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.
Just to note – I hope no one confuses this Russell Seitz with the late Dr. Frederick Seitz, who was one of the organizers of the Oregon Petition project and should be counted as one of the true heroes of the skeptic community. His introductory letter on the Petition Project website says it all.
Hello,
Not to worry.
The AGU’s losses are the AAPG’s and Society of Exploration Geophysicists (real Ph.D. in Geophysics required) gains.
🙂
The American (Soviet)Geophysical Union’s days are numbered and diminishing day-by-day like their “net-gain” on publishing fees which have been ‘net-loss’ for many years and accelerating notwithstanding the Grecian astrological proclamations from the Politburo and Wolfenstein High Command Illuminati.
Worry worry the poor AGU.
Dollars from Washington DC are not flowing like blood from the hapless homeless deceased body into the veins of the recipient Anointed sucking whore.
The Whore never even asked ME for a Yea nor Nay on her putrid stinking ‘Policy’ yet presumes that the entire membership are … abiding.
This One, does not abide the whore.
Janice Moore says:
August 24, 2013 at 12:13 pm
“. . . may I please be told why?”
I recently posted a photo (not on WUWT) using WordPress. Clicking on it was to bring up a larger version. It did but rotated 90 degrees. I’d like to know why.
Anyway, on WUWT (also using WordPress) I’ll suggest rather than feeling paranoid about such things, just chalk it up as a computer ‘bug’.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-bug1.htm
Not coherent. But aside from that, what business has the Union taking a position on any subject area? It’s an open forum, not a policy institute.
Well, looking from far, I was skeptical of the AGU politics since they wanted to make Gleick head of the ethics commission:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/21/gleick-removed-from-agu-task-force-on-scientific-ethics/
The reasons to put a declared activist on the ethics commission and further continues with:
http://climateaudit.org/2013/01/05/agu-honors-gleick/
after the fraud was known shows poor and biased judgement of their leadership so what does one expect from them?
Apparently AGU understands which side of their bread has the butter on it. How much money is generated annually from sources somehow related to “global warming”?
I stopped today at the AGU page here: http://sites.agu.org/ and James Hanson’s face staring back at me was the first thing I noticed front, top, center of the page.
Any scientist with integrity and concern for his/her reputation should immediately resign from the AGU and distance themselves from it. All these warning bells are ringing and those with ears to hear them should listen.
Individual scientists worldwide are equals in all AGU activities.
– From AGU Core Values
But scientists are more equal than others.
Individual scientists worldwide are equals in all AGU activities.
– From AGU Core Values
But SOME scientists are more equal than others.
The AGU and its journal EOS have exhibited odious behaviour for at least a decade.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/27/agu-president-on-gleicks-shocking-fall-from-grace-his-transgression-cannot-be-condoned-regardless-of-his-motives/#comment-907126
I believe that the AGU and its Transactions journal EOS have much to answer for.
I published the following article in E&E in early 2005. Full article at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/
I am unaware that the AGU has ever “come clean” on its past transgressions, some of which are outlined below. Please correct me if I missed suitable corrective action by the AGU or EOS.
My comment to the AGU President is:
The AGU should publicly acknowledge and apologize for its ethical transgressions, such as those described in my aforementioned 2005 E&E article.
Once the AGU has cleaned up its own house, then it may be qualified to comment further on the contentious issue of alleged catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Until it makes suitable amends, I regard the AGU as ethically contaminated, and unfit for human consumption.
Regards, Allan
Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
The global warming debate heats up
Allan M.R. MacRae
[Excerpt]
But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.
Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.
Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”
Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.
Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.
In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.
………………………….
Bill H says:
August 24, 2013 at 4:13 pm
…………. A self-destructive behavior and very Glikish of Dr. Seitz..
———————————————————————-
A new term and I like it.
Gleickish: To lie, cheat, steal or whatever it takes for a cause.
cn