Code of conduct
A new flurry of climate change correspondence has been inspired by Hugh Richards’ recent soapbox article - a periodic recurrence which confirms differing views among fellows on this major subject. With near universal agreement on the principal facts: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, human emissions contribute to global warming, and we need to be cautious about the consequences - the differences (here and in wider scientific community) are principally on the scale and rate of impacts, how to mitigate and how quickly.
Given the confrontational and accusatory tone of some of the correspondence, I appeal for a more grown-up approach to discussions while respecting our Code of Conduct, including the following expectations (paraphrased for brevity):
- to practice the highest standard of integrity
- to act in all matters to all others in an honourable and ethical way
- to treat colleagues fairly and honestly and to not injure or discredit the professional reputation or personal standing of any others.
Some correspondence and articles breach the Code through name-calling, motive questioning and conspiracy theories. I feel Geoscientist fails in its editorial responsibility by publishing such breaches in place of reminding the writer of the Code.
Commentators should also recognise their own responsibility, as scientists, to distinguish between science and personal opinion – whether their own or that of others (though most scientific conclusions involve an element of opinion – we are all human!)
If we cannot maintain respectful discussion between an educated and professional membership on the leading scientific, environmental, social and political subject of our time, we fail in our claim to be a world-leading scientific society and community.