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.
Hansen. Really. Check the room thermostat and windows before the session, guys. He has a track record …
These people really need a proper uniform, starting with jackboots as footwear, truncheons in hand, and thermal goggles to differentiate “True Believers” in “The Cause” from climate realists.
Because once they get past “the truth” and dispose of it, that’s all they have left.
“Tim Folkerts says:
February 17, 2012 at 2:51 pm
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.”
I always thought that quotation marks were meant to denote a quotation! This is NOT a quote from the press release that was mentioned above.”
Best breathe through the nose, Tim. This is a direct quote from the email Anthony received from AAAS Office of Public Programs (what press release are you talking about, none is mentioned in the article?), as can be easily deduced by actually reading the post. Hence the quote marks.
When I first heard of this problem I was in the R.A.F..
I told my mother that measurement problems were the least of it. and then forgot about it. I never really thought it would take off
Twenty+ years later, I found it actually gained wings and thought, WTF?
So here I am thinking why? There’s nothing unusual, even in my lifetime!
DaveE.
From Joel Shore on February 17, 2012 at 6:23 pm:
How strange. I’m certain that sounded like you just accused Willis Eschenbach of (possibly?) being a non-scientific Young Earth Creationist.
I realize that DeSmoggyBloggy might soon be hiring one or more replacement writers of their particular “nuanced innuendo,” their “technically these are not legally unfounded unsubstantiated smears,” but is this really the best way to showcase your talent in the hope they’ll give you a call?
The Pompous Git says (February 17, 2012 at 6:37 pm) :
According to AR4 “everyday things” like residential and commercial buildings and transport account for 21% of emissions.
—————
21%? 40%? What’s a factor of 2 to the warmists and their friends?
the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Vancouver, British Columbia was just on BCTV news which has quite a warming bias. The usual, more storms, more drought, drastic sea level rise, oceans eating fish and coral from acidification yada yada. They are going all out. The other local media, Global TV and Sun newspaper which prides itself on in depth reporting are all drinking from the same tap. In depth reporting my butt, not one question about the facts.
How about some out there taking a few moments and send these bastions of journalism some information.
When rivers of money and persistent whining are not enough, whine some more.
Sometimes the science carries the arguement, but the extravagance requiring dumptrucks full of money and slaves are not being filled these days nd the Rothschild’s bank manipulations will be declared obsolete and a ‘ponzi scheme’ that should never have been allowed. If the carbon tax thing and ‘Global Warming’ were based on sound science, a reaction would happen worldwide complimenting and following the guidelines for bequeathing all of our money to the royal houses of Europe whose imagined ‘White Christian Superiority’ warrants making the monthly payment due the central bank.big trouble is, science does not cater to bigots. They have gone so far as to intentionally blown out a huge tap into a huge undersea high pressure oil reservoir in the Gulf of Mexico, ruining the warm water feed to the west coast of Europe by Gulfstream relay to the North Atlantic Current. They have nuked the largest array of nuclear reactors on line and set off underwater nukes to do it. .(Note at Fukushima, there is ZERO building damage before the wave hits. Going from a 9.2 to a 5.6 in less than ten miles is impossible. The real epeicenter was inland a mile or two and registered a 6.2. The reactors show enough evidence to convince sane people that they were mini-nuked. Israel would not dare do this without ‘Grand Patron’ approval. They also have been messing up the weather with Nebraska and Alaska HAARP facilities and gaming the weather derivative markets, then carpetbagging distressed farmland in the Mississippi River system. Be glad I’m not king, England. I noted Anders Brevik all dolled up in freemason regalia before collecting a $100,000 payment to support his activity. With legal requirements to register such large transfers of money, it should be a breeze to find out who paid. You never told us who paid him there AP and CFRtv. Be glad i am not king. My guess is the devil will cut you a deal out of professionaal courtesy.
Joel, you’ve been victimized by a very clever straw man. I’ve been a lurker on this and a few other climate blogs for some time and I haven’t seen the slightest evidence of that kind of fundementalists Christian belief system being expressed here or anywhere else. I’ve found that many warmest use this as a counter in the argument. It’s completely outrageous!
Jim
“‘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.”
Sad? Isn’t this what WUWT does everyday? Obviously, WUWT must think that the science is on their side…yet they ALSO think it is important to ‘communicate’ that science to as many people as possible. So WUWT must also think that the science isn’t enough.
RockyRoad said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Rocky, do you mind? You managed to conjure in my mind an image of them wearing nothing but jackboots and goggles holding their “truncheons” and awaiting the arrival of the remainder of their uniforms. Not a pretty sight…
kadaka (KD Knoebel) said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 7:50 pm
That’s how The Git took it, too. Since he has been known to take hold of the wrong end of the stick, he refrained from commenting. Perhaps Joel needs to apologise for his baseless remark, or explain precisely what he meant.
For starters, the AAAS should realize that “Climate Change” is not equal to “Global Warming”.
The general public, while not up on all the details, can sense a bait and switch going on here.
The Pompous Git says:
February 17, 2012 at 9:45 pm
RockyRoad said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Maybe Josh will come to our rescue?
I am at the AAAS convention, and went to two symposia today on climate change. In the first “Chemistry in the clouds: Impacts of aerosols on climate change”, one of the presenters only showed temperature data to 2005 – I wonder why he did not show data to 2011? In the second, “beyond climate models: rethinking how to envision the future with climate change”, there were several talks on how to better communicate the issue to the public, such as pictures showing your neighborhood underwater would be better communicated by also showing what it would look like with a flood-berm around it. I wanted to say that the problem was that the public does not believe the science, but I did not have the heart.
John says: I wanted to say that the problem was that the public does not believe the science, but I did not have the heart.
I think you mean “guts” or “balls”, because I find it hard to believe you feel sorry for them (“heart”) when they are screwing up so much stuff. Still, I sympathize, it’s tough for a lamb to bleat in a lion’s den.
Rich.
It is my theory that there is so much BS about global warming because we have passed the point of “PEAK SCIENCE”.
If you check the 20th century table in Wiki, approximately 30 major scientific advances were made up to 1951 and only 14 since then, so, much as we have used a lot of the easiest access coal and oil we have also used the easy access science. We have passed peak science. The problem now is that the caliber of scientist has dropped at the same time as the difficulty of science has risen, hence we are left with the junk scientists like Hansen and Mann scratching around in a wilderness that they do not understand, inventing global warming as a sop their lack of scientific results.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_scientific_discoveries#20th_century
The Pompous Git says:
February 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Acorn1 – San Diego said @ur momisugly February 17, 2012 at 1:51 pm
You can be sure they will not talk about these:
1…CO2 at 390ppm is better than 310 seventy years ago.
Because crops grow some 40-50 percent faster.
In your dreams pal! A 15% increase in yield maybe, but making stuff up doesn’t cut it around here.
You _are_ talking different units – growth rate vs yield…..
However, using your units, think of the effect on the world population a 15% drop in food crops would have in a world where many are already hungry with a child dying of malnutrition every 5 minutes. Hansen is always claiming concern about children he should be called on this one..
But, hang on a minute – what science?
OK, there’s some scientific and curious happens when Infra red light shines through carbon dioxide gas, but that seems to be the only science there is. There is the endless misuse of the greenhouse word and how carbon dioxide ‘traps’ heat. It doesn’t trap heat, nothing can trap heat. It escapes no matter what you do – entropy always increases.
Note how we see endless muppets with gas bottles and heat lamps popping up on U-tube demonstrating how they completely FAIL to understand science. Exactly as The Gorical did in his 24 hours of guilt ridden tedium just recently.
But then, even swallowing that BS, this trapped heat goes on to warm the planet. (If it really was trapped, its not gonna warm anything is it – it’s trapped – remember? Yet another level of Fail)
So what – the place gets warmer. Why EXACTLY is that so bad?
Because it changes The Climate of course. Everyone is now supposed to nod their heads knowledgeably with pictures of doom swimming around inside their heads. Just exactly WHY? Please.
Can any of them explain what this ‘climate’ thing is? Its obvious they haven’t explained it (more fail) and even The Gorical will point to a 50 degree heatwave in Iran last year as climate change but a minus 50 degree coldwave in Alaska is NOT climate change. No explanation from them there = yet more Fail.
Then people might remember how, in the mid-70s, we were all gonna freeze. 10 years later, Hansen and Wirth are telling politicians we’re all going to fry – having felt a desperate urge to sabotage the air con in the meeting rooms the night before.. They knew, even in their heart of hearts then, that they were on a hiding to nothing otherwise why pull such a stunt? Yet more fail. They’ll then try to claim that climate happens over a 30 year timespan. OK then – why?
Why is it always, heads they win, tails you lose in this climate game?
Sorry, enough is enough.
“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? ”
What the heck is a “science-related global challenge” as opposed to some other kind of global challenge? Or do I detect an attempt by these advocates to clothe their pet theories in a cloak of scientific impregnability?
“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?”
If it were only real scientists using proper science providing information to the political leaders and citizens we might be seeing different results, but with eco-extremists pushing their agendas under the guise of “science”, it is indeed unfortunate that any political leader or citizen believes the easily falsified drivel.
In the discussion of “global warming”, proper science tells us we should prepare ourselves for the change in climate and take advantage of the positive aspects of it. But, of course, none of us are paid millions of dollars to present this statement to the “policymakers”.
The Pompuous Git says:
I thought I made my point quite clearly, but let’s try again: Willis stated a clear hypothesis which is that if the science is not enough to convince people (the public, policymakers) then this is evidence that the science is lacking. I disproved his hypothesis by showing other examples where science has not been enough to convince people but I hope and assume that we can all agree that the science is not lacking.
I then proposed a counter-hypothesis that better fits the available data: That science is not enough to convince people when that science goes against what they strongly want to believe for religious, ideological, or financial reasons.
It puzzles me why this is such a difficult argument for some to comprehend.
With words like entities and species and a laundry list of disasters it sounds like a science fiction movie but is more of a pep rally with the intent of telling others how to sell global warming without the science which is what they have been doing all along.
Now the plan is to know how to come down off their superior intellect and explain it to the masses. That would be people who work for a living in something productive, wanted and beneficial.
In other words planning to deceive .
And be believed.
Joel Shore says:
February 18, 2012 at 6:04 am
And yet a warm, CO2-viable Earth is so much better (for religions, idological, financial or whatever reasons) than a cold, dusty, famine-inducing Earth that you’ve proven yourself wrong by clinging to a completely incorrect assumption, Mr. Shore.
Aye, there’s the rub.
ptbrown31 says:
“Obviously, WUWT must think that the science is on their side…yet they ALSO think it is important to ‘communicate’ that science to as many people as possible. So WUWT must also think that the science isn’t enough.”
Is it that hard for someone like you to understand? WUWT allows anyone to post their view of science. What commenters write is not WUWT policy, it is the opinion of the commenter.
The science is enough. The problem is with the anti-science opinion of those pushing the CAGW fantasy. We have to constantly rein them back to reality, and point out that what they believe is baseless pseudo-science.
We also have to counter the rampand dishonesty regarding climate science, as promoted by Stephen Schneider, who wrote “…we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” There is no ‘double ethical bibd’. There is honesty, and there is deception. The AAAS has opted for the latter, as they brazenly make clear. If not for sites like WUWT, society would be on its way back to the days of witch doctors and shamans.
. . .
And while Joel Shore pontificates about hypotheses, I note that he has never attempted to falsify my hypothesis:
At current and projected levels, CO2 is harmless, and beneficial to the biosphere.
No one has tried to falsify that hypothesis [and I’ve tried myself], because it is based on observed facts. In fact, it should now be promoted to the status of a Theory because it makes repeated, testable and accurate predictions based on non-trivial data points. No global harm caused by the rise in CO2 has been identified per the scientific method, and satellite measurements have shown conclusively that the increase in CO2 is greening the planet. And of course, there is zero evidence that a warmer planet is bad for the biosphere. Just the opposite is true.
Therefore, the CO2=CAGW conjecture is not only wrong, it is completely opposed to reality. It does not stand up to the scientific method or the null hypothesis. It is entirely anti-science. Why Joel Shore still believes in it is a mystery. I suspect it is a combination of the “ideology” he is always going on about, and religious conviction. Because it certainly isn’t based on science.