Martin Hovland writes in with this statement. It seems that AGU Position Statement keeps costing them members.
He writes:
Although I have been a long-time member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), I hereby refuse to pay my membership fees. The main problem is the organization’s Position Statement on the purported “Human impacts on Climate” This statement includes the following statements: “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.”
As an active communicator in geophysics, spanning subjects ranging from marine geology to climate science, and an expert reviewer for the IPCC Working Group 1 on the up-coming Assessment Report 5 (my comments have just been submitted to the organization), I can no longer bear to support the AGU.
Martin Hovland
I fail to understand the knee-jerk reaction to those who work in industry when it comes to issues like this.
It is my understanding that those individuals’ work is subject to the hardest test to pass, it works in real life, and failure can result in lawsuits, fines, jail time etc. Those who work in industry are paid to produce results which are testable, verifiable, which bring profit (that evil word) to the corporation for whom they work.
Those working in academia are largely insulated from this, thus have much less need for rigor in their analyses and face no penalty other than the criticism of others who may disagree with them with no fear of further penalty. Their need for rigor, for sound basis in fact, for verifiability of their results or even for proposing theories which are falsifiable is, for the most part, nonexistent.
Personally, in most cases, i would take the word of a practicing engineer over that of a pure academic any day.
Could it just maybe, even remotely be, that his mind is working clearly? That his thought process(es) are not befuddled and he doesn’t exist in a near permanent personal state of stress, irritability, complete with feelings of guilt and low level depression. That he see through the torrent of crap and then speak out against many of his long-time peers reads volumes- he’s. got. self. confidence; he can call “BS” and has the mental where-with-all and intellect to defend that position.
So- what widely available ‘substance’ that a person/group/population or even entire civilisation have access to brings any or all of those traits I’ve just described?
What would happen if the vast majority of any given population were affected? Would a succession of ill thought out opinions within the populations, resultant ‘bad decisions’ by their elected leaders and consequent ‘not good actions’ have any significant effect on the long term viability and survival of that population?
(Ignore me, I’m just thinking out loud really)
The AGU sez (paraphased): The climate IS warming and YOU’RE TO BLAME! So you MUST give up all fossil fuels, stop eating, stop polluting, just STOP, STOP, STOP! (errr…but before you do all that stuff, please send in your annual dues – thank$).
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. Is it the conservative 2 degrees celsius? Is it the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions? Is it the word “disruptive”?
Or is it because he works for the oil industry? http://www.martinhovland.com/
Oh come on, Garrett. You can do better than question a man’s employment, surely? Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working? In a department store? On a fishing boat? Of course he works in an extractive industry. geophysical – stuff to do with the earth.
Of course, by your same reasoning, anyone who works in (a) government (b) anything even remotely to do with renewables (c) anything remotely to do with green activism is similarly tainted with bias and to be ignored, right? I mean, we can only listen to people who have absolutely no skin in the game, right?
Kaboom says:
February 8, 2012 at 11:42 pm
I cannot bare illiteracy…..
Surely you mean you cannot bear illiteracy?
Funny. Very.
Just so we can calibrate the level of sacrifice being made here, annual membership at AGU is $20, and you get Eos and Physics Today all year.
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:02 am
….
At least he posted an interesting link. Better than the other anonymous cowards. Ok, Jubal Harshaw is a fictional non-coward. How about anonymous coward (though O.B. is a trademark) and cowardly identity thief?
reply to brc’s comment:
“Of course, by your same reasoning, anyone who works in (a) government (b) anything even remotely to do with renewables (c) anything remotely to do with green activism is similarly tainted with bias and to be ignored, right? I mean, we can only listen to people who have absolutely no skin in the game, right?”
You mean to tell me that if somebody from Greenpeace or WWF left a similar society that you wouldn’t think it was a bigger deal? Of course it’s important who they work for, though I do realize that ad hominem arguments are inherently weak. If a green activist resigned from an oil industry board most people would shrug their shoulders and say “so what, where’s the surprise”. Similarly, if a geologist whose career is focused on aiding an oil company leaves an organisation that openly criticizes fossil fuel burning, I’m not too surprised. He may have scientific and ethical reasons for doing so, and I for one would love to see them. I prefer debating science.
“Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working?”
Well, flicking through some of the most recent articles on one of the AGU’s journals, Geophysical Research Letters, most of the authors are university researchers from every corner of the planet. Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
I beat him to it by a number of years. My statement is simple: I think it is the purpose of the AGU, AMS, and any number of other societies to further science and not to make policy statements. I do not care what the statement is. It is not in keeping with the concept of a free and open discussion of science. A policy statement of “AGW is not supported by the facts.” would be just as bad.
JPY says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:10 am
“Just so we can calibrate the level of sacrifice being made here, annual membership at AGU is $20, and you get Eos and Physics Today all year.”
Actually, that IS a bargain. Most engineering societies are well over $100 / year.
JPY 5:10am
Thank you for that insight JPY- you must be exhausted.
Energy companies are so titled because they provide energy. They are less concerned about the form of that energy then the profitability of providing it. If we go to all wind energy by government fiat, Exxon will probably become the largest wind energy company.
If you demonize all providers of energy, try living north of 40 degrees north latitude in the U.S. without someone providing your heating energy.
I have yet to hear of anyone directly proposing abandoning our northern cities although this would substantially reduce our carbon footprint.
Did Al Gore know something when he bought his palace in southern Cal?
Garrett says…. “Or is it because he works for the oil industry?”
From http://www.ieses.fsu.edu/Symposia/Symposium-on-Offshore-Energy-Part-I-Oil-and-Gas/Biography-Martin-Hovland-Ph.D:
“Dr. Martin Hovland is an Adjunct Professor for the Centre of Geobiology at the University of Bergen as well as a marine geological specialist and project manager for StatoilHydro. He is a lecturer at the University of Tromsø, teaching geohazards. Dr. Hovland served in the Norwegian Air Force as a meteorologist and taught mathematics and geography in Zambia, Africa. He was an Invited Scientist on Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) Leg 46, a member of ODP Pollution Prevention and Safety Panel, is currently a member of the Environmental Protection and Safety Panel for Texas A&M University, and is a Fellow of the Geological Society of London.
Since 1980, Dr. Hovland has published over one hundred peer reviewed articles and four books. His research includes deep-water coral reefs, drilling of marine gas hydrates, the effect of gas through the seafloor and mapping shallow gas through the seafloor.”
My guess is that Dr. Hovland’s opinion is much more influenced by his strong science background, his geology training, and a stiff spine. Bravo Dr. Hovland!
Dr. Hovland:
Thank you very much for taking the time to come by and respond.
I find it puzzling (ironic? hypocritical?) that people think that oil money corrupts but that government money does not.
Hydrocarbon energy companies are the demons responsible for AGW according to climate change alarmists and the dubious science they propagate. Their minions are evil.
I see a different set of demons. Like the chicken or the egg, I’m not sure who came first, the Green radicals or governments that fund scientists who promote global warmism with false research. The question is who corrupted whom first?
I am confident that my demons are worse those of the climate alarmists. In fact, this is incontrovertible.
max says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:00 am
“I ask David, UK which is Statoil considered, Big Oil or Big Government since it is effectively a branch of the Norwegian government (over 2/3rds owner)?”
Why, Big Oil government of course. But as that government also promotes electric cars, carbon sequestration and ridiculously expensive and inefficient osmosis power plants, make that a Big Green Oil Government.
He works for Statoil? Pity, the real money in Global Warming comes from State governments.
You’d think that geologists would be the first to appreciate that “natural variation” covers far more hot/cold, wet/dry extremes than anything we’ve experienced in the last 100/500/1000 years. These are mere blinks of the eye.
Yet, the Geological Society of America adopted an inane IPCC-compliant position statement on “climate change” in 2006. My efforts to reinforce the distinct perspective of geologic time were ignored, so I resigned the society after 25+ years membership.
GSA revised the statement in 2010, when ample evidence was available that much of the IPCC analysis was crap – – and it only got more strident. The Greens had infiltrated and taken over.
Buh-bye
Garrett says:
“It would be nice if he could be more precise as to why he can no longer bear to support the AGU. Is it the conservative 2 degrees celsius? Is it the 50% reduction in CO2 emissions? Is it the word “disruptive”?”
Precise?? The reason is obvious: none of the AGU’s statements are factual. They are deliberate misrepresentations of what geologists know. The planet has been much warmer in the geologic past, with no “climate disruption”. And if the U.S. reduced CO2 emissions by 50%, you can be certain that China, India, Russia, and a hundred smaller countries would more than make up the difference. Explain why hobbling our economy for no benefit whatever makes any sense.
The AGU, like the APS and most other professional organizations, have given up being honest professionals, and have become nothing but CAGW propagandists, disseminating lies written by a small clique who have insinuated themselves into official positions. The membership, as we can see, knows what is going on but has zero say in it. The only thing they can do is resign in disgust.
The AGU could send out a simple membership questionnaire asking: should the AGU issue such policy positions? But they will never do that, because the few controlling the message want to continue spreading their lies. They have an agenda, and the truth isn’t part of their false narrative.
mark wagner says:
February 9, 2012 at 7:12 am
I find it puzzling (ironic? hypocritical?) that people think that oil money corrupts but that government money does not.
Quite ! – but of course government money is public money, and the elected government is doing the bidding of the people, as are it’s agents – so that’s all right then, yes? /sarc…..
(But of course, there’s always the senior civil servants that actually hold/pull the strings – the beauracrates, anal retentives, the lot of them, promoting and placing their ‘ilk’ into every available high office (or rather orifice?) to ensure control!)
Let’s see, the people in the best position to look at the geological record to look at past climates would be the geologists. There really are only two main places for a geologist to gain employment: Academia, and the resource exploration and extraction industries (Oil, Gas, Metals, Coal, etc.). There are only just so many academic positions, so the majority of geologists will be found in the other pursuits. The exploration geologist probably gets 10 times the field data collection and analysis time over the academic. I would tend to trust the one getting his hands dirty to the one in the office in the ivory tower. Just my two cents on this whole “but he works for big energy” canard.
It’s funny, lots of back and forth here and it seems just one other commenter noticed or at least mentioned Dr. Hovland’s response. I too thank Dr. Hovland for taking time to comment here, well done.
Garrett says:
February 9, 2012 at 5:56 am
“Where else is someone in the Geophysical union going to be working?”
Well, flicking through some of the most recent articles on one of the AGU’s journals, Geophysical Research Letters, most of the authors are university researchers from every corner of the planet. Most universities (internationally at least) are not-for-profit organisations and researchers are often akin to civil servants with very secure jobs. Sure, their research may sometimes get funded by private companies and organizations, but not their salaries.
———————————————————————————————————
Not sure where you’re from Garret but in my neck of the woods if you are employed at a University as research faculty your position is pretty much only as secure as the amount of grant funding you can obtain each year. Yes, the University technically pays your salary but your grants are what pay for your lab and staff…without that money your are not doing any research…
As we have seen over and over in the “climate change” arena, if you are not towing the party line you are not getting the grants, from the government or the organizations. Therefore, you are not going to be employed for very long….