AAAS Apologizes — Rightfully So

Brief by Kip Hansen

ad_350American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)  has apologized for emailing out a fund-raising promotion that was misleading and apparently politically motivated — that is, they have apologized to me, personally, when I contacted them with an email questioning the content of the email.   In case you have forgotten, the AAAS is the publisher [ed]  of the journal Science, widely considered to be one of the world’s top academic journals.

The membership-drive email contained an image similar to the one at the beginning of this article — “Tomorrow’s Science Needs You Today.  Now more than ever, science needs supporters like you”.  The email version I received was this:


The text of the message read:

You’ve read the headlines. You know scientific institutions are being stifled. Scientists and engineers are regarded with suspicion in the very institutions that should be a safe haven for them.

So our work is cut out for us in 2018. But the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is fighting back. Become a member to help us:

Defend evidence-based policies, Advocate for government funding in research, Educate policymakers, Champion the public benefits of science, and more!

“Good heaven’s!” I thought, “Science is being undermined…scientific institutions are being stifled. Not only that, but scientists and engineers are regarded with suspicion in the very institutions that should be a safe haven for them.”  “That’s serious!” I concluded, “Why don’t I know about this?”

Readers here know that I write about science news and can correctly assume that I follow current events concerning science, and general science news, pretty closely.  How did this situation develop and escape my attention?

I wrote to the AAAS, using their “Media Inquiry” button on their website:

I am a science essayist — and I am puzzled over an email I received from the AAAS  — apparently fund-raising — with this text:

“You’ve read the headlines. You know scientific institutions are being stifled. Scientists and engineers are regarded with suspicion in the very institutions that should be a safe haven for them.”

Science is my field — I follow science news carefully daily — it is my bread and butter — and I haven’t the slightest idea what the AAAS is going on about.

Can you have someone contact me either by telephone or email to give me details of “scientific institutions … being stifled” and how individuals donating to AAAS would remedy it?

Much to my surprise, I received an almost immediate reply from the AAAS’ Chief Information & Engagement Officer – Director of Membership.   Adding to my surprise, the reply was this:

Thank you for contacting AAAS.   I appreciate that brought to our attention the distracting and fiery sentences in the email you received from AAAS.  I believe the copywriters of this email were trying somehow to generalize this event:

Unfortunately, we missed the mark badly.  The AAAS Marketing team failed at many levels here and for that I take full responsibility.  I have taken steps to stop future sends of this email as well instituting stronger review processes in our development of marketing material.

I do hope you see this [as] an isolated failure by a few people within AAAS and not indicative of AAAS as a whole.

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention,   [signature]

I found this reply very encouraging — at least when asked by the media [and WUWT is a media outlet, being among the world’s most viewed science, climate, and weather websites], one person at the AAAS realized that they were doing “alarm bells promotion”  — ringing the alarm calling for public help to fight some public menace.  Unfortunately, the “public menace” in this case is imaginary, existing only in the minds of  those,  like this journalist at the NY Times,  can see only through the tainted lens of US two-party politics and whose every printed word is biased by their party-affiliation and cultural leaning — writing Party Talking Points as if they were somehow connected to reality.

In this case, the “AAAS Marketing team copywriters” — apparently in agreement with the bias of the NY Times’  Lisa Friedman — took their “story”, according to the AAAS’ Information Officer, from this NY Times article:  E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency ScientistsThe story is that just prior to the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed conference in Oct 2017, the EPA cancelled the appearance of three EPA associated speakers who were to address the meeting on the subject of Climate Change.  The conference was designed to draw attention to the health of Narragansett Bay, the largest estuary in New England and a key to the region’s tourism and fishing industries.  The article in the Times reports that the US EPA partially funds the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program and that the three scientists did not speak at the event which was held to release a 400-page report on the state of the Narragansett Bay, to which they had contributed substantial material.

Autumn Oczkowski, a research ecologist at the E.P.A.’s National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory Atlantic Ecology Division in Rhode Island, was scheduled to give the keynote address. [according to the Times, her speech intended to address climate change and other factors affecting the health of the estuary]  Rose Martin, a postdoctoral fellow at the same E.P.A. laboratory [Rose Marin studies march marsh grasses] and Emily Shumchenia, an E.P.A. consultant, were scheduled to speak on an afternoon panel entitled “The Present and Future Biological Implications of Climate Change.”

The Times further reports “Rhode Island’s entire congressional delegation, all Democrats, will attend a morning news conference. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, an outspoken critic of Mr. Pruitt [current Director of the EPA], will be among the speakers.”

I suggest reading the NY Times’ article — it is an interesting example of Editorial Narrative being translated into a news item.  Lisa Friedman is a reporter on the Times’ climate beat — she reports to the Science Editor, who sets, in conjunction with the paper’s senior editors and owners, the Editorial Narratives on science topics including climate.  In this piece she manages to get in several of the Times’ overall Narratives — anti-Trumpism, “Republicans are anti-science”, “Scientists are being censored [by Republicans or Conservatives or ‘people we don’t like’], “The EPA is being dismantled”, and several other misrepresentations of reality.  Regardless of one’s position on any of the details, the political-party  bias could not be more blatant — and the odd anti-Anti-Science spin makes my head spin!

There are several important issues here:

1:  The contributions of the EPA staffers (one is actually a propaganda science-communications consultant), include such [utterly nonsensical] wisdom as this from the executive summary of the report:

“Sea level in Rhode Island rose nine inches as measured at the tide gauge in Newport from 1930 to 2015 and 6.6 inches at Providence from 1938 to 2015. NOAA projects that sea level at Newport could rise as much as 3.4 feet by 2050 and eleven feet by 2100, considering factors such as rapid melting of land-based polar ice.”

Reality Intervenes —  At tide station 8452660 Newport, Rhode Island, according to NOAA Tides and Currents,  “The mean sea level trend is 2.73 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.16 mm/yr based on monthly mean sea level data from 1930 to 2016 which is equivalent to a change of 0.90 feet in 100 years.”

[NB:  Newport, RI station does not have a same-structure co-located CORS station — so this data may or may not be accurate, even locally.  There is a CORS station mounted on a hill at the Naval Station — which has a vertical velocity of (downwards) of 1.3 mm/yr to 2.2 mm/yr — depending on the reference epoch used. ]

2: The United States Environmental Protection Agency does not have a mission to track, measure, or make regulations or policy regarding Climate Change. It is not their remit [definition: “the task or area of activity officially assigned to an individual or organization.”].  The EPA’s core mission (2018 draft document) is:

EPA’s Mission: To Protect Human Health and the Environment

Goal 1 – Core Mission: Deliver real results to provide Americans with clean air, land, and water.

Goal 2 – Cooperative Federalism: Rebalance the power between Washington and the states to create tangible environmental results for the American people.

Goal 3 – Rule of Law and Process: Administer the law, as Congress intended, to refocus the Agency on its statutory obligations under the law.

There is no mention of Climate Change in their mission statement; as a result, the current EPA website page (still the same since January 2017) for Climate Change is this:


3:  Lisa Friedman, at the NY Times, fails to mention that EPA staff and contractors are not being paid to junket and deliver political speeches about Climate Change.   The EPA staffers could/should have been there to talk about water pollution and how the EPA is going to improve the situation but have no business whatever talking about Climate Change — particularly events that are primarily political events featuring prominent Democrats and anti-Administration figures.

There seems to be some rather strange idea floating around that public employees, such as those of the governments various alphabet agencies (NOAA, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC…..), ought to be allowed to travel about on the public’s dime and on public time, delivering speeches and presentations composed of their personal opinions on topics that may or may not be part of their professional work at these agencies.  This idea is categorically incorrect.  The topic is covered generally at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics website. Public employees are allowed to speak as individuals and may express their opinions freely — however, they may not appear in any official capacity as E.P.A. employees (administrative, regulatory, enforcement or scientific) on government time and make presentations without prior approval from the agency. Such appearances are work assignments — not personal choices.   The same rules apply in most corporations.

Pulling the speakers from the State of the Bay conference (news conference) at the last minute was probably rude  — ill-mannered even.  But the actions of employees and how they spend their work time is under the direction of their employer — in this case the EPA — which had been in a year-long re-focusing phase attempting to meet the third of three mission goals: Mission: Goal 3 – Rule of Law and Process: Administer the law, as Congress intended, to refocus the Agency on its statutory obligations under the law.

Governmental executive-branch agencies have been widely accused in the last decade of over-reaching their original purposes, operating out-of-bounds, wandering off-mission, grabbing power without legal basis and over-regulating the country.   The E.P.A. most of all.

A new administration has been in power for the last year — one with very different ideas about how government should be conducted and what the proper roles of executive branch agencies should be.  It is a positive step that the EPA has begun to rein in the advocacy actions of its employees and re-direct them to the areas of responsibility laid out for them in acts of Congress and other federal law.

I support the AAAS in its attempt to attract bright young minds to the study and practice of Science — and to help bring the benefits Science has brought us to the attention of the general public.  I applaud their Chief Information Officer for pulling back the politically-motivated and inflammatory membership ad — and for his sincere apology.

I would like to see the AAAS more involved in the area of correcting science communications — fact-checking public announcements that misrepresent new “breakthroughs” in science and medicine; calling out scientists that distort their scientific fields in the name of advocacy; setting up a strict Code of Ethics for scientists speaking to the press and public so that personal opinions are clearly noted and differentiated from scientific fact; rein in some of the outrageous grandstanding that substitutes for science communications; support the likes of Mike Rowe, Judith Curry, Susan Crockford, Roger Pielke Jr.  and others who have been attacked for communicating  science accurately. . . . . . There is more to be added to this list.

I’d like to hear from scientists of all types on this topic in the comments.  How could the AAAS actually help save Science from its run-way practitioners, such as those who told the State of the Narragansett Bay program that “NOAA projects that sea level at Newport could rise as much as 3.4 feet by 2050 and eleven feet by 2100, considering factors such as rapid melting of land-based polar ice.”

# # # # #

Author’s Comment Policy:

Glad to answer your questions, provide extra links and defend my own opinions.  Always interested in reading what you have to say.

I try to answer all comments addressed specifically to me — by beginning them with: “Kip…”

I will not engage in any sort of two-party political squabbles in comments — in my opinion, the US system of two-party politics is what is wrong with this country.  (Actually, I won’t discuss this opinion here either, sorry.)

Let’s hear what everyone has to say about how the AAAS could save science from itself.

# # # # #


0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 15, 2018 4:05 pm

The only thing new here is we can now openly address our concerns with Climate Change advocacy without retribution. It’s about time. More “calling out” of the CC hysteria needs to happen. Getting the MSM to take part is another story that may be taking care of itself with their collapse of impartiality and accuracy being so rampant.

Reply to  markl
January 15, 2018 4:36 pm

The media collapse is all but total now. Who in their right mind pays any attention whatsoever to the legacy media? Virtually all of it is a byword for deception, outright lies and globalist political spin. Independent news sources on the internet now dwarf the legacy media.

Lorne White
Reply to  cephus0
January 16, 2018 7:21 am

In theory, the mainstream media are committed to independent reporting without bias and should always be reminded and held to that standard.

Within a decade, the media collapse (newspapers, TV, etc) will be complete, to be replaced by opinionated blogs in the new multi-channel media.

It’s incumbent on WUWT to maintain and improve its reputation as a balanced, sceptical – not biassed or leaning to denial – reporter of information on climate.

Jacob Frank
Reply to  cephus0
January 16, 2018 8:15 am

The MSM is now the “Famous peoples libido and genitals report”. 9 of 10 stories are about a famous person being horny.

Reply to  cephus0
January 16, 2018 1:17 pm

Frank – I don’t think it is just the MSM reporting libido and genitals (I JUST got the ‘ladies and gentlemen’ malapropism). They all seem to do it. Fox as well as the others. OANN does it also, but just under the Entertainment section.
Apparently, readers are interested in this. Why… I have no idea.

Reply to  markl
January 15, 2018 5:17 pm

Libs have so seriously over played their hand it’s scary….and how do they try to fix it?… doubling down

January 15, 2018 4:18 pm

More and more, as I discuss the subject of climate change with my associates, I find my self quoting Gary Zukav.

“Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion, rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science.”

I have yet to have any reason to change my belief that the climate change “crisis” is a religion, not a science.

If the EPA would spend as much time and money on monitoring the environment and enforcing the law of the land over the next 5 years as they spent on the last 5 years on issues outside their remit, I would be satisfied.

T. Fry
Reply to  rigwit
January 15, 2018 7:13 pm

I must say I take exception to the Gary Zukav quote. “Western Religion” assuredly is a euphemism for Christianity. Christianity is based on the bodily resurrection of Christ, that it happened as a real event in time. The Bible is clear that it happened and that there were hundreds of eye witnesses to both Christ’s death and resurrection. Now, the question of whether or not the Bible accounts are true is certainly at play. But accepting Christian truth claims without proof is not what Christianity is based upon.

Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 2:02 am

What about when he flew off into space the next day, was that a real event in time as well?

John M. Ware
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 2:30 am

To Klem (next commenter): There was an interval of forty days between the Resurrection and the Ascension, still observed by Christians in the liturgical denominations and some others. You could look it up . . . Also, Noah’s Ark has almost certainly been spotted and photographed from space, near the top of Mt. Ararat in Turkey, though the Turkish government will not permit anyone to go near it. The more archaeological work is done, the more the Bible’s historical statements are substantiated.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 4:15 am

Fry, did you miss the entire point of the story of Thomas? Have you ever even read a Catechism? The entire point is faith.

While these events were chronicled and purportedly had numerous witnesses at the time, our only documentation is a group of books, only two of them possibly from actual eyewitnesses, written at least 40 years after the fact by very invested parties. There is no independent corroboration. However, there are a lot of books that we are almost certain were written significantly after the fact.

Again, this is why faith is such an important tenet of the Christian religion. It cannot pass any reasonable level of proof.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 7:00 am

T. Fry – January 15, 2018 at 7:13 pm

Christianity is based on the bodily resurrection of Christ, that it happened as a real event in time. The Bible is clear that it happened and (the Bible also claims) that there were hundreds of eye witnesses to both Christ’s death and resurrection.

T. Fry, it is not a good idea, ….. nor even remotely believable, …… to be citing or mimicking Biblical content/context as proof or evidence that the content/context of the Bible is factual and true.

You can‘t be citing the printed stories in yesterday’s newspaper as proof or evidence that the published stories in yesterday’s newspaper are factual and true.

And likewise, you can’t be citing the content/context of any of the IPCC AGW Reports as proof or evidence that the content/context of the IPCC AGW Reports are factual and true

Richard A. O'Keefe
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 7:17 pm

Ben of Houston seems to have a radical misunderstanding of what official Christianity means by the word “faith”. Everyone raised Christian has repeatedly heard 1 Peter 3:15 “Always be ready to give reasons for the hope you have”. Some of the oldest extra-biblical Christian documents we have (2nd century) are just such attempts to provide a reasoned basis grounded in evidence. That doesn’t prove the authors were *right*, but it does demonstrate that the idea of there being any merit in believing anything without evidence is quite alien to the foundations of Christianity. Just as science has people who want evidence, people who want to push political agendas, and people who just go along with whatever they are old, religion has the *full* spectrum too. Individuals are not the intellectual system and the intellectual system is not any individual.
@Klem: there is no statement anywhere in the Bible or Catholic or Reformed theology that Jesus ever “flew off into space”. He “was taken up” (and the area is sufficiently) and hidden by a cloud (or possibly fog). That is the claim. There are two references to the event: the one in Acts gives a timeframe and the one in Luke does not. There is nothing physically impossible about what is actually described.

Richard A. O'Keefe
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 7:18 pm

s/sufficiently/sufficiently hilly/ Wretched new el cheapo laptop.

Matthew Schilling
Reply to  T. Fry
January 16, 2018 7:50 pm

Sam Cogar doesn’t seem to grasp that the bible is a collection of writings by multiple people, and that the New Testament contains several letters written by eye witnesses. “Quoting the bible” is a modern turn of a phrase that obscures what is actually occurring: We are quoting eye witnesses as they report that Jesus was raised from the dead. These witnesses did not recant their accounts, even under pain of death. And, the radical changes in their lives, along with their lifelong devotion to making sure as many people as possible were told about the resurrection, add validity to their accounts.
It is obvious some people are simply color blind to the truth. But truly color blind people accept there is something there they can’t see. They don’t speak dismissively about either the colors they can’t see, or the people able to see them.

Samuel C Cogar
Reply to  T. Fry
January 17, 2018 6:11 am

Matthew Schilling – January 16, 2018 at 7:50 pm

Sam Cogar doesn’t seem to grasp that the bible is a collection of writings by multiple people, and that the New Testament contains several letters written by eye witnesses.

Matthew, your “badmouthing” about what you perceive is my ignorance of the origin of the Christian Bible is not proof or evidence that your nurtured Religious beliefs in/of the contents/context of the aforenoted Bible are literal truths and historically factual.

What you probably have never been told is the fact that ….. if not for Roman Emperor Constantine I you would not have your Bible for reading n’ believing. Thus, your aforenoted “collection of writings by multiple people” would not have happened if Emperor Constantine had not ordered/demanded that all Christian bishops attend the First Council of Nicea in AD 325. Read more @

So Matthew, your aforenoted statement that “the New Testament contains several letters written by eye witnesses” ….. would mean that ALL of those “letters” would be a minimum of 325 years old when they were published in the first Christian Bibles. And the sad part is, that “belief” would be more believable for Christianity ….. than is the “beliefs” of Christians that Jesus Christ had several “scribes”, with pen and papyrus, that followed him (Jesus) around and “transcribed” (wrote down) all of the (325+ years old) “quoted” text attributed to “Him” that is included in the New Testament.

Matthew, the composer/publishers of the 1st Christian Bible …… picked n’ selected, ….. restated n’ rewrote …… and authored new verbiage ….. that they believed was necessary for appeasing and controlling their illiterate congregations.

Nigel in Santa Barbara
Reply to  rigwit
January 15, 2018 7:36 pm

Cult, not religion.

Reply to  Nigel in Santa Barbara
January 15, 2018 8:55 pm

Yes, it’s a cult. A totalist cult:

“…[A] group or movement exhibiting a great or excessive devotion or dedication to some person, idea, or thing and employing unethically manipulative techniques of persuasion and control (e.g., isolation from former friends and family, debilitation, use of special methods to heighten suggestibility and subservience, powerful group pressures, information management, suspension of individuality or critical judgment, promotion of total dependency on the group and fear of leaving it, etc.) designed to advance the goals of the group’s leaders to the actual or possible detriment of members, their families, or the community.[…]

“Totalist cults are likely to exhibit three elements to varying degrees:

(1) excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment to the identity and leadership of the group by the members,
(2) exploitative manipulation of members, and
(3) harm or the danger of harm.

“Totalist cults may be distinguished from “new religious movements,” “new political movements,” and “innovative psychotherapies” (terms that can be used to refer to unorthodox but relatively benign groups), if not by their professed beliefs then certainly by their actual practices.”

– Source: Cultism: A Conference for Scholars-Policy Makers, Cultic Studies Journal, 1986, Volume 3, Number 1, pages 85-96 3

Reply to  rigwit
January 16, 2018 8:52 am

People have a difficult time understanding “faith,” with regard to the belief we Christians have in God.
Because of all of the stuff we know to be true and reliable, following regular scholarly methods of historical analysis, EXACTLY LIKE ANY OTHER INQUIRY INTO THE VERACITY OF NARRATIVES IN HISTORY, we are able to “go out on a limb,” and believe other information from God.

So, even though none of us were around to witness God create the universe, we have faith that this claim is true. We have faith that there is an afterlife, and we can spend it with God, despite the lack of observable truth for that.

I can trust someone to pay money back, or pick me up on time from the airport. But that does not mean I can solidly have faith in what that person says about tomorrow’s weather, or who might win the Superbowl.

“Faith” is when we can trust someone a lot, across many areas, even before some challenge arises, and when the challenge arises we simply know we will be supported. Like the way many of us can not only trust our parents for this or that, but we have faith that they will ALWAYS support us, and be on our side. No matter what.

“Faith” in marriage often refers to fidelity. But “faith” in marriage can also mean that each partner is totally committed to the other, come what may – “through thick and thin,” “good times and bad.”

“Faith” does not mean “unsupported belief.” That is “blind faith.”

Sorry to get political: but if you have “faith” in the mainstream media, you will not question a news story. You can have your faith in the MSM broken if you figure out the MSM is often misleading, if not downright honest.

You can trust a story is true, and, further, you can have faith that anything you see in the MSM is, generally, true.

I hope this helps.

It is very sad when the scientific atheists allow themselves to be irrational in one area – religion – and espouse views that are NOT anything close to accurately representing regular Christianity, even though what we believe is no big mystery.

I would not claim to accurately represent Islam, or Buddhism, so I am guarded and tentative if I discuss those. I once commented that it was against Islam to smoke, and I got corrected – I now know that Islam has some sort of instruction against intoxicants, and for some, smoking fits this, and for others it does not – either way, I am cautious when trying to discuss aspects of other religions where I am not an expert.

It is disingenuous or ignorant for the atheist-scientific people to paint an incorrect picture of Christianity, then criticize it. Or, to then go and tell me what I believe and why.

Chances are, there is a normal, Bible-believing congregation near each and every one of you. I can almost guarantee you can find an informed person in some position of leadership to answer most any question you have about Christianity. And, they will probably be happy to do that. Christianity is not some secret, hidden, esoteric belief system – nope, we pretty much lay it all out there. [Which precludes us from being a cult; you are allowed to question and learn and explore.]

Michael 2
Reply to  rigwit
January 16, 2018 1:00 pm

“Acceptance without proof “

How can you prove a thing that hasn’t been defined? Such a nebulous thing cannot be either proven or disproven.

January 15, 2018 4:25 pm

Here’s a slightly different scenario adopted by another lefty institution. I’m not sure what the European Space Agency’s policy is on advocacy but their employees seem to spend half their time criss crossing Europe and the world giving science-light talks to schools, universities and institutions about their work. It’s all in the name of scicomm but it’s really just pretty space pictures and cuddly spacecraft toys and photo ops. I feel the underlying theme is very much self-serving: “look how useful we are and how exciting our work is- you’ll remember this and never object to paying more tax for large ESA budget proposals”. But no science (maths, physics, chemistry) is being done, or communicated in the process and it’s all flights, hotel bookings and wages on my dime.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 4:32 pm

Kip: sorry to disagree, but any “selling” of one’s interests for future acceptance/support is indoctrination. Children do not have the knowledge background to either assess the information or be aware of alternative interpretations. Just teach kids basic science. They have a natural interest in most things, including space exploration. Public enthusiasm in anything varies considerable and changes over time.

Lorne White
Reply to  scute1133
January 16, 2018 6:13 am

And those employees promoting CAGW are releasing tonnes of CO2 with every journey that could be done by webinar.
Do they not believe?
Are they hypocrites?

Reply to  scute1133
January 16, 2018 9:26 am

the followup to this will be countless school kiddies, thrilled by the wonders of sci-lite that they aspire to emulate their predecessors – They’ll in time flood the universities and due to demand, half arsed lecturers will be employed (rated up to Professors so they satisfy the ‘our uni has moar Prof’s than your uni’ mentality) . Of course to make it easier for the lecturing staff the course will be watered down and grades handed out like lollies.. the students will in turn graduated, ignorant and filled with the surety of their knowledge they will take the positions of those-who-came-before and the ignoration cycle will continue.

I’ve seen it before. An Advanced Diploma course I had the pleasure of delivering ended up so watered down I quit. Years later students were passing who were unable to tell you what pH meant.. but they were QUALIFIED !

January 15, 2018 4:28 pm

This is useful to see in real time the connections between NYT and AAAS. It’s as bad as we thought.

Greg Woods
January 15, 2018 4:34 pm

‘Scientists and engineers are regarded with suspicion in the very institutions that should be a safe haven for them.’

Just what kind of engineers are being referred to here? Public institutions and universities? I doubt very much that there are any engineers other Nye who are seeking a safe haven.

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 15, 2018 4:41 pm

Exactly. What kind of scientist or engineer needs a ‘safe haven’? The concept is an ultimate insult to science and rationality in general.

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 15, 2018 4:57 pm

A lot of chemical engineers end up working in state and Federal EPA positions. Other engineers also work in other regulatory capacities. I presume it’s these kinds of engineers that are being referred to.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  jpatrick
January 16, 2018 4:17 am

Only those of us that can’t hang it or those that haven’t switched to consultant jobs. No one good stays at the agency for long. Industry pays so much better that it makes no sense for any competent engineer to stay at the agency.

David Ball
Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 1:20 pm

2 things; 1) They only apologized to you. 2) No one knows the add was pulled. the damage was already done.

Reply to  Greg Woods
January 17, 2018 11:57 am

“Just what kind of engineers are being referred to here?”

Benben claims to be an engineer, as I recollect…

January 15, 2018 4:41 pm

If this nonsense about climate “change” ever stops being an attempt to corrupt a branch of real science into a theology, somebody please let me know??

Meantime, I will address my pleas for reason and an end to the nonsense to Shu, the Egyptian god of light and air, personifying the weather and the atmosphere, often portrayed as kneeling on one knee and holding up the sky. Perhaps Shu could bring snow to Cairo and dump a load on the New York Times while he’s at it.

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Sara
January 16, 2018 2:12 am

You are praying to the wrong Egyptian God – try Seth the deity of typhoons, chaos and generalised disruption. What today’s witless NYT/Guardian writers would doubtless call “the dark side”.
Good luck with your efforts though and let us know if it works,

Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
January 16, 2018 2:14 am

…but not the god of spelling corrections..

Extreme Hiatus
January 15, 2018 4:42 pm

So they claim they will not send this out in the future but say nothing about sending out a correction.

What a joke.

January 15, 2018 4:47 pm

Looks to me like the AAAS just screwed the pooch and is no longer a “501(c)3 organization” charitable organization.

They’re fully taxable now, and all donations are no longer tax deductible.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 1:15 pm

I disagree Kip.

“Science is being undermined. But you can help by joining AAAS”

“know scientific institutions are being stifled. Scientists and engineers are regarded with suspicion in the very institutions that should be a safe haven for them.
So our work is cut out for us in 2018. But the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is fighting back. Become a member to help us:
Defend evidence-based policies, Advocate for government funding in research, Educate policymakers, Champion the public benefits of science, and more!”

Where else, but in the Democrat progressive world are any of these claims found?
As you, yourself verified, Kip; these claims are only valid in the world of extreme Democrat partisanship.

That makes the funding request letter itself political grandstanding, while supporting a Democrat position.

From IRS:

“To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.”

Email funding requests based on alarmism and false propaganda is not any part of educational or research purpose.

You’ve been apologized to, loosely.
What will AAAS state to responders eager to fund the fight against ‘anti-science’ and to free ‘stifled voices’?

Geologist Down The Pub
January 15, 2018 4:49 pm

I dropped my SCIEVCE subscription, and my AAASD membership, several years ago when it became apparent that AAAS had become deeply politicized. It seems to have gotten worse.

BTW, I teach science, the scientific method, critical thinking, and how to differentiate among science, religion, and junk science. Warping young minds into thinking for themselves! Every semester I tell all my classes that I am not politically correct, and if they seek a politically correct professor, they should seek elsewhere. Very few do.

Reply to  Geologist Down The Pub
January 15, 2018 6:59 pm

Wouldn’t it have been better to stay in and fight from within, rather than just give up?

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Ulaanbaatar
Reply to  Geologist Down The Pub
January 16, 2018 4:35 am

Paraphrasing Nigel in Santa Barbara above:

Science, cults and junk science.

Religions are characterised by easily identifiable criteria:

There is a Founder.
The Founder claims to have received a Divine Revelation (i.e. it is not merely imputed by followers).
The Founder suffers severely at the hands of religious opponents.
There is a Book of teachings and social laws.
The Founder confirms the truth of the one that preceded him and foretold his coming.
The Founder gives signs that will presage the appearance of one who will come after him and directs followers to accept him..
A civilisation based on the teachings of the Founder arises in which those (especially social) teachings are implemented at scale.

None of these things apply to the carbon cult. There is no founder, there is no book, there is no confirmation of past prophecy. “Prophecies” are meaningless computer projections. Defense of their assertions is weak, and accompanied by boundless back-biting, calumnies, vacuous assertions of ill-intent by their detractors and an appeal to a narrative of pervasive ‘funding’ by imaginary all-powerful opponents.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Geologist Down The Pub
January 16, 2018 7:01 am

Good to know someone is “fighting the good fight,” as it were. Sad that it’s necessary to “stand out” as not being politically correct in the field of science.

Robert of Texas
January 15, 2018 4:55 pm

Wow. I may continue my subscription after all.

I had been considering dropping my subscription due to the flagrant pseudo-science constantly being peddled in the magazine for years now, usually concerning environmental or climate so-called science. All of these articles should start with “Assume anthropogenic Climate Change is 100% true and proven, then…” and go into the article. I consider this on par with starting a physics paper with “Assume the Earth is shaped like a cube…”. One can assume anything, but without the assumptions stated the paper may or may not make any sense. Since I do not agree with the assumptions, I can then skip the article without wasting my time – or if curious and bored enough can go ahead and read it.

This “Chief Information & Engagement Officer – Director of Membership” person gives me real hope that there are people at the magazine that actually understand science.

It has been disheartening to watch major sources of science news and findings one-by-one fall into the pit of political activism-at-any-cost.

Now watch this individual pay for his/her courage by being attacked viciously by the activists.

January 15, 2018 4:58 pm


AAAS may have apologized to you personally, but have they made a public apology for that ad?

January 15, 2018 5:01 pm

Messages from the AAAS go straight into my spam folder.

January 15, 2018 5:38 pm

Climate Change is a Political Battle, Not a Scientific One
Real climate scientists have been arguing against the climate alarmists for years, and they have done a great and helpful job. With basically zero resources, they have been able to at least fight the extremely well-funded climate alarmists to a stand still. With the recent election of President Trump, the balance has definitely tilted towards … Continue reading

January 15, 2018 5:56 pm

Progressives are Out Of Touch on a Biblical Scale; NAACP Should Demand Re-Direction of Climate Change Funding to Inner-Cities

Reply to  co2islife
January 15, 2018 7:04 pm

NAACP should change their name so white people can say it without being labeled racist.

Caligula Jones
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
January 16, 2018 11:18 am

“NAACP should change their name so white people can say it without being labeled racist.”

So, that would be the NAAPC (The National Association for the Advancement of People of Color).

January 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Excellent post. Getting the EPA re-focused is very important both for the EPA itself and for the American public. The people need to understand that government business is to be conducted free of politics.

I voted for President Obama and thought he was a good president, with some salient exceptions. Possibly his biggest failure in public policy was his overreaching on climate change, spurred in part by the failure of Congress to pass the climate change bill in 2010. The Clean Power Plan, among other things, was an attempted end run around the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine.

Part of Obama’s unfortunate legacy was conversion of the EPA into an instrument of politics. Trump, to his credit, is attempting to reverse the the climate change promotion. I’m afraid Mr. Pruitt’s efforts may succeed in changing turning around the climate change meme but he’s certainly not been successful in changing the EPA’s public image. Being a political lightning rod fits his personality but, in my opinion, does not improve the public’s view, though it appears some positive things are happening inside the EPA.

Reply to  scraft1
January 15, 2018 7:22 pm

Simply defund the EPA. Let the states handle it.

Reply to  sailboarder
January 16, 2018 5:58 am

Kip Hansen, you are right about the EPA. They have done good work that has greatly improved our quality of life. And an agency with this mission needs to be at the federal level, so there will be a uniform policy and execution. The EPA simply needs to be managed properly. The Obama administration did a grave disservice by making the EPA another legislative body. I hope Trump can fix this but I will remain skeptical until I see it.

John F. Hultquist
Reply to  scraft1
January 15, 2018 11:02 pm

. . into an instrument of politics
Seems a couple of other agencies got the message. The IRS, for one.
Then there is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the FBI,
the Federal Communications Commission, the POTUS apologizing to the world for being the great country that it is, and . . .

January 15, 2018 6:01 pm

As science is a process, it is probably best to judge the scientist by an assessment of his/her process which begins by: does the scientist first state their assumptions. We assume this to be true and that to be true and we are trying to answer this question… Then, here are the methods we will/did use to answer the question. The results are:… In the Discussion we found “this” which supports our answer to the question. We found “that” which leads away from our answer to the question we were/are trying to answer which is more similar to others assessments. We believe our results, along with other people’s results support our answer to the question. It is my opinion that AAAS might channel its resources, including salaries for employees towards facilitating a more universal application of the science process.

NW sage
January 15, 2018 6:06 pm

The specialty of one of the scientists mentioned — should ‘march’ grasses be ‘marsh’ grasses?

Peter JMS
January 15, 2018 6:25 pm

An excellent article.

January 15, 2018 6:39 pm

Bully for Mr. Hansen!

Javert Chip
January 15, 2018 6:50 pm

Any chance we can get Mike Rowe to write a response, too?

January 15, 2018 7:08 pm

I recall posting some of this before, but it seems especially relevant since our largest (by their measurement) scientific research honor society has now joined “forces” with AAAS.

I have been a member of Sigma Xi for some 4 decades and recently received a solicitation for financial support for their new initiative “stepping out of the comfort zone” policies which are–
(1) Protect critical research from budget cuts
(2) Defend our international colleagues from discrimination
(3) Petition for the use of science in policy

I recently wrote the Sigma Xi president a three page letter about my concerns including this–
“I am convinced that the academic administrative community, including science, does not understand the extent of how the public at large, much of it educated and/or skilled, is skeptical about the current state of education and research. This not only has to do with training of the subsequent work quality of education, but also that of the scholarly and research product.” I also included information about the recent BioScience paper defaming Susan Crockford. I do not expect an answer, which is OK if they do their homework. So far Sigma Xi has not been as corrupted as AAAS, but I ran across this recently by Tee Guidotti, a past president of Sigma Xi and an international consultant on health, safety, and environment management and sustainability.
“We are also seeing the fusion of the natural sciences and social sciences, in the form of analysis and proposed solutions of so-called “sociotechnical” or “wicked” problems. Outside the laboratory, this synthesis is one of the biggest growth areas in research today.”

January 15, 2018 7:22 pm

If no public retraction was issued then perhaps the reply you received was only to appease you. Maybe you go on the ‘non-sucker’ list now.

January 15, 2018 7:27 pm

National Geographic needs to apologize. I follow them on Facebook, and over and over again I find articles that encourage teachers to teach AGW, using evidence from little snippets of time. Here’s an example:

Reply to  Cynthia
January 16, 2018 6:12 am

Cynthia and Kip – right again. I subscribed to Nat Geo for years and finally let my subscription go this year. The last straw was a cover story last summer on “the science of transgenderism”. Close behind was a story a few months ago on the happiest countries in the world. Not joking. This is not so much an abandonment of science as a descent into trivia – appealing to whom, millennials?

Reply to  scraft1
January 16, 2018 5:47 pm

Kip ==> So very sad

January 15, 2018 7:27 pm

Key phrase, “The AAAS Marketing team”!

The AAAS in nothing more than a “marketing team” using scare tactics to bilk money from the general public to pay for their own lavish drug and drunken transracial parties!

Ha ha

January 15, 2018 7:38 pm

I would say that the AAAS’ Chief Information & Engagement Officer – Director of Membership, has no intention of changing the marketing tactics of that organization. He may have apologized to you, but their techniques have not changed a bit. Several times a week, I see a request for members and donations on Facebook. They are generally different, but universally targeting blaming the right for attacking science and appealing to the left to try and stop the assault. Every post is just as inaccurate and inflammatory as the one quoted above.

The email you received Kip, could not be an accident, or the result of a few rogue members of the marketing team. Their entire marketing campaign is just the same way, and it is very effective. Judging by the comments under each posting, they are getting a lot of donations with their misinformation, attacks of the President and thinly-veiled political rhetoric.

My guess is that the AAAS’ Chief Information & Engagement Officer – Director of Membership was lying through his teeth and playing you for a fool.

January 15, 2018 7:38 pm

AAAS actively blocks my commenting on their FB posts.

January 15, 2018 10:33 pm

The one positive that has come from the whole climate change/EPA fiasco is the development of the widespread cynicism towards “science”and “scientists” among both other scientists and society at large.
For too long our society had assumed that because someone in a white coat said something, it must be true. Much public policy, and the disposition of trillions of dollars, has been predicated on this.
We are all now aware of the extent of political activism, and outright fraud, that pervades all of science; not just “climate science”.
The recognition of this now, I hope, causes everybody to be more critical of the pronouncements of “science” and tempers policy decisions. This can only be for the good.

Reply to  William
January 16, 2018 6:22 am

I’m not sure that “cynicism toward science” is as widespread as you think. It’s certainly widespread among the denizens of this blog, but attitudes toward science travel in lockstep with our polarized politics. I don’t think liberal dems and enviros regard the “EPA fiasco” with cynicism.

Reply to  scraft1
January 16, 2018 11:10 am


Very valid question. The answer is quantitative with a lot of variation across all areas of society. I experienced the evolution of the current situation while only marginally connected with climate science, more so with the EPA. My exposure was both in academia and industry without understanding it very well until early in this century. This came first maybe when someone, in Canada as I recall, wrote me about the impending loss of credibility of the AAAS publication, Science, now accomplished.

This view is reinforced by continual exposures (one just happened this morning in another related subject of health care) such as an example not long ago when the conversation developed where no one knew anything about the views or background of the others. Someone working in a critical industry was concerned about a younger graduate relative from my alma mater (from where I have a graduate school minor in Oceanography) that did not seem properly educated. Finally I explained that I had been part of the problem group and gave some explanations. I also said that I was optimistic, maybe just a bias from my upbringing as from the real crises of the depression and WWII.

There are plenty of good educators and scientists left, too busy to deal with politics.

January 15, 2018 10:49 pm


I know this is off topic and I do not expect any response, but here is some food for thought.

Some have suggested that a cure for the current 2 party system is to have a 3 (or multiple) major party system. In my opinion, a 2 party system is the ideal.

Obviously a one party system, such as in Cuba, Russia, and recently in Turkey and Venezuela, properly called a dictatorship, is the worst possible political system.

We tried the 3 party system in the US in 1992 with Ross Perot, who bled off 19% of the popular vote and we know how that turned out. Clinton won the election with 43% of the popular vote, although it has been argued that Bush probably would still have lost if Perot never existed.

A good example of what can go wrong in a 3 party system would be Australia which has a parliamentarian system. If either of the 2 major parties in Australia, the conservatives (Liberals) which will be referred to as The Right and the liberals (Labor) referred to as The Left, do not win a majority of the seats in an election, then in order to form a new government one of the parties must form an alliance with a minority party. In the case of the Labor party, they will always align themselves with the Greens (environmental wackos) referred to as The Far Left. The result of this marriage is that the Far Left drags the Left even further to the Left than it already was because they need the Far Left votes to pass legislation. There is a similar situation with the Right. So, no matter how the people voted, they will get something more extreme than they expected if neither major party wins a majority of the seats.

This is why the 2 party system we have, no more and no less, is as good as it gets for the USA.

Reply to  Dennis Kuzara
January 16, 2018 8:34 am

For years, the Republican party played a little game.
They would field a candidate who was just slightly more conservative than the Democrat candidate. The theory being that everyone to the right of their candidate, had no choice but to vote for them, while those in between the two candidates were up for grabs.
As a result, as the Democrats drifted further and further left, so did the Republicans.
The only way to prevent this from running to it’s inevitable conclusion is for there to be the possibility of a third party picking up those who have been disaffected by the leftward drift of the two main parties.

Ken Van Doren
January 15, 2018 10:58 pm

Well Kip, the person who responded to you may have apologized, but right up until today, I continue(d) to get alarmist, false-narrative messages here on Face Book. I often take the time to point out inaccuracies and exaggerations they post about, and how AAAS is not a “SCIENCE” organization, but a political advocacy group one with a decidedly leftist outlook. I must admit getting a devilish delight in reading the misguided and un-scientific responses to my criticisms.

January 15, 2018 11:21 pm

Awesome breakdown Kip. Thanks for that. These people are delusional, self-entitled fanatics. Throw the bums out.

January 15, 2018 11:22 pm

There seems to be some rather strange idea floating around that public employees, such as those of the governments various alphabet agencies (NOAA, NASA, EPA, FDA, CDC…..), ought to be allowed to travel about on the public’s dime and on public time, delivering speeches and presentations composed of their personal opinions on topics that may or may not be part of their professional work at these agencies. This idea is categorically incorrect. The topic is covered generally at the U.S. Office of Government Ethics website. Public employees are allowed to speak as individuals and may express their opinions freely — however, they may not appear in any official capacity as E.P.A. employees (administrative, regulatory, enforcement or scientific) on government time and make presentations without prior approval from the agency.

How about if you merely go to international climate summits and commit to domestic policies set up with foreign powers, while using the pseudonym Richard Windsor to communicate by email?

January 16, 2018 4:40 am

An urgent, practical act by the AAAS would be the authorship and enforcement of ?mandatory guidelines for the proper calculation of accuracy and precision in the scientific measurement process. Geoff.

Dr. Strangelove
January 16, 2018 5:07 am

AAAS is too corrupt to be saved. Just form a new organization with founding members Fred Singer, Judith Curry, Richard Lindzen, Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, etc. Honest members of AAAS should resign and join the new organization. Plus the 30,000 signers of the Oregon Petition, readers of WUWT and attendees of the International Climate Conferences. It will be the Red Team to challenge science organizations that promote CAGW and pseudoscience

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
January 16, 2018 6:17 am

The new organization will have six groups with my nominated heads:
1. Meteorology & Oceanography – Richard Lindzen
2. Physics & Chemistry – William Happer
3. Biology & Ecology – Sherwood Idso
4. Geology – Ian Clark
5. Statistics & Math – William Briggs
6. Astronomy – Sallie Baliunas

January 16, 2018 6:41 am

Coastline development in RI has been going on for nearly 400 years and much of it is vulnerable to inundation. Flooding of Providence from the 1954 hurricane and destruction of much shoreline property from the 1938 hurricane are still very much alive in local lore and memory. Even the fairly benign 9 inch sea level rise in the last century has contributed to the loss of tidal marshes because of limited migration of the upland edge while the waterline edge has eroded. So it’s understandable that there would be concern about future sea level rise. However, the people responsible for addressing the situation have bought into the totally unrealistic projection of a 9 foot rise by 2100. When I challenged one top official about this, he backed off a bit, but still the fear of flooding is a powerful tool for influencing public opinion. It’s easier to swallow a possibility 9 feet in 85 years than it is to realize that this means and inch and a quarter rise per year. People don’t do mental math very well.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 11:26 am

Kip==>Good point worth reemphasizing. Copano Bay flooding in Harvey was the result of the circulation, counter(anti)-clockwise induced surge with nowhere to go. The same thing is true of Lake Pontchartrain and to a diminishing extent the whole Mississippi River Delta. Moving it south of the equator might help. A storm eye, as has occurred, going through the center of New Orleans also has westerly hurricane force winds piling up water. Obvious, but even some who should know better don’t seem to understand.

Mark Lee
January 16, 2018 9:11 am

The measure of a man, or an organization, is not found when they are right, but when they are found to have been wrong and what they do then to correct the error.

January 16, 2018 11:21 am

From the article: “In this case, the “AAAS Marketing team copywriters” — apparently in agreement with the bias of the NY Times’ Lisa Friedman — took their “story”, according to the AAAS’ Information Officer, from this NY Times article: E.P.A. Cancels Talk on Climate Change by Agency Scientists. The story is that just prior to the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed conference in Oct 2017, the EPA cancelled the appearance of three EPA associated speakers who were to address the meeting on the subject of Climate Change.”

Isn’t this the case where the three EPA officials were prevented from attending in their official capacity, but were allowed to attend as private citizens?

In other words, they were not prevented from going to the meeting by the Trump administration, they just could not represent the EPA while doing so.

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 5:22 pm

They were told they could attend according to this link:

“The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) canceled speaking appearances of three agency scientists who were scheduled to discuss aspects of global warming at a Rhode Island press conference, according to a Monday report from The New York Times.

The three scientists can attend but not speak at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program in Rhode Island, EPA spokesman John Konkus confirmed to reporters. He did not elaborate on why they were prevented from speaking about contributions they made in a report on climate change.”

end excerpt

The three EPA people did not speak at the Oct. 23, conference, but did speak at one scheduled for Nov. 5,:

Gagged EPA Scientists Scheduled to Speak in Providence
November 01, 2017

Former agency employee calls White House crackdown on climate science “absolutely appalling”

By TIM FAULKNER/ecoRI News staff

PROVIDENCE — The two Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) scientists and one contractor recently prevented from presenting their research on the health of Narragansett Bay will be speaking at an upcoming science conference at the Rhode Island Convention Center.

Autumn Oczkowski, who was the scheduled keynote speaker at the Oct. 23 event at Save The Bay, is the co-chair of the Coastal & Estuarine Research Federation Conference scheduled for Nov. 5-9. Rose Martin, a postdoctoral fellow, and Emily Shumchenia, an EPA consultant, are also presenting.

The three coastal experts work at the EPA Atlantic Ecology Division in Narragansett, where the effects of climate change are a major area of study. It’s also a topic top EPA officials in Washington, D.C., are discrediting and suppressing, as revealed in numerous media reports. Most recently, the EPA is replacing scientists on its most influential advisory boards with researchers from the businesses they regulate.

The EPA told ecoRI News that Oczkowski, Martin, Shumchenia, and other EPA researchers scheduled to speak at the conference would be allowed to attend and discuss their research. Climate change is a major theme during the five-day conference. Lectures and meetings will address sea-level rise, ocean acidification, stormwater runoff, and the long-term threat of climate change on coastal habitats such as Narragansett Bay and Chesapeake Bay.

The EPA didn’t link the recent silencing of its scientists to their research on climate change. In an e-mail, an EPA spokesman wrote that the three scientists were excluded from the Oct. 23 workshop because “it is not an EPA conference.”

end excerpt

And this link says EPA officials are attending the conference:

Environmental Protection Agency Pulls Scientists from Conference

“The three scientists – Autumn Oczkowski, Rose Martin, and Emily Shumchenia – contributed significantly to the 500-page report being presented at the State of the Narragansett Bay and Watershed program, located in Providence. The conference is centered on analyzing the health of Narragansett Bay, in which one of the cut speakers was to give the keynote address.

The report details the effect of climate change on the bay, including warming temperatures of the air and water, changes in precipitation, and rising sea levels, according to Slate. The removed speakers intended on focusing on these climate changes issues. However, the replaced address is listed as “Narragansett Bay as a Sentinel Estuary.”

EPA spokesperson gave CNN a statement on the decision:

“EPA supports the Narragansett Bay Estuary, and just this month provided the program a $600,000 grant. EPA scientists are attending, they simply are not presenting; it is not an EPA conference” John Konkus, a former Trump campaign operative in Florida, confirmed.”

end excerpt

And I finally found a link that says they did attend the Oct.23, conference:

EPA pulls scientists out of climate change conference talk

“Tom Borden, the program director for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which hosted the workshop, told CNN that “EPA folks” were present at the conference Monday but didn’t speak during the program. He added that “only the EPA knows why” the scientists were not permitted to speak at the conference. ”

end excerpt

Hope that helps. 🙂

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 5:25 pm

Well, WordPress or something ate my first, elaborate post and made it disappear, so I will shorten it to the basics and see if this one works.

And I finally found a link that says they did attend the Oct.23, conference:

EPA pulls scientists out of climate change conference talk

“Tom Borden, the program director for the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, which hosted the workshop, told CNN that “EPA folks” were present at the conference Monday but didn’t speak during the program. He added that “only the EPA knows why” the scientists were not permitted to speak at the conference. ”

end excerpt

Hope that helps. 🙂

Joel O'Bryan
January 16, 2018 5:36 pm

I gave up on AAAS being objective on climate and more recently the Trump Administration. AAAS clearly decided to join the so-called “resistance.”

My membership and Science subscription comes due this year. I will not be renewing either. AAAS senior leadership has gone All-in on the climate hustle.

Joel O’Bryan, PhD

Reply to  Kip Hansen
January 16, 2018 6:40 pm

Kip, the pressure on the leadership of the scientific organizations comes from the scientists that make up the organization. The leadership only reflects what the members hold as self evident truth. Now, if you think the “pressure” comes from some other source, please tell us about it, and provide your evidence.

Dr. Strangelove
January 16, 2018 6:24 pm

Have you read AAAS statement on climate change?

“The overwhelming evidence of human-caused climate change documents both current impacts with significant costs and extraordinary future risks to society and natural systems. The scientific community has convened conferences, published reports, spoken out at forums and proclaimed… including the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) — that climate change puts the well-being of people of all nations at risk.”

“Climate scientists agree: climate change is happening here and now. Based on well-established evidence, about 97% of climate scientists have concluded that human-caused climate change is happening”

“We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. Earth’s climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has been experienced over the past millions of years”

“The sooner we act, the lower the risk and cost. And there is much we can do.Waiting to take action will inevitably increase costs, escalate risk, and foreclose options to address the risk.”

AAAS should change its name to American Association for the Abolition of Science

Reply to  Dr. Strangelove
January 16, 2018 6:50 pm

How can a bunch of AAAS scientists get it so wrong?

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2018 6:58 pm

Ever consider the possibility that you are wrong, and all the scientists are right?

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2018 6:59 pm

Oh, I forgot to mention that they outnumber the AGW-rejectionists.

Reply to  TA
January 16, 2018 8:34 pm

I have considered that and have rejected it. It’s not hard to tell when somebody can’t back up their claims, and the CAGW promoters can’t back up their claims, so if it’s so easy for me to see, why is it so hard for the AAAS scientists to see?

You could prove me wrong by providing just one piece of evidence that CAGW is real, but of course, we both know you can’t do that. Nor can anyone else.

Every time we ask for proof we get silence. That should tell a reasonably intelligent person something.

Dr. Strangelove
Reply to  TA
January 17, 2018 4:29 am

“How can a bunch of AAAS scientists get it so wrong?”

Quality vs. quantity. Botanist, physicist, geologist, meteorologist, a modern-day polymath. One Sherwood Idso is enough to debunk a bunch of fools.

Reply to  TA
January 17, 2018 12:14 pm

“Oh, I forgot to mention that they outnumber the AGW-rejectionists”


You’re funny!

January 18, 2018 12:26 am

Good stuff Kip Hansen!
Here’s another attempt to help a scientifically challenged NYT writer:

Subject: Danish wind; not without woes.
From the desk of Harvey H. Homitz.
November 11th. 2014

Justin Gillis Esq.
c/o. The Editor:
New York Times, 620 8th. Ave.,
New York , NY10018

Re:  Science Times,  “By Degrees”  Tuesday, November 11th. 2014

Dear Mr. Gillis,

 Congratulations! You are definitely the lead trumpeter for the NYT Green Warming Marching Band if you dig my tune.   Nothing wrong with blowing a good trumpet even if it is for the NYT!   But be careful. Remember when Joshua blew his at Jericho….the walls came tumbling down.   
We don’t want that happening in New York! Right?

Let’s not mince words!   I’ve been following  your ‘BY DEGREES’ piece on Global Warming, or what they now call Climate Change, for a while.  That terminological reconfiguration was a smart move, nothing wrong with that!  Better be safe than sorry I always say, especially for you journalists when you get into the prognostication business.  

So! We’ve got the outcome thing covered no matter which way the thermometer goes,  but all this headlong charge into Wind and Solar has been bothering me for a while   and I’m relieved that finally you got it ..  Justin Time eh!  Oops ! I forgot; Justin Gillis.

Well done! You hit the Danes on the Jutland with that one!    What are those 5.6 million Danes going to do when the wind stops blowing and the Norwegians won’t give back the electricity they owe from pumping up their hydro electric dams on windy days?   More to the point what are they going to do when 45 million Brits., who shut down their Nukes and dirty old coal plants, are begging for a few terra-watts  to save them from freezing in the dark? Eh?

Well I don’t mind sharing this one with you;  the Brits will do OK without Danish Wind; they’ve got Lord Browne Fracker!  You know, the chap who changed British Petroleum to Beyond Petroleum, quit BP,  jumped out the closet and started fracking all over North England.  

Now you seem to be a bright sort of fellow, very literate if not so numerate.  After all, apart from a few recent exceptions, there’s not many Dodos on the NYT payroll, so you may have guessed by now that I’m packed in the sardine section of an Airbus, at Mach .75, 35k ft. and reading your piece in the Times. Incidentally, when you say “BY DEGREES”, are we talking Fahrenheit, Unknown, Celsius or Kelvin?    Perhaps you should put that little circle followed by F, U, C or K, after ‘degrees’ in case there are any real scientists in your readership trying to understand exactly what the f*** you’re on   about.

Now articles like yours  tend to make one think.   So it occurred to me as I sipped an inferior wine while nibbling fruits and nuts,  (appropriately since I was departing California which harbours  large numbers of both),  how lucky I was to be propelled  by kerosene and not Danish wind.  Further, with the aid of a slide-rule, (which need not be switched off in flight),  I calculated that it would require 70,000 horses or 350,000 galley slaves, at max exertion to get this Airbus off the ground.   WOW!   Suddenly the sardine section seemed less crowded!
Well, not to worry, you’re on the right track now, and being an expert myself in these matters, I don’t mind helping you avoid the obvious pitfalls while sweeping on with the Grand Fallacy!

As I see it our biggest problem post election is how to get this Republican Congress to repeal the Laws of Thermodynamics and replace them with kinder ‘fairer’ Democratic ones.   But not to worry!   With my brains and your dexterity with the pen…mightier than the sword they say!….we’ll manage.

Let me know when we can start, as luck would have it I’m available,

Yours from the irredeemable far right,

Harvey H. Homitz 

Ambassador at large for SPIGGOTS*
Purveyor of Sensible Science to the Innumerate.

* Society for the Prevention of Incestuous Government Grants on Tortured Science.

January 18, 2018 3:10 pm

Kip, kudos to you for taking the time to reasonably question sources of disinformation. I hope the response from AAAS was sincere.

My experience with the National Park Service was not encouraging. In April of 2015 I wrote to the NPS policy office regarding this web page:

I requested a source for the claims that (1) a survey “conducted by the IPCC” reveals that 97% of climatologists think that human activity is the primary cause of presently-occurring global climate change and that (2) “a separate study by the National Academy of the Sciences drew the same conclusions.”

My inquiry was forwarded to the NPS “Climate Change Response Program,” whence came these citations:

• Anderegg, W.R.L., J.W. Prall, J. Harold, and S.H. Schneider. 2010. Expert credibility in climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 107: 12 107-12 109.
• Cook, J., D. Nuccitelli, S.A. Green, M. Richardson, B. Winkler, R. Painting, R. Way, P. Jacobs, and A. Skuce. 2013. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature. Environmental Research Letters 8: 024024. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

I provided references that debunk the Anderegg and Cook conclusions and noted that Anderegg’s publication in PNAS does not make it a “study by the National Academy of the Sciences.” There was clearly no survey “conducted by the IPCC.”

The inaccurate page was never updated, and if you do a keyword search today on “climate change” within the NPS you get hundreds of links, some of which refer to instructions on how NPS employees should “educate” the public on the serious environmental threats posed by human-caused climate change that is already occurring (in particular, investigate:, which includes a link to the EPA )

Alas, despite Ryan Zinke’s appointment, it appears the “Climate Change Response Program” still reigns within the NPS, and that federal proselytizing for Climatastrophism continues unabated.

January 18, 2018 3:12 pm

Kip, I believe there are still a couple of typos in your article:

“…the AAAS is the published publisher of the journal…”
“…the slightest idea that what the AAAS is going on about.”

January 19, 2018 5:13 pm

Kip, just a quick nod of agreement; two-party system is a tragic flaw. Washington himself fought that last battle.

Reply to  Chris
January 19, 2018 5:25 pm

“Kip, just a quick nod of agreement; two-party system is a tragic flaw. Washington himself fought that last battle.”

To understand the problem with systems such as PR, go and take a look at Angela Merkel’s problems in Germany, and what has happened as a result in Austria a few weeks ago, which is OK if you happen to approve of the rise of the Right, of course.

Verified by MonsterInsights