Further Discussion on the Narrow Process of the AGU Review of Climate Change
Guest essay by Roger A. Pielke Sr.
With the appearance of the new 2013 WG1 IPCC report, it is useful to visit my recent experience with the American Geophysical Union (AGU) assessment process that I had not commented on before.
My experience exemplifies how the climate assessment processes has been “colonized” [using Ross McKittrick’s terminology – http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/09/16/ipcc-models-getting-mushy/] to promote an inappropriately too narrow (and often incorrect) assessment of climate science.
To place the issue in context, I will first present the “charge” and “guidelines” presented to our Committee [highlighting specific text]
Next, I present the AGU guidelines that were provided to us [highlight added]
Guidelines for AGU position statement panels
• Following appointment to the panel, each panel member will receive a list of names and contact information of their fellow panel members.
• The AGU Council and membership will be informed that the panel is working on a statement and that comments are welcome. The staff liaison will forward relevant comments to the panel and members shall consider them as they see fit.
• Each panel member should first review the charge to the committee (written by AGU public policy staff for each statement), and AGU policy on its role in advocacy of public issues and its procedures for developing Union positions (available on the web).
• The panel should begin its deliberations with a planning conference call. The panel should discuss the charge to the panel and the AGU policy on position statements so there is no misunderstanding amongst panel members. The panel should also discuss the timetable for completing a draft statement for Council review, and roles and responsibilities for panel members. AGU Public Affairs Coordinator Erik Hankin (ehankin@agu.org, tel-202-777-7523) will serve as staff liaison to the panel.
• The panel should identify the primary audience or audiences for the statement as part of the preliminary discussions to help focus the writing effort. Panel members should be aware of expressions and uses of language that may not be appropriate for or may be misinterpreted by a non-scientist audience. For example, when speaking of what scientists do, avoid the verb “believe” and the noun “belief” because they are more appropriate to religion than to the scientific process. Instead, it is acceptable to use the verb “think” and, if needed, the noun “concept”.
• Typically the panel can conduct much of its business via e-mail or with additional conference calls. At least one face to face meeting is very useful to bringing diverse views into the discussion. More meetings may be required to resolve disagreements that cannot be worked out over the phone or via e-mail.
• When the panel has completed a draft statement, the AGU Public Information Manager, Public Affairs Manager, and an Eos editor will review the draft statement with the panel and offer suggestions based on their expertise that may strengthen the statement.
• When the panel is satisfied with the edited statement, the chair will submit the statement to AGU Council for their vote or comment.
However, my “comments” were not welcome. In the article by Carol Finn [highlight added]
AGU Updates Climate Change Position 20 AUG 2013
DOI: 10.1002/2013EO340006 Statement http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013EO340006/pdf
which presents the accepted final version of the AGU Statement, this is what she wrote
The draft statement was published in Eos in November 2012 (Eos, 93(48), 502, doi:10.1029/ 2012EO480009) for member comment. The panel addressed the comments and submitted the statement for approval.
The panel did not review the wholly separate statement he drafted because it did not meet the charge from AGU’s Board.
In other words, despite stating it is AGU policy to address comments, they failed to discuss mine as summarized in my minority statement (which clearly is a “comment”).
This failure to review by the Panel is yet another example of how parochial the climate assessment process has become.
Jim Cripwell says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:40 pm
When it comes to policy, lots of members of Congress are already listening & heeding the message. That’s why the US avoided the carbon tax hellhole afflicting so many other countries, & the administration had to do an unconstitutional end run around Congress, using the EPA & Interior Dept. illegally to wage its war on coal & pipelines.
Just how deep does this conspiracy go ?? :- ( Once the cooling starts they’ll have to listen.
Jim Cripwell, When Governments change climate will change.
BTW France is starting to go more conservative as a few other countries. Hopefully the USA will be next.
Willis Eschenbach says:
October 14, 2013 at 11:20 am
Precisely,
It is their job to publish data that will later be used in effort to develop proxy data for climate studies. All field work that involves acquisition of say ice cores for example is inherently geological. Likewise speleothem studies, fossil coral sampling, etc. That is why the blatant political positioning so very bad. That politically induced bias can propagate through a discipline, degrading the essential right to discourse that any science requires to proceed in a useful fashion. Worse it biases the inclination of individual scientists to look away from “consensus” when encountering anomalies.
Real paleoclimatic data developed by teams of geologists, biologists, physicists and members of other disciplines is used by paleontologists, archaeologists and workers numerous other fields in an effort to understand and interpret field data. The explicit bias in the AGU board indirectly induces biased results throughout many disciplines. The AGU should be holding to an explicitly neutral stance with teeth and toenails despite pressure from politicians and climatologists.
Sayings to live by: “Simply because I disagree with you does not mean I am wrong.” and “There are some people you can’t help.”
Seems time to re-read this
http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-Anglosphere-miracle-7709#.UlBb0
Are there any geologists, or geophysicists, out there – government employees obviously excepted – who actually support the actions and announcements of the AGU on climate?
I guess there must be some, but if they number more than a few score I would be very surprised.
Geologists understand the concept of ‘climate change’ – it’s been happening for a few billion years, so it is not surprising it continues to happen now. The problem is the subject of ‘climate change’ has been hijacked by the purveyors of bad science and those greedily feeding at the troughs of government wasteful expenditure.
Re: Willis Eschenbach For me, the AGU has no business taking a position on climate science, any more than they should issue position papers on relativity. It’s not their job, and by becoming activists they dimish their own credibility, and harm science itself.
Precisecely.
The downfall of the professional societies, has been the hiring of “Professional” staff. Non-profit societies are a windfall for those who have no ability other than administration. They are bureaucrats paid handsomely by the members, via dues, and have little to do other than work on fundraising and lobbying. Real professionals in the societies are too busy doing real work to ride herd on the staff. Have you ever asked yourself, “What does it take to get staff fired?” If you haven’t you should.
Dr. Pielke is far too kind to the AGU, GSA, UCS, et al. using terms like “colonized” and “parochial” to describe them. These people are trying to blackball anyone & everyone (Dr. Pielke, Dr. Curry, Dr. Lindzen, etc.) who legitimately disagrees with their predetermined version of climate science. They are whores, plain and simple. The term ‘scientist’ no longer applies to any of them.
Apologies for this off topic item (posted also on Currie’s blog) but many of you may not know that this is the Canadian Thanksgiving weekend. The home of McIntyre, McKitrick, Laframboise and Ball has a lot to celebrate!
We got a very special gift for Thanksgiving – Ezra Levant ( of SUN TV ) spends a full hour carving a whole bunch of new holes for David Suzuki, exposing him as a rapacious fraud and a phoney with a gigantic carbon footprint.
It takes Ezra too long to make his points, but the sheer pleasure he takes in destroying St. Suzuki is a joy to watch.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/full-episode-ezra-levant-confronts-david-suzuki/2735775008001
What is Loading…?
Loading…
Everyone should read the essay by Daniel Hannan cited by Another Ian, above.
It points to a fundamental cause of the corruption and venality that has overtaken science, as well as politics – the abandonment of the basic ideals that shaped American and British Commonwealth solcieties and made them the freest and most materially successful in the history of the world.
I, for one, will fight to my dying breath for these “rights to be self-evident”, and against those who corrupt science and politics both. The gauntlet is flung before you, you who would destroy the fruits of 300 years of labor.
“Jim Cripwell says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:40 am
No-one who matters is listening to the skeptics.”
———
Here is how I as one person made a difference.
I am as much a no-one as anyone 🙂 I also happened to have as my hobby reptile breeding, specifically snakes that made good pets like cornsnakes, gopher snakes and kingsnakes. As environmental sensitivity among the public rose, these animals were regulated and protected.
Some snakes, such as Lampropeltis zonata pulchra, a subspecies of California Mountain Kingsnake were made illegal to capture. Other states had similar regulations. Arizona prohibited three species of mountain rattlesnakes and the Gila Monster. Utah (my state) prohibited the Utah Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis pyromelana infralabialus) and the Utah Milksnake (Lampropeltis triangulum taylori). The result was that the people that knew how to find these animals would go about collecting them in large numbers and selling them in other states where they weren’t regulated. By prohibiting the collection of these animals, the supply was cut and the demand went up as a lot of hobbyists like to have that which they aren’t supposed to. These animals would sell for several hundred dollars a piece which made the collection even more profitable.
I set about changing Utah regulations, and met with the usual obstacles. The Division of Wildlife Resources wasn’t about to let a non-expert like me change the rules. I fought them for 20 years without success. So finally I talked to my representative in the Utah House, and he showed me the administrative rules section in the Utah Code, and then pointed me at Title 13 of the same which gives the Division authority to make rules. Then, i learned that there was a legislative committee that oversaw the rule making process. I then pointed out all the discrepancies between what the code allowed the Division to do, and what they actually did. I recruited a group of fellow hobbyists and took this list to the administrative rules committee, and the committee flat out told the Division to fix their regulations. They did, and now limited collection is allowed for almost all species in the state of Utah, AND, this is the big thing, hobbyists are now allowed to captive breed native reptiles for commerce. Once there is a supply of legal animals available the prices drop and illegal collection is significantly reduced. Since these new regulations have passed, several new populations of Mountain Kingsnakes have been discovered in Utah, and their range has been significantly expanded.
In the climate sector, look at the difference made by our host Anthony Watts who has provided a significant platform for various skeptics to publish on and show the corrupt science practices of the cult of global warming. Here, I am mostly a spectator, but I’m glad to be able to see someone sticking up for real science. The small difference I make here is to encourage those who have the expertise to expose the frauds, and do real research. Occasionally we can find relevant articles to publicize or criticize as well.
So us individuals do make a difference, especially if we unite to uncover the unsavory practices of those trying to control our lives. Sometimes the work is very lonely and discouraging, and it helps those struggling on the front lines that there is a cheer leading section to remind them what is at stake for all of us. Our message is spreading, and people are starting to understand what politicians are trying to do to us with junk science. So you do make a difference, even if you don’t think so.
It seems pointless, but Pielke is doing the right thing, that is, insist.
This is a serious ethical lapse by the AGU if Dr. Pielke’s account is accurate. Perhaps this should be referred to the current ethics chair, Dr. Linda Gundersen, who assumed the duties following the resignation of Dr. Peter Gleick for “ethical lapses”. But wait, it seems Willis Eschenbach has already appealed to Dr. Gundersen on a prior issue with negligible effect.
I think by WIllis’ count, she’s at strike two in terms of addressing ethical violations, never having taken taken the bat off her shoulder, let alone as much a taken a poke at Willis’ batting practice pitches [US Baseball metaphor; apologies to foreign readers]. Who know, maybe she will have a go at it if given another chance. Or maybe we’ll have to make do with a slight edit on Ernest Lawrence Thayer’s poem “Casey at the Bat”:
Tom G(ologist) says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:51 am
Well said.
From another geologist.
The concept of the “minority opinion,” “minority report,” or “minority view” needs to be adopted more and more in science. It works perfectly well for the Supreme Court. Decisions might have as many as four minority views released essentially as part of a Supreme Court Decision.
Somehow, one was included in another matter where science was supposed to rule the day in a policy issue. The IOM was commissioned to evaluate the evidence of benefit of a range of women’s healthcare interventions. [This was all a set-up to get birth control to be covered for free via Obamacare, despite the fact that birth control is a lifestyle matter and is not a matter of healthcare since it neither cures an illness nor prevents an illness. Besides advancing this agenda, this coverage likely was a political favor to Planned Parenthood, who are on record advocating this position a year before the IOM report.]
http://capsules.kaiserhealthnews.org/index.php/2011/07/iom-recommends-free-birth-control-for-all/
The report included a minority opinion. Anyone can easily track down this full report, including its minority opinion.
When I heard that there was a minority opinion, I was sure it would be that birth control is not a healthcare matter, but is a lifestyle choice matter.
No; the dissenting opinion was that the supposedly top-level scientific review was commissioned and completed in a half year, a time line far to brief to be credible. That was it.
I do not know the story behind the political machinations required to get such a minority opinion included, but I would love to hear that story; totalitarians commissioning scientific panels to arrive at a pre-determined conclusion do not like to have their feathers ruffled in public.
Before the ink was dry on the IOM special report, Sebelius took that piece of “science” and used that as support for declaring the noted range of services – mammography screening and other actual health care services, along with birth control, to be covered without copay in plans governed from on-high by Obamacare.
So, even there, with an obvious tell-us-politicians-what-we-want-to-hear set-up, a minority opinion was tolerated. They should become increasingly common in “consensus” science.
I’m glad to hear the AGU has now decided that scientific questions can be decided by a committee vote. We can now cancel all scientific research and replace it with a committee of experts to decide all questions. use the funds save to pay off the debt.
Dr Pielke : you have something those effing whores can NEVER have.
Our RESPECT! (and they don’t even respect themselves)
It’s like one labor union or guild knee-jerkingly supporting another’s quest for respect and cash. Science is now a profession in conspiracy against the laity (Shaw)–IOW, a special interest group. See Dan Greenberg’s Science, Money, and Politics.
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:53 am
+++++++
Thank you for the Lindzen Link
ferd berple says:
October 14, 2013 at 3:51 pm
I’m glad to hear the AGU has now decided that scientific questions can be decided by a committee vote. We can now cancel all scientific research and replace it with a committee of experts to decide all questions. use the funds save to pay off the debt.
++++++++
I agree with your sentiment here. When AGW was still en vogue about 5 years ago, a friend of mine used to spout off “If it’s not peer reviewed, it’s meaningless”. At the time I told him that he was taught to parrot that phrase from reading left wing literature. So peer/pal review and now science by committee. As H Clinton would ask, “What difference does it make?”
Richard Courtney, thanks very much for the cite to the Lindzen paper about the corruption of science. As well as being richly referenced, it offers some outstanding insights into the modern history of science and scientific institutions.
Some of the stories he tells are reminiscent of Tammany Hall at its worst. It seems that there are no ethical constraints at all on some prominent (and not-so-prominent) players in “climate science” when it comes to pushing their agenda. Lying, cheating, backstabbing and so on are to be expected in outlier members of any group of people. That’s what I thought when I read the Climategate emails. But his paper demonstrates that the rot goes much, much deeper than that. It’s not just the names that we all know and despise. And in the process, several good and honest scientists had their reputations trashed and their careers destroyed.
It’s even uglier than we thought.
Oh, and I forgot to say that the AGU’s disgraceful suppression of Dr Pielke’s comments is entirely consistent with Lindzen’s analysis. While I agree that scientific bodies should not be taking any kind of corporate stance on scientific issues, if they insist on doing so they should do it transparently. That means allowing all views (not just the received wisdom) to be publicly aired and discussed.