The inaccurate LA Times story AGU cites was excerpted (via a Chicago Tribune reprint) and linked here yesterday at WUWT. AGU issued this press release today, which is repeated in entirety below. – Anthony
Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical Union
AGU Release No. 10–37
http://www.agu.org/news/press/pr_archives/2010/2010-37.shtml
8 November 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch. The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.
“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,” says Christine McEntee, Executive Director and CEO of the American Geophysical Union. “AGU will continue to provide accurate scientific information on Earth and space topics to inform the general public and to support sound public policy development.”
AGU is the world’s largest, not-for-profit, professional society of Earth and space scientists, with more than 58,000 members in over 135 countries.
“AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization,” says climate scientist and AGU President Michael J. McPhaden. “The organization is committed to promoting scientific discovery and to disseminating to the scientific community, policy makers, the media, and the public, peer-reviewed scientific findings across a broad range of Earth and space sciences.”
AGU initiated a climate science Q&A service for the first time in 2009 to provide accurate scientific information for journalists covering the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. AGU has been working over the past year on how to provide this service once again in association with the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun, Mexico.
AGU’s Climate Q&A service addresses scientific questions only. It does not involve any commentary on policy. Journalists are able to submit questions via email, and AGU member-volunteers with Ph.D.s in climate science-related fields provide answers via email.
The relaunch of the Climate Q&A service is pending. When AGU is ready to announce the service, we will notify journalists on our distribution list via a media advisory that the service is once again available for their use.
For additional information about the Q&A service please see a 2 March 2010 article [pdf] about the 2009 Q&A service that was published in AGU’s weekly newspaper Eos, and a blog post about the service on AGU’s science communication blog The Plainspoken Scientist.
The American Geophysical Union was established in 1919, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. AGU advances the Earth and space sciences through its scholarly publications, meetings and conferences, and outreach programs. For more information, please visit the AGU web site.
============================================================
I just checked the source story on the LA Times website here
The story remains, but with this clarification now added mid story:
CLARIFICATION:
The effort by John Abraham is separate from the Geophysical Union’s.
There is no mention of the AGU press release.
The Chicago Tribune story here remains unchanged.
So, everything that was said and quoted in the original article was made up in the minds of the reporters?
“The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.”
Same wolf, different wool.
“…accurate scientific answers IN OUR OPINION…”why do they always leave that part out?
JimB
Sounds like you, Steve McIntyre and other should get together and make a list of 50 or so questions that global warming cultists hate to answer or always spin, submit it and see how much they “not an advocacy organization” respond. Best if you can find some small town newspaper report to submit the questions so they can’t be tracked back to the “evil deniers”. Fastest way to deal with advocacy groups claiming not to be an advocacy group is to call there bluff.
So the Hockey Team have realised that Real Climate is not up to the job, and need extra help.
Now, if I was a journalist, which of course I am not, I would be tempted to post questions on AGW, to this crack team of Phd Climate Scientists, and then supply the question, and politically correct answer to a website dealing with such issues in a sceptical manner.
Anyone up for it?
Caught with their pants down…
*****someone needs to inform michael mann and MSNBC:
8 Nov: MSNBC Cosmiclog: Alan Boyle: Life after Climategate
If anyone thinks that climate scientist Michael Mann has been cowed by last year’s controversy over stolen e-mails, known as Climategate … or by last week’s election, which could lead to congressional hearings that target Mann and his colleagues … well, think again.
“They can threaten whatever they want,” the Penn State professor told me on Sunday, after his talk at the New Horizons in Science meeting at Yale University. “I’m quite confident to fight those sorts of witch-hunt attempts.”…
Although Mann didn’t exactly say “Bring it on,” he did note that “those on the other side of the aisle will see this as an opportunity.” He doesn’t think scientists will be pushed on the defensive by their congressional critics.
“We should look at this as an opportunity for offense,” he said…
“The ice sheets are not Republican or Democrat,” Mann said. “They don’t have a political agenda as they disappear.”…
*****Mann praised the American Geophysical Union for setting up a “rapid response task force” to parry efforts aimed at discrediting climate scientists. He said journalists also should exercise their traditional role as a “critical and independent arbiter” of the policy debate, particularly in the midst of “politically motivated inquiries that we haven’t seen in this country since the 1950s.”
It might sound as if Mann relishes the fight, but he acknowledged that life after Climategate has not been easy for him. His routine now includes dealing with veiled death threats as well as investigations such as the one in Virginia…
Mann is doing less research, and more speaking and writing. (For example, he’s one of the scientists behind the RealClimate blog.)
“I spend quite a bit of time these days on what I might generously describe as outreach,” he told me. “I think not every scientist should be doing this — but more scientists should.”
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/11/08/5426675-life-after-climategate
they realized that “congressional conservatives” just won control of the purse strings and decided to walk that nonsense back …
notice that they didn’t specifically deny making those statements … just a claim of “misreporting” as in “since it looks like we are playing avdocate and bashing our new overlords we decided to moderate our position” …
Another media debacle. Oh, wait. It says LA Times. That’s not media; it’s a propaganda print shop. Another debacle.
Why does the AGU need to provide anything, are they acting as an arbiter as to which information/research is accurate?” One wonders if the reporters got their information from insiders as to the true nature of the endeavor which wasn’t for public release.
If anything ever begged to be called a conspiracy – this is too stupid for words.
“An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch.”
“The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.”
Oh the irony!
One has to wonder how on earth they expect to be able to provide accurate scientific answers to the press if they can’t even communicate an accurate description of their intention to do that to the press!
I am glad to here AGU president say that the reports were wrong. I was alarmed that AGU was moving into advocacy. Any scientific organization that does so will lose my respect.
Climate Q&A Service sounds a lot like the Leckbot. Will they copy&paste their stuff from Twitter?
pat says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:38 pm
“*****someone needs to inform michael mann and MSNBC:
[…]
“I spend quite a bit of time these days on what I might generously describe as outreach,” he told me. “I think not every scientist should be doing this — but more scientists should.””
Yeah, i enjoyed his drumming skills.
@temp Good point.
At a wild guess:
Someone from AGU boasted to journalists about their plans for a climate rapid response team.
Someone higher up in AGU realised that if the AGU team was obviously pushing the CAGW line then they wouldn’t be effective, hence this latest release.
I suppose that if the chairman of a wind power company, whose wealth and status depends on CAGW, can lead an “independent” inquiry into the CRU, then a climate rapid response team can give independent unbiased information on global warming.
So no 700 volunteers then? How about the 39? It must have been the big pushback they received from commenters on the web. The Guardian is full of negative feedback. :o)
Well that didn’t last long. I thought it was too good to be true.
Closing in on 60 million hits now Anthony!
Let’s hold their feet to the fire. They proclaim they “accurately” report facts. Let’s keep their inaccuracies (or downright lies) right in front of them and the media. We won’t have to dig very far—on the contrary, it will be like “Where’s Waldo?” to find the true statements hidden in the lies.
The “…pending” “AGU’s Climate Q&A service addresses scientific questions only”.
Will it convey the uncertainties in climate science to the journalists? I doubt it.
But if AGU only deals with science and not policy, why is it that all of their science are on AGW only? If anyone from AGU who does not believe in AGW but volunteers to help answer the questions by journalists, would he be dispatched by the AGU leadership? Likely not. Which shows that AGU has become an advocacy organization, not a scientific one that its leaders describe it in the above press release.
The AGU claims that they are “a scientific society, not an advocacy organization,”
If that is so, then how can they possibly explain this slogan, prominently emblazoned on their masthead (emphasis mine):
“AGU _galvanizes_ a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power _to ensure a sustainable future_.”
How can a group ‘galvanize’ a ‘community’ without being an advocacy group?
How exactly are scientists supposed to ‘ensure a sustainable future’? A future without any of that toxic CO2 flatulence of course!
So they are lying to hide their true purpose: they’re “community organizers” by their own admission! (Obama would be proud of them).
Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC for his contributions to political candidates because he is supposed to be an objective journalist (dripping sarcasm).
Climate scientists that form organizations to lobby Congress and actively advocate against the GOP/Tea Party should also categorically state if they donate heavily to political candidates. A simple perusal of opensecrets.org shows that many climate scientists/advocates/lobbyists donated heavily to the Obama campaign along with other Democrat candidates. Pennsylvania resident Michael Mann donated many times to the ’08 Obama campaign and also, for some strange reason, donated 200$ to the Martha Coakley campaign in Massachusetts, where Scott Brown was running to be the “41st Senator”. Thus, killing off cap-and-
tradetax would be against the interests of a very sympathetically minded climate scientist. Darrell Issa will likely have this information. Other climate scientists are easily searchable, but I do not want to point out who wasted money on Howard Dean’s campaign.Climate scientists should form a Union to lobby Congress on their behalf to keep the climate cash rolling in. I guess the American Geophysical Union could be that outfit…
I second that.
I am so looking forward to “accurate information”. Keep us posted. 🙂
Cheers
Ryan Maue says:
“Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC…”
It was all for show. Olbermann’s suspension has already been rescinded.
Ryan: yes, hence the sarcasm. I suspect it was a trial balloon by Comcast/NBC to see how the nutroots would react.
It’s still advocacy, just by another name. Of course it’s all dependent on who is behind the scenes answering the questions.
At least cooler heads are prevailing; that is a start.
From the AGU “Position Statement”:
I’m sure the information the rapid response team provides journalists will be very objective.
Looks like Popular Science hasn’t yet gotten the correction (“truth squads”, “rapid-response team”):
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-11/climate-scientists-join-truth-squads-seeking-dispel-climate-misinformation
Climate Scientists Organize to Dispel Climate Misinformation
By Rebecca Boyle Posted 11.08.2010 at 4:28 pm 5 Comments
Bracing for an onslaught from emboldened congressional conservatives — and ramped-up media coverage of their offensive — climate scientists are joining truth squads that seek to dispel climate-change skeptics.
One program is a relaunch of a previous climate information service; another involves a rapid-response team of scientists prepared to appear before unfriendly audiences, such as conservative talk shows. The latter represents a departure for many scientists, who have traditionally avoided the political realm even as they have faced increasing pressure — including investigations into their personal correspondence.
So the AGU is still forming a Climate Truth Dispensing Squad of 700 climate scientists, who will “at their discretion” provide The Absolute Scientific Truth to (acceptable?) journalists needing info to counter skeptics.
Meanwhile John Abraham is forming a Climate Truth Strike Force, willing to delve into politics which since the “AGU is the world’s largest, not-for-profit, professional society of Earth and space scientists” the AGU itself is likely forbidden to do according to the tax code, which will draw off of the membership of the AGU, and will fight hard to provide The Absolute Scientific Truth to refute the skeptics.
The AGU has officially distanced itself from John Abraham’s effort.
Okay… Nope, nothing hokey going on here, everything is up front and fully legal, just ask the IRS…
😉
So no public debate with the ‘Green Dragon Slayers’ then.
But we can look forward to censored e-mail questions with standard team responses.
Yippee!
Still, Abrahams seems up for the challenge or will he do a Cameron and disinvite himself.
Sorry, I think the point is being missed
It’s not that answers to questions from journalists may be biased or not, it’s this:
a) who selects which questions to answer ? Certainly, not all questions will be entertained
b) will answers that refer to uncertainty and differences of interpretation actually be published without expurgation, along with the actual question ?
In short, no matter how earnest the AGU may be, the MSM will censor the results anyway before publishing … and then will the AGU scientists responsible for the answers object in public ?
Ho hum
“”””” Ryan Maue says:
November 8, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Keith Olbermann was suspended from MSNBC for his contributions to political candidates because he is supposed to be an objective journalist (dripping sarcasm). “””””
Yes, in fact he was suspended for a whole weekend; today however he was fully re-instated.
Actually, Olberman has the same absolute right that we all have; to say whatever he wants about political issues; and to give funds to any political figure(s) within the legal limits; WHEN HE IS SPEAKING AS A COMMENTATOR.
But it was his behavior while MSNBC was using him purportedly as a NEWS achor, that raised eyebrows.
But if you get your NEWS from MSNBC, then you thoroughly deserve whatever they dish out.
Ryan: exactly
It is good to see that organisations like the AGU are now realising the liability they incur if they make alliances with politically radical eco-activist groups. Or even align themselves with politicised thinking. It happened to global corporations like Sony with the 10:10 video fiasco and now we see the same kind of back-pedaling going on here. It is a very healthy sign and reflects the changing social and political situation around AGW. It won’t be that long before anyone with anything to lose doesn’t want to be asscoiated with “AGW” at all.
pat says:
November 8, 2010 at 3:38 pm
Looks like the stickhandler jumped to conclusions. I wonder if that’s happened before.
So, they are not actually going to climb down from their academic ivory towers and engage on the front line? How utterly….predictable.
“AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization,” says climate scientist and AGU President Michael J. McPhaden. ”
Yea, right.
“This AGU Letter to the Editor applauds the denial of a demand by the Virginia Attorney General for private e-mails and other documents related to the research of climate scientist and former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann.”
http://www.agu.org/
“politically motivated inquiries that we haven’t seen in this country since the 1950s.”
Right, Mann, it’s just like McCarthyism. You’re a victim here.
I almost wrote “Dr. Mann” but couldn’t as I chuckled recalling this exchange in Ghostbusters between Peck and Venkman: “And what exactly are you a doctor of, Mr.Venkman? Well I have PHD’s in both Pyschology and Parapyschology”
Methinks that they pulled in their horns because they only had 39 step up to the plate instead of the alleged 700 club.
I can’t tell if I should feel more or less Orwellian about society with AGU’s back-off announcement.
Lest we forget, we’re talking about a scientific society.
I think the real burning question is model uncertainties. 4 C +/- 110 degrees….
Steve McIntyre and other should get together and make a list of 50 or so questions that global warming cultists hate to answer or always spin, submit it and see how much they “not an advocacy organization” respond. Best if you can find some small town newspaper report to submit the questions so they can’t be tracked back to the “evil deniers”.
As a reporter, I’ll be happy to supply some questions, even though I’m also an evil denier.
One I’d like to ask is what is the difference between the localized warming caused by black carbon (such as in the Himalayas) and global warming caused by greenhouse gases. Reporters at the LA Times, and other places, often conflate the two. I wrote a blog post discussing this issue and the one named in this post: http://www.nctimes.com/app/blogs/wp/?p=11377
“For a safe and sustainable future nations must “act now, act together, and act differently” (Bierbaum & Zoellick, 2009; SCIENCE 326: 771). This session addresses all aspects of building adaptation strategies and capacities.”
http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm10/program/scientific_session_search.php?show=detail&sessid=736
These AGU leaders are weasels, and what remains of their membership that still have some marbles left should be aware of that.
Somehow ,I thought it would come to this..
The AGU board of directors state at their 20-21 September 2010 meeting:
“AGU is ready to move forward and implement the Strategic Plan: … Expanding our influence and relevance to society”
Is that not advocacy ???
Source: http://www.agu.org/about/pdf/AGU_BOD-Key-Outcomes-and-Msgs_2010-08.pdf
Gentlemen
During my 20+ years in in research and development, I never encountered scientist that was concerned about public opinion polls…until I read the climate gate e-mails.
I draw you attention to the AGU’s November 10, 2009, e-mail where AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section President, Alan Robock wrote:
“As you know, the Copenhagen negotiations (Dec. 7-18) are attracting hundreds of journalists and will result in a proliferation of media articles about climate change. Recently, the American public’s “belief” in climate change has waned (36% think humans are warming the earth according to the Pew Center’s October poll), and December’s media blitz provides an opportunity to reverse the trend.”
Am I to now “understand” that “science” heavily depends upon the “force” of public opinion? And, further, that the AGU is one of the few exclusive “distributors” of this new “force”?
Apparently I have been deluded into believing that physics depends upon the fundamental physical forces.
I was also under the impression that “science” depends upon theory verifiable by measurement of those physical forces.
Perhaps I should have abandoned my study of thermo-dynamics, mass transfer, heat transfer, radiant transfer, reaction kinetics, and quantum mechanics for a degree in political “science”.
It appears I was wrong to pursue a degree in the physical sciences. For in the AGU’s version of “science” I should depend solely upon thier “expert’s” model results – without the tedious need to check the “expert’s” assumptions or verify their modeled results — by measurement.
Regards,
Kforestcat
For verification please see the following e-mail. The particular quote is three quarters the way down.
“From: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section
To:
Subject: Letter to Atmospheric Sciences members
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:23:32 -0500
Reply-to: AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section “
Hey the AGU HQ is based in Washington DC,
QED.
“AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization”
I guess they don’t read their own publication, Eos. It’s climate change from back to cover, and half of it is advertisements for people to run climate models.
I am sure they will have some helpful literature onhand for all the teachers, so I wouldn’t be too disappointed that the handbook for high schools will be cancelled.
Maybe its just me but I seriously question the value of hooking up the Media with an organization that is this lopsided in their views.
AGU Position Statement
http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.”
“During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.”
“With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.”
Agreed.
You so called “climate scientists” have to address the uncertainties and put your name on the calcs.
Would you actually advise a client to spend millions based on predictions of the current slate of climate models when they ignore the sun, the clouds and ignore the combined uncertainties of the sun and the clouds?
Would these professionals stake their reputations on the output of these models? That is what I want to know.
As such, any public statement endorsing these climate models should require the signatures and professional seals of those who are proclaiming the science to be solid and justifies their advocacy. Don’t hide behind anonymous pols about the consensus.
Thus, a decade or two down the road, we can ask if these scientists were correct.
It is time to hold science accountable. It is time for scientists to demand accountability. It is time turn for engineers, those who try to make ideas work.
We let ‘scientists’ tell us about our future. When the future turns out completely opposite of what that scientist said, shouldn’t that scientist be forever discredited?
Or should he be appointed our country’s science czar?
[Only registered engineers have seals, and only registered (professional) engineers have legal responsibilities to be right in their calculations. Scientists have nothing. No legal responsibilities nor legal liabilities if/when they are wrong. Only the so-called “peer-reviews” of anonymous reviewers in a limited number of journals, all controlled by the CAGW elite. Robt]
I am a PE
Still, Dr. Curry will most probably be more selective of whom she signs on with for her studies and efforts.
I would kinda thing the scientist would finally feel free. I don’t have to manipulate the data anymore. I don’t have to say Mann is scientific anymore. I can propose my hypotheses and go get real world data to analyze.
If I were a young climate science student, if I had to choose between Dr. Mann and Dr. Curry, choose the prodigal son or the heretic, I would choose the heretic. It gives you freedom of speech. It is awfully hard to bite the lip and swallow words for fear of what one says, especially when your calculations verify who is right.
An unlikely scenario, I admit, but if ever I get to lead a prominent lead body and read about junior members who have misrepresented the policies of my organisation by conflation with their opinions, I would not be happy with a issuing a bland refutation.
Nothing less than the most fulsome of apologies from the perpetrators would suffice, in the pain of excision from my society.
To do otherwise is. simply, cowardice, at best, complicity otherwise!
Good day to you Sir.
Contributors and WUWT may be interested to know about how AGU allows the addressing of “scientific questions only” and does not involve themselves “in any commentary on policy”.
In the EOS Transactions (AGU) Vol 91 No 37 14 September 2010 is an article titled “Climate Change: Past, Present and Future” authored by Chapman and Davis of the Dept of Geology and Geophysics University of Utah. (EOS is a short ‘newspaper’ of essays; papers; discussion with ads put out frequently by the AGU)
The centrepiece of the above lengthy ‘essay’ is a diagram that astounded me. Yes you guessed it “The Hockey Stick Graph” but with proxy reconstructions by Esper (2002), Mann and Jones (2003), Moberg (2005), Hegeri (2006) all with individual wavy lines oscillating around the Mann graph with Esper having actually lower values of temperature. Yes no Medieval Warm Period to be seen together with of course dramatic exponential rise up to 3deg C projected by the IPCC (A2, A1B,B1 and C3).
The ‘paper’ concludes “One major challenge in formulating climate mitigation and adaption policies is first convincing a skeptical public that global warming is real, that it exceeds in magnitude and pace the natural changes over the millennium, and that it is rapidly moving into an uncharted future fraught with serious consequences”
The second commentary comes from an essay covering four columns by K. Verosub Dept of Geology Univ of California. (EOS Vol 91 No 33 August 2010) titled “Climate Science in a Postmodern World”. Verosub claims that climate scientists “should have anticipated a postmodern interpretation of their findings and should have been prepared to deal with it.” He contends the climate scientists are not making themselves understood and to “ understand that science is operating in a post-modern world environment and that scientists have to engage post-modern climate skeptics on their own terms, even though that might be distasteful”
Well its pretty clear to me where the AGU stands on the issue of AGW and the “scientific principles” they will be promoting.
EJ; “Thus, a decade or two down the road, we can ask if these scientists were correct.”
Of course they will be correct; can’t you just hear it, “See we saved the world because we convinced everyone to burn food for fuel, and use “funny” lightbulbs, and pay more for “green” energy, and not to fly in planes (although we had to do so, to ensure that no-one else could!) etc etc.
Zeke the Sneak says:
November 8, 2010 at 6:44 pm
“I guess they don’t read their own publication, Eos. It’s climate change from back to cover, and half of it is advertisements for people to run climate models.”
Zeke – they’re not dumb. They know the Climate Ca$h gravy train when it comes whistling down the tracks. From now on it’s climate change/disruption 24/7. The fundamental formula is
climate change expertise = $$$ + lots of prestige and media coverage
We’re all climate “scientists” now…
Frank K. says:
November 8, 2010 at 8:09 pm
Zeke – they’re not dumb. They know the Climate Ca$h gravy train when it comes whistling down the tracks. From now on it’s climate change/disruption 24/7. The fundamental formula is
I have read and understood the above comment. I do not want these people any where near my billfold, my water spigget, or anything else http://hillary.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/21/clinton_is_promoting_cookstoves_to_save_the_world
they are after.
The undersigned,
Zeke
“AGU”…is awfully close to….”AGW”. Go figure.
Chris
John from CA,
Thanks for displaying the bogus pseudo-science from the AGU. I especially liked this mumbo-jumbo, taken straight from cargo cult ‘science’:
“Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change.”
As Karl Popper made clear, testability is an essential prerequisite of the scientific method. But in those two brief sentences, the AGU inadvertently falsifies anthropogenic global warming, by admitting that Antarctica is not affected by AGW, and by admitting that the purported changes are only regional in nature.
Regional climate change is simply another way of saying “natural climate variability”: the long accepted climate null hypothesis.
If global warming is caused by human activity, then it must have global effects. They cannot exclude one entire continent, and still claim that the effect is global.
Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove, because demanding answers is their job. The purveyors of the CAGW hypothesis have the obligation to show that their alternate hypothesis explains the climate better than natural variability. As usual, they have failed – and as usual, they run and hide out from any debate.
The AGU’s statement that “The Earth’s climate is now clearly out of balance” is directly contrary to all of the empirical evidence, and could have been written by George Orwell himself. In fact, today’s climate is more benign than it has been for almost the entire past ten thousand years.
MIT’s Prof Richard Lindzen wrote about organizations like the AGU that have been hijacked by corrupt individuals pushing their CAGW agenda. The AGW is a case in point [see Section 2].
And just remember, when the “climate” “scientists” start on their next Misery Tour (shortages, dirth and want),
The Cheifio says
“There Is No Shortage of Stuff”!
“In contrast to what has been reported in the LA Times and elsewhere, there is no campaign by AGU against climate skeptics or congressional conservatives,”
The LA Times is well known to be biased left. This story was desperation, and maybe spite, over the election results.
We’ll have an army of 700 scientists…..well, at least 39…..would you believe just John Abraham?
AGU President’s Message on InterAcademy Council’s Recommendations to Improve the IPCC
1 September, 2010
The American Geophysical Union affirms the basic scientific conclusions of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and endorses the recommendations of the InterAcademy Council for improving the IPCC process. Implementing these recommendations will strengthen IPCC’s efforts to ensure the best science is available to inform the public and policy makers about the reality of climate change and its consequences for the planet.
There go the Himalyan Glaciers…
Isn’t this just a new form of disinvitation?
President of AGU; We want to expand our influence and help create a sustainable future.
Abraham; Great! I’ll form a climate rapid response team that will debate the skeptics on their own turf. Conservative talk shows, skeptic blogs, and we’ll go straight at those moronic right wing bigots in congress.
Pres; Excellent idea! The AGU will back you in any way possible. We can round up dozens, no… hundreds of voluteers.
24 hours elapse
Vice President of AGU; Uhm… have you seen the reaction from the skeptics to Abraham’s press release?
Pres; No. They running scared? Crying to their mama’s?
VP; Uhm… no. They’re slobbering all over the opportunity to debate. They’re over joyed, chomping at the bit, they can hardly wait.
Pres; Are they insane? Don’t they know we’re scientists?
VP; Uhm… sorta. They say what’s going on isn’t science.
Pres; Like any of them would actually know…
VP; Uhm… you might want to look at some of these questions they are asking. Read number 1.
Pres; …..oh sh*t.
VP; …and number 2.
Pres;………..uh oh.
VP; It gets worse. Try number 3.
Pres;….. oh…. my…. goodness. OK here’s what we’re gonna do. Call a press conference and announce that we’re not an advocacy group and that we only do science not politics and Abrahams intiative has nothing to do with us.
VP; But you encouraged him….
Pres; That was before I knew about these questions! You want to see these questions in public? Are you nuts? Sc**w Abraham. We’ve got to drag dirt over this thing and bury it. It wasn’t us, we had nothing to do with it, and we don’t debate science with anyone, these skeptics with these questions most of all.
In a few years maybe they will be telling us that the whole “Man Made Climate Change” thing was caused by misreporting by the media and they meant something completely different.
James.
Oh…Ok.
Three little words: Starve their funding
This is where my kids would employ the most clever of rejoinders…
“Only monkeys look!”
We been punked by AGU! 🙂
I think we should come up with a list of simple, basic question for the AGU team to address.
Here’s a start-
1) What is the empirical evidence that increasing atmospheric water vapour is a positive forcing for temperature?
2) What is the scientific basis for the selection of 2 degrees centigrade as a measure of merit/concern/import for global temperature rise by IPCC and its masters?
3) What is the empirical evidence that there is the tropical tropospheric hot spot?
4) Since 25% of all human emissions of CO2 have occurred in the past 12 years, why have global temperatures been generally falling in that period?
Feel free to continue…………….
The fact that the AGU plan was taken up by alarmists at media outlets to attack skeptics means that is doomed from the start.
It highlights, once again, the nefarious relationship between scientists, scientific bodies and environmental journalists in promoting alarmism in the main stream media.
What was once considered the norm pre-Climatage is now considered to be totally counter-productive and damaging to all science.
The AGU have clearly not learnt that lesson. It needs to talk and listen to ordinary people and not enviro-journalists.
I don’t know why the AGU/Mann et al need to worry about replying to questions on climate change. Don’t they have a spambot replying to all questions?:
http://www.cfact.org/a/1836/Alarmist-spammer-unleashes-Twitterbot-to-stifle
OOn a serious note: The warmist camp is again refusing to discuss the issue scientifically with scientists, but instead are ready to discuss the issue with journalists. They don’t even accept the fact that there are many scientists; thousands of them in fact, who in varying degrees are sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis/theory. Being afraid to face these questioning and sceptical scientists, the warmists, after so many years of avoiding discussions and calls to come down from their pulpits, are now ‘ready’ to get questions from journalists.Just like a politician in front of a podium giving a press release, confirming that these scientists are acting more like politicians.
What would be the average scientific knowledge of many journalists? Sports journalists are normally failed sportsmen. What are climate journalists?
Suppose the gave a war and nobody came, from their own side I mean. First they thought they had 700 officers, then 39, then no one. We r still waiting.
Got to watch that pea, ‘Journalists are able to submit questions via email’ – “Sorry you are on the black list of media outlets we will not be answer questions from, please try again in about 20 years.”
‘AGU member-volunteers with Ph.D.s in climate science-related fields provide answers via email.’ – Sorry we have no volunteers at this time to deal with your questions please try again in about 20 years.
@davidmhoffer – very funny.
Not much to add to what’s already been said, but I found a commented-out, older version of their logo tucked away in the HTML of their website: http://www.agu.org/
The struck out logo reads:
<!–<p>AGU is a worldwide scientific community that advances, through unselfish cooperation in research, the understanding of Earth and space for the benefit of humanity.</p>–>
The new logo ,currently showing at the bottom of http://www.agu.org:
<p>AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.</p>
I think this proves, beyond any reasonable doubt, that they prefer to be known as “community galvanizers” rather than as a “scientific community”.
I’m guessing, but I’ll bet this new logo reflects a recent change in preferences of Christine McEntee, who replaced Robert Van Hook as AGU executive directory on Aug 30. Apparently she’s quite the “activist” compared to her predecessor.
It would seem the AGU forgot it’s own message in dealing with the media, “A
reporter is NOT in the business of educating the public.”
From the AGU’s own publication: “You and the Media. A researcher’s guide for dealing
successfully with the news media.”
Link to pdf here: http://www.agu.org/news/mass_media_fellowship/index.shtml
It begs the question if the AGU believe that the news media is not in the business of educating the public then why is the AGU attempting to use the news media to get its message across?
——–
davidmhoffer,
Very nice. Maybe we should do a book on the humor of climate science in the blogosphere.
John
I thank these folks …
… for pointing out the AGU Position Statement. Repeated once again with selected emphasis:
These people are unhinged kooks. This propaganda practically demands a SARC tag as it almost appears as a spoof of the ever-growing WarmList. Let me say it clearly for the Google indexing bots: (IMHO) the American Geophysical Union, aka AGU, is a crackpot organization clearly part of the worldwide AGW death-cult cabal, or at least its leadership is. If the members are not crackpots they have an obligation to their own integrity to fix it. They can start with that almost insane statement: “During recent millennia of relatively stable climate …”.
Has this ever happened before in human history where scientists the world over simultaneously went insane? Have they ever crawled this far out on a limb apparently daring us to saw it off and watch them fall on their @ss? This current crowd of kooks has clearly far exceeded the late 1970’s pop-science Ice Age fearmongers. The closest comparison I can think of is the Heaven’s Gate comet death-cult. Certainly we are witnessing a mass scientific suicidal movement, that which will wipe out some careers and reputations (thankfully) but I am beginning to fear that Science as a rigorous discipline will itself be killed. The question is whether the cause of death will be murder or suicide.
This is interesting.
http://www.archinnovations.com/news/architecture-practice/executive-vice-president-and-chief-executive-officer-christine-mcentee-departs-aia-to-lead-american-geophysical-union/
Quote, “McEntee increased the effectiveness of government advocacy involvement in legislation and media relations placement efforts, introduced innovations for the AIA web site and the Annual Convention, and expanded sustainability initiatives, including an integrated communications campaign explaining the role architects play in helping address climate change.”
http://www.agu.org/about/ed/goals_priorities.shtml
Quote, “McEntee said she appreciates and deeply respected science. She recognizes, though, that some people may be concerned that a person who is not a geoscientist will lead AGU. “That concern occurred when I was at the American College of Cardiology. I wasn’t a cardiologist. When I entered AIA, I wasn’t an architect. I understand and appreciate that concern,” McEntee said. ”
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/cities-mull-how-to-sell-green-agendas/
Quote, “If you go at it as a climate change issue, you won’t get anywhere,” said Christine McEntee, an executive vice president at the American Institute of Architects. “I believe it’s a huge moral problem, but not everybody does,” she said. “But everyone wants to see their energy bills lower and see daylight in their buildings and have more walking opportunities.”
Here is non-scientist leading the AGU media campaign on climate change and who believes it presents a huge moral problem. That is a subjective way, a notion of what represents good and what is bad, to present science. It is also strange that someone so moral could act in an unethical way in deliberately masking concerns over climate change by using a different methods to achieve certain goals.
It raises the question why did the AGU appoint someone like Christine McEntee, a non-scientist, to head the organisation? It seems the only skill Ms McEntee brought to the AGU was of someone who could spin and conflate the issue of climate chnage.
AGU’s 2010 Fall meeting is coming in the Bay area. Unfortunately, “the largest global meeting of Earth and space scientists” will be tilting at dust motes and carbon dioxide molecules.
Meanwhile, X-ray flares from the sun send the geomagnetic field quaking, the ionosphere rippling and electric currents coursing through the soil. And gamma rays burst more than 50 times a day from the cloudtops at energies seen on stars and supposed black holes. They can’t even tell us exactly how lightning strikes even now but plainly the earth is responding powerfully to its space environment and the electric currents are of no interest to “the largest global meeting of Earth and space scientists.”
“Save 22 Pounds of CO2 Emissons
AGU is proud to be named the first ever BART Sustainable Travel Conference! Help us Go Green by purchasing round-trip BART tickets to/from SFO. You’ll not only save 22 pounds of CO2 emissions, but AGU proceeds from the sale of pre-purchased vouchers/tickets will be donated to Save the Bay.
Here are two outstanding lectures you won’t want to miss:
Science and Policy Union Lecture Presented by John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology & Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, will address Scientists, Science Advice, and Science Policy in the Obama Administration”
Yes, scientists the world over simultaneously went insane, or at least irrational and unscientific, on a frequent basis. Let’s make a contest to see who can cite the most number of historical instances when, as President Reagan once remarked, “they know so much that isn’t so.”
Not to worry about the latest news from AGU, we still have our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists……. oops, wait, they are still on their campaign to be sure debate doesn’t happen. Please see “Silencing global warming critics” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/08/silencing_global_warming_criti.html
The AGU has clarified, without meaning to, that they are a post-normal scientific society. Geologists, planetary scientists, etc. now need to create a new “normal” scientific society to replace this corrupted one.
Good grief! These incompetent people can’t even issue a presser without confusion.
I am disappointed, I was hoping that one of them would come to town for something interesting.
““AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization,” says climate scientist and AGU President Michael J. McPhaden”
Definently no politics then… riiight…
Smokey says:
November 8, 2010 at 8:44 pm
John from CA,
Thanks for displaying the bogus pseudo-science from the AGU. I especially liked this mumbo-jumbo, taken straight from cargo cult ‘science’:
…
=======
Its beyond tragic, I’m very surprised they have any “Science”membership left to claim.
WORTH REPEATING AND ADDING TO:
Glenn says:
November 8, 2010 at 5:17 pm
“AGU is a scientific society, not an advocacy organization,” says climate scientist and AGU President Michael J. McPhaden. ”
Yea, right.
“This AGU Letter to the Editor applauds the denial of a demand by the Virginia Attorney General for private e-mails and other documents related to the research of climate scientist and former University of Virginia professor Michael Mann.”
http://www.agu.org/
ADDITIONAL NOTE FROM TOM:
The AGU president also labeled a public official as a “climate change denier” in his letter to the editor. This is not a science lable but a political one.
Perhaps they aspite to be “a scientific society, not an advocacy organization” but they are clearly an advocacy organization of the first order.