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.
I find it sad that an organization established to advance science instead chooses to demean it.
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.”
Pure Marxism!
Kathy Hayhoe is in the report… Says it all.
Molina’s presence in all this suggests the Montreal Protocol was indeed a general rehearsal for the future climate scam. Just like the EU is the lab for global governance.
From their doc:
“1. Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on wellestablished
evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate
change is happening.”
———————————————-
97%…oops, time to stop reading.
As soon as I read this I knew it was a lie.
The worse part is everybody at their scientific level knows 97% is a lie.
They know it, we know it and they know we know that they know it’s a lie.
Is the word hubris or is it more?
cn
Jason Calley says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
@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.
———————————————
Arlo may have given a most notable rendition as did Willie but I believe it was written by the late Steve Goodman.
cn
In the 102 models cited in the figure — were they distinct models, or were many of them the same with different parameters fed to them ? Also when one looks at the 5 datasets in http://www.climate4you.com/ for the duration of the stasis, it’s apparent that they differ, but none seem less than 12 years (when I look at the charts). The 17 year figure is the one often quoted, yet it appears to be an outlier. How solid do people think this is?
Jason Calley says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:18 pm
@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
============
Arlo Guthrie sang City of New Orleans, but he most certainly didn’t write it. That would be my college chum Steve Goodman.
kenw says:
March 18, 2014 at 9:54 am
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…)
—————————————————–
Maybe they want him on the Group W bench.
Isn’t that where you go when you don’t conform?
cn
“Ask the tough questions” is code for “How do we enslave the hoi polloi?”
kenw says:
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
Models are NOT DATA.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy:
Models are NOT EVIDENCE.
To further educate Dr. McCarthy, I say
Models in order to be scientific must make falsifiable predictions. These models are not data, the models are not evidence AND THE MODELS SHOW NO SKILL IN PPREDICTION AND ARE THEREFORE FALSIFIED. Produce a new model please!
This reminded me of the American Chemical Society, maybe, biting off more than they can chew with their recent Climate Science Initiative and their “Climate Science Toolkit” which intends “… helping others who are not scientists be attentive to the issues relevant to maintaining the climate.” Written by 2012 ACS President Bassam Shakhashiri in University of Wisconsin’s “Badger Chemist”.
“This new effort is intended to state very clearly the exceptionally strong evidence that Earth’s climate is changing (as it has always done), and that future climate change can seriously impact natural and societal systems (as it has in the past)” Brackets mine.
If this is their point then I have no choice but to fully accept their argument (sarc).
Why is it that these people are not able to comprehend that the natural environment changes due to natural effects? Maybe the lack of understanding is with them.
Here is the link. I did not know if it was allowed to post outside links.
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21598610-slowdown-rising-temperatures-over-past-15-years-goes-being
Your graph Anthony, does it really show that there is an 0.1C difference between 1980’s temp and 2013? ‘What we know’ is that behind all this there must be a juicy collection of emails when you see the coordination between where the Fed is going with this and the initiatives of scientific, economic (Goldman Sachs can smell the gravy). AAAS probably doesn’t want to be outdone by the disgraced and now irrelevant Royal Society. The central concern of these guys is the threat to cash flow. They also have a looming deadline imposed on themselves. They know that they have to get iron-clad government policies promulgated before the end of Obama’s term. The next government will be faced with resolving real problems, like the survival of America’s once vibrant economy.
I’m appalled that scientists can sign off on a statement that, “human-caused climate
change is happening.” This statement is essentially meaningless. Without defining the ways in which the climate is changing and the magnitude of the change, there’s no way to say whether the statement is true or false.
I thought thus was the IPCC’s job?!
Is this an implicit acknowledgement that the IPCC is defective?
‘this’ not ‘thus’…
Flippin’ predictive text.
Bart says:
March 18, 2014 at 12:40 pm
Thanks.
Yet another rider on the tax payer funded gravy train desperately seeking a problem for their solution.
And to anyone who tries to say the AAAS is above politics and grabbing money – http://www.aaas.org/news/agency-budgets-first-act-and-america-competes
*respectful golfclap*
That is a great graph that leads off this post! What is the source?
I didn’t see it in the State of the Climate report. I’d like to use it, but need a citation.
REPLY: The graph was a rendering by the Wall Street Journal, based on data noted by Dr. John Christy and Dick McNider. It was originally published here:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303945704579391611041331266.html
-Anthony
I strongly disagree with the Earth Climate Stability Deniers. The Earth has the most stable climate of any known celestial object, accept of course those objects that have almost no climate at all, like the moon.
Your graph Anthony, does it really show that there is an 0.1C difference between 1980′s temp and 2013?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1983/to:2013
There is around a 0.1C difference between 1983 and 2013 in HADCRUT4. Minus 0.1C.
(I encountered this just-for-grins cherrypick when some nut claimed that there had been 0.25-0.4C of warming over the last thirty years, so I went to W4T and plotted the last thirty complete years. Imagine my surprise!)
Regarding thermometers:
Ordinary thermometers work by equilibrating the “system” that makes up the thermometer (presumed to be large enough and have various other properties such that it can have a well-defined temperature itself) with another, usually much larger “system” (ditto). When they are placed in thermal contact, heat flows between the systems until the two temperatures are equal. The thermometric system is designed so that it has some simple macroscopic property that is a (usually nearly linear) function of the temperature (for example, the volume of a given mass of mercury or alcohol) that can be measured on a scale that converts the volume change or a voltage or whatever into a temperature. The devices are normalized and centered using well-defined chemical temperatures, e.g. the temperature of a water-ice mixture, the temperature of water boiling at 1 atm of pressure.
Infra-red thermometers work by using electrical transducers that directly measure at least some part of the electromagnetic spectrum and compare the intensity(s) to a blackbody spectrum. Under ordinary circumstances, though, they are not going to work well to measure incoming flux from things at around the same temperature as the thermometer itself, because it generates and measures its own blackbody flux in addition to incoming flux. Objects that are colder than the device are not going to show up well.
However, more expensive instrumentation (or instrumentation that is designed to make this sort of measurement and corrects for the temperature of the device and physical surroundings) can indeed measure back radiation. It is real, and substantial. But even if you point a comparatively cheap IR thermometer straight up, it isn’t going to read 3K, which is the actual radiative temperature of “space” above the atmosphere in any direction but the sun.
rgb
Scientists have developed a solid understanding of how the climate is responding to the build-up of greenhouse gases
No they haven’t.
What is more, an ever-increasing majority of the population are aware of the fact.