While Andrew Dessler suggests Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. can resign the AGU (for having a minority viewpoint on their recent policy update),
Ross McKittrick leaves this comment at Bishop Hill:
Here’s the list of scientific institutions and societies that have issued statements agreeing with CAGW, and that surveyed their members to find out how many agreed with the statement prior to issuing it, and published the results of the survey:
Anyone want to see the list again?
Aug 12, 2013 at 12:50 AM |Ross McKitrick
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
C’mon, the President isn’t in the AGU.
================
Yup.
Keep repeating this message. Perhaps the NYTimes will pick it up. OK, maybe Toronto’s Globe & Mail.
Kurt in Switzerland
Forgive me, who is Andrew Dessler again?
Ross McKitrick’s comment: priceless!
Maybe he should have told him to go back where he came from too.
What the hell kind of name is Pielke anyway.
/sarc
“…surveyed their members…”
I have wondered about that modus operandi before. It is strange considering the official line of absolute confidence in a scientific consensus. Do they naively assume agreement among members or are they simply terrorized by any form of disagreement? Also, every single scientific institution and society with AGW agenda all acting alike? It’s not just peculiar, it’s bizarre.
John says:
August 12, 2013 at 5:08 pm
“Forgive me, who is Andrew Dessler again?”
He’s the guy who completely fouled up the estimation of the water vapor feedback to surface warming, but who nevertheless is always referenced by the warmists to justify the completely-out-to-lunch notion that it is strongly positive.
Consensus science at work. Also note Dana N’s head shot at the bottom of Dessler’s post – he obviously very heartily agrees. Very classy all around.
Txomin,
“Also, every single scientific institution and society with AGW agenda all acting alike? It’s not just peculiar, it’s bizarre.”
No, it is not bizarre, it is FACIST!!!
But 97%.
Why does Dessler use somebody else’s picture? Kinda odd, no?
JohnM –
It’s Pielke’s name, sir!
Dessler’s estimate of water vapor feedback/increase today: +6.5%.
Reanalysis data in July 2013: +2.5%
Interesting how many times this “observations” are coming in at one-third of global warming theory’s predictions show up.
Guest post by Dessler at Roger Pielke’s site.
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/guest-post-by-andrew-dessler-on-the-water-vapor-feedback/
Pielke is a German surname originating in upper Saxony. Sometimes spelled Pelka in Silesia. It’s etymology is conjectured to be a rendering of “St. Peter.”
Dessler’s pic is quite appropriate – juvenile and naïve. Yet ironically dressed for much colder weather.
Speaking of intellectual climate, creatures such as Dessler exhibit psychotropic tendencies typical of mood-altering prescription drugs including anti-depressants, sedatives, and tranquilizers. As Samuel Johnson put it, “Such stupidity, Sir, is not in nature”… dubbing AGW Catastrophism a “peccatogenic syndrome” (PGS) clarifies warmists’ deep-seated (“hypogenic”) attitudinal conflicts.
Ok, I wanted to know a little bit about who heads up the AGU and speaking as a cynic I must admit that I was not disappointed. I googled this from the National Journal/Energy website. The listed qualifications of this individual are pretty much exactly what I would expect. So, here goes:
‘Christine McEntee
Executive Director and CEO, American Geophysical Union
Christine W. McEntee is a seasoned nonprofit executive with a proven track record of leading established organizations into even higher levels of excellence and performance.
McEntee has served as Executive Vice President/Chief Executive Officer at the American Institute of Architects from 2006 to 2010, Chief Executive Officer for the American College of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Foundation from 1998 to 2005, and held a number of director and executive-level positions with the American Hospital Association from 1986 to 1998.
McEntee received her Bachelor of Science in Nursing in 1977 and her Master of Science in Health Administration in 1982 from the George Washington University. She also attended the Advanced Executive Program at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management in 1997.
Board of Directors, Board of Trustees
American Board of Ophthalmology (2009 to present)
Medstar Research Institute (service began 2010)
National Building Museum (2006 to 2010)
American Architectural Foundation (2006 to 2010)
American Society of Association Executives (2004-2006)
Edmund Burke School (2003-2006)
Greater Washington Society of Association Executives (GWSAE) (2002-2004).’
Ok, I think the reader can glean that Christine McEntee is as much a geophysicist as my sister’s pet Cavalier St. Charles. Or, Christine McEntee is perhaps as much a geophysicist as my best friend’s pet Corgi. Maybe Christine McEntee is about as much a geophysicist as my pet Greyhound if I ever get around to going to the rescue society and getting one. Now, all those pets cost us money, and they might have an accident from time to time and do it in the house. But at least they don’t do it in our face.
Dessler, he’s the WVCC Denier isn’t he?
Wate Vapour Convection Cooling…it works!
If the AGU insists on unanimity of opinion, it is not a scientific organization. Period.
Looks like the book – Real Jobs I have had – By Barack Obama.
@ur momisugly Tom J
It’s Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, NOT Cavalier St. Charles.
Best,
Edward, Philip and Buckley
The Three Cavaliers
“The National Academy of Blacklists”
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/july/the-national-academy-of-blacklists/
“The study, entitled “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” examines the publications and other activities related to climate science and the climate policy of 1,372 climate researchers (me included), then sorts those scholars into two bins. In one bin the researchers placed scholars supposedly “convinced by the evidence” (CE) which led the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to conclude that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have “very likely” been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.” In the other bin lie those scholars “unconvinced by the evidence (UE).” One qualifies for the “unconvinced group” by having “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views of the IPCC.”
Why does the AGU need to issue a position statement on science?
If the science is clear, why issue a position statement? Did they issue one over gravity?
Let me answer my own questions. The science is not settled, the controversy is heating up, the debate is certainly not over, it’s just getting going! Their statement is not meant for the scientific community but for the media, politicians and general public. That’s it.
Interesting piece at Pielke’s site. More interestingly comments are NOT ALLOWED there and Desseler therefore doesn’t have to explain where the energy to evaporate that water goes, or where the energy to raise gigatonnes of it to 3-10km comes from; more how the additional water flux through the atmosphere can be sustained while still heating the atmosphere. Evaporating water takes energy, lots of it. Nor does he have to explain just how a system as remarkably stable as earth’s atmosphere can have positive feedbacks with a loop gain of more than 0.95 with time delays and remain stable!
Nor does he need to explain how the models produce a sensitivity of 3 where the real world has only demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 1.4 since the little ice age.
A high gain figure is simply implausible