UPDATE: An AAAS member and WUWT reader relates how he’s finally had enough, and has canceled his AAAS membership today. See below the “Continue reading>” line.
Gee, it’s been a crazy day, one embarrassing thing after another for warmists today. I’m sure Chris Mooney will do his usual smear of WUWT during the seminar, it’s always a crowd pleaser.
Via Dr. Judith Curry’s inbox.
Dear Member,
This fall, AAAS is launching MemberCentral, an exclusive website for AAAS members. MemberCentral is dedicated to highlighting AAAS activities and fostering community among our members. To support these goals, the site will feature original content presented as webinars, videos, podcasts, blogs, and more.
On September 27, 2010, at 12:00 p.m. ET, AAAS MemberCentral is conducting its first webinar: “Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate.”
Featuring panelists Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); Edward Maibach, M.P.H., Ph.D., of George Mason University ; Brenda Ekwurzel, Ph.D., from the Union of Concerned Scientists; and author and science journalist Chris Mooney, this discussion will explore ways the scientific community can combat negative public attitudes toward climate change. Panelists will share their best practices for public and media engagement, debate how to respond to critiques, and explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue.
As an audience member you will have the opportunity to submit questions to the panel during the event.
A short registration is required to view this webinar. Space is limited and on a first-come, first-served basis. Reserve your space today.
Register Now
Can’t make the live webinar? ” Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate” will be available for on-demand viewing at the launch of AAAS MemberCentral.
==============================================
Remember what “we shall overcome” used to stand for?
==============================================
UPDATE: This comment is worth elevating. – Anthony
Lance Wallace 2010/09/16 at 3:47 pm
I got the invitation today and after 20 years of paying my dues to AAAS it was finally too much–I requested an immediate cancellation of my membership.
“Today I received my invitation to the first Webinar of
your new website Member Central. This is titled Climate
Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After
ClimateGate. I and I believe many other AAAS members
am personally affronted by your choosing to present
this panel, containing only apologists for the
“consensus” view on climate change. The revelations of
Climategate are a stain on science, and your attempt to
treat it by an intensified PR campaign is distasteful
and self-defeating. How much better it would have been
had you chosen to present a proper debate, with AAAS
scientists (e.g., Lindzen of MIT or Freeman Dyson) on
both sides of the issue.
For the first time, I am ashamed of my membership in
AAAS and request that you terminate my membership
immediately.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“this discussion will explore ways the scientific community can combat negative public attitudes toward climate change. ”
Tell the truth, and if you can’t, or won’t, hire some professional PR people who’ll at least make it sound convincing. Gavin’s done wonders for creating scepticism simply because he has no clue about PR and when pressed, shows weaknesses in his chosen subject. Insulting and deriding your audience has seldom been an effective way to win friends and influence people.
In this case, Aldous Huxley’s metaphor would seem to be right.
“Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches.”
They keep trying to stitch together a believable tale of an evil and polluting humankind pushing the planet earth to the brink of unrecoverable disaster. Great riches are wasted on this panoply of inaccurate data, subjected to biased adjustments, spliced with inappropriate proxies, guilefully graphed using Mike’s nature tricks, and stitched together into the IPCC patchwork quilt of crackpot science. Unhappily for the Gavin Schmidts and Mike Manns et.al, basic facts, fundamental truths, a growing public awareness, and persistent investigations by many of the stalwarts found on this very web site cause their sloppy stitchery to keep unraveling.
Ending IS better than mending, regardless of what they name this futuristic fraud!
‘Deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome someday.’ Yes.
“explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue.”
Explore? Hasn’t it been done to death already? I suppose they must, being so desperate. Of course, they could always just go with the truth.
“combat negative public attitudes toward climate change”
Start by suggesting how climate change benefits the public. Then the public will develop a more positive attitude towards it.
In this case, Aldous Huxley’s metaphor would seem to be right.
“Ending is better than mending. The more stitches, the less riches.”
They keep trying to stitch together a believable tale of an evil and polluting humankind pushing the planet earth to the brink of unrecoverable disaster. Great riches are wasted on this panoply of inaccurate data, subjected to biased adjustments, spliced with inappropriate proxies, guilefully graphed using Mike’s nature tricks, and stitched together into the IPCC patchwork quilt of crackpot science. Unhappily for the Gavin Schmidts and Mike Manns et.al, basic facts, fundamental truths, a growing public awareness, and persistent investigations by many of the stalwarts found on this very web site cause their sloppy stitchery to keep unraveling.
Ending IS better than mending, regardless of what they name this futuristic fraud!
‘Deep in my heart, I do believe we shall overcome someday.’ Yes…..Yes.
@ur momisugly cotwome says:
September 16, 2010 at 3:15 pm
“Gee, it’s been a crazy day”…
I got one for you. I posted this in ‘Tips and Notes’
WOW …just WOW!
==================================
Apparently from the article they are a bunch of really old dudes. Whatever happened to the really hot blonde babes from Venus? I liked them better. 😉
and from the crumbling Obama White House comes the new ‘preferred’ term to replace ‘Global Warming’ . It is now to be referred to as “Global Climate Disruption’ .
I’d laugh if it wasn’t so sad to see 1984 become reality. Although I must admit, this is far more easily defended than ‘Global Warming’. What exactly constitutes ‘disruption’? You can pass off almost any change in the climate as being a ‘disruption’. Any storm, hurricane, tornado, snow storm, can easily be described as a ‘disruption’ to the existing climate.
I really want to see someone debate James Cameron, what ever happened to him…not a word since he squirreled off to his mansion after mouthing off about having it out with skeptics at high noon..
Ian
I canceled my subscription to Science News for much the same reason. SN is extremely one-sided and pro-AGW. It’s despicable.
All of the once-great “science magazines” now, quite frankly, stink to high heaven.
“Climate Change and the Public: Overcoming Skepticism After Climategate.”
…
After much contemplation of the various findings of the GWPF report, you know what would really help in terms of regaining the public trust after Climategate?
A PROPER enquiry!
I cancelled my UCS membership this week too, for the same reason.
Just put a comment on JC’s site concerning AGW and the post was unaccepted without comment by the moderator. I would say that they definitely don’t take to the “negative view” there and that will be the last time that I pay a visit to that site.
“explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue. ”
Yes, the public’s health is in danger, not from climate change, but from those who want to forceably change climate over what amounts to an obsessive compulsive trend disorder.
Ha Lance, I beat you to it. Glad that you registered your contempt for them. They should be an advocate for the honest broker of scientific fact. No more, no less, no matter where that leads. Unfortunately, we are seeing too many editorial staffs of previously reputable organizations and magazines being hijacked by the moonbat crowd. Its also why I stopped attending Quaker meeting. They were becoming more of a political organization than a religion. Foo therefore be apon them. You have never seen a collection of moonbats that resembles the Longfellow Meeting in the People’s Republic of Cambridge. It astounds me that they have gone so far off message.
I hit the link to Judith Curry’s site.
Climate etc seems to be attempting persuasion by sheer fatigue. After a long string of verbiage containing “dynamic of disagreement”, “real debate”, “context of a rational backdrop of etc etc”, the reader must press on through the wiki definitions of common words, to an Italian flag meant to represent some simplistic abstraction, ostensibly to do with that “dynamic of disagreement”.
A favourite word there is “postnormal” – sometimes hyphenated by the less cool and au fait, but not by our Judith. I think it means people like me, who have trouble wading through a paragraph of the lady’s oblique and endlessly discursive prose.
At one point you get: “Now back to the science.” A false dawn! Because then follows a blurry discourse by someone called Feymann about how some stuff is uncertain, and there are degrees of uncertainty, and…do you really want to know?
Anyway, after that comes the wiki definition of “doubt”, and a revelation by our Judith that doubt is different to denial (dictionary link!)…all of which is a lead-in to the Italian flag thing. Words like “spectrum” and “analysis” get a good run here, as well as some columns of percentage numbers, just to keep us in a scientific mood, and to make sure we don’t start thinking about insalata mista.
Let me tell you, there never was such an exercise in learned absurdity as Judith’s flag. Someone’s got to tell her.
I’ve been commenting a lot since Judith Curry and Thomas Fuller have been prominent on WUWT. The reason is that I can tolerate the fulminations of a Calvinist blusterer like Bart Verheggen, because he is, at least, direct and sincere. But these talk-you-down lukewarmers (whoops, sorry about the tribal tag!) really are a piece of work. If you can ever arrive at their meaning, it seems to be no different in effect to that of a fanatical warmist: taxes, inferior energy supply and an ETS. That’s if you can ever get to their meaning.
As a lay person who usually just lurks and reads, let me say I love WUWT, and I don’t doubt (or deny) Anthony’s judgement in inviting people like Thomas Fuller and Judith Curry to make guest entries. It’s probably a good thing.
So my criticism is directed squarely at the circularity and manipulation of language practised by some. It’s probably been a good exercise to wade through these verbal swamps, but maybe I should these “authors” a rest.
In fact, I will give them a rest.
Hmmm … how to overcome skepticism? How about explaining why anyone should believe any temperature reports/models with such quality data as found here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/carefree_lookeast.jpg
Curiousgeorge said:
Whatever happened to the really hot blonde babes from Venus? I liked them better. 😉
When they show up, be sure to wear your Nomex gloves. They’re hot alright — about 860 F (460 C).
It’s entirely understandable that Mr. Wallace would cancel his membership. But it is a shame to lose someone who could fight the madness from the inside.
I really have a problem with how their primary concern is just getting people to agree with them.
It is not about the science and whether the theory is correct; it is just about convincing people.
Why not just prove it. Most people can accept proof.
Is it that it is just too hard to prove or that there is just not enough evidence to prove it. Well, that makes it a different problem then.
I vote we send in suggestions to change the topic of the seminar to “Why is it so hard to prove that Global Warming theory is correct – Why is the actual evidence not supporting the theory – And No, ClimateGate showed us that people do not accept just changing/hiding the evidence as proof.”
First I dropped my membership to the American Chemical Society because of the ineptness of the editor of C&E News, Rudy Baum. The other day they sent me an email “inviting me back”. I suggest that once Baum was gone, I might reconsider.
I took solace by joining AAAS, only to find, shortly after joining, that they were just as bad as the ACS. I dropped those AAASses as well.
Both of these agencies are “supposed” to be objective and scientific in nature. Both, however, seem to think it more important to foist their political diatribes onto their members. Well, not with MY money, any way.
Since Gavin’s leading the panel and it includes a Q-and-A session, I would imagine anyone who poses an inconvenient question will quickly disappear.
No it is best to just separate your self from the belligerently ignorant, religious fanatic, AGW disillusioned, megalomaniac egocentric fools, and the political activists, of the world till they calm down, and reason returns then just educate them to the truth, when they ask for it.
If left to coagulate together they soon form a clot, dry to a scab, and slough off. Picking at them only slows the healing process, and exposes you to the disease.
Another inconvenient article picked up by ABC News Watch. These ‘negative attiudes’ keep popping up, don’t they? Haven’t the authors realised that the science is settled?
http://abcnewswatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/missing-news-ipcc-models-exaggerate.html
“this discussion will explore ways the scientific community can combat negative public attitudes toward climate change.”
That’s rich. The negative public attitudes are towards them, not climate change. They’re the ones that have earned the distrust, the skepticism, and the negative attitudes because of the way they’ve attempted to manipulate the public with shoddy, politicized science. They are a blot on their profession.
By contrast, the climate hasn’t done anything to offend us. It’s been minding its own business as it has for eons. We’ve never thought it was static and it never pretended it was. We’re on good terms.
So I wonder if the participants in the “seminar” will adhere to the new guidelines:
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2010/0817integrity_intro.shtml
“Singapore Conference Drafts Global Guidelines on Research Integrity”