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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A new website may be in order
http://www.aguminorityview.com
It would appear that the AGU only have 61,000 members or associates worldwide:
“”Joining AGU is easy and affordable. As a member you will connect with more than 61,000 individuals worldwide dedicated to galvanizing the geophysical sciences”” http://membership.agu.org/categories-dues/
It would also appear that at the same time 176,000 people claim to be Jedi Knights in the UK:
“”Census 2011: how many Jedi Knights are there in England & Wales?””
“”Over 240,000 people highlighted an ‘other religion’ on their census form. How many spiritualists, Jedi Knights or wiccans are there? It turns out the number of Jedi has more than halved over the last decade, with 176,632 in the latest figures, down from 390,000 in 2001. Get the full breakdown by scrolling down the page”” http://www.theguardian.com/uk/datablog/interactive/2012/dec/11/census-religion
I can’t really decide which organisation to join. The one that allows free debate among 176,000 people or the one that stifles debate amongst 61,000 people.
May the force be with you.
Ivor Ward
Just out of interest the membership of the AGU in 1990 was 26,000 so they have not done too badly in getting up to 61,000. No doubt the criteria have changed, such as going international etc.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=K1fXRZIosJMC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Historical+membership+of+the+AGU&source=bl&ots=vG_sQmdpf_&sig=ONdPpnlHi5bPZWpVu789k1iCfYE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MJwYUpy9Io7y7Absg4CgCg&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBjgo#v=onepage&q=Historical%20membership%20of%20the%20AGU&f=false
Who died that a position statement cannot be challenged by AGU members in the AGU journal? Call it what it is – censorship.
From http://membership.agu.org/categories-dues/
AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.
Any individual who is professionally engaged in or associated with the geophysical sciences may become an AGU Member.
Individuals who desire identification with AGU and wish to support its objectives but do not meet the Member qualification may join AGU as Associate Members. These individuals enjoy the benefits of AGU membership but may not vote or hold office.
$50 and you are part of a “galvanizing” organization.
“Russell is an idiot, that’s why. He needs to get a life.”
I am shocked beyond belief that a Harvard Professor can be so dumb in his postings/comments. How in the world is he not fired by the University? There goes another fine opinion I had.. about Harvard that is.
Can the 97% consensus figure be more than simple coincidence? It appears to replicate the findings of Sterling more than 50 years ago:
The bias was first identified by the statistician Theodore Sterling, in 1959, after he noticed that ninety-seven per cent of all published psychological studies with statistically significant data found the effect they were looking for.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=all
Why would the AGU or any other scientific organization for that matter feel the need to take a position on Climate Change? Do they have a position paper on for example Gravity? Perhaps the AGU can tell us all the propagation speed of Gravity in their position paper. Is Gravity limited to the speed of light, or does Gravity exhibit “spooky action at a distance”.
And what difference would it make if the AGU took a position either way? Would it increase the accuracy of prediction of the trajectory of objects under the influence of Gravity? Or would it tend to limit accuracy to our current level of understanding and thus hold back progress?
And perhaps the AGU would like to publish a position paper on Relativity? Perhaps they would like to explain what happens when you fire two projectiles in opposite directions, both traveling at 60% of the speed of light. Both objects are traveling away from each other at 1.2 times the speed of light, in a universe where we believe the speed of light to be an absolute. Perhaps they would like to explain the physical mechanism underlying time dilation and length contraction in their position paper.
Unfortunately the need for funding, largely derived from government and thus subject to political interference, has largely constrained scientific research to politically popular explanations of the real world, largely without regard for what Nature is telling us.
There is a reason we have a long history of respecting the opinions of our elders. It is because they are in large part removed from the need to make a living day to day, and thus cannot be easily manipulated.
History shows us that the actions of the AGU in censoring Dr. Pielke follow a long tradition of the scientific establishment of the day in censoring the correct explanation in favor of the politically acceptable explanation.
Politically correct speech is precisely what it claims to be. It is politically correct speech. It is not scientifically correct speech, nor is it free speech.
Ed_B says:
August 24, 2013 at 6:33 am
I am shocked beyond belief that a Harvard Professor can be so dumb in his postings/comments.
=============
while in the real world this would tend to hold one back, in Harvard it is a positive boon.
Having succumbed to Gramscian guttersnipes, the “prestigious” American Geophysical Union (AGU) will shortly find itself mouthing its kook rhetoric to a shrinking audience of encopretic ideologues. Rome was not built in a day, but it can well be lost (Constantinople, May 29, 1453). Any self-respecting geophysicist had best depart the AGU for greener pastures, starting now.
***
Russell says:
August 23, 2013 at 10:57 pm
***
Amateurish & disgusting. Get help.
If Dr Seitz is apparently willing to commit fraud on such a small stage as a blog site, it is reasonable to wonder if he learned on this on much larger stages.
It would appear that Dr. Peter Gleick is much more representative of the true nature of academics/intellectuals than previously thought. No wonder Gleick was rewarded for his behavior.
Frankly I would bring Steitz’s little fraud to the attention Harvard. It would be interesting to see if they circle the wagons or actually consider the idea that one of their own committing fraud and public lying reflects poorly on them all.
Just wanted to give a shout out to the childish Russell, whom I have had the displeasure of interacting with on other sites. It is sad that he uses his capabilities (would not call it intellect) for evil and not good.
What kind of person thinks of something like trying to make it look like he was censored in his own comment? Only someone who is so desperate that he is willing to destroy his own credibility to discredit others. He is an embarrassment to academia.
Re: Russell says:
Presumably the “(SNIP)” inserted by the author of the post was intended to defame the moderators and the reputation of the worlds number 1 science blog.
If the author is a professor at Harvard and is actually using a Harvard network IP and server surely he is in breach of Harvard code of conduct and ethics?
Is this not what climategate and the Gleick affair is all about, the lack of ethics and “scientists” making things up to prove their catastrophic human caused climate change theory?
To then compound his actions by complaining about ‘censorship’ when caught out beggars belief!
So this is what climate scientists do now, make things up (lie) to prove a point then complain that they have some holier than thou moral authority when they are caught out?
Presumably we now know why they were photoshopping Nazis heads onto pictures of themselves.
Keep catching them out Anthony, his shameful attempt is there on this blog for us all to see.
“Shut up,” they explained.
Anthony:
Ref: Comments and criticisms of Dr Meier
true, true. Personal attacks or insults of either Dr Meier or the AGU politicals should be self-limited, self-edited.
But, in today’s Washington environment of slavish political obedience, he and his administration – who openly and deliberately declare as the highest possible government (bureaucratic) Department Heads – that THEY will refuse to even ALLOW discussions, much less debates or arguments or studies that might find evidence against their dogma; and who will never fund a study that “might” contradict it, and- if such information IS found accidentally by someone accidentally funded to provide some other data, will NEVER promote or publicize such “new” information.
He has actively and deliberately and publicly agreed, by applying for and interviewing with this people, by accepting Hansen’s position at NASA-GISS, to continue Obama’s UN-Inquisition into global warming. By his actions and his promotion and his paycheck each month, he has declared that he agrees with and will support these policies of denial
He is not the Pope being advised on arcane scientific matters of far-away moons around tiny dots of light where the evidence is strange and far away. Dr Meier IS the person deciding what HIS people are “allowed” to study and he IS the person deciding to what his people and his projects and his reports and his publicity and his conferences WILL BELIEVE “scientifically “
Dear Moderator,
I just looked at my post from last night at 11:18PM. The two videos I posted (Disney cartoons) were displayed with a frozen frame last night. Today, they have been reduced to links. Have my video posting privileges been restricted? Am I no longer allowed to get to create my little dramatic graphics (using the opening video frozen frame)?
If so, may I please be told why?
If I have done something wrong, may I please have a second chance?
Thanks.
Hopefully,
Janice
[No known changes. Mod]
rogerknights,
Thank you. I notice that “Smokey” still posts occasionally on Real Science and one or two others.
Russell Seitz must be a very unhappy character. He attacks everyone, using the most unimportant shots he can find, and he is very vicious. Anthony certainly is not a liar. I know Anthony Watts, and you could not find a more honest, straight-shooting person. He has an exceptionally good moral compass, and he certainly does not lie. IMO calling Anthony a “liar” is just Russell Seitz’ projection.
Seitz hates him because Russell is just the opposite — a Peter Gleick type. Unfortunately, those types congregate in the alarmist contingent. They do not have the science to back their beliefs, so they make personal attacks. The number of blogs set up to attack this site is amazing. But they get no traffic. All those blogs put together don’t get 5% of WUWT’s site traffic. Really, who wants to read personal attacks from misfits? We want science discussion, not name-calling.
This is the gold standard of climate sites. You cannot keep everyone happy, but then they are free to start their own blog if they don’t like the way Anthony runs this one. Just the fact that WUWT has gone from zero to more than a million reader comments, and well over a hundred million unique views in only five or six years, means that their opinions are read by a lot of folks. Why make a comment at a blog where you could easily be censored, or like me, where your comment is never published? If someone wants to reach a very large audience, this is the place. But if you want to reach out to only a handful of readers, there are plenty of blogs like Hotwhopper.
Thanks, dear Mod, for responding. That’s great! I’ll just re-post the second part of my 8/23/13 post below and see if the videos stay as a frozen frame this time.
************************************************
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… .”
“… all ways are MY WAYS!” (Carol Finn, R.Q.)
And to that, all us WUWT people say:
Now we know 2 things about Russell Seitz:
1. He is not near as smart as he thinks he is and
2. He is a liar.
David Ball says:
August 24, 2013 at 9:14 am
Just wanted to give a shout out to the childish Russell, whom I have had the displeasure of interacting with on other sites. It is sad that he uses his capabilities (would not call it intellect) for evil and not good.
What kind of person thinks of something like trying to make it look like he was censored in his own comment? Only someone who is so desperate that he is willing to destroy his own credibility to discredit others. He is an embarrassment to academia.
======================================
Mr. Ball
The more egregious point is they do this with full knowledge because they do not have control of the facts necessary to disprove what is being stated. One must simply look at the climate-gate emails to understand that this is their only defense from being shown purporting fraud. Control through fear.
Happily Anthony knows his software and how it functions enough to cut a potential manufactured threat to the site off at the knees. Dam those pesky server logs..
This is one of the greatest disservices a professional can do to their organization and their profession.. They must be very upset that their gravy train of government funding is now coming closer to an end. Just like that cornered animal they will bite.. A self-destructive behavior and very Glikish of Dr. Seitz.. Do not fret for them, their respective organizations will circle the wagons and welcome them back. (That is the true devastation to science as whole) Both they and their organizations are now suspect. Now whom do you trust? That is the question.
Bill
(Re: Michael Jennings on August 24, 2013 at 12:41 pm)
Therefore, there is no point to paying attention to anything he has to say.
Thus, I would ban him permanently, Anthony.
Surely there is a cartoon in all this. A demolitions expert blowing up the scientific process? Just too easy.