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
Obviously, those worried about global warming are all those rich fat cat liberals with beach front properties insured, in the US, by the federal government insurance plans.
I’m betting Garrett drives an automobile that uses liquid fuel derived from (Gasp!) petroleum, that his computer uses electricity derived primarily from (Oh, the Horrors!) coal or natural gas, and that the seat he’s sitting on is made from plastics, wood and metal derived from (No Way!) drilling, mining, farming, and manufacturing–all dependent on petroleum for production! I’m also betting the building he’s sitting in comes from the same sources–even if he were sitting in an OWS tent somewhere clicking away.
Get the picture, Garrett? (You don’t let the necessities or luxuries of life influence your opinion on anything, do you?)
Give Garrett a break. He’s only pointing out what I read here sometimes with posters questioning the motives of some AGW believers because of who pays thier bills. Call a spade a spade everytime… not just when it suits you. Be consistent, that’s all. Most here already know that AGW is a scam… but that should not stop us from questioning everyone… including Dr. Hovland as to why its taken hinm so long to come around. I know where I’ve stood all along, even when being a skeptic brought criticisms from my co-workers. Dr. Hovland… thanks for your decision, but what took you so long?
Garrett says: (about Martin Hovland)
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. (…)
Or is it because he works for the oil industry?
Martin Hovland says: (about his reasons)
February 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
Garrett says: (to brc, about Martin Hovland)
February 9, 2012 at 5:56 am
*****
Well, Garrett, your own words and actions:
You’ve attacked a man’s integrity (in an ignorant non sequitur, in my opinion) and in the same post requested more information about his reasons for his decision.
2 hours later Martin Hovland responded and provided this information to you—politely, despite your rudeness—and even addressed your non sequitur ad hominem.
3 more hours later you took time to defend your position in a reply to brc but you ignored Martin Hovland’s explanation.
I’ve met people like you before. Do you know what we call them?
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.
====================================
onlyme says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:48 am
…Personally, in most cases, i would take the word of a practicing engineer over that of a pure academic any day.
====================================
As a political science major I agree with the first quote and as a construction worker I overwhelmingly agree with the second – I’ll take real world experience over imagined academic knowledge any day (and have multiple stories to support why, but most are hard to tell w/o expletives though, hehe)
@Garret,
Sorry to tell you this, but Universities are for profit. They make a profit off of skimming grants and tuition; they make investments like any business and have all sorts of business accounts, and a leadership structure the same as any corporation just with different names. A researcher’s position is only “secure” if they get tenure (not even then these days), other than that they are used by the university for their grant money, and if that dries up they have to leave after a certain number of years (usually it’s 5 once you start working at a university you must reach tenure or move somewhere else, but it’s a rough estimate and all universities do their own thing; but there’s job evaluations just like any corporation). Don’t be fooled, a university functions like any business, except it also gets government funding to help expand its coffers. But that’s how the system works, and why it works–research and teaching are expensive endeavors! If you can’t make profit, you go broke fast; and the government is notoriously unreliable.
People who work for universities are just as potentially biased as any working for any company.
Also, I would like to refer you to the fact that plastics are petroleum products. Oil is required for the modern civilization, and not simply for burning. We would have none of our modern world without the plastics from oil. The ignorance of people, on that subject, who denounce oil is astounding.
Working in the oil industry as opposed to the Marxist political activist who seem to be using every formerly scientific society as a tool to enslave mankind through fear, envy, and class warfare? That AGU position statement is loaded with Marxist jargon and is written from a Marxist perspective. Using Marxist jargon and looking at things from a Marxist perspective makes one a Marxist. Plain and simple. And that the trolls are using Marxist style denigration of Martin Hovland, and started their attack on him with amazing rapidity really proves that this is not about science but the destruction of capitalism.
Just look at the idiocy that Garrett is spouting. Equating working for Greenpeace with working in the oil industry? Pure Marxist non-sense!
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.”
I have to disagree. Publicly announcing ones skepticism can cost a great deal more than you might imagine. Stick that in your calibration.
Ask yourself the hard question (if you have the courage); why go to such great lengths to smear the man while ignoring what he has written?
I dropped my AGU membership over 10 years ago because of all the global warming articles in EOS. I found their one-sidedness on the issue to be quite irritating.
Garrett:
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.
You might want to give a good read through Lee Smolin’s The Trouble With Physics, and you might get an idea of exactly how much playing politics and “toeing the line” can mean in academia – even in the hard sciences.
Wellington, in your response to Garret.
I have met people like you before, do you know what we call them?
Where i come from we call them,
S&!@ur momisugly for brains
That is just me but i agree with your question to him as i went thru all comments that he has not taken the time to address the good Doctors reply, That Garret ask for.
… I look forward to seeing the comments Mr. Hovland submitted to the IPCC as an expert reviewer on the up-coming assessment report 5 ; )
3 cheers (Skål!) to Martin for his resignation (and no, it’s not about the actual dues, you lightweights). But yes, he deserves to be applauded for his courteous response to an underhanded stab. To Garrett, who requested the clarification: you owe Martin a thank you AND an apology.
For those nitpicking on misspelling [ref: bear / bare]: try penning your next comments in perfect Nynorsk for a change. Get a life already.
For more relevance, here’s a link to a report written by Andrew Montford (author of “The Hockey Stick Illusion”) on a similar slow corruption of one of the oldest scientific societies on the planet from the pursuit of scientific truths to advocacy / activism and all which that entails:
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/montford-royal_society.pdf
Perhaps we’ll get more brave scientists like Martin Hovland and Ivar Giaever (also a Norwegian, by the way) to stand up for science in the face of political correctness. Perhaps, just perhaps, they are both angry at their own Nobel Peace Prize Committee for showering praise on the IPCC and Al Gore (that being a blatant political maneuver if there ever was one).
I, for one, would welcome such an honest step. Perhaps we’ll reach a “tipping point” on the subject. It’d be a positive step for science associations to decouple themselves from politics!
Kurt in Switzerland
Martin Hovland says:
February 9, 2012 at 2:59 am
“Here’s are my reasons:
…… My retirement from the AGU is an official demonstration against scientific organizations that do not treat natural science as an open entity any more. I fear that this can seriously compromise Western Scientific work for decades to come. ”
You express the sentiments of many of us, Mr. Hovland!
Thank You, Sir, for your direct, open, and courageous stand!
When any scientist or engineer is accused by AGWers of being employed by big oil, industry or whatever, I invariably think and increasingly say; then this guy is producing or helping to produce something useful and beneficial to human beings. He/she is WORKING for a living, not spongeing grants off the taxpayer!
I am so tired of people who have little intellectual ability and cannot respond with reasoned argument – mostly AGW supporters by the way.
When Monckton toured Australia and not one of the prophets of doom even had the courage to stand by their professed convictions and argue their case – when it was obvious Monckton demolished his opponent at the press club and staggering from that body blow – did the AGW proponents come out and present a convincing case ?
NO – they resorted to cheap (and incorrect) slander about his status as a Lord based – as is usual for their creed – on faulty and easily disproved evidence that he was NOT a lord after all.
Really, who really cared anyway – this cheap shot to discredit came from a mindset that has no intellectual fortitude.
As it turned out Monckton was easily able to discredit them further by disproving their lies again.
They ended up with egg on their face again – but wasn’t it brave of all our “expert” climatologists to run and hide when challenged ?
Martin @ur momisugly 21
The scientific community has been approaching an answer you don’t agree with, you decided to abandon the community. Not really a good reason to “retire” from AGU.
Put it another way. There is an entire community dedicated to not using vaccines based on one paper that linked the use of vaccines to autism. Problem is, every, and I mean EVERY, paper ever published in the field has NEVER indicated a link. And in the end this paper was officially recinded and the author was showed to have manipulated data. And quite literally, many thousands of children’s lives have been put at risk because of this “doctor”.
In the United States, the medical professionals have to fight with some parents based on this one flawed paper. And what does the anti-vaccine community think? They deserve equal standing with regards to the scientific consensus. Sorry, but NO. They don’t. It is NOT an equal arguement. There is a wonderful show on NPR (the Diane Rehm Show) that had Seth Mnookin on . One caller mentioned that it should be more of a two-sided conversation. Here is the response:
“REHM (11:47:47)
And you talked about having a two-sided conversation, Nelson. That’s precisely what I did not wish to have since Dr. Wakefield’s study has been so severely discredited. Seth.
MNOOKIN (11:48:06)
Diane, I think that’s such a good point and I think that that sort of instinct to have “both sides” really does damage, not just in this debate. A parallel that I draw is the Birther Movement. The fact that some people believe that President Obama was not born in the United States doesn’t make that a valid debate. But again and again, you saw news organizations presenting it as, well, let’s have this person who believes that he was and points to his birth certificate and all of the factual evidence and this person who just feels like he wasn’t. And I think that’s horribly irresponsible of the press.”
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
sensor operator says:
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
Let me introduce you to the scientific method: there is no testable, empirical evidence showing that CO2 is the cause of any of those things. None. And it is irresponsible to imply it. The climate null hypothesis has never been falsified, meaning everything you cite is no different from natural variability. So arguing that it is not natural variability borders on lunacy. It’s simply the argumentum ad ignorantium fallacy: “Since I can’t think of anything except CO2 that causes these things, then it must be CO2. Sheer ignorance.
Furthermore, the onus is not on skeptics to prove anything. The onus is on the irresponsible alarmist crowd to produce evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of any of your wild-eyed examples. So far, they have failed.
From your cut ‘n’ paste example, what you really want to do is silence all contrary scientific opinions. You certainly have failed to make a case that CO2 is harmful, so Brownshirt tactics are all you’re left with. It’s clear that you obviously want to stifle the debate that your crowd is losing.
All of the alarmist predictions regarding CO2 have failed. Every one of them. In any other branch of the hard sciences, such an incompetent record of failure would result in the proponents of their conjecture to be laughed off campus, and their funding would be cut to zero. Explain why, despite being wrong time after time after time, you believe those scaremongers have any credibility or legitimacy left?
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.
No. They bring in an enormous amount of money, especially from the Government. This money is hugely important to the universities for which they work. Their ability to bring in the lucre is absolutely reflected in their salaries and other “perks”.
Their hands are by no means clean.
C’mon, a ham sandwich with a keyboard could be an IPCC reviewer. Use the Google and pay due respect
————————-
Martin Hovland, Ph.D. 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.
————————-
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
It’s time to start being responsible scientists. Just because you don’t agree with the result, unless you have some evidence to the contrary, especially given the enormous amount of supporting evidence from crop migration, timing, species migration, ice and glacier loss, ocean acidification, etc, you can’t just claim you don’t agree. Back it up with some evidence and stop being irresponsible.
In the 201 years since Cornelius Vanderbilt first earned his money by ferrying passengers across the ice-filled Hudson River flowing between Staten Island and Manhattan, who is denying that temperatures have risen slightly? Further, will you deny that higher CO2 levels and (that 1/2 of one degree) temperature increase since 1950 have increased ALL plant growth – for food, fuel, fodder, forage, and feeding ALL life on this planet – by 12 to 27 percent? Will you deny that malaria deaths have declined in all areas serviced by a free and competitive economy? Name the ten consumers actually, realistically threatened or harmed by the world’s use of fossil energy, and I’ll begin naming the 4 billion using that energy to save lives, increase clean water, reprocess sewage into clean water, heat their homes, produce food, ship food, fuel, and people, irrigate crops and improve their health and well-being.
Over the past 201 years, there has been no consistent relationship between rising, steady, and falling CO2 levels and rising, falling, and steady temperatures. And, in fact, for only 25 of those 201 years have both CO2 and temperatures risen at the same time.
Eli Rabett says:
February 9, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Are you suggesting that the IPCC treats a marine geologist as it does a ham sandwich? That could explain a lot of things.
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
If by “scientific community” you mean the 40 or so scientists in “The Team” that incestuously support “The Cause”, you might want to re-examine your stance on the biggest scientific fraud ever perpetrated on humanity (in terms of wasted wealth, human life, and collateral damage to other disciplines).
The only thing this “scientific community” is approaching, Sensor, is a cliff-like deflation in their reputations and, without doubt, their funding when the hue and cry across the world rises to a crescendo no politician can ignore.
UPDATE: Their reputations have already been tossed over the cliff; the only thing left is the sudden stop at the bottom, although we can hear them screaming.
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
How can this not be significant? Martin Hovland “can no longer bear to support the AGU” because he knows the AGW science is not valid and does not support the global carbon control impostions on the world’s countries.
Sensor operator says:
February 9, 2012 at 1:28 pm
I also see you omitted TEMPERATURE from you list, Sensor. But based on how Smokey deftly refuted any argument that CO2 enhances global temperature, you were correctly irresponsible in doing so.