AAAS: "Let’s hold them accountable"

Guest post by David Middleton

This morning, I received another email from the American Association for the Advancement of Science…

AAAS junk

We cannot overstate this: Under the current administration, the future of scientific inquiry and discovery in the U.S. is in serious jeopardy.

You can do something important right now to protect our progress and our planet: become an AAAS member.

Organizations that have propelled us forward — NIH, NOAA, and the EPA, just to name a few — are facing major funding cuts. President Trump has begun the process of pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, putting us in the company of only two other nations to reject this planet-saving agreement.

As scientists, engineers, teachers, students, and science advocates, we must join forces and oppose this administration’s dire proposals for science. We must continue to educate and keep pressure on elected officials to make evidence- and research-based decisions that protect our planet and help all of humankind to progress.

Join today, and you’ll get a free “I Am a Force for Science” water bottle as a thank you.

Thanks in advance for your membership,

Michael Savelli

Chief Information & Engagement Officer

American Association for the Advancement of Science

*Offer valid from May 31, 2017 to June 30, 2017, for new individual members only. There is a limit of one water bottle per membership order. Please allow up to four weeks for domestic delivery and up to five weeks for international delivery. The AAAS water bottle is provided as is without any guarantees or warranty and cannot be exchanged or returned. In association with the product, AAAS makes no warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

I agree!  “Let’s hold them accountable”!

Let’s hold them accountable for the epic failure of their climate models

Hansen’s 1988 model and GISTEMP, 5-yr running mean.
IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR). Model vs. HadCRUT4.
IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) model vs. HadCRUT4.
“Climate models versus climate reality.”
“95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong.”

The climate models have never demonstrated any predictive skill.

And the models aren’t getting better. Even when they start the model run in 2006, the observed temperatures consistently track at or below the low end 5-95% range.  Observed temperatures only approach the model mean (P50) in 2006, 2015 and 2016.

Figure 21.  Climate Lab Book. Comparing CMIP5 & observations.

The ensemble consists of 138 model runs using a range of representative concentration pathways (RCP), from a worst case scenario RCP 8.5, often referred to as “business as usual,” to varying grades of mitigation scenarios (RCP 2.6, 4.5 and 6.0).

Figure 22. Figure 21 with individual model runs displayed.


When we drill wells, we run probability distributions to estimate the oil and gas reserves we will add if the well is successful.  The model inputs consist of a range of estimates of reservoir thickness, area and petrophysical characteristics.  The model output consists of a probability distribution from P10 to P90.

  • P10 = Maximum Case.  There is a 10% probability that the well will produce at least this much oil and/or gas.
  • P50 = Mean Case.  There is a 50% probability that the well will produce at least this much oil and/or gas.  Probable reserves are >P50.
  • P90 = Minimum Case.  There is a 90% probability that the well will produce at least this much oil and/or gas.  Proved reserves are P90.

Over time, a drilling program should track near P50.  If your drilling results track close to P10 or P90, your model input is seriously flawed.

If the CMIP5 model ensemble had predictive skill, the observations should track around P50, half the runs should predict more warming and half less than is actually observed. During the predictive run of the model, HadCRUT4.5 has not *tracked* anywhere near P50…

Figure 23. Figure 21 zoomed in on model run period with probability distributions annotated.

I “eyeballed” the instrumental observations to estimate a probability distribution of predictive run of the model.

Prediction Run Approximate Distribution

2006 P60 (60% of the models predicted a warmer temperature)

2007 P75

2008 P95

2009 P80

2010 P70

2011-2013 >P95

2014 P90

2015-2016 P55

Note that during the 1998-99 El Niño, the observations spiked above P05 (less than 5% of the models predicted this). During the 2015-16 El Niño, HadCRUT only spiked to P55.  El Niño events are not P50 conditions. Strong El Niño and La Niña events should spike toward the P05 and P95 boundaries.

The temperature observations are clearly tracking much closer to strong mitigation scenarios rather than RCP 8.5, the bogus “business as usual” scenario.

The red hachured trapezoid indicates that HadCRUT4.5 will continue to track between less than P100 and P50. This is indicative of a miserable failure of the models and a pretty good clue that the models need be adjusted downward.

In any other field of science CAGW would be a long-discarded falsified hypothesis.

[From: The Good, the Bad and the Null Hypothesis]

Let’s hold them accountable for their unwillingness to accept a realistic climate sensitivity

Relentlessly shrinking climate sensitivity estimates

Remember how all the news stories keep telling us the evidence is growing and getting stronger than ever “against the skeptics”?

David Stockwell has done a beautiful graph of the value of climate sensitivity estimates that of recent climate research that Steven McIntyre discussed in detail.

The trend looks pretty clear. Reality is gradually going to force itself on the erroneous models.


Indications are that around 20202030 climate sensitivity will hit zero. ;- )



“Let’s hold them accountable” for fraudulently clinging to high climate sensitivities, when all of the recent observation-based evidence indicates that it is quite low.

Since 2011, at lleast 14 studies published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature provide strong evidence that the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—how much the earth’s average surface temperature will rise under a doubling of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration—lies near the low end of the IPCC estimates (Figure 5). This recent research includes investigations of the earth’s thermal response to changes in climate forcings that have taken place over the past century, millennium, and over glacial periods.

Figure 5. Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) estimates from new research beginning in 2011 (colored), compared with the assessed range given in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) and the collection of climate models used in the IPCC AR5. The “likely” (greater than a 66% likelihood of occurrence) range in the IPCC Assessment is indicated by the gray bar. The arrows indicate the 5 to 95 percent confidence bounds for each estimate along with the best estimate (median of each probability density function; or the mean of multiple estimates; colored vertical line). Ring et al. (2012) present four estimates of the climate sensitivity and the red box encompasses those estimates. The right-hand side of the IPCC AR5 range is actually the 90% upper bound (the IPCC does not actually state the value for the upper 95 percent confidence bound of their estimate). Spencer and Braswell (2013) produce a single ECS value best-matched to ocean heat content observations and internal radiative forcing.

Several of these research findings were published subsequent to the 2013 release of the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), and thus were not included in that Assessment. Others were considered in the IPCC AR5, and still others were ignored. And while the IPCC AR5 did reflect some influence on these new low ECS estimates—by expanding its “likely” range of ECS estimates downward to include 1.5°C (the low end was 2.0°C in the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) and omitting a “best estimate” value (which had previously been given as 3.0°C in the 2007 report)—it still doggedly held on to its high end “likely” estimate of 4.5°C. This was a disservice to the latest science, but was a necessary step to preserve the IPCC’s reliance on climate projections made by models with an ECS averaging 3.2°C and ranging from 2.1°C to 4.7°C—the same models recently evaluated by Christy and in our AGU presentation. Had the IPCC fully embraced an ECS near 2.0°C—that which the recent literature suggests—it would have had to throw out much of the rest of the report.

Climate models versus climate reality

Let’s hold them accountable for fraudulently describing RCP 8.5 as a “business as usual” scenario


In AR5 four Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) describe scenarios for future emissions, concentrations, and land-use, ending with radiative forcing levels of 2.6, 4.5, 6.0, and 8.5 W/m2 by 2100. Strong mitigation policies result in a low forcing level (RCP2.6). Two medium stabilization scenarios lead to intermediate outcomes: (RCP4.5, RCP6.0).

IPCC's AR5: 4 RCPs

RCP8.5 gets the most attention. It assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions. For more about the RCPs see “The representative concentration pathways: an overview” by Detlef P. van Vuuren et al, Climatic Change, Nov 2011.

RCP8.5 assumes a nightmarish world even before climate impacts, resulting from substantial changes to long-standing trends. It provides AR5 with an essential worst case scenario necessary for conservative planning.

Unfortunately scientists often inaccurately describe RCP8.5 as the baseline scenario — a future without policy action: “a relatively conservative business as usual case with low income, high population and high energy demand due to only modest improvements in energy intensity” from “RCP 8.5: A scenario of comparatively high greenhouse gas emissions” by Keywan Riahi et al in Climate Change, November 2011, This is a material misrepresentation of RCP8.5. Scientists then use RCP8.5 to construct horrific visions of the future. They seldom mention its unlikely assumptions.

A closer look at scenario RCP8.5

RCP 8.5 clearly has little or no basis in reality, much less represent a “business as usual” scenario.

Let’s hold them accountable for their willful disregard of economics

President Trump’s “secret weapon” is the discount rate…

How Climate Rules Might Fade Away

Obama used an arcane number to craft his regulations. Trump could use it to undo them.

by Matthew Philips , Mark Drajem , and Jennifer A Dlouhy

December 15, 2016, 3:30 AM CST

In February 2009, a month after Barack Obama took office, two academics sat across from each other in the White House mess hall. Over a club sandwich, Michael Greenstone, a White House economist, and Cass Sunstein, Obama’s top regulatory officer, decided that the executive branch needed to figure out how to estimate the economic damage from climate change. With the recession in full swing, they were rightly skeptical about the chances that Congress would pass a nationwide cap-and-trade bill. Greenstone and Sunstein knew they needed a Plan B: a way to regulate carbon emissions without going through Congress.

Over the next year, a team of economists, scientists, and lawyers from across the federal government convened to come up with a dollar amount for the economic cost of carbon emissions. Whatever value they hit upon would be used to determine the scope of regulations aimed at reducing the damage from climate change. The bigger the estimate, the more costly the rules meant to address it could be. After a year of modeling different scenarios, the team came up with a central estimate of $21 per metric ton, which is to say that by their calculations, every ton of carbon emitted into the atmosphere imposed $21 of economic cost. It has since been raised to around $40 a ton.

This calculation, known as the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), serves as the linchpin for much of the climate-related rules imposed by the White House over the past eight years. From capping the carbon emissions of power plants to cutting down on the amount of electricity used by the digital clock on a microwave, the SCC has given the Obama administration the legal justification to argue that the benefits these rules provide to society outweigh the costs they impose on industry.

It turns out that the same calculation used to justify so much of Obama’s climate agenda could be used by President-elect Donald Trump to undo a significant portion of it. As Trump nominates people who favor fossil fuels and oppose climate regulation to top positions in his cabinet, including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency and former Texas Governor Rick Perry to lead the Department of Energy, it seems clear that one of his primary objectives will be to dismantle much of Obama’s climate and clean energy legacy. He already appears to be focusing on the SCC.


The SCC models rely on a “discount rate” to state the harm from global warming in today’s dollars. The higher the discount rate, the lower the estimate of harm. That’s because the costs incurred by burning carbon lie mostly in the distant future, while the benefits (heat, electricity, etc.) are enjoyed today. A high discount rate shrinks the estimates of future costs but doesn’t affect present-day benefits. The team put together by Greenstone and Sunstein used a discount rate of 3 percent to come up with its central estimate of $21 a ton for damage inflicted by carbon. But changing that discount just slightly produces big swings in the overall cost of carbon, turning a number that’s pushing broad changes in everything from appliances to coal leasing decisions into one that would have little or no impact on policy.

According to a 2013 government update on the SCC, by applying a discount rate of 5 percent, the cost of carbon in 2020 comes out to $12 a ton; using a 2.5 percent rate, it’s $65. A 7 percent discount rate, which has been used by the EPA for other regulatory analysis, could actually lead to a negative carbon cost, which would seem to imply that carbon emissions are beneficial. “Once you start to dig into how the numbers are constructed, I cannot fathom how anyone could think it has any basis in reality,” says Daniel Simmons, vice president for policy at the American Energy Alliance and a member of the Trump transition team focusing on the Energy Department. “Depending on what the discount rate is, you go from a large number to a negative number, with some very reasonable assumptions.”



This is worth repeating:

A 7 percent discount rate, which has been used by the EPA for other regulatory analysis, could actually lead to a negative carbon cost, which would seem to imply that carbon emissions are beneficial.

One of the most common ways of estimating the value of oil and gas revenue and reserves is called “PV10.”

PV10 is the current value of approximated oil and gas revenues in the future, minus anticipated expenses, discounted using a yearly discount rate of 10%. Used primarily in reference to the energy industry, PV10 is helpful in estimating the present value of a corporation’s proven oil and gas reserves.

Read more: PV10 Definition | Investopedia

Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook

We generally use a 10% discount rate when deciding how to allocate current capital.

A 3% discount rate, as used in the SCC calculation, essentially assumes that the time-value of money is insignificant.  I suppose that since it’s OPM (other people’s money), the government doesn’t view the time-value of money as a particularly relevant thing.

Discounting Away the Social Cost of Carbon: The Fast Lane to Undoing Obama’s Climate Regulations

Let’s hold them accountable for the billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on greenschist

Why Do Federal Subsidies Make Renewable Energy So Costly?


I write about nuclear, energy and the environment

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).

Figure Caption: Subsidies for various energy sources normalized to total energy produced by each source for the years 2010, 2013, 2016 and projected for 2019. Data Source: University of Texas

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) and the University of Texas, from 2010 through 2013, federal renewable energy subsidies increased by 54%, from $8.6 billion to $13.2 billion, despite the fact that total federal energy subsidies declined by 23%, from $38 billion to $29 billion.



If the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions truly is a primary objective, the only energys source which merits subsidization is nuclear power:

Nuclear power absolutely is the leader of the pack at reducing so-called “greenhouse” gas emissions:

Figure 1. Nuclear and gas kick @$$, wind breaks even and solar is a loser.

If reducing greenhouse gas emissions is important, nuclear power is the obvious answer.  If reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost is important, natural gas is the obvious answer.  If treading water is important, wind is the obvious answer.  If failure is important, solar is the obvious answer.  So, Mr. Dominguez is generally correct.

“The renewables industry has been playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices,” Amy Francetic, an Invenergy senior vice president, said in an interview. “This is picking and winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”

Really?  Ms. Francetic, *government* always picks “winners and losers in a way that’s troubling.”

As far as the renewables industry “playing by competitive market rules that have helped to produce good prices”…

Figure 2. Ms. Francetic, Data is laughing at you.

The most recent U.S. Energy Information Administration report on energy subsidies reveals the following:

Solar and wind power are insignificant sources of energy.

Energy Subsidies1
Figure 3a. U.S. Energy production by source 2010 & 2013 (trillion Btu), U.S. Energy Information Administration.(Corrected for error in Geothermal Btu shortly after publication.)
Figure 3b. U.S. primary energy production 1981-2015 (million tonnes of oil equivalent), BP 2016 Statistical Review of World Energy.

Solar and wind power receive massive Federal subsidies.

Energy 2
Figure 4. Federal subsidies by energy source 2010 and 2013 (million 2013 US dollars), U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The solar and wind subsidies are truly massive in $/Btu.

Energy Subsidies3
Figure 5. Subsidies per unit of energy by source ($/mmBtu), U.S. Energy Information Administration. (Corrected for error in Geothermal Btu shortly after publication.)

So… By all means…


Addendum (6/21/2017 7:06 AM CDT)

This just hit my inbox:

AAAS spam2

We hope you saw our note last week. This is a critical time for AAAS and the scientific community as a whole — we haven’t seen threats to science of this magnitude in decades.

We need your help to protect and advance rigorous inquiry that benefits everyone.

Become an AAAS member today and we’ll send you a “Force for Science” water bottle as a thank you for joining the movement.

For science,

American Association for the Advancement of Science

P.S. Explore one of the many benefits of AAAS membership: Download a digital copy of the newest issue of the journal Science now.

*Offer valid from May 31, 2017 to June 30, 2017, for new individual members only. There is a limit of one water bottle per membership order. Please allow up to four weeks for domestic delivery and up to five weeks for international delivery. The AAAS water bottle is provided as is without any guarantees or warranty and cannot be exchanged or returned. In association with the product, AAAS makes no warranties of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose.

Yes, I did see your not.  I replied to it here.  Budget cuts to the EPA, NOAA and the rest of the alphabet soup are not “threats to science.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 20, 2017 6:24 am

“Organizations that have propelled us forward — NIH, NOAA, and the EPA, just to name a few — ”
The EPA has been a pimple on the ass of progress for some time now.

Reply to  GPHanner
June 20, 2017 6:25 am

The EPA’s work was finished by the end of the 70’s.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 6:39 am

… except in Flint, MI where they dropped the ball.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 7:17 am

…and all of our drinking water……hormones, antibiotics, BPA, etc
The EPA has dropped the ball on almost everything

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 7:29 am

They were still working on the King mine in Colorado lately…another Huge success.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 8:13 am

Latitude: Nature drops the ball frequently on “drinking water”—arsenic in wells, methane in wells, etc. Shall we punish Nature, or admit that pristine drinking water is a likely as the existence of the tooth fairy?

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 9:44 am

Arsenic-contaminated “dead pools” are crystal clear and clean as can be. A little TOO clean. So clean nothing can live in it.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 10:48 am

How about mandating MTBE, and then turning around and pointing the finger at the petroleum industry when that turned out to be a huge mistake, which the media ran with without letting good journalism get in the way.
And then there was the King Mine spill.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 12:34 pm

drednicoloson: Yes, but when going for well-water, one can really not tell. Stock wells become contaminated and the only clue is cattle falling over. If no one tests the well on a regular basis, the result can be very bad. (I don’t drink my well water. 🙂 )
RWturner: That’s a good example of how quick action to fix a problem can be the exact wrong answer. I actually like mandates to include ingredients that do not actually exist at this point in time. It’s so Atlas Shrugged in feel. I think the same thing with CFLs. Had they just waited, LEDs are miles ahead for light quality, lifespan, etc. I still have CFLs from when that was all I could get, but I’m slowly moving to LED. What a waste the CFLs were.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 3:08 pm

It was the state that dropped the ball in Flint.
Drinking water is clean enough, most of the recent concerns are a big lot of nothing.
Lots of money being spent for no perceivable benefit.

Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 5:35 pm

That’s a state responsibility, Neo. The TCEQ does quite a good job. Of course, when you actively lie on reports, it’s hard to catch you.

Reply to  GPHanner
June 20, 2017 7:23 am

The EPA went from a pimple to a huge carbuncle (boil) years ago and it is in great need of a major lancing. The pus can be drained (meaning fewer minions creating and pushing unConstitutional regulations) and its complexion returned to its original condition (mission to address real environmental problems, not political agendas).

June 20, 2017 6:25 am

How long till Griff pipes up with his standard lie that Germany is getting 30% of it’s power from renewables?

John B
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 6:30 am

They are… sometimes for a whole hour – usually during the night when nobody wants it.

Reply to  John B
June 20, 2017 7:59 am

Yeah, those solar panels are much more efficient at night when they aren’t hindered by the clouds blocking the sun.

Reply to  John B
June 20, 2017 8:49 am

Angular Merkin is about to release news of “Operation Fritz Lang,” a major German lunar power project that will solve the old “sun goes down” objection to solar energy.

Reply to  John B
June 20, 2017 10:11 am

But what’ll they do when the moon isn’t full?

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  MarkW
June 20, 2017 10:01 am

Uh-oh, now you’ve done it. Coming from deep within the bowels of the earth I hear drumbeats.

John B
June 20, 2017 6:27 am

“I Am a Force for Science” water bottle as a thank you.”
First glance I mistook ‘bottle’ for ‘boarding’ – more apt I think. We have ways of making you agree with us.

Reply to  John B
June 20, 2017 8:00 am

A spelling error on the bottles?
Perhaps they should read “I Am a Farce for Science”?

Reply to  JohnWho
June 20, 2017 10:29 am

A water bottle??? A PLASTIC water bottle ??? Made with fossil fuels, shipped with fossil fuels, and requiring a disclaimer that insinuates that due to the quality and longevity of said bottle, its going to end up in a landfill rapidly!!
Carry it proudly comrades! It makes it easy to identify who the idiots are when they carry swag.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  JohnWho
June 20, 2017 12:09 pm

No doubt a BPHA-containing plastic that when it eventually degrades will release CO2.

Reply to  John B
June 20, 2017 8:51 am

The data will be putty in our hands.

Will R
Reply to  John B
June 24, 2017 6:26 am

Is the water bottle PLASTIC? Just askin’

June 20, 2017 6:35 am

Aside from the fat that the Paris agreement, even under the best of circumstances, would have affected nothing, you have to question the basic intelligence on any organization that claims that a single country not participating spells the end of scientific inquiry. While stupid jerk Obama poured money into selected, biased scientific inquiry, whose purpose was to support his political actions, scientific research does not begin and end with the actions of the U.S. Federal govt. There are dozens of nations quite capable of conducting scientific research, and more than a few U.S. states, thru their universities. One might also question the logic of a requirement for additional research by folks who have claimed that the “science is settled.” It is embarrassing that an organization that purports to support science should be making such stupid claims, albeit probably more the result of a desire for money than because of any innate ignorance, as is exemplified by their actions.

June 20, 2017 6:40 am

As seen elsewhere:
These idiots have a better chance of guessing when Christ will return.

Reply to  Neo
June 20, 2017 7:55 am


Reply to  Neo
June 20, 2017 8:57 am

A certain well-known scientist activist thought that was him.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 20, 2017 12:10 pm


Larry Vaughn
June 20, 2017 6:48 am

Excellent assessment, I want to know when “Scientists ” gave up using the principles of scientific method and just put all their trust in modeling. So sad. What do you expect when we have public schools that have no science degree holders teaching science.

Reply to  Larry Vaughn
June 20, 2017 6:58 am

Good question – can we hold the American Association for the Advancement of Science accountable for ignoring the scientific method and promoting activism as science?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Larry Vaughn
June 20, 2017 2:25 pm

I suspect that, as with many other established organizations with varied aims, it isn’t the membership that have caved and/or steered the group from it’s original purpose and goal but the leadership.

June 20, 2017 6:48 am

They need to be held accountable for the water bottles.

Reply to  siamiam
June 20, 2017 9:51 am

Yep. Those bottles are just more plastic in the environment, but they don’t get that – too pedestrian.

Alan Robertson
June 20, 2017 6:50 am

… as if He ever left.

Jim Masterson
June 20, 2017 6:57 am

The trouble with being a member of AAAS is that you get Science once a week (51 issues a year). It’s impossible to read everything in a week, let alone try to understand some of the papers. You wind up with stacks and stacks of magazines which eventually go into the recycle bin (same with Nature publication). It’s much better to get everything on-line–no stacks of magazines. Now that my alumni organization gives me access to JSTOR, I don’t need to subscribe to these publications either. My AAAS emails go away too–sort of.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
June 20, 2017 7:00 am

You mean “Science” the magazine, not actual science, right?
There appears to be some discussion as to whether they are promoting science (not the magazine).

Jim Masterson
Reply to  JohnWho
June 20, 2017 7:09 am

You mean “Science” the magazine, not actual science, right?
Yes, isn’t that obvious.

Mark T
Reply to  Jim Masterson
June 20, 2017 7:02 am

The trouble with being a member of the AAAS is that you are wasting your money.

Jim Masterson
Reply to  Mark T
June 20, 2017 7:27 am

The trouble with being a member of the AAAS is that you are wasting your money.
Yes and no. You have to be a member to get Science. I enjoy astronomy and paleontology, so those papers are usually on the up-and-up. The commentary is heavily biased as are the climate papers.
I’ve been against AGW from the beginning. So people arguing for it have said that I lied about being a AAAS member (when I was), that I’ve never read a science paper (I’ve read many), and that I wasn’t a scientist–just an engineer. That last point always gave me a chuckle. I thought the animosity between scientists and engineers ended with the Romans–I guess not.
As a double-E, I’m a member of IEEE–my professional organization. I’m also a member of ACM–my advanced degree is software engineering.

Reply to  Jim Masterson
June 20, 2017 10:06 am

Given both Science and Nature’s blatant CAGW/CACC biases, the recycle bin is probably the right place.
Not to mention a peer [pal] review system that’s demonstrably kaput with a scarily large proportion of whatever is published turning out to be irreproducible – scientific garbage that is not retracted and remains in the “literature” gyre, with the junk continuing to be cited/referenced.

jIM a
June 20, 2017 6:59 am

This article is way tool long and way too complex. I really do agree with the various points but there is no way you can put all the issues in one big basket. Not even costs of mitigation.
Not only that but the charts of observation v models dont comply with what I’ve seen in the past.

Reply to  jIM a
June 20, 2017 7:32 am

This is a very good article. You just have to take the trouble to read and understand it completely. As I see it, the renewable energies of Wind and Solar have already earmarked strong money in 2013 and upwards, but without having a marginal role in energy generation. The same is also true in Germany. It is not surprising that the profiteers of “Energiewende” make such an insurrection against Donald Trump. You have billions of dollars and dollars to lose, if the dizziness becomes generally known.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
June 20, 2017 10:23 am

The “energiewende” in Germany would be funny if it wasn’t such a disaster – frau Dr “Crocodile Tears” Merkel has a lot to account for…
Several reports [e.g. IEA] on global energy lately have shown that after some USD 2 trillion in subsidies over the past 20 years, wind and solar still account for no more that 1% of global energy supply.
The most important observation in IEA report is that in spite of these subsidies and policy based market distortions in their favour, renewables are incapable of matching the pace of overall growth in energy requirements.
In OECD countries, renewables are incapable of meeting the rapidly growing energy requirements of the IT/Tech sector, and most telling of all: globally, renewables are incapable of producing the energy required to produce the solar panels and wind turbines required for further growth in the sector. In other words, we need hydrocarbon based fuels to produce the electricity required to produce the renewables…..

June 20, 2017 7:02 am

You know someone is going to say this:
Yeah, but David, the grandchildren….

Reply to  JohnWho
June 20, 2017 7:39 am

The strangest thing is, among climate scientists, children and grandchildren are not so common. There are, of course, exceptions, but they are often childless. Mrs. Merkel also remained unfruitful, the child in her marriage came from her husband. They, however, fervently sell the fairy tales of the grandchildren.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
June 20, 2017 7:43 am

I also had to think of the pope and the Catholic Church, who also spread the climate fear and save the earth for the children. Which they do not have in any case.

Reply to  Hans-Georg
June 20, 2017 2:33 pm

Biological dead ends …

Steve Oregon
June 20, 2017 7:07 am

AAAS, “President Trump has begun the process of pulling the United States out of the Paris Climate Accord, putting us in the company of only two other nations to reject this planet-saving agreement.”
“Planet saving”?
How’s that?
There must be some secret provisions that are the “saving” part?

June 20, 2017 7:08 am

I received the same mail.
It is signed by Michael Savelli of AAAS.
But you can’t just reply to the e-mail to express concerns to Mr. Savelli.
Just a marketing tool.

Frank K.
Reply to  J
June 20, 2017 8:14 am

It’s just AAAS click bait. Don’t take the bait.
Also – we have a weird mechanism for holding the government/academic climate cabal (and their left-wing media partners) accountable. That weird mechanism is called…elections. Sorry AAAS – you lost.

June 20, 2017 7:09 am

Reminds me of former NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco’s speech when she chaired AAAS on how scientists would conduct policy relevant research if the government would only provide more funding. Under President Obama, that is pretty much what happened. EPA, NOAA, and other agencies funded “scientists” who produced “results” that supported the funding agencies policy priorities.

Tim Hammond
June 20, 2017 7:09 am

But the EPA is not a science organisation. Even if all the science it bases its actions on were true (which is simply unlikely,since at any given point in human knowledge, much of science is wrong), how it deals with that science is political.
This is the great leap that Greens and others make, from science to solution, without considering the politics and economics in-between.

Reply to  Tim Hammond
June 20, 2017 10:31 am

The only step the greenies make is from [pseudo] science to politics/policy. The green blob is scientifically willfully deaf and blind to anything that does not fit their views/objectives and is as all socialists, economically illiterate.
Their core driver is to never let verifiable facts get in the way of an opportunity to implement ideologically driven policies.

June 20, 2017 7:12 am

I get the AAAS-o-grams too. Could always unsubscribe but they are a) very funny and b) handy for seeing what the mountebanks are up to.
On an encouraging note, in my place of work where everyone is an engineer or scientist of some stripe, we had last week for the first time a mini global warming debate. Very interesting to note that it was the oldest guy who was the staunchest “all-of-those-scientists-cannot-be-wrong” authoritarian (although he had no clue about any of it and wasn’t interested in hearing about it either – naturally enough when all you have is logical fallacy) with the mid-age bracket pretty noncommittal and the young PhD students highly sceptical.
I took that as indicative of the phenomenon where you can only peddle unevidenced bs for so long before the kids twig it and it’s always been hip to ridicule the firmly held doctrines of the previous generation anyway.

Jim G1
Reply to  cephus0
June 20, 2017 8:02 am

I am an old engineer. My son is a mech e. When he grauated from hs he was buying into the green thing. After college, not so much. Now he even denies that he ever believed any of the green wisdom. The smart kids who have been subjected to the propaganda do eventually figure out the scam. This, of course, assumes they received a decent education and their jobs are not dependent upon cowtowing to the green monster. They have kids and families to support too, you know. But the lie is pretty transparent to anyone with an appropriate science background and even modest intelligence. So, there is hope.

South River Independent
June 20, 2017 7:18 am

I joined because I wanted to read some archived studies completed when AAAS promoted real science instead of political propaganda. Needless to say, I will not renew my membership.

June 20, 2017 7:18 am

At $50 a pop the AAAS should donate that membership money to the Paris Climate Accord 😎
Along with all those “water bottles” 😉

Tom in Florida
Reply to  hocuspocus13
June 20, 2017 7:26 am

Just wondering what those water battles are made of, how they were made and what method of shipment they will use to get them to you..

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 20, 2017 10:37 am

They are most likely PET [ considered environmentally friendly as it recycles once, into fleeces and the like] and the AAAS will send them to you by way of solar electric drones with wind turbine back-up power…. 🙂
Then again, that’s probably too pedestrian an issue and they don’t give a flying feather.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
June 20, 2017 12:14 pm

The bottles come full of Kool-Aid.

June 20, 2017 7:24 am
June 20, 2017 7:34 am

The AAAS is determined to squander its own credibility on this political viewpoint. They seem to not pay attention to papers from their own preferred scientists which ought to cause some concern as to how settled this science is; [quote from the abstract at the link below]
“Over most of the early twenty-first century, however, model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed; warming rate differences are generally outside the range of trends arising from internal variability. The probability that multi-decadal internal variability fully explains the asymmetry between the late twentieth and early twenty-first century results is low (between zero and about 9%). It is also unlikely that this asymmetry is due to the combined effects of internal variability and a model error in climate sensitivity. We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Reply to  Randy Bork
June 20, 2017 7:57 am

“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is”…
100% due to tuning them to a past temp history that has been jiggered to show a faster rate of warming

Reply to  Randy Bork
June 20, 2017 8:13 am

Ben Santer wrote that??? Was someone holding him at gunpoint?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Randy Bork
June 22, 2017 4:41 pm

“We conclude that model overestimation of tropospheric warming in the early twenty-first century is partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.””
Translation? “The models are correct; we just got the inputs wrong.”

June 20, 2017 7:34 am

Most published research findings are false. link

Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.

Scientists are claiming expertise that they don’t have. The public already realizes this. It’s time to hold the prognosticators accountable.
Scientists are supposed to probe the boundaries of knowledge. It is probably fine that most published research findings are false. What is not fine, having realized the foregoing, is for folks like Dr. Michael Mann to confidently assert that they have transcended those boundaries. He knows, or should know, that the possibility of that is approximately zero. I do not understand why he should not go to jail.

Reply to  commieBob
June 20, 2017 8:32 am

“It is probably fine that most published research findings are false.”
I can’t agree with this Bob. The whole “publish or perish” paradigm has gone way too far and is in my view hugely detrimental to both the progress and reputation of science as a whole. I would be absolutely mortified if something I published was found to be incorrect and I’d fall over my furiously blushing self to amend or retract, apologise profusely and take serious stock of how I came to get it wrong. It’s fine to have something incomplete and needing more work but what you publish must be correct.
That is one of the appalling things about modern climate science. It appears to be little more than an endless parade of totally wild speculations. It might be said that given the inherently unpredictable nature of the subject matter if they stuck to what was accurately and repeatedly demonstrable then it would be a slim subject indeed. Well that’s absolutely fine by me and I would infinitely rather have that than have to wade through terabytes of unevidenced and unrepeatable garbage.

Reply to  cephus0
June 20, 2017 9:32 am

If I were able to prove that Einstein was wrong, nobody would say that he shouldn’t have published in the first place.
On the other hand, if he was wrong, and everyone agreed that he was wrong, then people should no longer cite his work. The trouble is that people keep positively citing retracted papers. link If the paper is retracted, there’s not much doubt that it’s wrong.
The claim that science is self correcting is just bogus.
I sympathize with newly minted PhDs. Waiting a year to get a post doc is pretty common. The pressure to publish is horrible. If they do get a tenure track job, they won’t get tenure if they don’t produce. As you correctly note, the result is ” terabytes of unevidenced and unrepeatable garbage”.

June 20, 2017 7:34 am

Plant denial. CO2 correlates weakly with temperature. But its a consequence not a cause, released as the oceans warm. Plants eat the CO2 until there is only enough left to maintain plant, and human, life. Always did maintain that balance. Simple.

June 20, 2017 7:45 am

I think a better assessment of Hansen is from 1988, the year of his testimony
( anyone can hindcast at 100% accuracy, but forecast is the measure ):
Trend for this period ( 1.7K/century ) is much lower than the mid-range.

Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
June 20, 2017 2:07 pm

Turbulent Eddie June 20, 2017 at 7:45 am
I think a better assessment of Hansen is from 1988, the year of his testimony
( anyone can hindcast at 100% accuracy, but forecast is the measure ):
These are records – every single last one of which are admitted internally, in ClimateGate, to be faked.
The temperature of the global atmosphere is a function of pressure and light availability anyway, not component fractions of specific gases. There is an international standard temperature for the Atmosphere and that temperature will not be changing.
All these claims of global temperature rising and falling are in fact, a lie from that standpoint – when we see in the newspapers the Standard Atmosphere has been abandoned it’ll be a strange day,
and also, even a cursory read through the now infamous Climategate reveal, ”HarryReadMe.txt” shows clearly that – a HUGE proportion of ALL global surface temperatures are purely and simply, made up.
This is not even questionable. The HarryReadMe.txt from one of the actual modelers reveals they have COMPLETELY TRASHED the GLOBAL TEMPERATURE REPOSITORIES.
Hansen’s fakery goes much further because even if we DID have the instruments in place – WE DON’T –
the instruments are simply
that sensitive.
and over
and over
every single syllable of modern climate ‘science’ is found to be utterly built upon fraudulence and fraud.

Gunga Din
Reply to  Clay
June 20, 2017 4:24 pm

Bottom line.
There is no accurate and reliable baseline for past temperatures.
No valid baseline for past temperatures, no valid comparison to present temperatures possible.
No valid comparison possible, no “Man’s the cause” conclusion possible.
Just theories built upon theories built upon (throw in some PC generated data) built upon theories (etc) until the desired result is obtained.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Clay
June 20, 2017 5:00 pm

Clay, if it is reasonable to assume that all these climate databases were collected using taxpayer funds, then do the laws of destruction of public property, conspiracy to destroy public property, money, defrauding the taxpayers, conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers, etc., etc.,and then, there have have been breaches of the RICO laws and are not the people you expose racketeers and subject to prosecution under the RICO statutes?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Turbulent Eddie
June 22, 2017 4:43 pm

And manmade CO2 emissions exceeded his modeled high-end.

June 20, 2017 7:46 am

In this new world of progressive thinking it is all the rage to call something what it is most certainly not. It is an Alice in Wonderland approach to language. With the AAAS however, rather than naming it what it was not the process was reversed so that it has become exactly the opposite of what it was named.

Steve Case
June 20, 2017 7:53 am

Let’s hold them accountable for outrageous propaganda. For example,
2.10.2 Direct Global Warming Potentials
that tell us that methane is 84 times more powerful than CO2 based on The radiative efficiency per kilogram, instead of volume, which gives them a 2.75 bump-up factor since CO2 is heavier than methane. But not only that, they use the concentration of CO2 as a standard knowing that it increases over time allowing them to increase the factor and claim it’s worse than previously thought. The AR5 now says it’s 86 times more powerful.
But just exactly does the 86 times more powerful factor tell us? Big scary number derived from dividing a small number by a really teensy one. But no good for asking the question, “How much will methane run up global temperatures by 2100? [It’s less than 0.05 deg C] They really need to be called out on this B.S.

A C Osborn
June 20, 2017 7:57 am

They should also be held accountable for all the Media “Hottest”, “Wildest”, “Super”, “Mega”, scare stories of the last 20 years.

June 20, 2017 8:43 am

What AAAS actually is saying:
It should be legal to commit fraud and illegal to fight it …

Reply to  SasjaL
June 20, 2017 1:10 pm

Well said.

Reply to  Sheri
June 20, 2017 1:21 pm


Leonard Lane
Reply to  SasjaL
June 20, 2017 5:02 pm

Sasjal this is exactly what they are saying. Sad, are there any honest scientific associations or bodies left in the USA?

Reply to  Leonard Lane
June 21, 2017 12:24 am

That question could be used for most countries. I don’t think it would change as long as politicians are above the law …

June 20, 2017 8:49 am

From the article: “If the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions truly is a primary objective, the only energy source which merits subsidization is nuclear power”
That is correct and nuclear is doable right now. The only problem is the radioactive waste produced, but there are viable solutions to handling this problem already available. The only thing lacking is the political will.
Great article, David. You gave all the reasons why the AAAS should be held accountable for not taking into account all the other evidence available that casts doubt on the CAGW narrative.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2017 11:01 am

Run those numbers against the USD 2 trillion global subsidies for solar and wind of the past 20 years – for a 1% contribution to global energy production- and the absurdity and obscenity of renewables becomes even more salient.

R.S. Brown
Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2017 11:11 am

I still like the idea of taking those spent rod bundles & cobalt needles and
shooting them into the sun.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2017 1:31 pm

“The entire inventory of high-level radioactive waste produced by US nuclear power plants over the last 50+ years could be safely disposed of for ~$70 billion.”
The Yucca Mountain nuclear storage facility in Nevada was supposed to cost an estimated $90 billion (2008), so your proposal beats the Yucca facility costs, and your proposal eliminates the need to guard the storage facility for hundreds or more years.
I think you have a good idea there, David.

Reply to  David Middleton
June 20, 2017 3:15 pm

My only problem with using deep wells to dispose of nuclear waste is that it makes it very hard to recover that material when ever we finally come to our senses.

Roger Knights
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2017 7:04 pm

Nuclear waste could be “classified” and dumped in an ocean trench. But the UN passed a law forbidding any dumping (probably not realizing that glassification would eliminate all risk)>

Roger Knights
Reply to  David Middleton
June 21, 2017 7:05 pm

“classified,” not “classified.” Damn autocorrect.

J Mac
June 20, 2017 8:50 am

Excellent ‘take down’, Mr. Middleton!
How shall we hold these AAAS’s accountable?
Let Me Count The Ways!

Walter Sobchak
June 20, 2017 10:58 am

The American Association for the Advancement of Science reveals its true agenda: more Benjamins for us. To them science is welfare for white people, and they want theirs.

June 20, 2017 11:15 am

comment image

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  RWturner
June 20, 2017 11:50 am

Haha. Brilliant.

Ed Zuiderwijk
June 20, 2017 11:50 am

Let’s hold them accountable for the misdirection of scarse resources on a truly monumental scale.

H. D. Hoese
June 20, 2017 11:54 am

I have posted announcements before from Sigma Xi (Scientific Honor Society that publishes American Scientist). They have not yet assumed the activist posture of AAAS, or offered bottles, but some of their more cautious language is similar. American Scientist has published “politically incorrect” articles, including EPA problems, but they may need to be saved from the “save us” paradigm which has its own dangers. This just came from the outgoing Interim Executive Director.
“Finally, a great wave of scientific awareness has arisen. Primed by the March for Science, more of us recognize that this country’s research investment traditions are at peril, and people everywhere are feeling the urge to revive interest and participation in all things science. Sigma Xi is a beacon of clarity for the research enterprise…the underpinning for the human need to produce innovation and improve the common lot.”

June 20, 2017 2:07 pm

I received the same e-mail a few days ago. My response was short, but rushed. I’m certain someone can word it better to have handy the next time they send it out.
“I cannot overstate this: Your rejection of the scientific method in favor of hyperbole and flat out lies is truly disgusting.
Fewer than three percent of published papers with an opinion on the cause of warming claim it is mostly human (Category 1 for attribution in Cook et. al. 2013). The reality is that the Cook study found more papers that reject AGW than say humans are the primary cause (78 to 64). The definition of the consensus used in studies that showed 97-99% agreement is merely that humans add to natural variation (Cook 2013, Oreskes, Doran & Zimmermann, Powell).
Funding cuts may threaten the jobs of a few of your members, but blindly accepting political slogans as fact threatens the core definition of science.
When will your organization start holding itself accountable to put science ahead of money?”

June 20, 2017 4:39 pm

Thanks David, a valuable resource recording many of the crimes. I very much appreciate the section on RCP 8.5. I now have this as a half-page handout in my “need to carry” stuff. I have to battle with RCP 8.5 on an almost daily basis.

June 20, 2017 5:36 pm

I think Kip Hansen could write a whole post on the Fruit Salad that is “the average of 102 GCM runs”. Can anyone ascribe any utility to that numerical calculation?

June 20, 2017 6:35 pm

The Paris Climate Accord is a “planet-saving agreement”, eh ?
I just find that funny.
It is a fantasy agreement — an agreement for the sake of international agreement on an ideal that has no physical reality. It’s just an exercise by many different nations to agree on something. Okay, agreement by multiple nations is great. But why not agree that fried meat tastes good? Or that sunny days are happy days?
Why create some excuse to spend so much money and time accomplishing so very little? At least spending money on agreeing that sunny days are happy days would be more uplifting … and CHEAPER.

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
June 20, 2017 9:03 pm

In the few figures at the start of the article the trend in the observed data is not global warming caused by CO2. As per IPCC more than half is due to anthropogenic greenhouse effect which includes the volcanic impact and less than half is due to non-greenhouse effect. Model predictions were for global warming.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Steve (Paris)
June 21, 2017 2:58 am


June 21, 2017 6:54 am

Bravo for this – a great succinct review of why those advocating drastic action are so wrong. I will be sending the link to many long suffering folk who I suspect still doubt that I’m right and that they have been so completely hoodwinked. I’d missed Stockwell’s graph – that’s a gem.

June 21, 2017 10:42 am

A “force for science water bottle” … great, more plastic !
Send us money in the name of science so that we can up the demand for plastic sippie bottles to complement already-large carbon-footprint lifestyles. The more new members, the more plastic bottles we can get into the world.
Is this really a good marketing plan?

June 21, 2017 11:13 am

of only two other nations to reject this planet-saving agreement. << HAHAHAHAHS "Planet-saving"??? and why the hyphen?

Tom Bjorklund
June 21, 2017 7:57 pm

Outstanding position paper. My observation is that most if not all national organizations of scientists and engineers inexplicably fall into the AAAS camp on the issue of climate change. How could this happen? The preeminent problem for rational scientists is how to get Middleton’s message and others like it out to the people in spite of the barriers created by entrenched bureaucrats and the mass media. Niche websites simply cannot get the job done. Articles like this one, books, testimony to Congress, presentations, etc., get filed on a shelf and gather dust. A light needs to shine on black hole of the fourth estate.

June 22, 2017 6:18 am

…we haven’t seen threats to science of this magnitude in decades.
In decades? Really? In which recent decade was science so threatened?

Tom Bjorklund
Reply to  PaulH
June 22, 2017 10:37 am

Maybe “decades” was too generous. Let’s talk centuries, say, Galileo’s persecution in the1600s.

pham nuwen
June 26, 2017 3:26 am

Thank you Guys for your Comments.
Your Names will be stored in a Database
for the Use in the coming Trials
against Climate Change Deniers..
[If you think threats advance your cause you are deluded. You sound like a foolish teenager. . . mod]

%d bloggers like this: