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)
Looks like they pulled that report….
…out of their AAAS.
[puts on sunglasses]
YEAAAAAAAAH!
“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.”
Translation……risk management = hundreds of trillions in phoney derivatives trading for Bob and his cronies to skim from…..then there is the CCX owned by Goldman, JPM, Al Gores Generational Investment Partnerships and other cronies…then there is trillions in carbon taxes for our increasingly bankrupt government…..and all will come from the middle class
@ur momisugly kenw “his “Alice’s Restaurant”. (it’s really his only claim to self-fame)”
Small disagreement, and off topic so I shall be very brief. Remember “City of New Orleans”, a classic American train song by Arlo Guthrie. No, Arlo was not his father, but those were VERY big shoes to fill. City of New Orleans is enough to keep Arlo remembered for another century or so.
“This means the world needs to invest an average of $1 trillion per year in clean energy for the next 36 years to avoid climate catastrophe.” from http://www.ceres.org/investor-network/investor-summit No wonder Kepos Capital hangs around these people. Help dictate the inane policy and you take a lot of risk out of your investments. I guess its an easy way to get rich nowadays. Just ask Mr.Gore.
Climate scientists agree: Humans are driving climate change
Many Americans believe scientists disagree. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that humans are changing the climate.
This HUGE LIE is the basis for their entire spiel about risk management, etc. Even worse, not only is the 97% concensus itself a fib, so is the “well-established evidence” a fib.
How low AAAS has fallen. I’d be ashamed to be a member.
Kelvin vaughan says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:38 am
Dr. Spencer did such an experiment here.
Reposting from JRM above: http://www.rijpm.com/key_insight_files/Ten_Strategies_for_Pension_Funds_to_Better_Serve_Their_Beneficiaries_June_20_2013.pdf
Now I’m finally starting to understand. 1) The useful idiots buy this stuff hook line and sinker. 2)They get the politicians to put in policies that mitigate your investment risks for the next 40-50 years. 3) You sit back and rake in the money. The .pdf links on page six of the link above are very interesting.
I recommend readers look at the minority AGU Statement I prepared and contrast that with the AAAS report’s statements in http://whatweknow.aaas.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/AAAS-What-We-Know.pdf. My statement is
Pielke Sr., R.A. 2013: Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]. Minority Statement in response to AGU Position Statement on Climate Change entitled: “Human-induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action” released on 8/5/13. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/rpt-851.pdf
The AAAS report is even worse than the AGU and AMS Statements (and I thought that would be hard to do). I know several of the authors of the AAAC report, and respect their science within their immediate area of expertise. However, the blatant advocacy and absurd statements such as
“The science linking human activities to climate change is analogous to the science linking
smoking to lung and cardiovascular diseases.”
show that this report is just political theater.
There are no health benefits from smoking, only health risks. CO2 is required for life on Earth including plant growth and function.
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly contact to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.
Another example (and their are many in this report) is
“decades of human-generated greenhouse gases are now the major force driving the direction of climate change, currently overwhelming the effects of these other factors.”
is counter to established research which shows, for example, the first order importance of other human climate forcings; e.g. see
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf
and
National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/
They also ignore the recent recognition of the heightened importance of natural climate forcings and feedbacks.
This AAAS report is an embarrassment to the scientific community. .
I’m truly amazed that this report, so called, doesn’t mention even in passing, the 15-yearish pause in warming. I mean, it is totally absent from the report. I am truly, truly astounded.
Did anyone attend the sub-forum on drowsing rods?
“Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases and yet cannot make long or mid term predictions at a success rate better than tossing a coin and calling head or tails .
So perhaps this is understanding is rather less ‘solid’ or even ‘settled’
Here is an interesting article from the Quadrant, which states that the American Physical Society has a 5 year reassessment review underway. “”There are 4 shockers for the warmist to digest.””
You might want to post on this topic.
Jason: Arlo didn’t write “City…”
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-thomas/2014/03/finally-real-climate-science/
CORRECTED TYPO
Added CO2 is a significant climate forcing (both radiatively and geochemically, the latter of which I feel is of more concern), but to directly COMPARE to the health risks of tobacco demeans the scientific stature of this who make such wild claims.
zzzzzz . . .
I see Cook et al. 2013, and the atmo/hydrosphere being one of different parts of climate science, then there’s astronomy and geo-sciences. So, no.
pottereaton says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:50 am
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.
________________________________________________________________
It has been verified. Concern about climate change as an issue ranks 14/15 in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/167843/climate-change-not-top-worry.aspx
It’s obviously a pressing issue for those who have a stake in it. But you don’t need any sort of soft sciences degree to figure that out.
I would recommend a recent article in The Economist discussing why global warming has paused to anyone here who believes that humans do have an impact but question why global mean temps have increased by only .04 degrees Celsius in the last decade or so. It’s called “Global warming: who pressed the pause button?”
[Reply: a link would be helpful ~ mod.]
The following bits are from the WSJ by GEORGE VRADENBURG And STANLEY PRUSINER
March 16, 2014:
Alzheimer’s and Its Uncounted Victims
Deaths from the disease may be six times higher than reported. This is a cancer-size illness. We can begin by acknowledging that Alzheimer’s remains dramatically underfunded. Each year Congress invests $5.7 billion in cancer research, $2 billion in cardiovascular disease, and $3 billion in HIV/AIDS research. But Alzheimer’s research receives only around $550 million. This means we could potentially see millions of Americans dying each year in the most emotionally draining way possible.
So the AAAS kicks off an initiative regarding a non-issue and ignores a real crisis: priceless!
UC (my alma mater), Colorado, and Harvard… you could not get a more socialist leaning group of avowed bias if you tried…
How about we get the same “work” done by a group from the Colorado school of Mines, a good set of Geologists, and a couple of History professors from a nice conservative school that still teaches Latin…
EM Smith is on to something.
It is clear the Ivy League/lefty schools have failed in many ways.
It is time for truly progressive leadership (leaders who want actual progress for Americans) to make CSM, MIT, Texas A&M, Purdue and the other many excellent colleges that focus on engineering start leading the way.
And of course we can leave out the soft science departments, especially any department that claims to be studying climate but adheres to hyping the so-called cnosensus.
Is this part of the new “forget the facts” initiative?
Models are NOT DATA ……. but they have modeled the Data.
You can’t become a hero unless there is some monster danger to defeat, hence the gross exaggerations. Reminds me of SCTV’s old spoof Monster Chiller Horror Theater, in which the host tries to convince his young viewers that the very un-scarey film he was showing them was something to be frightened by. Count Floyd was the host of that show.