A few post-event thoughts about the AGU Fall Meeting: the good, the bad, and the ugly

On my first day at the AGU Fall Meeting, I highlighted some of the zany things about the meeting, such as “gas sucks” girl and Richard Alley’s open mic night at a local bar.

Today I’ll point out some of the more in-depth observations from my experience there, including the positives and the negatives, and some of the ugly ones too.

The bad:

There was, in my opinion, too much tolerance of, and outright support for, politicization and polarization, such as broadly advertising events like this throughout the meeting:

IMG_20131209_131354[1]

Attending that meeting, it was quite clear to me that legal attacks aren’t something the general membership experiences, and it is limited mostly to smaller group. I’ll have more on that later in a separate post. But the way this special session was pushed each day, it makes it look like it is a large organizational-wide problem when the special session itself confirmed that it isn’t.

There was clear evidence throughout the fall meeting of other types of political and polarizing influence.  Dr. James Hansen’s talk was a prime example of this. His level of alarm (some of it irrational) was turned into an infection vector for a broad swath of the membership. I’ll also have more on that in a future post and below I describe his reaction to my asking him a question in front of 1200 people.

Along those lines, there were advertisements that I considered a “call to action”, such as this poster:

AGU_call_to_action

Science findings really shouldn’t be thought of as “making a difference”, that is a social pursuit. According to the definition that pops up on Google when you query “what is science?”  it is “the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”.

None of the definitions I looked at had “making a difference” as part of the structure. In my opinion, such advertisements can become the seeds of “noble cause corruption”, or as Dr. Judith Curry recently put it,  Pathological altruism:

Pathological altruism can be conceived as behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.

Some of the opinions I saw expressed under the guise of science at this show most certainly fit that definition.

And then there was the money.

The costs to attend this show, in one of the most expensive cities in the USA, is quite significant. That’s why I asked WUWT readers for help a couple of months ago (thank you everyone). Between my hotel bill for four days, costs of food, parking, taxis, and incidentals, my costs have now reached about $2000. Had I not been able to get a press pass, the costs would be close to $2500. Had I flown from a location elsewhere in the USA rather than drive, my costs could easily have reached $3500.

From my observations, the majority of attendees were government employed scientists, either by agencies, such as NASA, NOAA, Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, Aviation, etc. to name a few I spotted, or from universities, which rely upon state and federal government funding.

There was also private sector attendees, but these seemed the minority, and many of them were exhibitors of scientific equipment. My guesstimate based on badge counting is that there were about 15,000 government-funded attendees out of the 20,000 or so that were estimated to have attended.

If I use my own numbers as an example, and figure it may have cost each of them $3000 to attend (some may not have stayed four days) and with 20,000 attendees that translates to a 60 million dollar event. If fifteen thousand were government-funded, that puts it at 45 million dollars footed by the taxpayers.

There was a lot of science on display there, but as I wandered through the poster sessions each day, I saw a lot of science that seemed to be replicated. I’d see 3 or four posters covering the same topic from different universities or agencies, sometimes on the same day in the same aisle. This duplication of effort is something the US government is quite famous for. For example, USGS now has a climate change division, duplicating some of the work NOAA does. When Eisenhower warned that science was becoming institutionalized, he was only touching the surface of what I observed on display at AGU.

I got a first hand insight into many of the climate personalities we cover here at WUWT.  To name a few, I encountered, Michael Mann, John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, David Appell, Gavin Schmidt, James Hansen, Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky, Richard Somerville, Peter Gleick, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Andrew Dessler, Kevin Trenberth, Joshua Halpern (who plays Eli Rabbet on the interweb) Scott Mandia, Richard Alley, Zeke Hausfather, and California Governor Jerry Brown.

Some I shook hands with, some I listened to at lectures, and some I simply encountered and they avoided eye contact. Cook and Nuccitelli were prime avoiders, not just of me but I heard the same from others. Watching them walk around the show with their swagger when they weren’t in proximity of a skeptic was an interesting observation.

Most of the people named above were pretty much as I expected them to be, one notable exception was Scott Mandia (see the positives below). The other notable exception was Naomi Oreskes. After watching her present her views, I’m convinced that she suffers from sort of personality disorder that causes her to hate (venomously I might add, she labels some people as “scumbags”) people who disagree with her. She’s really got a chip on her shoulder, and that translates directly into her emotionally driven work on climate politics. IMHO, she makes Michael Mann look like an amateur in that regard.

I saw Penn State’s Richard Alley speak, and let me tell you, if you think Michael Mann is annoying, Alley’s certainly a close second. His presentation was simultaneously grating (he shouted a lot) and ridiculous, using bizarre metaphors like this one:

Alley_penguins

One of Alley’s slides, previous slides compared global warming to drunk drivers and traffic jams.

Worse, California governor Jerry Brown was in the audience and seemed to be quite taken with Alley’s brand of science and alarmism, particularly Alley’s depictions of San Francisco under water.

Gov. Jerry Brown talks with Richard Alley just feet away from me.

Gov. Jerry Brown talks with Richard Alley just feet away from me.

I shudder to think what sort of influence Alley’s rantings might have on the people of California via Brown.

My first two days at AGU were personally difficult. I felt the stares, I heard some smirks. But the biggest problem for me wasn’t that I was in the minority, but that my hearing assistance needs ( have about an 80% loss, partially corrected with hearing aids) weren’t attended to by AGU, even though I thought they had been taken care of when I signed up. When I went to sessions and asked for the hearing assistance headsets, all I got was blank stares. Nobody knew where to get them. Thankfully the problem was resolved (see the positives).

The AGU is too Macintosh centric. For example, they had a great App for iPhone and iPad users to help them navigate the show, but Android users were virtually ignored. Android accounts for a larger market share now than IOS, and according to this November 2013 Forbes article, 81% of devices shipped had Android OS, versus 12.9% for Apple’s IOS. AGU shouldn’t ignore the many people in attendance that use Android on phones and tablets.

So, since I have Android, I was forced to rely on the printed book for the show which was the size of a small phone book, making it cumbersome and heavy to carry around all day. I finally resorted to tearing out pages and/or taking snapshots on my phone of sessions I wanted to attend. The book itself was quite an impressive production, but to an outsider it was hard to navigate as the session listings were split into groupings by interest, instead of having one listing for each day.

==============================================================

The good:

The event itself was eye-opening, I would encourage anyone who can to attend it at least once. Despite some sneers and snubs I received at the hands of a small group of people, and some difficulties with hearing some sessions, the event was mostly positive for me.

This meeting had about 20,000 attendees based on the numbers I heard from AGU officials I interacted with. For the most part, it was well orchestrated and well handled. Getting any event this large to run smoothly takes skill, and I think AGU did a good job at making most everything run smoothly.

Many of the sessions were available via streaming video, and the video worked well. Many will also be on the YouTube channel soon. This makes much of the meeting accessible to everyone and I applaud AGU for doing this.

While I offered my handshake first to say hello to a few people on the opposite side of the debate (named above in the negatives section, Kevin Trenberth, Gavin Schmidt, Joshua Halpern to name a few) only one person from that group made the effort to say hello to me; Scott Mandia.

Despite the fact that he takes a satirical ribbing from us for his “SuperMandia” persona, Scott was not only civil, but quite pleasant. I spent about 15 minutes talking to him about his Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, the meeting itself, and what skeptics and AGW proponents have in common. Kudos to him for doing so.

One person who is not part of that group, Clark J. Weaver who runs Congressional Temperature Trends also made the effort to say hello. He was quite interested in what I had to say about station siting issues.

While I was in this meeting….

Legal_attack_panel

Climate Science Under Legal Attack – Scientists Tell their stories. L-R Naomi Oreskes, Jeff Ruch (PEER), Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, Ben Santer

…I sat just feet away from people whom I’m quite certain would rather not have had me there.

In that meeting audience (which was about half capacity of the room) there was also John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Phil Jones, David Appell, Stephan Lewandowsky, and Richard Somerville. WUWT regular John Whitman was also present.

Despite my presence front and center with my unmistakably labeled WUWT camera case, I wasn’t bothered by anyone, nor was I acknowledged or cited by the panel (though they had plenty of opportunity to do so when talking about the impacts of Climategate). In fact, eye contact was universally avoided. That said, I’m pretty certain that some of the commentary from the panel was a bit more restrained than it might have been had I not been so visible. I’ll point out, as I told Scott Mandia, I didn’t sit in the front row to intimidate anyone, I sit there so I can lip read.

The meeting purported to to be about the “legal attacks” these people had experienced. I only heard two instances of a lawsuit being inflicted on members the panel, and that was from Oreskes and Dessler, and the outcomes were unclear. I gathered these were a threats of a lawsuit, but not an actual lawsuit taken to full court press. Dr. Trenberth made a point of saying “I’ve never been sued”.

Oreskes made it clear that threat never did become a full blown lawsuit, and as part of the “silver lining” she mentioned, wrote Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.

From that book, she got more invitations to speak and publish.

What was surprising was that none of the panel cited any monetary losses from these lawsuits or threats of lawsuits, nor did they cite any professional losses (such as demotion, loss of pay grade, etc) as a result of the supposed attacks. My viewpoint was strengthened by an audience member who commented during Q&A that “Dr. Mann mentioned the Serengeti strategy, and I don’t don’t think skeptics have been very effective at it, since you are all still here to talk about it”.

Most of the panel’s complaints had to do with Climategate and those emails, FOIA requests, time spent, and the supposed nasty emails they get from skeptics and the emails sent to their superiors. David Appell wrote this in an article When Scientists Get Sued (yaleclimatemediaforum.org):

Climate scientist Kevin Trenberth of NCAR described the 19 pages of “extremely nasty” e-mails he received, after an e-mail message of his own was leaked in the so-called “ClimateGate” controversy of 2009. In that message he bemoaned science’s inability to close the planet’s energy budget, which he then described as a “travesty,” a remark that was widely misconstrued by climate contrarians.

Trenberth was bombarded with e-mails containing “filthy language” and suggestions he go back to his native New Zealand. A small protest was held at the entrance to his NCAR lab, and the lab increased security.

That combined with the low attendance, with the audience mostly being people who are part of this clique, it suggested to me that the “legal attacks” were really few and far between, didn’t come to fruition or monetary losses, and that most of the umbrage vented by the panel had to do with the idea that anyone dare questioned their results or integrity.

This all seems more on the “Tempest in a teapot” level than serious legal losses. I’ll have more on this meeting in a future post.

The science posters on display was probably the best part of the show, though exhausting to keep up with since they changed every day, and there were hundreds of new ones each day. It was like turbo science fair. One of the best things about posters is that it allowed people to try out new ideas without going through the process of peer review. Ideas and criticisms from the poster can then be worked into a final paper. I saw a few posters that pushed a skeptical view of climate, I also saw a few posters that pushed what I consider ridiculous views of climate alarmism that would be considered fringe science. One such poster was from a fellow who argued that all global warming was from water vapor feedback and nothing else.

I’ll have more on poster sessions in upcoming WUWT stories.

Once I was able to contact the right AGU staff about the lack of hearing assistance in the session rooms, I’ll have to say they were very responsive and very gracious. I’d like to thank Joan Buhrman, Manager, Strategic Communications of AGU for her personal assistance in solving this problem. During Hansen’s second rescheduled talk, she made up for some the previous difficulties by placing me at the front of the line for his talk, ensuring I’d get a good seat. That translated into a seat right next to microphones that allowed audience members to ask questions.

After Dr. Hansen’s talk, in which he stated “we have very little time left” and used the usual alarming points, but then he started promoting nuclear power, and I saw this as an opportunity to ask a question that dealt with something AGW promoters and skeptics might agree on.

So, there I was, standing before Hansen and 1200 people getting ready to ask a question. As a 30 year veteran of television, radio, and audience presentations, I can’t recall a time when I was so nervous. My knees were literally shaking. While I was waiting for my turn, I was wondering if Dr. Hansen would recognize me, and if he did, would he take my question, or would he launch into some sort of invective about skeptics? Would I get catcalls and boos from the audience just for daring to ask?

To my relief, Dr. Hansen took my question in stride. I thanked him for his views on nuclear power, and asked him if he would be willing to support Thorium based nuclear power due to its many safety advantages that got pushed aside due to the Uranium based nuclear power being preferred due to the parallel bomb making effort helping the economics of nuclear power development.

He said it “must be part of the mix” mainly due to the fact that “there is so much of it” referring to abundance in the Earth’s crust. I see this as a point of agreement that both sides should work on.

The best part of my daring to ask that question, was that a person and dear friend in the audience that I hadn’t seen in 20 years recognized my voice and we connected afterwards. That was a real treat.

=============================================================

The ugly:

On Tuesday, I attended Dr. Judith lean’s lecture: Global Change in Earth’s Atmosphere, Natural and Anthropogenic factors.

During the presentation a slide went up that had a story from WUWT cited on it. At that same time I heard what I thought was a grunt of disapproval. Looking around a bit later, I noticed that the nearest likely candidates for uttering such a grunt were sitting about 8-10 feet from me; David Appell and Dr. Richard Somerville.

I wrote in that post about the appearance of the slide:

Nice to see a familiar face used. Heard David Appell and Richard Somerville who were sitting near me both grunt when WUWT was displayed.

I didn’t think much of it, it was just an observation (posted from my cell phone). To my surprise I found out that despite him stating ” Frankly, I couldn’t care less ” Appell wrote an entire story saying it wasn’t him, about this one sentence. His post is titled: Anthony Watts, Lying Again

And said:

Anthony Watts can’t even tell the truth about the little things.

My goodness, what a reaction! If Appell isn’t the one who grunted when the WUWT slide came up, I’ll certainly take his word for it.

Maybe it was somebody behind me I couldn’t see or maybe it was somebody stifling a cough. All I know is that I heard something at that time that sounded like a grunt, and I thought the most likely candidates were Appell and Somerville, since they both have expressed strong disdain in the past for climate skeptics, and with Appell, me in particular.

Since Appell brought up the issue “…can’t even tell the truth about the little things.” I’ll point out that Mr. Appell has created false persona and fake email addresses to get around his being banned for serial bad behavior here.

Mr. Appell has used fake email addresses with several aliases here at WUWT:

Edd Ward

Mughal

Phobos

Stan W.

Sedron L

And those are just the ones I know of.

He’s also sent me an email some time ago saying he’d do it again. Anything for “the cause” I suppose. And then there’s the incident where he brought my deceased mother into one of his rants.

So while Mr. Appell suggests loudly that I’m lying about my observation of hearing a grunt and attributing it to him, the most likely nearby candidate, and that it’s a supposed example of not telling the truth about little things, which he means translates by extension into larger things, we have multiple examples here of Mr. Appell’s own falsehoods in representing who he is.

I’d say that getting ranted on by Appell over attribution of a “grunt” was probably the worst thing to come out of AGU 2013. From that perspective, since nobody much takes him seriously anymore, I think since that was the worst thing that happened, I did pretty well at AGU 2013.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Thank you so much for walking into the Roman Coliseum and living to tell about it.

Julian in Wales

I think you were very brave to go into the lion’s den like that, it takes a lot of guts and also displays your confidence and self-esteem.

Considering what I know there is a concentration cell awaiting me somewhere. I hope it is a seaside few next to Rush’s Condo.

That said, when the solar minimum truly hits, these Gestapo tactics will see Russians on the Western Front. They seem to stay aloft of this crap.

Ivor Ward (aka Disko Troop)

The joys of walking into the lions den and discovering that they are really scared little pussycats.

HLx

Very nice summary :)..
One thing I am wondering about is, where there any people that came to you and showed their “silent” support? Did many people know you?
REPLY: there were two people who made overtures along those lines – Anthony

EternalOptimist

Damn fine effort sir!
I am not suprised to learn who the swaggerers were, but Scott is redeemed I guess. Pity about Appell. It only takes one bad one…so they say

Brian H

With all the gubmint funds flowing to attendees from their barely numerable agencies with skin in the game, it’s inevitable they will degenerate into insider love-fests. What’s the point, other than swapping talking-points?

dalyplanet

Who is David Appell.
Actually Dr Curry has given him much latitude and he has shown a boorish behavior on many occasions.
Thank you for the report.

Matthew R Marler

I saw a lot of science that seemed to be replicated. I’d see 3 or four posters covering the same topic from different universities or agencies, sometimes on the same day in the same aisle.
That’s necessary for science to have any hope of being self-correcting.
It is also the result of “the invisible hand” of the information marketplace: people independently studying the same publications and independently identifying the next logical lines of study.

John A

It all feels like an ebb tide of alarmism at the AGU.

Scott Mc

Anthony, you are an amazing man and I have enormous respect for you.

EternalOptimist

@Brian H. I think there is a point.
It may have been an expensive meeting but many new ideas are born at this type of event. People rub up against each other.
Plus, I would bet that AW found one alarmist to be a nice guy after all, but ten alarmists found AW to be a nice guy after all
and I kind of like that idea

Pippen Kool

“Science findings really shouldn’t be thought of as “making a difference””
Really?
One of the things that the NSF asks when it reviews grants is whether or not answering a Q in a proposal makes a difference is how we think about a problem. One thing I like is, “this will change the text books”. And a Nobel Prize is often awarded for things that change the way people think, Spemann’s Organizer, Einstein’s relativity, Sanger’s DNA sequencing or Fire&Mello’s iRNA.
Science is very much about making a difference.

REPLY:
You left off “that’s a social pursuit”. tsk. Anthony

Very interesting !!

Peter Miller

It is a pity such a high percentage of delegates were from the multi-tentacled bureaucracies of government.
When you have this, all you get is a bunch of heads nodding in agreement on the following: i) how important they all are, ii) the need for more research funds, and iii) the urgent need to grow their own particular bureaucracies.

James Strom

I’ve got to respect your pursuit of your press activities despite hearing difficulties, but they do put you in a situation where you may miss subtleties. You may for example, misconstrue sounds of disapproval, particularly inarticulate ones. Heck, I often do so myself, without need of a hearing problem.

RicHard.

It is depressing to read about the cost to the tax payer, I am betting it went over 60 million. So many real problems nead addressing.

Mario Lento

Thank you Anthony! I trust and hope that the donations provided covered the costs. I assumed you would have received more than $2500 from us. I’m willing to contribute a bit more to future funding to get you out in front of other venues. We need you. We need WUWT and the mods, I cannot imagine a world without WUWT – a beacon of hope for truth in science!

TimiBoy

Mate, if you were a Pom (or an Aussie) you’d be SIR Anthony Watts. Thankyou for your work.

Rud Istvan

Anthony, I trust that you and Dr. curry were able to connect. You both came to the same battle, albeit from different perspectives at different times. She, more pure science. You, more pure practical (as befits a former weatherman). The combination is formidable.
As for Mann, et. al.(your previous posted photo) nothing more needs to be said. The bar venue might provide an excuse, but not a justification. Summarizes it all, except for your count of government funded/ other. Not shocking, just more proof of the validity of a follow the money meme.
Highest regards.

NikFromNYC

Here’s Dave last year:
“They are too many, and too stupid. So what to do about them?
I don’t know. Donald Brown, the philosopher at Penn State who has been writing about the ethics of climate change for well over a decade — I interviewed him in the early 2000s — thinks they are perhaps guilty of crimes against humanity.
Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?
I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
I think they’re crimes will be obvious in about a decade.
When I profiled Michael Mann for Scientific American, he said he thought it would eventually be illegal to deny climate change. I had doubts about that, but maybe.”

David Ball

I am always impressed with the courage and effort you put forth An”tny.
Now, if you would be so kind as to print my father’s latest article and response to questions asked of him, I will know that WUWT? is the bastion of evidenced based free thinking that I have come to know. Let your reader’s decide for themselves as you have always done.
REPLY: I made it very clear to your father that he’d stepped over a line here by promoting a post in his essay from a person who has villifed, insulted, degraded, and mocked me, while at the same time using fake emails and fake persona (no, not David Appell another person) to slip in comments here under false pretenses. I’m not going to give that disruptive childish person any further attention. Your father obviously doesn’t want to remove that reference, so we are at an impasse. I offered to link to the essay if he publishes it on his own website to which he replied “fair enough”. Dr. Ball has not yet published that article on his own website. When he does< I'll make good on my offer, but under no circumstances am I obligated to publish an essay here that I don't agree with. – Anthony

Mario Lento

Pippen Kool says:
December 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm
“Science findings really shouldn’t be thought of as “making a difference””
Really?
One of the things that the NSF asks when it reviews grants is whether or not answering a Q in a proposal makes a difference is how we think about a problem. One thing I like is, “this will change the text books”. And a Nobel Prize is often awarded for things that change the way people think, Spemann’s Organizer, Einstein’s relativity, Sanger’s DNA sequencing or Fire&Mello’s iRNA.
Science is very much about making a difference.
REPLY: You left off “that’s a social pursuit”. tsk. Anthony
++++++++++++
Again Pippen. You have selective hearing. By leaving out the complete sentence, your words argue against something that was not stated. You argue with your versions of the truth. By leaving out ” that’s a social prusuit” you fail to appreciate the context. For instance, one of the charters of the owner of that poster in questions is “The Thriving Earth Exchange will operate as a platform to connect communities and organizations with scientists to address specific, real-world science issues for societal good.”
I don’t need any more social sciences –especially from the likes of you Pippen Kool.

CodeTech

I’m not sure I could have been there, I’d be too convulsed with laughter half the time. I’m sorry, but my BS detector (bad science) is set pretty high, by default.
I attended E3 a few times in the 90s… and several computer conferences in the late 70s and early 80s. I sure hope that isn’t what these conventions are like.

davidmhoffer

NikFromNYC;
Are they? Are Anthony Watts and Marc Morano and Tom Nelson and Steve Goddard smart enough to be guilty of climate crimes?
I think so. You can’t simply claim that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Having followed this forum for a very many years, I challenge you to produce a single instance of Mr Watts saying any such thing.
REPLY: Thanks, Indeed the argument I’m in with Dr. Tim Ball (see David Ball comment this thread) has to do with a person who insists (well, more like screams) that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that I’m “stupid” (to use one of the nicer insults) for not agreeing with that premise, nor publishing any of the junk science they use to make such claims. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of that I have no doubts. The only valid argument is climate sensitivity to it. – Anthony

Thank you for being there and for showing the Good as well as the Bad and the Ugly. I look forward to further posts.

Pippen Kool says:
December 14, 2013 at 2:15 pm
========================
WOW !!
The NSF wanting political/social content as a requirement connected to their funding.
Shocking.
Shocking I say.

thisisnotgoodtogo

Mr. Watts deserves high praise for everything he’s done. If only I had half the energy and dedication I’d be happy.
Thank you Mr. Watts.
With regard to David Appell, he’s apparently not eve able to tell that he’s been wiped over every floor he tried to stand on, at Professor Curry’s place.

David Ball

Anthony, I defer to your judgement. It would also be good if you could redact all but the first sentence of my post, as my father was not happy that I intervened. My apologies to you as well.
Cheers.

Eugene WR Gallun

YOU ROCK!!!!
Eugene WR Gallun

Hello Anthony and Merry Christmas!
I recommend an excellent book that may help one to understand some of the extremists.
“The Sociopath Next Door” by Martha Stout
http://www.amazon.com/Sociopath-Next-Door-Martha-Stout/dp/0767915828
Regards, Allan
Excerpt: “The Sociopath Next Door”
I trust that imagining yourself as any of these people feels insane to you, because such people are insane, dangerously so. Insane but real – they even have a label. Many mental health professionals refer to the condition of little or no conscience as “antisocial personality disorder,” a noncorrectable disfigurement of character that is now thought to be present in about 4 percent of the population – that is to say, one in twenty-five people. This condition of missing conscience is called by other names, too, most often “sociopathy,” or the somewhat more familiar term, psychopathy. Guiltlessness was in fact the first personality disorder to be recognized by psychiatry, and terms that have been used at times over the past century include manie sans delire, psychopathic inferiority, moral insanity, and moral imbecility.
According to the current bible of psychiatric labels, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV of the American Psychiatric Association, the clinical diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” should be considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
(1) failure to conform to social norms;
(2) deceitfulness, manipulativeness;
(3) impulsivity, failure to plan ahead;
(4) irritability, aggressiveness;
(5) reckless disregard for the safety of self or others;
(6) consistent irresponsibility;
(7) lack of remorse after having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person.
The presence in an individual of any three of these “symptoms,” taken together, is enough to make many psychiatrists suspect the disorder.
***************

thisisnotgoodtogo

“CO2 is a greenhouse gas, of that I have no doubts. The only valid argument is climate sensitivity to it. – Anthony”
Strictly on the yes or no issue.
Then other arguments come in on residence time, good or bad, for who and what, and so on.
That’s where it sometimes gets truly absurd.

Dave

“If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools” Kipling
Thank you Anthony, and keep up the great work.

john robertson

Anthony
Thank you for a brave action and on going reporting.
Did you get adequate donations to cover your needs?
Your comment that your presence may have muted the enthusiasms of the “Team”, intrigues me, so next time send in a spy?
REPLY: Thanks, yes. Spying isn’t part of my professional toolkit, nor do I want it to be. -Anthony

Richdo

So glad you got to attend Anthony. The summaries are very interesting. Thanks.

Anthony, Thanks for all your efforts on behalf of Science. You have braved ther Lion’s Den and emerged unscathed. I am glad that you encountered a few decent human beings on the way. My estimation of Scott Mandia has risen. Superman is OK.

rogerknights

The other notable exception was Naomi Oreskes. After watching her present her views, I’m convinced that she suffers from sort of personality disorder that causes her to hate (venomously I might add, she labels some people as “scumbags”) people who disagree with her. She’s really got a chip on her shoulder, and that translates directly into her emotionally driven work on climate politics. IMHO, she makes Michael Mann look like an amateur in that regard.

She’s the Ilsa Krebs personality type.

Thanks for the hard work, Anthony. I admire both you and Steve McIntyre’s ability to keep your cool and be polite, for I fear that I’d completely lose my temper in such a setting.
I also shudder to think what certain people might be capable of, were they not aware they were “being watched.” Ten years ago almost no one was watching. Things have changed, and now “the whole world is watching.”
I find it interesting that some Climate Scientists seem so concerned about lawsuits, before they have even happened. Do I detect the whiff of a guilty conscience? I personally believe a time will come when they do face their day in court, simply because “adjustments” are too much like “falsifying public documents.”

thisisnotgoodtogo

No Joe Romm? Drat!
“NY Times: Did Denier ‘Intimidation Tactics’ Move IPCC To ‘Lowball’ Sea Level Rise And Climate Sensitivity?”
He loved this piece.

Kev-in-Uk

Excellent report Sir!, and I can honestly say that I will accept your views/opinions of your toils at face value – no matter what others may say (viz a viz Appell etc).
I’m certain that many many folk do not agree with others 100%, even here on these pages (I’m ignoring the warmist trolls) – but that doesn’t not detract from a high level of respect even when tempered with passionate ideas – resulting in considerable ‘advancement’ and cross-pollination of ideas.
I suspect (and if I am way off line, I apologise profusely) that your initial foray into this meme of climate change/agw was not intended as anything more than personal enlightenment and enquiry? It is both good and sad burden (for you, as in, the stress) that you have been a ‘hook’ upon others have hung their hats – but take heart that history will remember your efforts. The ebooks will no doubt show the usefulness of WUWT in due course, and you should be proud of that achievement.
I don’t strictly consider that asking Hansen a question required courage – because, as a scientist, I would consider disagreement and questioning as an absolute and fundemental part of the scientific process, and indeed, a given requirement/obligation for a true scientist. BUT, in the context of being amongst many who are under the drug crazed influence of climate alarmism – THAT does indeed take a degree of courage.
Three cheers for Mr Watts, and jolly well done=, that MAN !

davidmhoffer

REPLY: Thanks, Indeed the argument I’m in with Dr. Tim Ball (see David Ball comment this thread) has to do with a person who insists (well, more like screams) that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas and that I’m “stupid” (to use one of the nicer insults) for not agreeing with that premise, nor publishing any of the junk science they use to make such claims.
Awww. I was going to torture poor NikFromNYC for the rest of the day. My plan was to repeatedly ask him to produce evidence to back up his assertion, knowing full well it would be a waste of his time. Now that you’ve stipulated to CO2 being a greenhouse gas, Nik most likely knows that his search for evidence to back up his assertion is a waste of time. I must content myself with now waiting to see, given that he alludes to being a journalist suggesting that a crime (and not any crime, but a crime against humanity) may have been committed, if he has the integrity to withdraw the assertion.

a jones

A lions den eh?
Well if one hero could walk in and out unscathed I am sure another can.
And did, even if he is not quite so mythical.
But sad is it not that the pursuit of knowledge which has so advanced human prosperity is turned into a circus of thieves, charlatans and sheer heartlessness: for make no mistake many are impoverished and so die prematurely from these antics of well fed and self regarding fools.
Perhaps it was ever so.
.Kindest Regards

rogerknights

@Davidmhoffer:
NicfromNYC wasn’t saying the anti-Anth-ny words you attributed to him: He was quoting David Appel as having said them. (He should have used the blockquote tag to make that clear.)

Janice Moore

Dear Anthony,
Well done!
We are so very proud of you. And so grateful.
Your devoted fan,
Janice

Michael Jankowski

Methinks David Appel doth protest too much.

davidmhoffer

rogerknights says:
December 14, 2013 at 3:38 pm
@Davidmhoffer:
NicfromNYC wasn’t saying the anti-Anth-ny words you attributed to him: He was quoting David Appel as having said them. (He should have used the blockquote tag to make that clear.)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well if that is indeed the case, then it is I who owes NikFromNYC the apology.

PaulH

Just a cursory observation here, but other than a few notable exceptions it seems that there were almost no people of color at this event. Am I mistaken, or is CAGW primarily the domain of middle-aged white men?

davidmhoffer

Back to the AGU meeting….
I’m surprised Anth_ny, that you felt so nervous preparing to ask Hanson a question. Can you imagine how Hanson felt? His entire life’s work is slowly crumbling to dust, and there is nothing he can do about it except milk the gravy train just a little bit longer. Every day the evidence mounts that his alarmism was not only not justified, but that he and other alarmists most likely knew it every step of the way. His carefully constructed fiction, which he took a lifetime to construct, is disintegrating in real-time, and the one person, who more than any other on the planet, who has documented it from beginning to end, was about to ask him a question. In public.
I imagine that his heart was racing and his sphincter convulsed shut. Then to his relief, you through him a soft one. I would no have been so kind.
REPLY: There was nothing to be gained by confrontation in that venue, except perhaps dis-invitation. He seemed cool as a cucumber BTW – Anthony

yirgach

Cost to taxpayers
Well Anthony, while you used a $3000 * 15000 gvt employee figure to get a cost of $45M, don’t forget that while traveling they also get paid their regular salary plus benefits. Figure that adds about another $15M – $20M to the tab. Based on 75K annual average research scientist salary plus 1.3 multiplier for benefits at a 3 day average stay… Mebbe the lower class dweebs make less, I dunno.