical circles to which I was privy) until after the Second World War, . . .” [ref. 3, bottom of page 153]

    Afterward: “. . .when I was able to show, to my surprise, that the high-hydrogen, low iron-solution was to be preferred for the interiors as well the atmospheres” of all stars. [ref. 3, top of page 154]

    The deception exposed by the Climategate documents in 2009 seems to have started with this abrupt U-turn in science dogma sixty-four years earlier. In the interval, experimental data and observations that falsified the validity of the abrupt U-turn in science dogma were hidden, manipulated or ignored by leaders of the Western scientific community.

    Publications and videos here document sixty-four years of deceptive science:


    [1] Fred Hoyle, “The chemical composition of the stars,” Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 255-59 (1946)

    [2] Fred Hoyle, “The synthesis of the elements from hydrogen,”Monthly Notices Royal Astronomical Society 106, 343-83 (1946)

    [3] Fred Hoyle, “Home Is Where the Wind Blows,” [University Science Books, 1994, 441 pages]

  2. Ian W says:

    A question to ask would be: “Is it considered ethical to hold a ‘conversation about the ethics of climate change research” while only including those scientists claiming results on one side of the debate? This would be considered a one sided approach in politics and yet this is supposed to be a conversation on scientific research.

  3. p.g.sharrow says:

    Liberal Arts schools must “study” ethics as they have no idea of what it is. You can be sure they will create a daffynition to describe their own view of ethical behavior. Maybe they should study those that pursue engineering or Ag degrees as those people generally do not have to be taught ethics. pg

  4. John F. Hultquist says:

    The problem is apparent from the opening:

    “Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time.”

    This is complete chicken dung. The pressing issue is the back-story of the UN Agenda 21, what went before, and what has followed. Insofar as the climate(s) of Earth are ever changing – why should it be any more of an issue for “our time” than some other time? The null hypothesis (natural variability) has not been falsified. They intend to have a “conversation” based on a false premise. What could go wrong there?

  5. Pascvaks says:

    I have a strong feeling that they assume the audience will be only faculty (in ‘good’ standing) and registered students and that everyone already knows that there will be no debate. This is Stanford! THIS is NOT some scum sucking Midwestern or Southern religious or military college, nor some stagnant pond water ‘A&M’. Stanford has standards! Standford people understand Standford people. And, for anyone who may claim an affiliation based on past attendance, this is Post-Modern Standford, NOT the Stanford of the last centruy.

    PS: Post-Modern Ethics is no longer taught, it is a course of total quasi-immersion into the neuance of all things real and unreal; there are no words to accurately describe it.


  6. omanuel says:

    I wrote to one of my students, but I doubt if he will be able to find a way to challenge government dogma without risking the income that provides for himself, his wife and children.

    I.e., life in America today is not unlike that of others that live under tyrannical governments.

  7. adolfogiurfa says:

    First of all: Ethics it is not a “philosophy” or a “custom” or whatever, It is the fulfillment of natural laws, in a way such that favors negentropy
    So, there can be a physics of ethics. It is not something to like or dislike, it is the science of the ways for ascending in the scale of evolution, it is perfecting oneself as to increase one´s energy level; it is a way up.
    Thus, there are two ladders to go up to heaven: One harder to climb but smaller , the other almost eternally long and easier to climb, but only one way (the easiest) to fall in hell: being “liberal” (doing whatsoever you please: the easy and “kool” way of entropy)
    Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time. IT IS NOT, that´s idiocy, it is sillily following the marketing tactics of unknown scammers whose only purpose is to profit from an imaginary and inexistent issue: They want fools to be convinced that it is a good thing to buy, through “carbon credit” papers (beautifully designed and properly sealed) patches of one hectare of the amazon jungle at US$3.- to sell it through “carbon shares” paper (also beautifully designed and properly sealed) at US$ 127,500 /hectare-year. (This is done by the same people who worshiped the “Golden Calf”, when Abraham came down from the Mount Tabor, who, afterwards invented the “Bill of Exchange” and then…not wishing to work or produce anything, invented the “Credit Card”- which is nothing else but the same as printing fake money-).

  8. omanuel says:

    Is this event real?

    I sent a request for more information to the contact and received the following reply:

    Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

    Technical details of permanent failure:
    DNS Error: DNS server returned answer with no data

  9. omanuel says:

    Oklahoma Republican Senator Tom Coburn told The Daily Caller in a video interview that the federal government is in the “midst of committing murder to our republic” and predicted that the U.S. faces a financial meltdown in 2-5 years:

  10. Pascvaks says:

    @Omanuel –
    That’s the problem with Senators, they’re always sugar coating everything. The last time I saw the countdown clock we were 312 Days 10 Hours 46 Minutes from Total Irreverseable Meltdown (some call it Core Collapse). But, the BIG problem is that the rate is actually accelerating by an unknow variable factor and it’s like trying to figure out the position and speed of an electron at any point in time, I think they call it Quantum Politics (or maybe it’s LSD Monetary Policy). I think some Prof at Stanford invented it.


  11. Ian W says:

    To pick up on John F. Hultquist point above:

    “A child dies every 3 seconds, a mother every minute”:, Of these “Every day nearly 16.000 children die from hunger and related causes.”
    And the well fed, medically insured elite professors of Stanford University think it is ethical to discuss ‘“Climate change is one of the most pressing issues of our time.”? These are the people who no doubt support the statement that “Nations must invest $37 trillion in energy technologies by 2030 to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at sustainable levels.” when each single $1 could save one of the lives and when there is ZERO evidence that ‘greenhouse gas emissions’ are actually causing any problems.
    (That challenge has been outstanding for 3 years)

    Every prediction/projection made by climate ‘scientists’ has failed. “Yet the ethical issues facing scientists when they conduct research on climate change and communicate their findings to the public are rarely discussed. “

    So here is an ‘ethical issue’ for Stanford University to discuss: Is it possible to justify the multimillion dollar expenditure on climate science research when there is no evidence of ‘catastrophe’ from climate change; but two mothers and forty children will have died while you read this post and could have been saved with just $100 from your ‘research’ funds?

  12. pyromancer76 says:

    The biggest ethics issue for Stanford, as for all universities, is that they are “permitted by law” to contribute to political campaigns. Once this is allowed, it is all over regarding the reasons for our institutions of higher education — scientific research, educating and training the next generation, and developing “open minds”. Stanford and the UC were and are among the biggest contributors to Obama’s campaigns. Guess how much they get back in grants as payback? (I don’t know the number.) I hope that excellent alternatives to the current biased and/or corrupt attempts at higher education are on the way. I think of how the internet has developed the next generation of investigative journalists, including chiefio, climateaudit, wuwt, and many, many, many more.

    E.M., hope you get a seat at the non-debate. Some real reporting would be a delight.

  13. adolfogiurfa says:

    @Ian W And, right now, CNN is promoting its “Way to Rio” (2012 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit). It really means for the Golden Calf worshipers: “Let´s go to Rio to grab all the Amazon jungle lands!” in order to, afterwards, lease them as “carbon shares”….but, funnily, will they lease it in disappearing Euros or in ever devaluating US dollars?

    ….and worst: to broken first world “polluters”. Thanks God they are done!

  14. Ian W says:

    @adolfogiurfa Who will they sell the carbon credits to when the EU and the EU (États-Unis) are both bankrupt? They won’t find many useful idiot politicians in the rest of the world. Do the UN really think that Russia, India and China will dutifully fall in line with Agenda 21?

    This whole circus relies on funding from the very nations it is trying to bankrupt.

    Then that leads us back to my initial point – who then will help the hungry and sick in poverty in the world? There does not seem to be mush Altruism outside the USA. Agenda 21 is a path to suffering in the third world that will dwarf the miseries of Biafra, Somalia and Ethiopia.

    And professors in Stanford discuss the ethics of reporting climate ‘science’ results. Marie Antoinette was more in touch than they are.

  15. adolfogiurfa says:

    Gotto turn back to THEIR long forgotten prophet Abraham and become religious people, as the rest of the commoners of their race are. They have been a minuscule elite managing global economy as they pleased to, continuously engaged in the art of making money out of “pouring the empty into the void”. This time the world will not generalize and will identify them individually.

    This is the new “turn of the screw” kids! Put on your tin hats on, and hold tight your butts! :-)

  16. Earle Williams says:


    Did you try

  17. adolfogiurfa says:

    A shadow government:

  18. bahamamamma says:

    Stanford is the perfect institution to lecture us on ethics.

    Who can forget Stanford President, Don Kennedy who paid for his yacht using federal research dollars?

  19. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Earle Williams, for catching my mistake. I resent the message to

    It is intriguing, adolfogiurfa, that so many different studies point to the same conclusion. I tried to suggest the shadow government’s name in this posting on Nile Gardiner’s article in The Telegraph, “The UN proposal for a global financial transaction tax is socialism writ large on a world scale” :

    The current demise of society and the collapsing world economy may have been caused by these reactions to the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 :

    1. Establish the United Nations in October 1945 “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war”

    2. Change – abruptly and without debate – “mainstream scientific opinions” on Earth’s heat source – the Sun in 1946.

    3. Decisions that surfaced in November 2009 as Climategate e-mails and documents used by the UN’s IPCC to promote the AGW scam and Al Gore’s political career.


  20. Pingback: Ethical Questions with No Room For Climategate | Musings from the Chiefio

Comments are closed.