Re: [asa] AGW discussion

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 3:00 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dave,
>
> Right now I am looking at the "ethics" debate here as being very premature
> considering no authorities have investigated for possible misuse of
> government funding. The idea of
> anybody trying to hide possible misuse of government funding bothers me.
> (just as it rightly bothers John Walley). I think the only thing that will
> clear the names of the folks involved would be a full investigation. And the
> last thing a non-conspirator would claim is a right to privacy.
>
> Maybe I am naive but I cannot see any contract administrator who is about
> to write a check for a next round of funding doing so until all parties are
> cleared of wrongdoing.
>
> Right now I am wondering if there has been adequate oversight of federal
> funding in certain areas. Otherwise these mistakes would not have taken
> place in the first place. Oversight mechanisms seem more important than
> whether someone inadvertently did something stupid.
>

The problem with oversight in an instance like this is the government
depends on the researchers to keep tabs on one another. If one researcher is
off in the weeds, the sponsor depends on other researchers to point this
out. If a large enough body of researchers form a "consensus", they can lock
other researchers out. This may be what happened in the GW community.

>
> So, how many parties actually own the intellectual property that was
> leaked? Under what spending authority? People on the list act as if the
> IP was personal property. I cannot see how a case could be made for that
> unless all the IP was transmitted privately, never traversed the internet,
> and is owned only by private individuals. And I have heard no such claim.
> Did I miss it?
>

I don't think you missed it. The research that was government sponsored
should be in the public domain. Any IP that is "owned" is owned by the
sponsor of the research. And if that was the U.S. government, it is freely
licensed to other users. (I suspect other governments have similar rules in
place)

>
> So a debate about ethics seems off in the weeds because it is based on
> some unspoken assumptions. I think its basically unethical to not have
> good oversight.
> Good oversight means good government.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave C
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:57 PM, David Clounch <david.clounch@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Dave,
>>
>> This possibly explains why some folks who are rabidly anti-GW have tended
>> to be uncivil to folks off-list. They may have been thinking they were
>> pestering some Anthropogenic Global Warming advocates. Which in my case
>> is definitely not true.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Dave C
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Dave Wallace <wmdavid.wallace@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> David Clounch wrote:
>>>
>>> I took the following from a website dealing with acronyms.
>>>
>>> Acronym Definition
>>> ====== ===================
>>> AGW Anthropogenic Global Warming
>>> AGW Anti-Global Warming
>>>
>>> So, which is the definition used on this list? I always took it to mean
>>> the second one.
>>>
>>>
>>> I took it to mean the 2nd as well but found that the more generally
>>> accepted usage was the first. Unlike some I tend to adopt whatever becomes
>>> common usage, possibly with regrets. I meant the first in my note.
>>>
>>> Dave W
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
>>> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
William E (Bill) Hamilton Jr., Ph.D.
Member American Scientific Affiliation
Austin, TX
248 821 8156
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.