Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr.
In the August 20 2013 issue of EOS both the AGU Statement on Climate Change [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340006/pdf ] and my comment on the Statement [ http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340007/pdf ] were published. However, I was not permitted to publish my Minority Statement in EOS, but only refer to its URL on another website.
In this post, I want to share with you the policy announced by the AGU President, Carol Finn, in two e-mails to me. I extracted the text on this subject from her e-mails to me (which were also copied to others at the AGU, so that these e-mails should be considered open communications).
First, I want to reiterate the supposed AGU policy on Forum articles in EOS from their website link http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1002/(ISSN)2324-9250/homepage/categories_of_contributions.htm. I have highlighted a specific sentence.
Forum contains thought-provoking contributions expected to stimulate further discussion, within the newspaper or as part of Eos Online Discussions. Appropriate Forum topics include current or proposed science policy, discussion related to current research in the disciplines covered by AGU (especially scientific controversies), the relationship of our science to society, or practices that affect our fields, science in general, or AGU as an organization. Commentary solely on the science reported in research journals is not appropriate.
Maximum length: 1500 words; usually figures are not included, but when they are, each counts as 400 word equivalents.
My minority statement certainly fits within this Forum framework.
However, a (new) AGU Policy that, in my view, limits scientific debate within the AGU was announced by the AGU President.
Following are the relevant extracts of e-mail text from Dr. Finn’s communication to me:
As you know, Eos is the official transactions of AGU. Your draft alternative to AGU’s climate position statement falls outside of an official transaction of AGU, and therefore cannot be published in Eos.
Forum articles cannot be extended commentary on a previously published Eos article, such as the report on the new climate change position statement.
Quite frankly, I am disappointed that as prestigious a professional society as the AGU, of which I have always been proud of my association, has now decided to limit the exchange of scientific perspectives within the primary medium of communication within our society (EOS).
This AGU venue of publication has now become more of an advocate for particular perspectives than a venue to advance our knowledge of science issues. While in this case, it is dealing with climate science, the issue actually goes to the core of any controversy within any subject areas that are represented by the American Geophysical Union.
Oh Carol you are just a fool please please leave the AGU.
“Appropriate Forum topics include……”
=============
“None so blind as those that will not see.”
Does the AGU fall under the Obama Administrations Executive Order on Scientific Integrity.. Its silence opposing views in the Department of the Interior, DOD, EPA, NRC, USGS among other scientific driven groups. If you dont believe then you dont belong.. To paraphrase the Interior secretary…. I hate it now that these all fell into religion and agenda.driven garbage.
She just isn’t very bright. You can make this sort of person squirm by making them define their terms. For instance, ask her to define “critical response” vs “extended commentary.” What you will get if you keep pressing her is a series of rationalizations, each more convoluted and ridiculous than the last. She hasn’t thought any of this through. She could have said you can’t publish “because you have cooties” and it would both have made more sense and been more truthful.
People get positions like hers because they are politically reliable.
Eisenhower’s farewell in 1961 remains astoundingly prescient:
“Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society. “
Climate Cooties sounds like another cartoon opportunity for Josh. “Sir – your paper is rife with Climate Cooties and cannot be published.”
I agree with Ric Werme. When AGU refuses to allow open discussion, it does not mean that the discussion will not take place. The internet is powerful and there are increasing numbers of places where ideas can be exchanged. AGU will find itself an observer, rather than an active participant.
There – I fixed it for you.
Gail Combs says:
“If there is censorship here why am I seeing your comment HMMMMmmmmm?”
~Russell Seitz.
Russell is an idiot, that’s why. He needs to get a life.
The AGU’s president is lacking enlightenenment of late. Where can science exist without enlightenment? The current AGU president is an unenlightened practitioner of American pragmatic limitation. The American ‘classical pragmatists’ were Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914), William James (1842–1910) and John Dewey (1859-1952). American pragmatists opposed the idea of concepts.
AGU as anti-conceptual is anti-epistemological. N’est ce pas?
John
Now some, not Eli to be sure, might think that Prof. Pielke has not been paying attention to what AGU leadership has been saying. If nothing else <Christine McEntee, the AGU CEO put it on the line at the Fall 2012 meeting (hope the link still works, else see the RR link).
RR link
I’m afraid that the management of scientific societies today has largely been assumed by those who are not really practicing members of their profession, but those who desire to specialize in management of professional societies. They are not motivated by scientific issues, but success in their chosen field, which is exercising power over those for which they subconsciously know are their superiors in the actual scientific field. Most true scientists wouldn’t want the job–they’d rather be doing science.
From the Climategate e-mails by John Costella
May 16, 2009: email 1242749575
Let us now gain some further insight into the fundamental character of Mike Mann.
He writes to Phil Jones:
On a completely unrelated note, I was wondering if you, perhaps in tandem with some of the other usual suspects, might be interested in returning the favor (of being awarded a Fellowship of the American Geophysical Union) this year ?
Now we know why he was so adamant about securing Jones’s award!
I’ve looked over the current list of American Geophysical Union Fellows, and it seems to me that there are quite a few who have gotten in (e.g. Kurt Cuffey, Amy Clement, and many others) who aren’t as far along as me in their careers, so I think I ought to be a strong candidate.
If he does say so himself.
Anyway, I don’t want to pressure you in any way, but if you think you’d be willing to help organize, I would naturally be much obliged. Perhaps you could convince Ray or Malcolm to take the lead? The deadline looks as if it is again July 1 this year.
I’m looking forward to catching up with you some time soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry’s choosing.
Does any remnant of doubt remain that awards in this field are absolutely and completely meaningless? Mann may as well pin a gold star on his own chest!
Do they call this new AGU policy “The Mushroom Policy”?
The AGU mandarins have joined hands with Lysenko to destroy Science in favor of politics. This will end badly.
Thatch says:
August 23, 2013 at 6:46 pm
Yep, the AGU got itself a professional PR hack.
AGU should change their name to American Political Geophysical Union. Leave them and start a new one called American Scientific Geophysical Union?
Looks like she is after public funding also for herself? Or maybe a job in politics?
Who owns the AGU? The members? Kick out today’s board and the leader behind this?
lol, Jon (10:06pm). Or just plain old P.U..
Though WUWT is at liberty to call blacklisting whitelisting, it invites cognitive dissonance when what is read contrasts so vibrantly with its erstwhile site policy:
“Trolls, flame-bait, personal attacks, thread-jacking, sockpuppetry, name-calling such as “denialist,” “denier,” and other detritus that add nothing to further the discussion may get deleted;
Internet phantoms who have cryptic handles, no name, and no real email address get no respect here. If you think your opinion or idea is important, elevate your status by being open and honest. People that use their real name get more respect than phantoms with handles. I encourage open discussion.” – Anthont Watts
Really?
As the subject is consorship, it is noteworthy that we have just seen a comment denying WUWT’s censorship endorsed by a censor whom Tony also suffers to maintain a sockpuppet on the site– ‘Smokey ‘ and dbstealey are one and the same.
The hypocrisy, it amuses .
REPLY: And yet here you are. D.B. Stealey the moderator is right out in the open Dr. Seitz. We find your vain attempts at playing a professional also amusing.
And Dr. Seitz, you are a liar, and a bad one at that. You put that (SNIP) in the comment yourself just so you could make a false claim, the thing is though, servers keep logs and copies, and your comment had that in there in the beginning. You weren’t even smart enough to mimic moderator signatures with your deception. Here is a screencap I made shortly after your comment showed up, since I knew you’d pull this stunt. Note the “cleared by Akismet” that means no moderator touched it, aka it was whitelisted and showed up just as you typed it. Otherwise it would have an “approved” time stamp. That’s inserted by wordpress.com and I have no control over it.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/seitz_logged.png
So, since you are making things up, and lying about it, kindly take permanent leave from here. – Now run along and photoshop some juvenile ugliness as you are known to do on a regular basis. Do be careful though, since you are using your Harvard email address, network IP, and server for your harangues, I’m not sure that they’ll appreciate that per the Harvard Network AUP.
Now you can say you aren’t whitelisted here sir.
– Anthony
The Red Queen (inspired by Pat Frank)
Excellent essay, Pat Frank.
Hilary Ostrov, insightfully witty remark: “The AGU … advocacy foot is leaping forward, while integrity … so little … trails so far behind, … .”
Like a pitiful little man who lets his wife boss him around…
“…. well, well, uh, let me see my dear… .”
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7mKTqzz3HE ]
“… all ways are MY WAYS!” (Carol Finn, R.Q.)
And to that, all us WUWT people say:
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hot71XCZhLY ]
@richard Roman above re Mann’s email to Jones:
“I’m looking forward to catching up with you some time soon, probably at some exotic location of Henry’s choosing.”
I’ve asked this question before who is Henry and where is the exotic location. The sentance as a whiff of corrupt or corrupting behaviour?
The way in which Dr. Pielke has been treated by the scientific establishment totally awakened me to what is really going on the subject of the climate debate when I started looking deeper into it and using his material in some online ” discussions” ( bloodbaths actually, lol). Of all people who deserve to have their views considered by any organization, I can’t think of anyone more deserving.
His ideas on the other likely human influences on climate and the uselessness of climate models in multi- decadal predictions have formed the core of what I believe and argue with alarmist ideologues. Thank you, Dr, Pielke, and please post here more often as you have the time. It’s like having a great guest lecturer in class from my college days!
And thank you Anthony for opening up your site to amateurs such as myself. I’ll try not to abuse the privilege.
Their posting-eras don’t overlap. “Smokey” stopped posting maybe five months ago. About four months ago dbstealy began posting. The change may have been due to WordPress’s antics, which arbitrarily (seemingly) assigns one of the different user names one has signed into its various sites. For instance, it shifts back and forth between calling me rogerknights and Roger Knights.
EOS = End of Science.