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.
Wind back the clock. All of this is much more like Thomas More burning heretics.
Ah, those were the days. Not all the pansies flitting about now. Back to 1530. That was when you could look a man in the eye and hack off his head. Nah, you can’t do that anymore. All a bunch of weak kneed paper-pushers. If Universities were full of real men, they’d form alliances, and put cannons in the windows. And one day when the bastards published without citing our work, we’d make a treaty with the former enemy institution and invade the traitorous school. A little blood spilled and science advanced. And beer. Always that. And women. But mostly beer.
Sorry, I just bought the complete Tudors on DVD.
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.
Well, that why AGU says:
“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. ”
They don’t want anyone imagining that AGU is ideologically driven herd of pansies.
Village Idiot says:
October 14, 2013 at 12:45 pm
Just how deep does this conspiracy go ?? :- ( Once the cooling starts they’ll have to listen.
No they won’t, they will declare cold the new warm and continue with their bureaucratic Malthusian activity. We have already seen this in the recent cold northern hemisphere winters where the cold and snow were claimed to be a ‘natural result of global warming’. This despite the well known and oft repeated Viner quote of children not knowing what snow is any more. This is NOT a science issue, it is political, so they will move goalposts at will to keep making money and gaining power.
Kinda reminds me, Little Judith was at school the other day and her teacher was drumming up support for CAGW … “who believes in CAGW ?”
All the little hands shot up … except young Judith.
“Judith! Why don’t you Believe ?” Scolded the teacher.
“Well Miss, my Daddy doesn’t Believe and my Mommy doesn’t Believe, so that’s kinda why I also don’t Believe.” Answered Judith.
“So, if your Daddy was a drug dealing pimp and your Mommy a prostitute, what would that make you ?” queried the teacher.
“That would make me a Believer, then !”
The language in the statement of method above is that of druids or lawyers. Nothing to do with science. Just an ass-covering smokescreen to lend credence to a sour agenda.
Ah, but they did consider it. Here is the key line from the panel charge: “…members shall consider them as they see fit.”
They obviously had a fit when you submitted comments (and, apparently, an alternate statement that would their tight little bottoms even tighter, and they saw fit to dismiss it out of hand.
So sorry, should have read:
“… an alternate statement that wound their tight little bottoms even tighter), and …”
AGU… they put together what amounts to “Trade Shows” for Geologists. It’s a good networking opportunity to enhance one’s career and find organizations and areas to collaborate on grant proposals. Years ago, we could see the movement to politics by Eos. The diversity Carol Finn speaks of is not about science. It’s about encouraging women and minorities to become scientists. This isn’t a bad thing, but don’t be fooled into thinking they are interested in diverse research.
richardscourtney says:
October 14, 2013 at 10:53 am
Friends:
Those who want to know how the AGU and similar organisations were usurped may like to read this account by Richard Lindzen. It is a shocking read which names names
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf
Take the time to read this. Thanks for the link, Richard!