Doug Jones writes in with this:
WUWT readers may be interested to see what the AAAS is doing with members’ funding. I’m amused that they baldly admit that they want to “influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”
What is being said here with “Science Is Not Enough” is:
“If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you have the law on your side, pound the law. If you have neither on your side, pound the table.”
The full text of the email I received is below. Sad, simply sad.
Note the twitter hashtag if you want to participate in the online discussion.
[Note the press release is here: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2012/0209am_webcast.shtml – Anthony]
===============================================================
From: AAAS Office of Public Programs
To: [undisclosed recipients]
Sent: Fri, February 17, 2012 5:02:17 AM
Subject: Join Live Webcast from AAAS 2012 – Saturday, 18 February at 5 pm PST
View on mobile or on web page
Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? Find out by joining us for a Webcast of the plenary panel Science Is Not Enough, featuring three of the world’s most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators during the 2012 AAAS Annual Meeting.
This exceptional Webcast—set for 5:00—6:30 p.m. PT on Saturday, February 18—will arm scientists, educators, students, and citizens around the world with messages to help influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.
Log onto http://www.aaas.org/go/enough and live-Tweet your questions to #AAASMtg.
Participants in this 90-minute discussion will be:
James Hansen, whose testimony before Congressional committees in the 1980s helped raise broad awareness of the global climate change issue. Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities, for identifying ineffectual policies as “greenwash,” and for outlining the actions that the public must take to protect the future of young people and other species on the planet. He is currently the Director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Adjunct Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University.
Olivia Judson, who explores the intersection of science and society, focusing on such controversial issues as the actuarial use of DNA and the potential to grow human organs. Dr. Judson has presented science issues on television many times, most recently when she appeared in an episode of PBS’s “Nova” about DNA connections to evolution. She has written a weekly blog on evolutionary biology for the New York Times website, called “The Wild Side.” She is currently a Research Fellow at Imperial College in London.
Hans Rosling, co-founder of the Gapminder Foundation, which developed the Trendalyzer software for converting international statistics into moving, interactive, and enjoyable graphics. Dr. Rosling promotes a fact-based world view through increased use and understanding of freely accessible public statistics. He presented the television documentary “The Joy of Stats,” which was broadcast in the United Kingdom in 2010. He is currently Professor of International Health at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.
AAAS President Nina Fedoroff will introduce the speakers, and the session will be moderated by Emmy-award winning journalist Frank Sesno, former CNN Washington bureau chief, who is currently Professor and Director of the School of Media and Public Affairs at George Washington University.
Again, the session will begin at 5:00 p.m., PT on Saturday, February 18. Click here to watch what should be one of the most informative yet entertaining Saturday evenings you have had in a while! Be sure to submit your questions via Twitter by using the hashtag #AAASMtg.
So the American Association for the Abandonment of Science is having a meeting. Who cares, they jumped the shark years ago when they ABANDONED THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN FAVOR OF ADVOCACY!!!
Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change…
========
The climate ain’t changing….we’re tired of all this doom and gloom crap…..and we all have bigger problems to fix
“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about climate change, water scarcity, fisheries depletion, and a host of other science-related global challenges? ”
Well, as far as us “citizens” are concerned, the reason we are unconcerned about climate change is that we are more concerned about our jobs, our lives, our kids, and our futures. People like Hansen are instead bent on destroying the jobs (and lives) of average people working industries they don’t like (like the oil and gas industries).
What we the citizens should ask is…why is it that these clowns pass judgment upon the “citizens” while pulling down very generous six figure government/academic salaries + benefits? They simply DO NOT CARE about ordinary people and their lives. They live in fantasy worlds.
Looks like the AAAS will have to register as a political lobbying group.
Are they currently tax exempt?
On another energy topic, this is worth considering:
New study shows no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing
VANCOUVER, British Columbia — Hydraulic fracturing of shale formations to extract natural gas has no direct connection to reports of groundwater contamination, based on evidence reviewed in a study released Thursday by the Energy Institute at The University of Texas at Austin.
The study, released at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia, found that many problems ascribed to hydraulic fracturing are related to processes common to all oil and gas drilling operations, such as casing failures or poor cement jobs.
University researchers also concluded that many reports of contamination can be traced to above-ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling, rather than from hydraulic fracturing per se, said Charles “Chip” Groat, an Energy Institute associate director who led the project.
“These problems are not unique to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
I haven’t renewed my membership in AAAS but I should do that to get what “science” they DO report. It’s too bad they can’t simply report on the science.
“influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument.”
I don’t see this language on the AAAS website anywhere. Did the change it?
Hansen’s involved, ah that’s OK then, the skeptics secret weapon! Except he hasn’t worked that out yet…..
“Why do so many political leaders and citizens remain unconcerned about…” “…water scarcity…?”
Umm, cuz we live on the water planet?
Just to be clear, the “pound the table” quotation is your addition here, Anthony, not from the AAAS press release, correct?
Andrew Weaver at AAAS in Vancouver.
Going public the next frontier for scientists
http://www.vancouversun.com/story_print.html?id=6149027&sponsor=
Larry make up your own mind.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2012.png
There is NO trend, there is no warming from NASA itself, Currently temperatures are at -0.09C so don’t blame the wild weather on global warming, there is no global warming etc….
That’s a shame. Hans Rosling is brilliant, funny, erudite and (as far as his TV series showed) eminently sensible. What’s he doing on a panel with the ghastly Hansen?
As for “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” – do better science.
LarryL says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:20 pm
I believe the point of the conference title is that the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public. …
Larry,
Any statement that begins “I believe …” is a statement of faith, not science.
As regards the “overwhelming” nature of the “science” supporting AGW, that science consists of a laboratory experiment over 100 years old – the sole truly empirical element in the AGW view – and a vast number of physics principles that individually are known to be very useful, which have been employed in one manner or another in computer models. When you examine the debate what you find is that “experts” disagree on the implications, the implementations and the interactions of those physical principles in the computer models. This in itself is more underwhelming than overwhelming; not even experts agree on the manner in which known, useful physical principles interact in nature.
When you contrast model output with the data from historical geology and glaciology, the catastrophic forecasts of Hansen et al. are not just thrown into question, they are disproven. Atmospheric CO2 has been many times higher in concentration than the purported catastrophe-inducing levels bruited about by Hansen et al. The preconditions of purported environmental catastrophe that appear in the models have in fact dominated the geological history of the real world for the majority of the last half-billion years. In short, since we are not now living in a run-away greenhouse environment, it cannot happen. Things simply cannot happen in the manner the models indicate or the catastrophes forecast in the models would already be here and would have been here for 100s of millions of years, thus the models are wrong.
Presumably all the correct physical processes are there in the models, but the interactions between them are clearly wrongly modeled. If they were not, the human race would not exist.
LarryL says:
February 17, 2012 at 12:20 pm
… the science is there, and has been for decades, but it is not getting through to the public …
I think the warming is there too – it’s just not getting through to the public, and hasn’t for nearly 15 years now.
“most knowledgeable and compelling science communicators” James (Jerry Falwell) Hansen?
Anyone who would say that the science is overwhelming must indeed be overwhelmed by science.
LarryL says:
“The “Science” of supporting anthopogentic climate change is overwhelming, but because of the extensive campaign of denial and misinformation, “the science” just isn’t enough. “
So, you’re saying that given enough money I could convince half the population that the earth is flat or the moon is made of cheese while 100+ times more is being spent to convince them I’m wrong?
“This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.”
Can you name one such group that is funded on par with WWF?
Stop drinking the kool-aid. Evidence of global warming is not evidence of anthropogenic climate change. Sporadic correlation is certainly not causation. Look at the entire climatic history, not just the blink of an eye (relatively speaking) they show you. Don’t just consider what they tell you, consider what they don’t; I can make a list of facts to support banning water that doesn’t make it sensible. Notice how they’re always citing potentials (“could”, “may”, large ranges for numerical values) instead of absolutes. Settled science is stated in terms that are absolute: earth is round, moon is not made of cheese, carbon dioxide is a GHG not climate sensitivity is between 1.4 and 5.0 or climate change may cause this or that or my absolute favorite “is consistent with”. A light in the sky “is consistent with” an alien invasion, doesn’t make it so. These are the signs of making a mountain out of a mole hill.
Phil – that is an old canard heard in Law School, to teach the budding attorneys how to argue cases depending on the culpability of the client and the state of the, as lawyers say, “facts.”
“This conference is about messaging – how to “cut through” the incredible amount of mis-information that is being conveyed by motivated and well funded groups with the sole purpose of creating doubt about well-established science.”
Oh, Larry, give it a rest with the “well funded groups”. As the fallout from the recent Heartland story has demonstrated, the alarmists have been massively funded by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions. Must be billions by now. I contrast Anthony did his surface stations research with no pay and the help of volunteers.
Truth shines out. It doesn’t need messaging. Deal with it.
Smokey said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Also sound very sexist 😉
What J says is undoubtedly true; that’s what the Union of Concerned Scientists, Heartland and various other political advocacy groups are for. I find it sad that AAAS and The Royal Society forget the purpose for which they were formed: scientific advancement.
Craig says February 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm: “I don’t see this language on the AAAS website anywhere. Did the change it?”
That’s very odd. You must be on the wrong web site.
Go to http://www.aaas.org. In the upper left is a search box. Enter the phrase “influence public perceptions and debate” (in fact you can copy and paste it from this very sentence) and click on the red magnifying glass.
You will then get a page of 20 hits, the first three of which contain the exact and precise bolded phrase “influence public perceptions and debate.”
Easy, eh?
There is a great difference between science and politics. Science is about understanding. Politics is about stories and persuasion. The AAAS has crossed the line from science to politics.
The Scientists’ job is to provide data, hypotheses and interpretations thereof. It is not their job to fight for the acceptance of the data. hypotheses and their interpretation. Other people can do this, or fight for their rejection, The latter is not science – it is lobbying or religion.
All over the World from AAAS to the Royal Society, Science organisations have been crossing the line into the World of Politics. It may be because they find more money there.
Billy Liar said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 1:31 pm
You’re lucky! Here in the Southern Hemisphere it hasn’t been getting through for a century! What was that about global?
There is a currency in Latin America which has the following phrase on it:
BY REASON OR BY FORCE< Pretty cool, isn´t it?
As there are not scientific arguments/ formulas/ laws or whatever to back “Climate Change”…and because climate has the bad custom of changing all the time, then, AAAS motto should read:
IF NOT BY SCIENCE, THEN BY FORCE, YOU WILL BE OBLIGE TO ACCEPT IT
Again this all comes back to ‘sustainability’. Which is attempting to unite under cover of enviro-health. The folks mentioned above come back to ‘social biology’ and the many forms of the phrasing, going back toward ‘evolutionary biology’. Rosling has concentrated upon “Rosling’s research has also focused on other links between economic development, agriculture, poverty and health[5] in Africa, Asia and Latin America” – Wiki of course. He was a “health adviser” to WHO and UNICEF, need there be more connections? What was it Edenhoffer said about redistribution and climate policy…
Though this sounds like nutjob territory, every single issue comes down to control which will become population control. I must have lost several good links but suffice to say that AAAS has absorbed the scientocracy of the eugenics and Malthusian crowd…back in the 1960s if I remember correctly. Remember the incestous relationship between AAAS and NAS (National Academy of Science). It is truly astonishing the amount of organizations of activist foundations and businesses worldwide.
I don’t like caveats but here it is anyway. I do believe some folks truly believe in helping stop CAGW or whatever phrase, as well as other ‘harms’, real or imagined. I don’t believe in absolutes in regards to people; but if the sheep will follow a shepherd, then a shepherd will arise. Good thing we are not all sheep.