My second day at the American Geophysical Union conference was entirely different than the first, mainly due to the fact that all of a sudden I found myself unable to do photography. Even though I had made extensive photographs in sessions and during talks last year, this year I was informed after my first blog post on Monday that I was no longer allowed to make any photography in these events. Apparently, this year AGU has put in a event-wide kibosh on photography. Readers may recall from last year’s reports that I made extensive use of photography which enabled me to recall some of the technical details and comment on them. It really puts a crimp on my style of reporting because I’m very visual mainly due to my lack of auditory skills and having photography helps me remember what transpired. Now, with no photography, reporting becomes even more difficult.
Now, I can understand that the American Geophysical Union is running a private event and when you run a private event you get the control how that event is portrayed to the public. But, at the same time asking reporters not to photograph things like posters with highly technical details in a place like Moscone Center which is a public venue owned by the city of San Francisco borders on infringement of a free press. While I will comply with this requirement it does force me to limit myself in my reporting which is going to be a loss for everyone.
Of course not everyone got the “no photography in sessions” memo delivered as I did:
Polar bear as poster child of #climatechange seems distant & exotic, in fact it's here & now. @MichaelEMann #AGU14 pic.twitter.com/0dSE8tzKfw
— Prof. Kimberly Nicholas (@KA_Nicholas) December 16, 2014
On the plus side, I was told that photography in the hallways outside and of signs and displays for the public is fair game. So I decided to concentrate on those things that I could photograph yesterday. It is unfortunate though that I will be unable to give you a photo of the sneer Dr. Michael Mann gave me when he discovered that I was sitting just two rows behind him at the sessions that he and John Cook, Dana Nuccitelli, Katharine Hayhoe, Chris Mooney, and Dr. Jeff Masters presented in the basement of the Marriott Marquis in the meeting room that was the furthest walk from the main AGU venue at Moscone Center. I am unsure if the distance of separation for that venue was intentional or accidental but I can say that unlike last year the sort of condescending alarmism that group of people pushes didn’t seem to be part of the mainstream event.
During this event that I attended….
Dr. Jeff Masters said (and I Tweeted):
At #AGU14 session on communication with @MichaelEMann @dana1981 and @jeffmasters1 who says"imagery is important"…Ironic I can't show any!
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) December 16, 2014
Indeed, “imagery is important”, so here is the photo imagery from the hallway I’m allowed to present:
More free beer at #AGU14 post sessions pic.twitter.com/INFJPfwdfv
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) December 16, 2014
Beer station 2 #AGU14 pic.twitter.com/ibQ8GhEGhw
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) December 16, 2014
Beer station 3 #AGU14 pic.twitter.com/g0aUiiQ4qb
— Watts Up With That (@wattsupwiththat) December 16, 2014
I also happened across Dr. Peter Gleick on the Moscone West 3rd floor, and was able to capture his contempt on camera:
And like last year, AGU 2014 was funded by “big oil” such as Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, as this poster just feet away from Dr. Gleick demonstrated yet again:
It sure would be nice to be able to report on the science of AGU with photography, other than what goes on in the hallways.
Sigh.
=============================================
UPDATE: Gavin Schmidt says the obvious, as I demonstrated above:
https://twitter.com/theAGU/status/545298138551308288
(A wasted posting effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
I looked up Litote and to save y’all the trouble: a litote is an ironical understatement or double negative that implicitly asserts the positive. Common examples: “I’m not feeling bad,” or “he’s definitely not a rocket scientist.”
And all this time I thought a litote was what you screw the capacitive diractor from a 1956 retroencabulator into.
Harold,
That makes two of us. I thought it was common knowledge.
But Harold, didn’t you end that sentence with a preposition?
So is “I’m not feeling bad”, the same as “I’m not feeling badly”, or are they totally different things ?
Since I don’t know who or what “bad” actually is, I don’t know just what feeling “it” would convey, in the way of information.
Ever since Apple’s Steve Jobs took over command of the English Grammar, I can’t tell what is what anymore.
Kpar, I believe that you will find upon further research that “retroencabulator into” is a noun. I think it’s the vacuum tube version of the gozinta.
Almost right, there, Niel’s Zoo 🙂
“goozinta”
***************************************
You may also be interested in this bit of information I recently nodded firmly at. It’s something C. S. Lewis* wrote of.
Letter to Mary Van Deusen, July 7, 1955.
* For those unfamiliar with C. S. Lewis, among other published works, he wrote Vol. III of the Oxford History of the English Language (English Lit. in the 16th Century, Excluding Drama).
‘So is “I’m not feeling bad”, the same as “I’m not feeling badly”, or are they totally different things ?’
When “feel” is a linking verb (a verb which refers to a state or condition) it should be followed by an adjective. This goes for all linking verbs, so we say “I feel bad”, “That looks bad”, “It smells bad”, etc.
When “feel” is an action verb (describing something you are doing) it takes an adverb. “I’m not feeling badly” means “My current tactile sensing apparatus and procedure is functioning adequately.”
I shall not ask what or where you are feeling.
Curiously, I note that of lot of the people who use the adverb with the linking verb are the same people who totally disregard adverbs in other contexts, and say thing like “You did good” and “It was a real clear picture”.
Go figure.
The child wanted the nurse to read to him. He chose a book. The nurse looked at in horror! Totally unsuitable. She said,”What did you choose that book to be read to out of for?”
Then she locked the book away.
The child asked, “What did you lock that book I chose to be read to out of up for?”
Five prepositions at the end, and all perfectly grammatical.
Lol, Ro-ha! #(:))
CONGRATULATIONS! YOU are the winner of the “At With From to the End” Award!
Really I expected someone to mention the “oscillation overthruster”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Buckaroo_Banzai_Across_the_8th_Dimension
But at least you can hear the presentations better this year.
Maybe sign on for a pair of Google glasses…
Or you could do what other great reporters have done and visit the PRO Websites to gather the images you need. Tis likely YOU were banned while they were not
Thanks for photos. It’s surprising how they change the perception of the event.
And I apologize for my thoughts, Anthony.
I saw “lots of beer” and “all of a sudden I found myself unable to do photography”, and leapt to the conclusion that there was a causal connection.
Must remember: correlation is not causation.
lol, but, Ro — HA!… After, therefore, because of! #(:))
Not to mention the alcohol from the free beer.
I’m fairly shocked that Anheuser-Busch InBev isn’t prominently displayed on the list of sponsors.
Well, that’s because geologists would never drink such swill. Washington State or San Fran microbrews only, I’m sure.
Why would they allow you to take photos of things like graphs and charts? This blog and others would just find something wrong with them!
Not if they were correct, unless you are stating that fallacies are posted here.
If I had controversial graphs and charts, I would rather have anybody telling me they are wrong, showing them. That way I could disprove the claim. If there is only mention of what was in the graph, opens the door to interpretation.
Seems to me you are fairly certain that the proponents do not have a solid ground to stand on, thus easily showed their presentations are wrong… hmmmh.
I was referring (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) to Dr. Phil Jones famous quote ““Why should I show you my data when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?”
Seems to be somewhat the same impulse operating at AGU.
I guess I had my /sarc button off… not enough coffee and too close to Christmas.
I can now picture the squeaky tone of voice in which that phrase would have been said.
Cheers
Oh, the irony of all of those carbonated beverages releasing CO2 into those hallways…
Yeah, I was just going to comment. Also, I assure you (since I make beer!) that the CO_2 released by the beer itself is a tiny fraction of the CO_2 released in the beermaking process. One has to boil the beer wort long enough to reduce its volume by close to a factor of 2, releasing lots of CO_2 from the burning fuel and still more later keeping it cold and cleaning the bottles/kegs and transporting it. We should be using a mortar and pestle to grind the barley and then simply leave it soaking for a day at room temperature and then eating it. Anybody who does otherwise hates the Earth.
Although any group that serves free beer can’t be all bad. In fact, I think I’ll try to attend the next one of these, at least if they will let me join.
However, I suspect that there ain’t no such thing as a free beer (tanstaafb?).
rgb
Free beer tomorrow.
(now define tomorrow).
The real irony is that the CO2 is part of the reason we find such beverages attractive. CO2 is GOOD for you, a normal part of human metabolism, and there isn’t enough of it in the air.
I don’t think lying about stuff bothers people as much when they’re drunk.
Yup.
And…
“If you can’t dazzle ’em with brilliance,
baffle ’em with {booze}.”
Q: Why not use Cadbury chocolate bars? (that would make ME much happier than beer)
Answer: “Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.” Bwah, ha, ha, ha, haaaaa.
Sweet words will woo her….
but for speed use mead.
Peter Gleick looks like he had a rough night.
I was going to mention that something about him looked “off”.
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fts4.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DHN.608005638224219107%26pid%3D15.1&f=1
lol — fun pic — hasn’t blinked in over a week, heh… ever since someone told him: “Game over, buddy; the AGW gravy train went off the tracks somewhere around the Great Lakes … giant snow drifts… ice … .”
Perhaps Peter Gleick was unaware of “Complimentary Toiletries” available at the Marriott Front Desk?
very few of the professional conferences I attend allow photography, in fact I can’t recall one that didn’t explicitly deny it. usually it is because of the sensitive nature (in my case) of proprietary info. However, most do have a collection, now often digital, of presentations and other materials available either free with registration or in some cases for a minimal cost. Often they are mailed on CD/DVD later. You might inquire as to availability. Stay safe.
Poster session and presentation materials and graphs are all copyright to the authors under US law. They are legally not reproducible without permission from the author. If you can get printed material from the presenter, it can be cited, though not many professionals take venue presentation citations as serious. Typically either they are grad student work that will change between the presentation and the production of a thesis or dissertation, or they are quick and dirty attention grabbers intended to keep a name “current” in people’s memory’s, and for some professions, in the eye of the media. So, the “no photos” rule is there basically to prevent “unrefined” opinions and findings from embarrassing people. For some odd reason critics, the media and more politically-minded types are not willing to let one change one’s mind or to hold nuanced opinions that are not readily pigeonholed.
Maybe so, however that doesn’t explain the change in policy this year.
Prohibiting photography is very common and rather often exceeds lawful regulations while balanced by the frequency with which people take photographs that are technically illegal. I had a photograph of me made in a public place and, incredibly, I was standing next to a sign that read “photography prohibited” but I didn’t see the sign until the film was developed. In a sense it was quite amusing but obviously it would be unwise to publish the photo. I have no idea why photography was prohibited in that particular spot as thousands of people were around with their cameras.
Nearly all shopping malls prohibit photography but Wikipedia says it is legal. The question becomes how big of a fight you want to start. Sports venues prohibit photography by “professional looking” cameras leaving rather a lot to the judgment of a minimum wage clerk that has no idea what is actually a professional camera.
There’s no downside to prohibiting photography and all kinds of risk for allowing — photographers going around photographing citizens who might be skipping out on work (Google Streetview hit this same problem in its early days).
In fact, a particular museum may allow non-flash photography for one event and not for another, even very similar. It helps to ask. “Body Works” doesn’t allow photography but the same producers making animals DOES allow non-flash photography, balancing the need to “get the word out” vs lost revenue people making their own photos. Quite frankly not many people have equipment capable of making good photos in dimly lit situations anyway.
In the case of sports venues, the stadium or league will have contracted with one or more professionals for sports photography and hope to recoup the cost of that through sales. Obviously if everyone went to the stadium with their own DSLR and 400 mm f2.8 lens there’d be no sales (and no hope of censoring something gone wrong).
Art exhibits commonly prohibit photography since the artist hopes to sell books containing photographs of the art and if you have your own photos, especially if you have good gear, you won’t buy the book since your own photos may well be superior. Certainly cheaper than buying the book.
Attempts have been made to prohibit photographing buildings as architecture is “art”.
Your mileage WILL vary:
http://camerasim.com/blog/no-photography-allowed/
One can buy eye glasses that both record and take stills.Who would know either way? Only 007.
No photos? What exactly is it that someone (who actually did complain?) is worried about? That you might post the reality of a lack of scientific reasoning, then you’ll go and spread it round the world on WUWT… Great, keep up your valuable work, Anthony. We rely on you.
Gleick looks like a poster boy for disreputable. No wonder the climate community rallied around him.
Please tell us more about Mann and his ethics lecture.
I think the ban on photos has something to do with copyrights and the belief by “concerned scientists” that their work is some how proprietary.
I could understand that if
1) they were investing their own money
2) their work wasn’t used as a pretense to “save the world” and
3) any copyright issues weren’t generally resolved in the favor of multi-billion dollar publishing houses who pay 7 figure salaries to their leadership, whether they’re for profit or “non-profit organizations.
I think you’re right and it’s odd that they don’t want you taking photos of them saving the world. I take solace in the fact that if the fossil fuel companies backed out, the AGU would have a funding crisis.
Too bad that photo of the Polar Bear slide is so blurry. It would be great to know if Mann is still using that debunked/photoshopped polar bear photo…
I see Swiss Re on the sponsors list. One could argue that it is in their interest to promote CAGW.
That Gleick photo is priceless! Thanks for the coffee spit-up. Rough night indeed. That photo should accompany the word “weasel” in the dictionary.
“And like last year, AGU 2014 was funded by “big oil” such as Exxon-Mobil and Chevron, as this poster just feet away from Dr. Gleick demonstrated yet again:”
Are there any other examples where corporations voluntarily give support to organizations that are trying their darnedest to do them in?
Lots of companies stand to profit from climate change alarmism. A heavily-regulated industry is protected from competition, despite what many in the public may think. A heavily-regulated industry has many artificial barriers which make it less likely for start-ups to come along and challenge the status quo.
big oil would love to see big coal gone. instant monopoly.
First they came for nuclear, but I was not in nuclear.
Then they came for coal, but I was not in coal.
Next they came for “tar sands”, but I was not in that.
Then they came for fracking, and I started to worry.
But they’ll never come for oil; we can’t live without that.
They will never….
Ferd, doubt it as they could not fill the void. It is an energy mix for a reason.
Jim,
I have more than a passing knowledge of the oil industry, and they are neutral on this issue. Driving up the price of their product is just not a worry to them. There is not enough of it going forward to meet the ever increasing demand, despite the successful efforts by the US and Europe to deflate prices as a weapon against two countries we will collectively call IR. Motor vehicle ownership in the coming years is forecast to double, aviation the same as another billion or so reach middle class status.
Transportation fuels are going to be in increasing demand for a long while yet. I live in Canada, and trust me, for much of the year electric cars are even more useless than normal as cold is very hard on battery life, and at the same time it is cold, we have very short daylight hours requiring lights which further reduce the distance one can travel on a charge. I don’t know if you would get on an electric airplane (as if) but not me.
The industry at actual risk from these clowns is coal, and you will note they are not supporting this or other events.
I have to wonder if coal is really threatened by this bunch. The only real replacement for coal is nuclear and many of them are adamantly opposed to it. Renewables also help block nuclear and will always need backup.
The real enemy of coal is natural gas and federal regulations, not green energy. Green energy is little more than an annoyance.
Peter, you have to heat the car, too.
and cold batteries have all sorts of performance problems. leave your fully charged cell phone in the freezer overnight and compare the battery charge with what normally happens overnight.
same thing happens skiing with the gopro. unless you keep it warm inside your coat you will get only a fraction of normal recording time on the battery.
Jim F. Can you think of another profitable industry that would have more AGU members? I would expect oil, gas and mining to be the main employers.
At this point, I think most of the regulars at WUWT know that the alarmists’ science is contrived/distorted/manipulated, etc. However I would like to know Anthony’s impression of any changes he may have noticed in the alarmists overall attitudes/feelings/confidence/conniving/etc. i.e. Do they ‘feel’ the heat? – or are they continuing in their goals, oblivious to their sinking poles in public opinion?
[snip – lets not go there -mod]
+10
Strange that Elsevier still exists, and even spends money sponsoring events.
Never saw more expensive and less useful dictionaries than Elsevier’s.
Elsevier owns a lot of scientific, peer-reviewed journals. They are a huge deal in the science world, and always appear at venues like this.
All that free beer! You must have been in a worm-whole ‘cos everyone knows, it’s ‘free beer tomorrow’. (So, what was the weather like?)
It makes a nice story at math or physics meetings.
The climate stuff they try to push at the geology meetings is SO incredibly weird, they have forbidden photographs even of the posters, so it can’t get to haunt them later.
No more “according to the AGU meeting of … it should have melted by now” since there will be no record of AGU meetings.
No photography of speakers, charts, graphs? Seems draconian as a carte blanche policy. If not enforced uniformly, then there is room for complaint.
Anybody else attending? Please report violations of this [self-censored] policy to the organizers. It’s not easy to single-out Anthony if others are complaining. If everyone is stopped from taking photos, perhaps the policy will be changed.
Society for Neuroscience had the same policy at the annual meeting of 31k people this year in Washington, DC. Plenty of people still took poster photos despite the prolific amount of signs everywhere prohibiting it.
Wow,
Last time I went as I walked by posters I just snapped a picture with my phone to get the researchers details. With all the posters available, merely taking business cards was not happening. Ideally poster would just have a bar code or QR code so you could scan the details in for later review and follow up.
what year is it?
Hmm. Good idea.
It is 1995 and Global Warming Is Now!
Merry Christmas, Steven M0sher, and may 1996 be your best year, so far,
Janice
P.S. A tip from the future…: when those guys from Berkley tap you on the shoulder to do a little temperature “reconstruction” work for them soon…. just tell them to get lost. They are not who you think they are… . 😉
Perhaps you can make audio recordings with your cell phone instead.
Well obviously, Anthony now needs the accessory wireless tape recorder, that goes with his brand new public address system, so he can record for posterity everything he now hears.
Fear not, we are only months away from being able to record on SD cards, wirelessly sent directly from our eyeball retinas.
And anything I see or hear becomes my property; and anyone broadcasting either aural or visual electromagnetic radiation broadcasts, that fall on my receptors in any way, have one option.
It is YOUR duty to keep your scurrilous messages away from my sensory mechanisms.
EM radiation pollution is YOUR problem, so if you value your “JUNK”, it is up to you to keep it to yourself.
George, I use two tin cans at the end of a string for my communications. Let ’em snoop & scoop all they want.
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/a6/f6/e3/a6f6e32f80e58e52aab1ef1da470fe38.jpg
(H.R.’s worry-free current setup.)
I am planning to upgrade in the near future to one of these
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Mobile_radio_telephone.jpg/220px-Mobile_radio_telephone.jpg
In which case I’ll have to start considering privacy measures.
Tight lines, sir!