First impressions from #AGU16 – A Manntastic Madhouse

As many of you know especially those of you who contributed to help get me here, I offer my sincere thanks. I’m covering the AGU Fall convention in San Francisco. The day dawned gray, it’s not an uncommon sight in the city

But it soon turned sunny and bright

Registration was light this morning. This may have been due to many people being delayed getting here due to the weather east of the Mississippi. I saw a news report that over 1900 flights out of Chicago were affected.

Along the way, I spotted this sponsorship sign, similar to ones I’ve seen in years past. Notably missing was Exxon-Mobil, though Chevron was there. This is odd, because there was a big AGU stinkeroo with #ExxonKnew earlier this year from climate activists about getting AGU to drop the Exxon-Mobil sponsorship. The board decided they’d keep it, and they were the subject of much derision from the leftists that make up the vocal climate wing of AGU.

So, apparently, AGU either caved quietly, or they were too stung with the derision to dare posting the Exxon-Mobil name as a sponsor on a big poster in registration., or on the 2016 Fall meeting website. Seems pretty hypocritical to me…unless, Exxon-Mobil decided to yank the sponsorship because they just got tired of putting up with a bunch of crybabies. Hopefully I can find out more. SEE UPDATE BELOW.

In other news, some familiar faces were seen being honored this year. Shaun Lovejoy, who has written a number of questionable climate papers gets a nod.

Naomi Oreskes gets the “Ambassador Award” which to me seems laughable, because all of my experiences with her reveal her to be closed minded, hateful, and intolerant. She tries to link climate skepticism with the Tobacco industry tactics, which I find highly objectionable, not just for the sheer stupidity of the argument, but for the fact that both of my parents died from smoking related illnesses. I think AGU erred grossly. In my opinion she doesn’t deserve the title.

And then there’s Richard Alley, who at AGU13, convinced governor Jerry Brown that sea level rise was a huge problem for California. Brown then proceeded to make all sorts of crazy claims, including that LAX would be underwater soon. He got a rude awakening on that one.

This was the scene in 2013:

One of Alley’s slides from 2013 shows a whole new level of imagination:

This billboard suggests that the “shifting landscape” may be a reaction to the election of Trump, especially since Katharine Hayhoe is speaking.

I attended this session this morning, with particular interest to the third presentation. I wondered how they might link climate variability in the southern hemisphere to ice sheet change in the northern hemisphere. Turns out it was just some proxies and models, and the magic word: teleconnection. I think that’s about as valid a word as “ESP”. In other words, no real evidence, just conjecture. I counted several question marks in the conclusion slide, which suggested the authors were reaching. Unfortunately, AGU still has the policy against photos in sessions, so I can’t demonstrate the slim evidence and conjecture they presented. Eric Steig was involved in the paper, ’nuff said.

Today and Tuesday, Michael Mann will give another Manntastic pitch over “attacks” on science while pitching his book. That should be entertaining.

He’s got several sessions. The one on Tuesday says he intends to rally the press.

At least there is free beer again this year.

P.S. Willis and I will be presenting at 1:15 on Wednesday. More on that later.

UPDATE: It seems Exxon-Mobil told AGU they weren’t interested any more. I missed this news from last week. Via Inside Climate News (h/t to Roger Knights)

Energy giant ExxonMobil won’t be a sponsor of the largest earth and space science conference for the first time since at least 2001.

It was Exxon’s decision not to provide any funding for the annual conference, which will be held next week in San Francisco, according to a blog post last week from the conference organizers, the American Geophysical Union.

This news follows a nearly year-long campaign, in which more than 60,000 scientists, activists and others urged AGU to not accept Exxon’s money because they say the company has contributed to the spread of misinformation about climate change. They argued that’s inconsistent with AGU’s mission, position statement on climate change and funding policies.

AGU’s board considered this issue twice this year, voting in April and again in September to keep Exxon as a sponsor.