One really has to laugh at the repackaging attempt by AAAS. Meanwhile:
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Releases “What We Know” and Kicks Off Initiative to Recognize Climate Change Risks
March 17, 2014 – (Washington, DC) The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is announcing the launch of a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks of climate change. At the heart of the initiative is the AAAS’s “What We Know” report, an assessment of current climate science and impacts that emphasizes the need to understand and recognize possible high-risk scenarios.
“We’re the largest general scientific society in the world, and therefore we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS. “As the voice of the scientific community, we need to share what we know and bring policymakers to the table to discuss how to deal with the issue.”
Nobel laureate Dr. Mario Molina, distinguished professor of chemistry and biochemistry at the University of California, San Diego and Scripps Institution of Oceanography and co-chairs, Dr. Diana Wall, distinguished professor of biology and director at Colorado State University’s School of Global Environmental Sustainability and Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard, chaired the climate science panel that generated the report. They, along with the 10 panelists spanning climate science specialties, will engage in the initiative in various ways, from speaking engagements to testimonial on a forthcoming interactive web site to knowledge sharing with other professionals. The initiative encourages Americans to think of climate change as a risk management issue; the panel aims to clarify and contextualize the science so the public and decision-makers can be more adequately informed about those risks and possible ways to manage them.
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,” Dr. McCarthy said. “Even among members of the broader public who already know about the evidence for climate change and what is causing it, some do not know the degree to which many climate scientists are concerned about the risks of possibly rapid and abrupt climate change — that’s something we are dedicated to discussing with multiple audiences, from business leaders and financial experts to decision makers in all walks of life.”
Bob Litterman, former Goldman & Sachs Co. executive and senior partner at Kepos Capital, has participated in discussions with the panel on how to accurately measure climate-related risks and the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management.
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages. Economists understand how to create incentives to limit pollution production with maximum effect and minimum collateral damage, but crafting the appropriate response is a complex valuation process that requires quantifying those same uncertainties,” Litterman said. “To do so requires scientists and economists to work together, ask tough questions, and break the boundaries of their professional silos. That’s what’s this initiative aims to do.”
Litterman will join AAAS CEO Dr. Alan Leshner and panel co-chair Dr. James McCarthy on a phone conference tomorrow to discuss the report, the new initiative and why framing climate change as a risk management issue is critical. (that phone in is long past at 9AMEST today, sorry, Anthony)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts — especially potential economic damages”.
They recognize the considerable uncertainty? Then why bother?
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing, and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems,”
————————————————
This is exceptionally strong evidence that AAAS is still under the control of zealots who have no real understanding that science should be based on real evidence.
So they are going to reiterate old tipping point arguments for mitigation. Their only problem is that there is no credible scientific evidence for any tipping points. Every single paper I have run down claiming same has been fatally flawed, whether on crop yields, sea level rise, Asian fresh water (Himalayan glaciers), Caribbean fresh water, species extinction and habitat change, ocean acidification and oysters…
Just more collateral damage to science generally by climate science charlatans increasingly desparate to keep a failed meme going.
In the Guardian’s response, they use the 8F/5C global temp rise to highlight the danger. One wonders whether many warmists see only the worst scenario, not the “reasonable” one pushed by the IPCC, and whether the average warmist belives in sudden, “tipping point” catastrophism as the nature of nature.
It is a belief that God can visit a Noahian deluge at any moment, without warning. Science and trends mean nothing in this mindset. And if things turn out badly, they will turn out as badly as they can because that is how God has organized His universe.
If you start with the assumption that climate MIGHT change, suddenly and extremely, you can justify almost any response, no matter how expensive or how unlikely to work.
The disengenuity of the strawman language here is self-evident and shameful (emphasis mine)…
I’ll not insult any informed reader here with rebutting the obvious.
It would be interesting to know how much Kepos Capital has invested in “green energy” companies.
Re: “ask tough questions”
How can AAAS “mitigate” (prevent) or “adapt to” probable expected massive unemployment among “climate scientists” due to irrelevant and inaccurate global climate models?
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Wow, they are really getting desperate and pulling out all the stops, aren’t they? All because they’re terrified of a “Wave Election” coming this fall, and with it, the end of any government mandated climate action. This is all political, and tied to the US politician election season – that is the only thing that explains the desperate timing, because they look stupid coming out with this on the heels of this ridiculously cold winter we’ve had. But this is meant to dovetail with Kerry’s nonsensical climate ramblings lately. (Hey John, don’t you think you should be paying attention to your pal Putin a bit more???)
And then they have the nerve to talk about “the need for a language to talk about climate change through the lens of risk management…” They don’t DARE talk about this through the “lens of risk management”, because that means a rational cost/benefit analysis, based upon most likely scenarios, and that means that the wisest course of action, given what the hard data says, is to not do much of anything now, and if necessary, pursue some mitigation efforts in the future.
Contrast The Right Climate Stuff who were able to bound predicted global warming to a maximum of 1.2 deg C – by realistic evaluation of transient climate sensitivity based on observations, and the limits of economically usable fossil fuels.
Hahahaha
The leadership of AAAS appears to be in the grip of an application of the equivocation fallacy. By logical rule, one cannot draw a proper conclusion from an equivocation, that is, an argument in which a term changes meaning in the midst of this argument. To draw an IMPROPER conclusion is the equivocation fallacy. In the midst of global warming arguments, terms that include “science,” “prediction” and “validation” change meaning with the result that the pseudo-scientific methodology of global warming research appears to be a scientific methodology.
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.” Yeah, sure, while they scramble to explain the hiatus that wasn’t predicted.
After playing with my IR thermometer for 3 months I suddenly realized I could not read the temperature of the air directly. I googled “can an IR thermometer measure air temperature” and got this site: http://www.scigiene.com/pdfs/Infrared%20Thermometers.pdf.
There it told me the air does not emit IR. So I am now confused as to what back radiation is?
Of course it has to be about Risk. Humans are terrible at assessing risk and statistics. We are wired to by evolution to err on the side of caution, to avoid risk. It’s a survival mechanism! That’s why alarmism is so successful. Not knowing something that “may” carry risk is scary! Doom and global catastrophe is scary! It always has been. This is why the story of Armageddon STILL scares people to death and Hollywood continues to capitalize on it.
But I love the bait and switch of it all. “We are the world’s biggest group of science guys and we’re going to talk about the unknown possibilities of how you and our planet _might_ die.” Their language is even clear that they don’t know, but that it’s not going to stop them from talking about it – because this stuff “might” have really scary implications and if our scary imaginations are right, you _will_ die. So much for the requirement of proof from science…
Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases, but they recognize the considerable uncertainty about the long-run impacts
ROTFL…that one sentence was worth it all
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences) and I don’t remember being solicited for my opinions on this matter. Yet they presume to be the “voice” of their members in this matter. A bit of arrogant presumption on the part of our ‘betters.’ As Major Hoople used to say “Harumph!”
What I don’t understand is how stating the obvious is considered to be “risk management?” Yes Earth’s climate is changing and yes future climate change can seriously impact us AS IT ALWAYS HAS. We adapt, as we always have. Will they be talking about the risk of less food as the world cools, less energy, keeping third world people’s in poverty? I don’t think so.
I am so discouraged by what passes as science today.
Interesting! They did not mention malaria any more but still refer to West Nile fever which is a disease of birds occasionally transmitted to humans.
\\” . . . we believe we have an obligation to inform the public and policymakers about what science is showing about any issue in modern life, and climate is a particularly pressing one,” said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS.//
Do we actually KNOW that “climate is a particularly pressing one[?]”
It seems to me that they are starting off with an assumption that has not yet been verified.
Maybe they should deal with that question before they start making assumptions. And, assuming they come up with an answer to that question in the affirmative, the next question should be, “Compared to what?”
Funny, the warmistas stay clear of one possible cause of the pause….the end of the Holocene.
Another thought. Does a normal thermometer actually measure air temperature or just radiation coming from nearby solid objects.
Mumbles McGuirk says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:47 am
That’s funny. I’m a member of the AAAS (section W -Atmospheric and Hydrospheric Sciences)
….
Group W? (channeling Arlo here…)
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”
CO2 has increased from 0.0315% in 1959 to ( almost) 0.04% today, an increase of 0.0085%. The dominant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, responsible for about 95% of the greenhouse effect, is water vapor. Radio sonde balloon observations have shown that levels of water vapor in our atmosphere have been decreasing since the start of observations in 1949. Ferenc Miskolczi developed a numerical assessment of the greenhouse effect. He calculated the number of times, on average, a photon of infra-red energy would be captured and re-emitted by a molecule of either CO2 or a molecule of water vapor on its journey from the surface of the earth to space. This number, 1.87, has remained constant since at least 1959. This is “our solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases.”