Doug Jones writes in with this:
WUWT readers may be interested to see what the AAAS is doing with members’ funding. I’m amused that they baldly admit that they want to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”
What is being said here with “Science Is Not Enough” is:
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
The full text of the email I received is below. Sad, simply sad.
Note the twitter hashtag if you want to participate in the online discussion.
[Note the press release is here: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0209am_webcast.shtml – Anthony]
===============================================================
From: AAAS Office of Public Programs
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Sent: Fri, February 17, 2012 5:02:17 AM
Subject: Join Live Webcast from AAAS 2012 – Saturday, 18 February at 5 pm PST
View on mobile or on web page
Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? Find out by joining us for a Webcast of the plenary panel Science Is Not Enough, featuring three of the world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators during the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting.
This exceptional Webcast—set for 5:00—6:30 p.m. PT on Saturday, February 18—will arm scientists, educators, students, and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.
Log onto http://www.aaas.org/go/enough and live-Tweet your questions to #AAASMtg.
Participants in this 90-minute discussion will be:
James Hansen, whose testimony before Congressional committees in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of the global climate change issue. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities, for identifying ineffectual policies as “greenwash,” and for outlining the actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other species on the planet. He is currently the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
Olivia Judson, who explores the intersection of science and society, focusing on such controversial issues as the actuarial use of DNA and the potential to grow human organs. Dr. Judson has presented science issues on television many times, most recently when she appeared in an episode of PBS’s “Nova” about DNA connections to evolution. She has written a weekly blog on evolutionary biology for the New York Times website, called “The Wild Side.” She is currently a Research Fellow at Imperial College in London.
Hans Rosling, co-founder of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software for converting international statistics into moving, interactive, and enjoyable graphics. Dr. Rosling promotes a fact-based world view through increased use and understanding of freely accessible public statistics. He presented the television documentary “The Joy of Stats,” which was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2010. He is currently Professor of International Health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
AAAS President Nina Fedoroff will introduce the speakers, and the session will be moderated by Emmy-award winning journalist Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief, who is currently Professor and Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
Again, the session will begin at 5:00 p.m., PT on Saturday, February 18. Click here to watch what should be one of the most informative yet entertaining Saturday evenings you have had in a while! Be sure to submit your questions via Twitter by using the hashtag #AAASMtg.
And Hansen is getting paid how much for this gig?
PS – Had to laugh at the AAAS promo of their Annual Meeting: “Learn more about the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting, “Flattening the World: Building a Global Knowledge Society,” 16-20 February in Vancouver, British Columbia.” http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0209am_webcast.shtml
So there we have it, they are officially becoming the next “Flat Earth Society”!
Wonder how much of AAAS members’ funds will be going into Hansen’s pocket for this junket…..
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.” Khrushchev?
“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change”
———————————- MAYBE?
Requiring accountability and transparency of science – ARE the “rules of engagement of science”.
Requiring correlation and causation observational ( repeatable ) empirical evidence for a hypothesis – ARE the “rules of engagement of science”.
30 plus years and hundreds of millions of dollars later…………..we still wait for the above.
I’m not sure what the problem is. The ancients knew that truth alone will not carry the day if it is not winningly presented, thus the art of rhetoric. Why would we assume that the truths of science would not be in need of some adornment in order to move the minds of men? Is WUWT completely devoid of rhetorical flourish? Should it be?
I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public.
The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.
This is Thomas L. Friedman’s economic pitch “The Earth is Flat” (NYTimes). Not sure how realistic his view is even from a strictly economic point of view? I guess the AAAS wants to jump into the latest trendy mode and just forget about the science (and maybe forget about basic common sense too?)
Bernie
J says:
“Why would we assume that the truths of science would not be in need of some adornment in order to move the minds of men?”
That sounds suspiciously like Stephen Schneider.
When I come up against a situation contaminated by reality and scientifically gathered data and information, I check the new facts and reality. If I am proven wrong by newly presented info and photgraphic and video images which i can see are not doctored, I pause. If upon a second review of the new material, if i am proven wrong, I say,”Oops.” then do my damnedest to correct my arrogance and ignorance which led to my self-embarassment. A pet cat helps. They never get involved in controversy. Science is enough.
If “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument”, then that’s a clue that the question is unresolved. And when the question is unresolved, trying to win the argument is hubris of the first order … but since James Hansen is the lead speaker, what else would we have expected? He’s the king of “If I don’t have the facts I just bring out the fear … be vewwy, vewwy afraid” school of post-normal science.
w.
Larry, I wonder why they have to release fake documents and try to conceal real documents if the science is so sound?
Also, please educate us about the campaign of denial and misinformation. Give examples. Who is behind it? How much money? Please give concrete examples of the misinformation.
The biggest question I have is where do I sign up for that money? Is there a shadow internet out there?
We are all anxiously awaiting your answers.
/More Soylent Green!
[snip. HAARP discussion violates site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
Send them donations in order they have the where with all to buy enough mirrors to cover the walls at this meeting. Then maybe seeing themselves in such lager numbers they will not be so intimatated and too, it might reduce the paironoid condition they have developed of late.
Ever helpful.
“The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, ”
Let’s take three fundamental claims of the AGW position as outlined in the IPCC:
1) temperatures will continue to rise
2) the troposphere will see the sharpest rise
3) sea level rise will accelerate
Now, what does the science – the empirical, measurable science – say about these claims?
None are true. Therefore, you cannot say the science is overwhelming. It is distinctly underwhelming to any rational observer.
Worthy.Everyone should memorize this and stop supporting queen lizard’s wizards.
J says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:15 pm
The ‘truths’ of climate science have certainly been ‘adorned’ to move the minds of useful idiots (and I include LarryL below your post in that).
Ed Caryl – Shoe needed
@LarryL
“I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public.
The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. This conference is about messaging…”
I rather think that that’s Anthony’s point. There is a huge difference between a scientific body and a political body. Politics is all about messaging and rhetorical persuasion – acceptably so. So is advertising. Anthony is pointing out that the AAAS has accepted that it has crossed the line from scientific to political.
A pure scientist simply provides data, hypotheses and interpretation. Darwin did not see it as his job to fight for the acceptance of Evolution Theory by the politicians and religious leaders of his day. Other people might well do this, or fight for its rejection, if they can see benefit in the process, but then they are NOT doing science – they are doing lobbying or religion.
What you are implying is that it is acceptable for a scientific body to determine, using its best endeavours, what it believes to be true. And then, if people do not believe this, to use the techniques of politicians and advertising groups to change their minds. Can’t you see what is deeply worrying about that?
“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges?”
Water scarcity? We have water boards, water commissions, etc in the states plus international commissions with Canada.
Fisheries depletion? We have DNR or DNQ’s in every state or forestry management that stocks bodies of water. And the Feds have several departments that have some say on the oceanic fisheries within coastal waters. In addition there are international treaties on some fishing and whaling.
What they really are after is the “global challenges”. Some people just don’t feel fulfilled unless the problem is “global”. Maslow’s hierarchy at work.
Hansen: “………….protect the future of young people and other species on the planet.”
Why not protect all species on this planet, including younger people and older?
Dr Steven Schneider wrote:
“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.”
They’ve made their choice. They decided to be effective.
If they pound the table so much, do the really have science on their side???
Hansen “the public must take to protect the future of young people and other species on the planet.”
Hmm. Is he talking about the annihilation of older people? :/
“Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities”
Why would that be something to be recognized for? Is their world view that powerful entities don’t like truth? What about speaking truth to non-powerful entities? Is that just a little truth or the whole truth that he’s been speaking?
“Be sure to submit your questions”
Like: Why was the 1988 “projection” so far off?
How about: Since the actual temperature followed the “draconian CO2 emission reductions” projection even though the emissions followed the “business as usual” projection, isn’t that evidence that the effect of CO2 on warming is negligible?
Or maybe: If you’re willing to break the law for “the cause”, why should anyone believe you wouldn’t fudge data for “the cause”?
Just a not LarryL is not me!
The compulsive need to place all human activity under the control of an elite central power is the main difference Fascism and Science. Long ago, Science was about the use of the “Scientific Method” to explain and define natural phenomena. Controlling the world was not a part of Science.