In a letter addressed to senior IPCC chairs dated 17th April, Prof Robert Stavins - a lead author for the IPCC's Working Group 3 focusing on climate mitigation - complained of his «frustration» that the government approval process «built political credibility by
sacrificing scientific integrity.»
IMO Spencer signing on to the Cornwall Alliance means he has
sacrificed his scientific integrity.
Not exact matches
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/mean:1... 1979 / trend Lastly, I'd note that your logic rather flies in the face of the story you began with: if NOAA's strategy was to basely kowtow to a government that holds their pursestrings,
sacrificing every shred of
scientific integrity, then when would they find themselves in a fight with the Chair of the S & T committee?
There is a value conflict if a scientist is willing to
sacrifice the
integrity of
scientific research for any other conceivable value (Peter Gleick is the poster boy for this one).
In other words, they
sacrificed what little
integrity they may have had in favour of making a big
scientific «splash».