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.
Ponder this for a moment. In reading the article and the associated comments, I have come to one conclusion!
Truth is what any individual or group of individuals can cause any other individual or group of individuals to ACCEPT as the truth. It doesn’t make a bit of difference if the TRUTH is based on Corrupted/Manipulated Data or of the proponents agenda. From Global Warming to the World being flat, the Moon Landing was faked, to nothing being able to live in the oceans depth because there is no sunlight or food source. Consider the source of the information as well as the means of gathering the information and make up your own mind!
LarryL said something profound with moderate Freudian slippage on February 17, 2012 at 12:20 pm (bold added)
True enough, the mighty PR machines of governments and Green groups, and those groups that wish to be governments who cloak themselves in Green, were engaged to convince the public of the reality of CAGW, bringing on the full “science of convincing others” to bear, drowning us with their message in the media, even committing the forced indoctrination of the young children.
But cynicism is inherent in the human animal, as being wary is a survival trait. We continually seek fresh proof, as the food or water or shelter that was good for us yesterday might not be good today. Kids grow to realize the adults don’t always tell the truth nor have good explanations, and being told to accept something as true or they will be made a failure induces rebellion. Thus a one-time “proving” of CAGW would not be enough, we human animals would require frequent re-affirmation.
What did we get? An extensive campaign of denial and misinformation. Just about everything got blamed on global warming. Extreme weather got blamed on global warming, even when our elders and our historical writings revealed there was the same and worse previously. When we got colder winters and cooler summers, as we’ve had before, the global warming mantra didn’t hold. We noticed the flow of money from our wallets to fight a problem we couldn’t see. We were told it was to avert catastrophes in the future, when most people can’t be bothered to actively save for their own future retirement, while blaming catastrophes in the now on global warming. “So paying out all this dough won’t make the disasters stop happening, they’ll keep coming and may get worse, but sometime decades to centuries from now they’ll be no worse than they are now, except sometimes they might be worse like they are now?”
Even the attempted name shift to “climate change” didn’t take hold, as everyone knew it meant global warming so they continued to call it that, as seen in the popular media everywhere.
In the end, “the science” succumbed to its own denial and misinformation campaign, and per human nature “global warming” became a cynical joke. “Why did (the dog get sick, the tire go flat, the computer crash, the fill-in-the-blank)?” Must be global warming!
And yet it has failed to warm for 15 years. This is the truth of AGW, when observations fail, simply reduce past temperatures. Fixed. ;>)
Well personally I am terrified. What with the temperature going up by 0.8 of a degree in 150 years and sea level changing by between -3mm and +3mm a year. I am seriously concerned that it will be another 0.1 of a degree higher by the time I die and the sea will be up to 7 cm deeper or shallower. I may die of heatstroke or drowning before my time. No need to convince me AAAS. I am out in the morning to buy a life jacket and a parasol.
Happily, I am not concerned about the rising prices of commodities against the value of my pension, or the increased price of electricity for my home, or the rising price of fuel for my car, or the long delays in the availability of medical treatment in the UK, or the fact that my daughter cannot get a job, or the apparently increasing lawlessness in our society, or the poor standard of modern education, or the lack of morality in the press etc etc. No its all about the global warming for me!
Craig says: February 17, 2012 at 1:11 pm
“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?
The quote is from the email that was sent to Anthony – it’s in plain sight in the main item above.
The potential loss of huge pots ‘research’ funding is making them become very desperate. Sceptics, with lower budgets than alarmists, are slapping them upside their heads and revealing the facts of their great scam to the world.
Pluck says (February 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm)
“young people and other species”
Lol.
There’s a story about Bertrand Russell when he was trying to convince a British audience of the perils of nuclear war. “We’ll all be killed” said Russell, “and our cities and our science and all our great works of art will be destroyed!”. The audience yawned and fidgeted silently. “And dogs and cats!” yelled Russell desperately. “They’ll be killed as well!”. The audience gasped in horror.
Back under the last government, the Department of Energy and Climate Change produced a TV advertisment (more taxpayers money going to the alarmist cause!) showing a cartoon flooded city of the future. There were many complaints, mainly because it showed a dog desperately trying not to drown.
So, if you want to “influence public perceptions” then what you need to do is concentrate on the danger to poor creatures with lesser brains than we humans. Dogs, cats, hamsters, polar bears, teenagers…
Bernie McCune said (February 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm): This is Thomas L. Friedman’s economic pitch “The Earth is Flat” (NYTimes). Not sure how realistic his view is even from a strictly economic point of view?
It is not realistic; his “Earth is Flat” metaphor lacks logic, sense, and intelligibility. “Flat economics” is nothing like what Friedan ptiches; see Leamer’s review of Friedman at http://uclaforecast.com/reviews/Leamer_FlatWorld_060221.pdf,
where the real significane of a “flat Earth” to economics is described and why “flatness” is even a topic to consider. Friedman is found wanting.
For Tim looking for the quote and are unable to plug it into google, you can find it on this page:
http://www.cjfe.org/take_action/events/aaas-live-webcast-science-not-enough
ps I do your googling pro bono
Money corrupts, and lots of funding money corrupts absolutely,
or
influence corrupts, and lots of influence corrupts absolutely,
or a bit of both. But corrupted they are.
Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities,
Really? How much has he suffered for it then? I would suggest that his entire career is built on not saying the wrong things to those in power.
He professes to know that we should use nuclear to replace the problems with fossil fuels. But does he make that the target of his actions – taking on the anti-Nuclear greens, to the point of getting arrested? Or does he go after the soft targets, like coal, that are already on the way down?
Tim Folkerts, the quote was from the email I received from AAAS, not the press release that Anthony helpfully added a link for. The entire email is shown below the ========== separator (minus the link that would give access to my own account at AAAS). The quote is verbatim, real, and sourced from AAAS. Due to a rather clunky post submission portal on WUWT, my editorializing above the separator is not clearly identified as mine. My apologies for any confusion.
“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,” is a well-known aphorism from the legal profession. It seemed an appropriate comment on the tactics displayed, and is not presented as a quote from AAAS.
“influence public perceptions and debate when the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” is a DIRECT QUOTE from the body of the email I received this morning.
New adage – “When you assume truths of science need adornment to move the minds of men, you make an AAAS out of yourself.”
Wouldn’t it be awesome if Anthony hadn’t purged his archives of the postings by Copernicus. It would be a hoot to read them again.
“Dr. Hansen is recognized for speaking truth to powerful entities,………”
Shame one of them isn’t the natural world.
From cui bono on February 17, 2012 at 3:25 pm:
I remember that!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/09/tv_climate_ad_drowning_dog/
Climate porn campaign drowns dog for £6m
Your taxes at work
Excerpt: “Nature magazine simply calls it the Worst. Climate. Campaign. Ever.”
Has video link and stills.
(Vid link to Times Online not working for me.)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/21/asa_climate_probe/
ASA to probe drowning dog climate ad
Think of the children
Excerpt:”The first tasteless ad features a girl watching a cartoon dog drown, engulfed by a flood – with the advice that only by reducing “everyday things like keeping houses warm and driving cars” can we avert a watery fate for our pets, our children’s pets, and our children’s pets’ children:”
(Vid link to “youtube-nocookie dot com” tells me “This video is private.”)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/24/ofcom_drowning_dog_probe/
Ofcom probes TV climate porn
But too late to save Drowning Dog
Excerpt: “Ofcom received over 700 complaints, many of which argued it was political advertising. Even global warming advocates found it distasteful, while the Taxpayer Alliance doubted that the ad would ever have been broadcast if had been produced by an independent pressure group.”
(Vid link similar to first piece, Times Online, not working.)
Then later on, it was given a pass:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/15/asa_climate_pron/
Ad industry OKs climate porn
You write the cheques, we’ll drown the puppies
Excerpt:
After all, “the science” as presented was flawless:
(Time to hit “Post” and see if the spam filter eats it for use of “dirty words”…)
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says (February 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm)
————–
Hehe! Thanks for the details – that last ASA ruling is a classic!
What’s with warmist propaganda? Drowning dogs, exploding children? Whatever next?
How bold they are, so trusting of the infrastructure of misinformation at their disposal, that they feel safe in making such statements, knowing that any voices raised against them make no more noise against their clatter than the footfall of a mouse.
Those who would enslave men have never lacked cadres of willing dupes to turn the cell door key.
Maybe Hansen will provide an update on the water depth over the west side highway.
Willis Eschenbach says:
By that standard, one would be forced to conclude, for example, that a lot of questions are unresolved that I would be surprised to hear you admit are unresolved. Do you believe that the basic questions regarding the origin of species addressed by evolution are unresolved. Do you believe the question of whether the Earth is 6000 years old or more like 4.6 billion years old is unresolved?
The actual empirical evidence shows that “the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument” when that science goes against strongly held beliefs, be they religious beliefs, ideological beliefs, or beliefs based on financial interests. It has very little to do with how compelling the scientific evidence is.
Doug Jones says:
February 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm
I guess you’re off the mailing list now. 😉
DaveE.
kadaka (KD Knoebel) said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 4:47 pm
According to AR4 “everyday things” like residential and commercial buildings and transport account for 21% of emissions. WUWT?
Joel Shore says:
February 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Willis Eschenbach says:
Whilst I think the Earth is in the region of 4.6 billion years old, I cannot categorically say it is.
1) Empirical evidence? Yes I noticed warming, I’m NOT stupid! Before that I noticed cooling and YES I know about your Aerosols!
2) There is NO scientific evidence!
3) As for religious or ideological beliefs, I suggest you read, Atheism as religion!
What is the saying?
Oh yes… I remember. Those who believe in nothing will believe anything!
DaveE.
Joel Shore says:
“The actual empirical evidence shows that ‘the science supporting a position is not enough to carry the argument’ when that science goes against strongly held beliefs, be they religious beliefs, ideological beliefs, or beliefs based on financial interests.”
• CAGW religious beliefs, check
• Ideological beliefs, check
• Beliefs based on financial interests …no. That one is not belief-based.
The third is self-serving motivation based on greed; lying for payola. Scientists feeding at the public trough have a major financial motivation to flog CAGW and demonize “carbon”. At least I can understand human nature, and how some scientists will falsely alarm the public for money, and political power.
But the rank-and-file alarmist crowd has a true religious belief system. They are true believers because “climate change” fills a need in their empty souls. All the trappings of religion are there: preachers, indulgences, the AAAS Bible, sacrificing to save the world by buying a Prius, converting the heathen, hatred of apostates, their own annointed prophets, their total rejection of verifiable facts that don’t support their belief system, the threat of damnation by rising seas, etc., etc.
Scientific skeptics, on the other hand, simply say: prove it, per the scientific method. Try to explain why the null hypothesis has never been falsified. No skeptical belief system is necessary; we have nothing to prove, and the planet is acting completely normally. Not one of the dire predictions of climate catastrophe have happened. Skeptics don’t have any use for witch doctors or shamans or prophets. CO2 causes runaway global warming? Prove it, with verifiable facts and observations. We’re still waiting…