Ironically, Gleick was Chair of the AGU Committee on Ethics.

As a result of this incident, he was asked to resign his Chairmanship of this Committee. But apparently there were no other sanctions from AGU, and I seem to recall that Gleick gave a big invited AGU Union lecture within the next year.

Does ‘others’ in the AGU guidelines include Heartland? It is my understanding that some scientists are involved with Heartland, but I don’t know if any of them are AGU members.

The second case is Michael Mann’s recent congressional testimony that included the following statements:

Bates’ allegations were also published on the blog of climate science denier Judith Curry

That includes the study28 led by Zeke Hausfather of the “Berkeley Earth” project—a project funded in part by the Koch Brothers and including29 as one of its original team members, climate change contrarian Judith Curry. (JC note: footnote 29 is the source watch slime job on me )

So does being called a ‘denier’ in the Congressional Record count as bullying? How about attempting to discredit me via a tortuous link to the ‘evil’ Koch brothers (who I have never had any interactions with and I never received a nickel from Berkeley Earth?) Not to mention linking to the slime job source watch article on me.

Consider Michael Mann’s lawsuit against Tim Ball because of an interview with Ball that was posted on the Frontier Center website. In the interview, according to court documents, Ball responds to an anonymous questioner regarding the “Climategate” scandal by saying “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.”

It’s interesting to compare the nature of Tim Ball’s statement about Mann, with Mann’s statement about me, and different venues in which the statements were made.

I’m sure there are many other cases to discuss, but these three were the first that came to my mind.

JC reflections

So, should the AGU be providing sanctions against scientists for their behavior towards other scientists? It is easy to argue that this is the case at AGU meetings, for AGU officers, and others in appointed positions at AGU (this would clearly put Gleick in the AGU cross hairs). But what about Mann’s behavior (who is an AGU fellow) and Tim Ball’s (assume for the sake of argument that Ball is an AGU member; I simply don’t know).

At the time of ClimateGate, I recall the argument (I think from Gavin) that Sir Isaac Newton was a SOB, and that did not make his science incorrect. Well, in the 21st century, the whole system of peer review for publications and grant proposals, not to mention promotion and awards committees, and research assessment committees (e.g. NAS, IPCC) rely on ethical conduct towards others.

I suspect that this code of conduct towards others emerged from social justice concerns related to race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and national origin. I have to say that other than some very subtle discrimination, I don’t think that bullying is a big issue in this context. The bullying that I have seen relates scientific disagreements, with the majority (consensus) opinion being used a rationale for bullying, plus politics and policy preferences regarding the social consequences of the research topic.

Defining bullying when an issue such as race and gender is involved seems fairly straightforward, it is less straightforward when the bullying is related to scientific and/or policy-political disagreements. Where do you draw the line? I would say the line should be drawn when the actions of the bully causes harm to, interferes with, or sabotages scientific activity and careers. Lets take a look at some examples and ponder where this line might be in terms of the bullying behavior of scientist A towards scientist B:

Bullying tweets Bullying blog posts Op-eds published in the mainstream media Statements to journalists in the mainstream media Direct communications to a scientist’s employer FOIA requests (I don’t know of an examples of scientist A making FOIA requests of scientist B?) Statements made in Congressional testimony

Based on my own experience, I would say that #1, #2 doesn’t matter, it’s just noise. Tweets, in particular, are fairly ephemeral and typically spur of the moment.

Bullying op-eds and statements to journalists do matter, these are read by my employer and have shown in up in Georgia Tech’s daily news roundup that is circulated to the entire population of administrators, faculty members and students.

Direct communications to my employer (e.g. the Grijalva inquisition) definitely matter, but to my knowledge the communications from bullying scientists have been fed to my employer via several sympathetic faculty members at Georgia Tech. These definitely matter(ed).

Regarding statements made in Congressional testimony. Well the dynamics have changed in the last year, with my retirement and Trump’s election. I may actually benefit from that in some circles, whereas in other circles it will harm me. Remains to be seen.

I don’t know if the AGU is prepared to confront the bullying/tyranny of scientists from ‘majority’ perspective versus scientist with minority perspectives. Not to in any way dismiss the problems of racial, gender, etc. discrimination, I mainly see bullying as being associated with minority scientific and policy perspectives.

In any event, I regard this as a welcome development.