You May Not Be A Real Scientist If...
SEARCH BLOG: CLIMATE
The world of climatology has been ... shall we say... "testy" for some time now. The media has conveniently delineated climate scientists into two "camps:" believers and alarmists or skeptics and deniers. Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. puts it another way... although not exactly in these terms ... "real scientists" and "others."
In response to my [Dr. Pielke's] post
Professional Discourtesy By The National Climate Data Center On The Menne Et Al 2010 paper
I have [been] alerted by Forrest M. Mims III to a National Academies Press book titled
On Being a Scientist: Third Edition: 2009. ISBN-10: 0-309-11970-7 ISBN-13: 978-0-309-11970-2. 82 pages
Excerpts from the book include
“……..‘researchers have an obligation to honor the trust that their colleagues place in them’. Science is a cumulative enterprise in which new research builds on previous results. If research results are inaccurate, other researchers will waste time and resources trying to replicate or extend those results. Irresponsible actions can impede an entire field of research or send it in a wrong direction, and progress in that field may slow. Imbedded in this trust is a responsibility of researchers to mentor the next generation who will build their work on the current research discoveries.” (page 2)
“Research is based on the same ethical values that apply in everyday life, including honesty, fairness, objectivity, openness, trustworthiness, and respect for others.” (page 3)
On treatment of data, the report writes on page 8
“Researchers who manipulate their data in ways that deceive others, even if the manipulation seems insignificant at the time, are violating both the basic values and widely accepted professional standards of science. Researchers draw conclusions based on their observations of nature. If data are altered to present a case that is stronger than the data warrant, researchers fail to fulfill all three of the obligations described at the beginning of this guide. They mislead their colleagues and potentially impede progress in their field or research. They undermine their own authority and trustworthiness as researchers. And they introduce information into the scientific record that could cause harm to the broader society, as when the dangers of a medical treatment are understated.”Climate scientists, and the public and policymakers, would benefit by rigorously following the guidelines in this report.
From 
