Gavin to attend AAAS "we shall overcome" seminar

PaulH says:
September 16, 2010 at 5:30 pm
“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.”
Paul, as a member of the ACS, I can tell you it’s an uphill battle. These organizations are run partly by “professionals” who get paid a pretty salary and therefore are highly motivated to protect their turf and partly by activist volunteers who have plenty of time to promote themselves. Members with full time jobs generally don’t have the time to figure ought how to play by their rules.
This blog here gives you an idea of the salaries paid out to the “staff”.
http://chemjobber.blogspot.com/2010/09/why-are-people-frustrated-with-acs-and.html
(Scroll down the the last few comments.)
You don’t get that kind of money without having set up a self-perpetuating privileged-class-type organization where the clout is concentrated to those in charge. (To add insult to injury, you have to log on to some protected part of their web site to learn the salaries being paid in this “non-profit”.)
I stay a member because I had set up some insurance and investments through their member services and because my employer pays my dues.
Guess what’ll happen when I retire?

……”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.”
==============
Looks like the AAAS is trying to avoid unconditional surrender.
Changing the name of the mission, does not change the intent.

And yet more Orwell 🙁

It simply amazes me that the AAAS can simply relabel the issue from “Anthropogenic Global Climate Warming” to “Climate Change”, and yet not understand why people don’t trust them. If you go back to the papers from the ’80’s, ’90’s, and early ’00’s on the subject, there is NOTHING about “Climate Change”, it is all about warming.
Not working out so well for them, eh?

I’m waiting for the day the whole audience boos and hisses.
Now alternatively, could skeptics launch their own debate
(a) we know no warmist will join
(b) so we have the chance to stand in to explain
(c) we DID invite them but they said
(d) UNFAIR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and asked for xxxxxxxxxxxxx impossible concessions
(e) do you think they have done any different with your money all along?
(g) and if we’ve got all that wrong, we’d be delighted to hear the evidence…

It is with great sadness that I, too, will be cancelling my AAAS membership, in the good company of Lance Wallace and ShrNrf. This is the last of my scientific subscriptions to go and there were quite a few. However, when you can’t trust ’em to publish science anymore what is the value in paying or reading. Enough. Done. I imagine they will go the way of the dinosaurs, similar to the current decline in the (once) main stream media
What has been put in their place? Certain bloggers have been evolving their sites to offer more of their fields in depth and have attracted other professional and enthusaiastic non-professional commenters all of whom offer a plethora of links. Of course, some of the best began commenting on WUWT. This is the real thing! My Favorites list is growing for daily reading, and my pleasure and educational meters are at all time highs. I think, Anthony, WUWT is one of the first developed on that model.
(Anthony, I am voting with mosomoso 5:23 pm. The posts seem to be getting slimmer on the science and heavier on the kind of verbiage that I left behind gratefully when I left an institution of higher [mis- or dis-]education. I honor your right to choose contributors and I will wait it out for awhile. Always remember, yours has been The Model imho.)

BFL says:
“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.”
Have to apologize as Curry’s moderator did post the comments, just didn’t maintain visibility while moderating as done here and had a very long lag time.

I concur with mosomoso and pyromancer76. I now check to see who the author is. I started to not read Thomas Fuller’s posts. Incidentally, I never belonged to AAAS, but I did subscribe to SciAm for about thirty years. But several years ago, I let my subscription lapse as SciAm went overboard for global warming.

Phlogiston rules. They pretty much do what they want because they know they are not responsible to anyone, least of all membership, for their actions. After all, they are the elite. National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society and others are also firmly in their grip. It is a result of relentless pressure for more than thirty years by environmental groups. The warming hysteria really got going in the late seventies, just about the time an astronomer resigned his position with the NASA Pioneer Venus mission and joined NASA GISS because “The composition of the atmosphere of our home planet was changing before our eyes, and it was changing more and more rapidly.” The year was 1978 and GISS immediately assigned him to develop a method of for estimating global temperature change that was needed at the time. There had not been any global temperature change for more than twenty years according to NOAA’s temperature chart and even in 1975 both the New York Times and Time Magazine were talking of global cooling. But lo and behold – temperature started to go up immediately after that method was implemented so that this astronomer could testify in 1988 that warming had started, thanks to carbon dioxide we were putting into the air. As you might have guessed, his name was James Hansen. His testimony was a publicity stunt set up by Senator Wirth on the warmest day of the year who arranged for more than ten TV cameras to be present in the hearing room. That night global warming was on every TV set and the current warming craze got a giant step up in the direction it is going now. By the way, my book demonstrates that the warming he spoke of was faked.

Skepticism is double plus ungood.
Belief in Authority is double plus good.
Oceania will always be at war with Eurasia

Lance, don’t give up your membership. If all skeptics leave the organization, there will be no internal brakes, and the organization can use its substantial clout to manipulate public opinion to everyone’s detriment.
JMHO.

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D., of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), if you really wish to “Overcoming Skepticism” how about actually attempting to prove your case with OPEN SCIENCE that can be independently AUDITED by anyone who chooses to? How about providing all your raw data, manipulated data, reasons for said manipulations, data sensor processing programs with source codes, internal notes and memos and emails and papers, all models and their sources plus all copies of all test runs of said models including all the times they didn’t fit your agenda driven science, plus you MUST STOP using “interpolation” of data which is essentially FABRICATION OF DATA (1,200 km diameter of area with one temperature station – sheesh give me a break) which is – in the world I live in – tantamount to criminal FRAUD as your fabricated data shows up in graphs and reports that your GISS organization uses to obtain funding from the public purse.
The list goes on but that’s a start. Get back to me once you’ve undertaken these steps.
Thanks,
pwl

“explore the idea of reframing climate change as a public health issue”
What a colossal admission of defeat – “We have no evidence of Catastrophic Man Made Warming, so how can we frame the notion to get people to sit up and take notice.”
You can smell the desperation from here… 1/2 a world away.