Day two at #AGU14 – no photos allowed, but lots of beer and 'big oil' funding flowed

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:

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….

Masters_AGU_2014Dr. Jeff Masters said (and I Tweeted):

Indeed, “imagery is important”, so here is the photo imagery from the hallway I’m allowed to present:

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:

wpid-img_20141216_143215.jpgIt sure would be nice to be able to report on the science of AGU with photography, other than what goes on in the hallways.



UPDATE: Gavin Schmidt says the obvious, as I demonstrated above:


139 thoughts on “Day two at #AGU14 – no photos allowed, but lots of beer and 'big oil' funding flowed

    • 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.

      • 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 🙂
        You may also be interested in this bit of information I recently nodded firmly at. It’s something C. S. Lewis* wrote of.

        Don’t let anyone bully you into avoiding sentences with a preposition at the end! It’s an arbitrary rule that most great writers took no notice of. The Authorized Version and E. Burke thought a preposition a very good word to end with. So there!

        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.

    • 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

    • 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.

    • Well, that’s because geologists would never drink such swill. Washington State or San Fran microbrews only, I’m sure.

  1. 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.

    • 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?).

    • 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.

    • Yup.
      “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.

  2. 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.

    • 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:

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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…

  7. That Gleick photo is priceless! Thanks for the coffee spit-up. Rough night indeed. That photo should accompany the word “weasel” in the dictionary.

  8. “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.

      • 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….

    • 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.

      • 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.

  9. 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?

    • 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.

  10. 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?)

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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?

    • It is 1995 and Global Warming Is Now!
      Merry Christmas, Steven M0sher, and may 1996 be your best year, so far,
      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… . 😉

  14. Oh, An-thony {chuckle} — see if you can hand this vid to one of the tech assistants to run in place of one of the AGW-promoters’ presentations…. lolololo
    Audience of mostly AGW Cult Members {indignant, pouty lipped, drunk}: Wha’? Wha ish thish? … Obsheverations?!! How dare …. aaaaand ….. who’sh thish Rishard Feynaman guy, anyway?….
    “Scientific Method” — Richard Feynman (YouTube video)

    • Janice
      Very nice Feynman video (my personal Feynman riff is “cargo cult”).
      Ya gotta wonder if people calling themselves “climate scientists” even know who Feynman is.

      • Merci and thanks for saying so!
        It’s been shared by others on WUWT, too, I must acknowledge, here.
        And, yeah… only scientists interested in data would know about Feynman.

  15. “… lots of beer and ‘big oil’ funding flowed…”
    Well, it is a good thing that neither of those contribute to the atmospheric CO2.
    Oh, wait…
    never mind.

  16. No photography is an opportunity.
    Ask the booths you are interested in for a card, and once you have it, ask them to send you a photo of their posters. The AGU can stop you from taking pictures of researchers works, but they can’t stop the researchers from taking a picture of their work and sending it to you.
    Give them some suitable time period (say one month) and then publish a list of all the cards you got, and which ones complied with your request and which didn’t.
    Lots of hours of amusement looking at the ones that send their work, and just as many digging into those that didn’t….

  17. Dear An-thony,
    As you walk those halls in your quiet, unassuming, manly, way, hold that head high. Beneath that modest exterior beats the heart of a true hero for truth. WE ARE SO PROUD OF YOU!
    This video personifies you (and ALL you science giants of WUWT, all you engineers and chemists and physicists and geologists and other science men and women — you ROCK!):
    “I Need a Hero” — sung by Bonnie Tyler with “Avengers” movie video (YouTube)

    Truth — will — win!
    AGW is the walking dead!
    Your admirer,
    Janice Moore

      • He (and ALL the male WUWT Science Giants) is personified by ALL the male heroes.
        Scientists like Norahforyou and Anna V and Pamela Gray and Rhoda and all the others whose names I cannot recall at the moment are the spunky red-head (esp. Pamela who IS a redhead…. much to the delight of that wonderful guy WHO NEEDS TO JUST ASK HER TO MARRY HIM AND TELL HER “NOW OR NEVER” … come on Pam….. it’s time….. seriously!).

      • Sorry for getting a bit huffy, below, M. Painter…. but, there is something so endearing about the name “Maggie” that your remark to her raised my “don’t you dare talk to my little sister that way” hackles.

    • Your video is on point, Maggie C..
      M Painter is not only patronizingly rude, but mistaken.
      AGU Member Phil Skemer, President Elect of the Mineral and Rock Physics Section of the AGU (
      “Research interests include high pressure and temperature experimental rock deformation, apparatus design, and feedback processes between mantle rheology and microstructure. BA in Geology from Pomona College (2000). PhD in Geology and Geophysics from Yale University (2007).”
      I’ll bet you a beer I could come up with at least 99 more geoLOGists… .

  18. Anthony Watts wrote in his lead post report from the currently ongoing AGU meeting in San Francisco,
    “[. . .]
    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. [. . .]
    [. . .]”

    As long as the AGU rules proscribing photos of live sessions and poster sessions are applied equally to all the attendees and press then there is no basis for concerns of targeted censorship by the AGU. It is an opportunity to measure the AGU’s integrity at the meeting, because it is possible to see if the AGU does apply its photography restrictions equally to all the attendees and press. I think the AGU has unwisely set themselves up to be seen as defensive about skeptical reporting.
    I think AGU’s proscribing photos of the live and poster sessions does, prima fascia, inhibit some open exchange of ideas; ideas that were funded almost entirely by public tax monies. So, the AGU does show limited enlightenment when it fetters the stimulation of idea exchange and thus fetters the open flow of debate on the subject of climate; a subject which is important to all mankind.

  19. No photography? Oh, how so very quaint. I recall there being a time when everyone didn’t wear 24 hour video recorders the size of buttons.
    RBG – 5 years from now.
    Buttons? I’m not even going to tell you about those confetti-sized toilet cams.
    RBG – 10 years from now.

  20. These days there are venues and even countries (Saudi Arabia for one) that turn away video cameras. But bring in a motion-stabilized still camera with a huge image detector shooting 200 megabits per second that shames traditional video? Please come in!

  21. ” 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 ”
    Mann’s face is weird. Kind of pudgy, soft, and with those two beady little eyes way too close together. Nothing says “you don’t understand the basic physics” like a sneer on such a face. Still, free beer.

    • Those organizers actually have to adapt to reality, don’t get taxpayer money and can’t offer free beer ?

    • Josh is great, but can you imagine the result if we could get Ralph Steadman to cover one of these events?

    • “We’re so transparent you can’t see what we’re doing!”
      Also a question:
      Has this always been their policy but Anthony just didn’t know about it last year or is it something new? If the later, who proposed it?

  22. Elsevier looks after the “scientific journals” and the “Gamechanger Salon” thousand+ look after the non-scientific CAGW propaganda:
    12 Aug: TheNewAmerican: Alex Newman: Big Media “Journalists” Exposed in Secret Progressive Network
    The watchdog group Media Trackers recently announced that it had discovered a secret network of more than 1,000 radical Big Government activists that includes more than a few prominent individuals masquerading as objective news reporters at major press outlets. Lobbyists, fringe political activists, climate alarmists, Democrat Party operatives, and Big Labor are also all represented in the group, which has as its declared mission to create a “more coordinated” movement for leftists to take over America…
    (members include), Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc…
    Some analysts are even referring to the new revelations as “JournoList 2.0.” The reference, of course, is to another scandal in recent years that exposed hundreds of far-left activists posing as non-biased “journalists” across the establishment press…
    Americans are led to believe that these supposed journalists are merely non-biased observers reporting the facts. In truth, they are radical activists promoting their wild beliefs while pretending to be reporters…
    At the very least, readers deserve full disclosure.
    to be fair, one could call them all “useful pawns” for a bigger agenda.

  23. pat
    December 17, 2014 at 2:13 pm
    Why do they bother. The press are already card carrying leftist activists.

  24. Why would Gleick single out Anthony for such scorn. Was he the only press that didn’t applaud the felony.

  25. Why would oil companies support AGU? Because they are the ones doing real geophysics – their models work because they have to and they are being done by engineers and not tenured (tethered?) lefty mathematicians. Oh, and why do lefties all have Apple computers – was Stevie Jobs a raging anti corporate ‘progressive’? No he was a go for the jugular captalist.

    • Good point, re: Apple/Jobs, Mr. Pearse. Same reason(s) they pay 3 times as much for “organic” produce and drive hybrid cars:
      1. misinformation about the competitor’s product;
      2. emotion-based belief that “the little guy” is the one to support no matter what.
      3. ignorance of the amount MICROSOFT donates (as an organization) to socialist causes.
      4. peer pressure. [<— THE MAIN REASON]

  26. “No photos” is normal. At the equivalent meeting for chemistry, the ACS meeting in August at the same venue, it was regularly announced at the beginning of sessions that photography, and other recording devices, were not allowed. It is not aimed at one person!

  27. A photo ban is really common. No photos is mainly to protect the students. Unscrupulous scientists have been known to photograph posters, go home, and repeat the work with a postdoc and publish first, screwing the poor grad student. Allowing photography means people tend to only show old published stuff, and the meeting becomes duller.

    • Me too.
      I put 11 kWh of PV solar on my roof about a year ago – at year-end I receive a marketable certificate (i.e.: I can sell the thing) for roughly 5-6 tons of “CO2 avoidance”. The fact I don’t believe warmist CO2 crap won’t stop me from profiting from the stupidity of those that do.
      PS: Oh, my $36,000 gross capital cost was reduced by a 90% rate payer + Federal tax payer subsidy. You can’t make this stuff up.

  28. I agree. All scientific meetings have (or should have) this policy. People here who are surprised simply never attended such meetings.
    No photography at poster sessions, although some state that you can ask the person at the poster for permission. In any event this is 2014. If you want a copy of the poster it is usually available in a variety of ways, just ask. Some even give you the internet site on the poster, so you can get an instant copy on you cell phone! Please get with it. No annoying photography at poster sessions. We are there to discuss and learn.
    At presentation sessions it became even more unpleasant. We get idiots standing up with their iPads to video the session. They don’t care being in front of you. Then we get people getting up and snapping pictures with their iPhones. They don’t care about the distraction.
    We don’t need a bunch of people snapping pictures at scientific meetings and disturbing presentations and discussion. Just get your pictures in the corridors!

  29. Anthony queries the convention organizers about Doctor Mann’s event:
    “But Dr. Mann, Cook, Nuccitelli, and the others had their session…”
    “Their session? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
    “That’s where those kinds of sessions are this year.”
    “With a flashlight.”
    “Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
    “So had the stairs.”
    “But look, you found the session, didn’t you?”
    “Yes,” said Anthony, “yes I did. It was in a disused lavatory in the basement of the Marriott Marquis hotel, with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”
    (With apologies to the late Douglas Adams)

    • Yah! oont nayxt zee ohthayr vorld…
      och, yoooo noooh…. daht vahn zee modayls tayl ahs ees thayr

    • {found plastered in big red letters all over Dr. Svalgaard’s calm-voice-of-reason comment above when he quietly posted it on the AGU community bulletin board}
      “AGU *!* AGU *!* DISCLAIMER: The AGU does not necessarily endorse the opinions expressed by its members …BUY MORE BEER *!* BUY MORE BEER *!*”
      {you didn’t know AGW gets a percentage, did you, heh, heh}
      ………lol, especially those that make excellent sense and promote TRUTH.
      @ Dr. Svalgaard — Hear, hear! (I move the question…. and vote… “Aye!”)
      (Glaedelig Jul og Godt Nytar! #(:))

  30. The principal application of geophysics is in the search for oil and gas, and most research in geophysics is done in that direction.
    So it would be surprising indeed if there were no oil money at the conference.

    • I agree. Don’t see what is wrong with oil and gas companies to support this meeting, exhibit at this meeting and recruit scientist and engineers at this meeting.
      If you attend a neuroscience meeting you will see plenty of support from the pharmaceutical industry.

  31. No press passes? Surely the media would have the ability to take photos. Maybe not. Unfortunate that they would have a conference and not want the broadest possible coverage, even if controversial. After all, controversy is what makes it newsworthy. If they were all going there to agree on already known facts, well that would be a total bore, and not worth reporting. Not even worth attending actually.

  32. In Eastern Europe, during the communist years, it was forbidden to look at newspapers, the official ones, which were more than two years old.
    Since history changed. All the time.
    In a public library, you asked once, it was explained to you. You asked twice, and you had to show an ID. Or leave fast…
    If sessions are off the record, the speakers can let themselves go:
    In five years, the Moscone center will be under water.
    And we’ll grow bananas on Nob Hill, ….

Comments are closed.