As some people may or may not know, I am a full member of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in good standing. The AGU fall meeting is coming up, and I hope to attend so that I can cover what is being presented in the world of climate science, while keeping tabs on the antics of people like Michael Mann, Peter Gleick, and some of the other players.
There’s only one problem.
It is VERY expensive to attend. Just the registration alone costs $415.
Add a hotel for 3 days at the typical $150-200 per night rate in SFO, plus incidentals, and the cost to attend easily tops $1000. I’ll drive down to save money rather than take a plane.
While many attendees get the taxpayers (via their Universities) or their NGO’s via donors to pay for such things, WUWT has no such resources, and despite the claims common from detractors, we are still waiting for that ‘big oil check’ to arrive.
So, I thought I’d ask the readership if they can help out so that there will be somebody at AGU to report on climate science that can do so from the skeptic side. I anticipate there will be much follow-on science claims from the upcoming AR5 report, so there is likely to be ample items of interest. I envision a number of segments for WUWT-TV to be put up here.
As a side note, I hope to be able to do a WUWT get together/dinner to thank moderators and contributors as was done almost two years ago and any additional funds received will be put towards that.
Thanks for your consideration, and most of all thanks for reading WUWT.
Donations gratefully accepted: here
The goal has been met, and exceeded, and I am forever grateful to those who have been so very kind to help in this endeavor. The kindness on display has been both overwhelming and humbling. – Anthony
Another small donation added. I see that you already have met your target, but I’me sure a little bit extra won’t hurt. 😉
Even though You met your goal I sent you $30. Have a nice lunch on me..
Thanks for all you have done to keep at least one referee in the climate game daily.
There is an implication of following “keeping tabs” on someone. Eli is a happy bunny to hear that you are only interested in going to talks and posters rather than trailing others. As your reply attests the former can make one very uncomfortable. But, BTW, who brought up Mann or Gleick?
(Reply: Mann brought up Mann in 1997. Gleick brought up Gleick when Gleick admitted that he had engaged in unethical activity. Any other questions? ~mod)
“There is an implication of following “keeping tabs” on someone”
Gasp! On twitter and other media forums, they even call it…. FOLLOWING!
Nation of stalkers by your definition!
Sorry, perhaps Eli was not clear. Allow dibs. Who brought up Prof. Michael Mann or Dr. Peter Gleick in the context of what Eli wrote: going to AGU to “keep tabs” on someone is not exactly matching the purpose of a scientific meeting and verges on stalking.
The Rabett was quite happy to hear that the purpose of Mr. Watts’ attending AGU was to listen to talks and view posters.
People who talk in third person are creepy.
I am now a twit follower of Prof. Michael Mann. Will following Michael Mann on Twitter be similar to the famous Twit Olympics?:
Aphan says:
August 30, 2013 at 1:40 pm
People who talk in third person are creepy.
My Mum always said “Creepy is as creepy does.”
I suppose when your public persona is forced to believe and advocate a cause which deep down you know is not true, speaking of yourself in the 3rd person is a kind of safety valve/get out clause. Disassociation.