At #AGU19, they declare – full “climate crisis mode” – but there’s an inconvenient fact

Thanks to the generous contributions of WUWT readers, I’m at the AGU Fall Meeting in San Francisco. My first task was to pickup credentials at the Press Room at Moscone South, and in doing so I ran into two of the worst climate alarmists out there.

Dana Nuccitelli, “Skeptical Science”. No sandwich for him.
Peter Sinclair, “Climate Crock of the Week” website. He’s having the hummus wrap.

I guess they’ll let anyone in They certainly let me in 😉 No sign of Mann or Gleick yet.

My press kit

Interestingly, I encountered the official measurement location for temperature in San Francisco on the way in this morning, and I think it says far more than anything I’m likely to encounter at the conference. It is near this famous building:

I’ll have a writeup on that later, but for now, I’m off to explore and find other interesting stories.

But from the AGU officials, here is something to look at:

First, AGU has unfortunately bought into the “climate crisis” meme, eschewing sound science for alarmism. I suspect this has to do with them reaching critical mass of alarmism at the board level, as older more sensible people retired and/or cycled out.

Here is the statement:


AGU Revises Climate and Data Position Statements: Declares World in Climate Crisis and Reaffirms Data as a World Heritage

Updates to AGU’s climate change and data position statements

In a revised climate position statement released today, based on the overwhelming research and scientific evidence, AGU is declaring the world to be in a climate crisis. In a concurrent updated data position statement, AGU describes scientific data as a world heritage and calls for a culture that supports, enables, and nurtures data that is equitable, accessible, and ethical.

AGU position statements articulate the views of our community on key issues, help inform the organizational stance on timely policy issues, and are referenced by the media, policymakers, and other Earth and space science organizations. Every four years, AGU’s Position Statement Committee reviews the existing statements and decides which should be reaffirmed, retired, or revised. It also considers any proposals for new position statements that our members may have submitted.

In 2019, the Position Statement Committee decided that that our understanding of the science and impacts of climate change and how to treat scientific data and promote open science had evolved significantly enough to require revisions of AGU’s stance on these issues. Two writing panels and panel chairs were chosen—one for data and one for climate change—with an eye toward diversity of expertise, geography, career stage, and gender. Those panels worked through the summer to prepare draft texts of the new statements. Feedback from AGU members was solicited and received in September and October, and the committees considered the hundreds of comments received in preparing the final position statements. In November, after a review by the Position Statement Committee, the AGU Council and then the AGU Board approved both revised position statements.

We decided to release the two position statements to coincide with the opening day of AGU’s Fall Meeting 2019, which is occurring simultaneously with the United Nations Climate Convention Conference of the Parties (COP25) in Madrid, Spain. Today, climate writing panel members Donald Boesch and Robert Kopp and I met with reporters in the Fall Meeting press room to talk about the new statements.

Climate Position Statement: “Society Must Address the Growing Climate Crisis Now”

The revised climate position statement opens: 

Immediate and coordinated actions to limit and adapt to human-caused climate change are needed to protect human and ecological health, economic well-being, and global security.”

The position statement lays out, as succinctly as possible since the process requires a two-page limit, the Challenge, the Evidence, the Predictions, the Consequences, and the Needed Responses to the climate crisis. It emphasizes the role of human activities in causing the impacts and related hardships associated with climate change, along with the need for serious action. It also states that

“[D]one strategically, efficiently, and equitably, the needed transformations provide a pathway toward greater prosperity and well-being, while inaction will prove very costly for humans and other life on the planet…These actions must involve individuals, communities, businesses, governments, acting at local, regional, national, and global scales.”

“Climate Crisis” bullet points

Also, regarding our role as the scientific community: “Scientists and engineers must continue to engage with policy makers, communities, businesses, and the public to undertake solution-oriented research and analysis. Scientific institutions, including academia and governmental agencies, should expand and prioritize their support for research, application, and knowledge dissemination to address the climate crisis.”

Significant progress has been made in our understanding of current and past climate change since the previous climate position statement was adopted in early 2013, and there have also been major international discussions and agreements. The 15 scientists on AGU’s climate panel decided to frame the new statement around the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) goals of keeping temperature increases to no more than 2 degrees Celsius by mid-century. The resulting statement describes the challenges and needed responses to meet those goals, by accurately explaining the evidence, predictions, and both near term and future consequences of the climate crisis. The term “climate crisis” was chosen and discussed deliberately, because as one panel member explained, “if this isn’t a crisis, I don’t know what is.” However, the panel strived to highlight the hope and myriad opportunities that come by standing together to pursue climate action.

We also thank the climate panel members:

  • Donald Boesch (Chair), University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
  • Amy Snover, College of the Environment, University of Washington
  • Bob Kopp, Rutgers University
  • David Easterling, National Climatic Data Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
  • Drew Shindell, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University
  • Scott Mandia, Suffolk Community College
  • Gerald Meehl, Climate Change Research Center, National Center for Atmospheric Research
  • Heidi Cullen, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute
  • John Balbus, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  • Mele Wheaton, Stanford Woods Institute of the Environment, Stanford University
  • Scott McGrane, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (United Kingdom)
  • Susan Trumbore, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry (Germany)
  • Thomas Knutson, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA

Source: https://fromtheprow.agu.org/agu-revises-climate-and-data-position-statements-declares-world-in-climate-crisis-and-reaffirms-data-as-a-world-heritage/

The visualized statement can be found here.

https://mediacenter.agu.org/2019/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2019/12/Climate-Change-Data-Position-PPT.pdf


Here’s my take on it all.

I’ll start worrying about a crisis when your organization starts acting like there actually is one.

For example, just look at how far people have been flying to get to this convention.

Source: Milan Klöwer@milankloewer

That’s one heck of a “carbon footprint” for a scientific organization that tells us we are in “climate crisis mode” and that we have to get to “net zero carbon emissions.”

Advertisements

104 thoughts on “At #AGU19, they declare – full “climate crisis mode” – but there’s an inconvenient fact

  1. Most people just aren’t engaged on this. They accept what they hear everywhere about climate change, and think we ought to do something about it, but it doesn’t affect their daily lives. Attitudes won’t change until people learn what they will be expected to give up, what it will cost them, and what insignificant difference their sacrifices will make. I suspect there will be a huge backlash then.

    • While society continues to reward the most vocal and most alarming on the “crisis”, it will continue to build momentum.

      A nul result in any research is career limiting.

      • They have to escalate to ‘crisis’ Rick. They claim that their actions will reduce CO2, thereby keep the temp below 2 degrees, within a ‘certain timeframe’. ‘Crisis’ cries out for urgent and immediate action. They didn’t expect to come up against so much resistance and we’ve slowed them down.

        Time is marching on and so far things are much the same as they used to be. They are hoping to ramp things up considerably so that they can say that they ‘saved the world’, before that ‘certain timeframe’ is up.

        Hopefully we can stall them for long enough that, times up! Expose them as the frauds they are and save alot of money and waste of valuable resources.

        • This is an obscure meeting populated by all-in wonks bloviating to other wonks. Period. Yawn.
          The day the government issues bonds to build next-gen nuclear plants I’ll believe any of this is serious. BTW, no one can yet elucidate what “action” they want the public to take because none of it matters to the “climate” anyway.

          The general public sees right through the Lysenkoist cargo cult–Priority #36, remember?

          • No, they have been clear about what they want: 1) Give more government $ (meaning tax $, collected out of my paycheck) to research and “green” capitalists, those that build intermittent and therefore pointless wind and solar installations 2) Mandates forcing all consumers to pay the needlessly inflated prices to purchase any output from these intermittent sources. That’s about it, iddenit?

            So I guess, to summarize, all this noise and bloviation isn’t for you and me (though it will huuu-ugely affect us), it’s for the timid politicians that might be wavering in their support and willingness to vote in Session on the above.

    • I believe you are correct, however as the AGW propaganda (and other rather marxist concepts) have been institutionalized within a wide variety of government departments (as Agenda 21) for implementation by them at federal, state, and council level,it is very hard to see an effective defence by the demonstration of facts, logic and real scientific empirical results being successful.
      In Australia no politician wants to even acknowledge the existence of Agenda 21, and yet it was adopted here by the Labour party in 1992.
      Many laws have been quietly passed at all levels of government to implement its requirements (including education) on a bipartisan basis.
      The federal minister responsible for the department who among other things, administers the continued coordination and implementation of Agenda 21, refused to acknowledge that it even existed a few years ago in official correspondence from one of his constituents, and he was Liberal (that’s the Australian equivalent of the Republicans, Labour being the equivalent of the Democrats).
      How can you overcome the lavishly funded bureaucrats at every level of government, when both major parties are secretly supporting their activities and allowing them to continue with their long term work unhindered, whilst denying its happening, in spite of the laws being on the books and there for everyone to see if they are interested enough to check.

      Pete

      • Spot on!
        It is some five years ago I discovered, by coincidence, that Denmark proudly presented their local Agenda21 on each major city’s website.

        I assumed it was only Denmark, but when Australia is there too, it is prudent to believe the communist injection is more widespread than to just a small windmill producer country.

        I would regard consequent implementation of Agenda21 as breach of the Danish constitution, where major changes to the ruling framework (constitutional) has be elected by the the people and a as far as I remember a 2/3 majority in parliament.
        The first constitution in Denmark was approved 1849. The current version is from 1953.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Denmark
        In the constitution includes the people’s right, similar to USA: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of assembly.
        However, when the press deny half the population a voice, think skeptics, the freedom of speech is violated and the election results fraudulent or extremely misleading.

        Denmark has referendum regarding membership of “European Common Marked”, later “European Union”, for good reason. Reason being that this was a dramatic change to the overall functionality of the country.
        It begs the question: Why have non of the following taken place in connection with the Danish full implementation of Agenda21:

        1) Open, free and objective discussion and information. Most well educated I know have never read or know the essence of Agenda21.

        2) No referendum.

        3) Conning paragraph in the “Treaty of Rome 1957” which Denmark adhered to when adopting EC/EU: “INTENDING to confirm the solidarity which binds Europe and the overseas countries and desiring to ensure the development of their prosperity, in accordance with the principles of the Charter of the United Nations
        See THE TREATY OF ROME.

        —-

        It is a jungle of law, treaties and agreements, way over my head. I just feel conned, just as most of you, that any civilized country can be so sneaky as to betray their people by using solely backdoors to implement the dictation of Maurice Strong & Co. Our people were never effectively confronted the Climate Change’s underlying regime change.

      • Right, Pete. Marxism under-the-grass. Stealth marxism. Ratchet-marxism — it’s implementation can slow down or even stop, but it only goes forward. We’ve been purposely “conditioned” for generations to be “tolerant” and to “just get along” for this to happen.

    • “They accept what they hear everywhere about climate change, and think we ought to do something about it..”

      I agree with the first part but the problem for these Eco-Marxists is all their spiel and propaganda has produced is a belief that the Gummint will take care of it (perhaps with a bit of stick for big biz) and it will all be sweet. Meanwhile the punters just grab the free LED light globes solar subsidies and FIT plus approve sticking up a few windmills and that takes care of any obligation on their part. Well maybe a Tesla too if you can afford one.

      It won’t wash technically and economically and when it doesn’t the hard questions will be asked and/or look out Yellow Vests. It’s a tad frustrating having to sit back and watch and wait for the inevitable however but you just have to accept the New Lysenkoists have the floor and the megaphone at present.

  2. According to the scientists at the meeting, humans have a choice now:

    1) Get to net zero carbon dioxide emissions
    2) Prepare to cope with adverse impacts of climate change

    I choose option 2. Building a seawall 1 foot high every 100 years around a coastal city can’t be that difficult. Besides, we get to eat more food, since crops will be fertilized by the extra CO2 in the air.

    • Yeah, kinda my answer to the alarmists:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands

      Sorry for the Wiki, but the very meaning of the name of the nation should be Big Clue #1 that we could maybe just TRY technology from hundreds of years ago BEFORE we spend a kabillion bucks on technology that isn’t even a gleam in the eyes of the most brilliant genius alive today (take a seat Mr. Musk, we don’t mean you…)

      • That is not totally true. The Netherlands has been using wind turbines to pump water for 700 years.

        • Not so Walter, they switched from windmills for pumping water to diesel because it worked so much better, and then to electricity for the same reason. The old windmills are still there and are still functional and could be used if the power went out for an extended period, but that’s highly unlikely.

        • You are right with a twist.
          I have lived for years in New Vennep in Netherlands in the middle of what used to be ocean, in an area called Haarlemmermeer.
          I seem to remember they used beautiful coal to heat the boilers for the steam pump engine.

          Here is the history:
          https://www.haarlemmermeermuseum.nl/en/history-pumping-station-cruquius

          The reclamation of Haarlemmermeer by means of steam power marked the breakthrough of the Industrial Revolution in the Netherlands. “De Cruquius”, commissioned in 1849, pumped Lake Haarlem dry in three years and three months, together with two identical steam-pumping stations. Both other pumping stations were drastically modernized after 50 years, but the Cruquius remained untouched.

          • Thanks for everyone’s input here.

            My point was of course that:

            1) alarmists continue to promise us that some kind of Very Much Improved Engineering will give us better solar, wind or other “alternative” sources of energy (or at least better storage for it).

            Of course, the reason why we don’t already have this Star Trek Tech is Big Oil (or some other paranoiac conspiracy), and that we have to spend those kabillions of dollars Big Government is going to somehow tax from Big Oil without passing onto consumers of Big Oil products (i.e., all of us) on Big Tech.

            2) the same alarmists tell us billions of people will be under water soon, very, VERY soon

            3) the Netherlands has used centuries-old tech to “reclaim the sea” for, well, centuries, and has continually updated the tech

            But someone 1, 2 and 3 never merge in the minds of the alarmists.

            Today, my soon-to-be-FORMER local regular radio show had Toronto’s former “resilience officer” on.

            You know, for a guy whose job title would appear to be, I dunno, building our infrastructure stronger, he spent more time on worshiping St. Greta on her Sainted Name Day.

            And, no, I don’t find it comforting as a Toronto tax payer that he’s a “former” bureaucrat. He’s probably been replaced by someone worse AND he’ll probably wind up back on the public teat.

      • Pumping out the fresh water from the aquifer lens under what’s not much more than sand-spit between the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico doesn’t help either.

      • Actually it can work…you can use wellpoints to lower the piezometric water level even though of the soil permeability

  3. The food must be good at this meeting for people to come so many thousands of kilometers, in their thousands, to attend it.

    Hypocrisy writ LARGE.

    • Don’t you know, they offset their emissions by getting everyone else to pay more for energy, and everything else, so they are exempt from ill-feeling.

  4. Enjoy the trip into wonderland. Be careful of the needles, feces and homeless.

    It looks like the conference did not get the notice of how dangerous plastic is to the environment. But then, eliminating that is for the proletariat, who will be missing at the conference.

  5. As usual the level of self awareness of so many climate change alarmists is awesomely tiny. “Do as I say not as I do” is what always comes across from these hypocrits. We little people jetting to a holiday destination need to stop doing that at once to reduce our carbon footprints while the really important people can jet around the world collecting thousands of airmiles for their own holidays just to network face to face with like minded climate alarmists on expenses paid trips that can be replaced with an email or two.

  6. Oh, and another example from here in Ontario, Canada (about option #1): our conservative government is busy tearing up useless (and politically sleazy) “green” energy contracts that haven’t reduced our so-called carbon footprint by a toenail.

    The New Democratic Party (think: Old Democratic Party but somehow dumber, and trying to find space between the Liberal Party and the Green Party) moaned that this was going to lead to more floods, storms and dandruff (I may be making only some of this up)…

    Yeah. I wish I had the patience to explain to them that Ontario’s CO2 emissions could flatline immediately and it would do precisely squat to change weather patterns that originate outside of the somehow magical borders of the province.

    But, hey, they have the science behind them, what can I do?

    • I pointed out the science to someone I know well. I’m pretty sure that person will never speak to me again. Liberals tend to be like that. link

    • Reminds me of our local council here in the UK back in the 80s- we had Mrs Thatcher as PM who all the lefties absolutely hated, and to show their anger they declared us a ‘Nuclear Free Zone’ because, obviously, we didn’t want to upset the Soviets and anyway, who wanted those horrid nukes anyway? We kept asking how they planned to enact this but never got an answer. It was like, the radiation and fallout will stop when it sees the sign and the bombs would bounce off some invisible boundary….

      • Yes, the same people here in Toronto who just declared a “climate emergency” were the ones who also declared we were a “nuclear free zone” in the 80s.

        Must have worked, as we weren’t attacked by nukes.

        And this just encourages them to continue to make empty gestures that has the side benefit of getting their names in the new for free, doesn’t it?

  7. Dear Anthony,

    I hope you brought plenty of Pepto because it’s going to take a strong stomach.

    PS – Whatever you do, don’t eat the mystery meat. Also avoid the koolaid. Popcorn is okay.

      • If you do any reading on the history of corn (i.e., maize), you’ll know that ALL of it has been genetically modified from a thumb-sized strain over the last thousands of years…

  8. I didn’t see a plastic straw anywhere in these photos, so I guess that is real progress. One wooden stirring stick, but it is from trees, so that is OK. Trees are renewable, especially if they burn.

  9. Isn’t it funny, when a religious leader predicts the end of the world, and is (eventually) proven dead wrong, they are vilified and ridiculed.

    How many times do climate “prophets” need to be wrong about their convictions, to be treated the same way?

  10. From the AGU website
    https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/#1
    “Connect with policymakers
    By speaking out on policy issues, you can help reinforce the value of Earth and space science and its impact on society. When lawmakers, regulators and policy influencers (sic) understand the value of your science, support for more robust science and increased funding of science grows.”

    This appears to be going on in lots of ‘scientific societies’ that don’t understand (at least their ‘leadership’) that they are getting into politics. Besides being impartial analysts, they want to run things by appearing to represent their large membership. It is one thing to correct errors and insist on proper analysis, but another to push policy about what is good for society. Credibility? Competence? Homework? How many climate panel members are still doing science?

  11. With the possible exception of guilt-crazed Germans, people never choose higher electric bills or gasoline/fuel prices when they do not have to.

    China and India have dozens of new coal-burning plants coming on line.

    Wind turbines are ugly and noisy and expensive.

    “This, too, shall pass…”

  12. The Emperor’s New Clothes describes the entire thing. All those that brownnose with the official lies get those positions of privilege, in spite of it being flagrant rubbish. Those that oppose the official lies get called names and lose their jobs and livelihoods. The narrative becomes totally absurd to cover up previous lies. If you think about it, someone being duped in to walking around without clothes is as absurd as declaring a “climate emergency” with the resultant losses of freedom and wealth without any evidence for the “crisis” being presented-just smoke and mirrors.

    Make no mistake-a “climate emergency” will be assumed to be a full-on crisis by the left, complete with total takeover being the way to save the planet. Give us all your wealth and freedom or the planet gets it. Look at the Enabling Act that Hitler used to take total control over Germany based on a false flag. The Nazis were Socialists and were born of the ultra green movement. They were Socialist green romanticists- dreaming of Utopia. The similarities are disturbing. Here in Australia, if Labor and the Greens were elected, we would have declared a climate emergency. Some councils have already declared climate emergencies!

    Alas, Utopias have ALL been a disaster. They always have fundamental flaws that require widespread massacre of humans to make the Utopian model “work.” This merely patches some problem until the next flaw becomes apparent. Then further massacres will be required. Inconvenient aspects always seem to be ignored or downplayed, but these downplayed and ignored aspects have massive impacts on the outcome of the Utopian dream model.

    What makes the current climate hysteria ruse for power grab different is that it is global. There will be almost nowhere to run to escape the global tyranny of chasing climate shadows.

    • The great north American drought of the 1930’s was in theory caused by persistent La Nina conditions. Also that decade was one of the hottest on record.

    • We need that La Nina in Australia now! Mind you, drought and climate change are not linked, in spite of the doomsayers banging on about. Professor Pitman’s response to a question states it twice, so there is no mistake about it. You do not stress a point unless you regard it as a key point.

      • we sure do but I see ENSO dropped back down again, had me worried for a couple weeks
        and the IOD is swinging too
        the WA coastline recently is looking pretty normal with cloud formations heading east at last
        Africans will be happy if it does too cos theyre pretty soggy at the moment

        i left stuff in theyard cos weather said NO rain likely
        well the scent of rains in the air n cloud covers total..
        and out I go to find a tarp in the dark;-/

    • Not a chance of that, Robert. They’ll just do as they’ve always done – adjust the temperature record to match the narrative.

  13. “…AGU describes scientific data as a world heritage and calls for a culture that supports, enables, and nurtures data that is equitable, accessible, and ethical.”

    Trying to figure out what this means. I guess they’re saying… OK, I’ve got nothing.

  14. Bullet point: ‘Humans are causing increasingly disruptive and causing changes’
    What the frack is that? It doesn’t even make sense. How many people worked on this? Are any of them literate?

  15. AGU declares a belief in “climate crisis”.
    One disturbing aspect is that AGU publishes 22 journals , some very eminent such as “Geophysical Reserach Letters” and “Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology” . Should any researcher come up with data that, albeit only slightly, contradicts that “crisis” meme, what are the chances of that work being published in an AGU journal?
    The insidious way in which , just recently, “climate change” has slid into “climate crisis” was brought home to me in this month’s issue “British Archaeology” in which the phrase was used twice in letters and editorials , despite an article in the same issue, on excavations of 400000 year old early Homo sites in Suffolk stating that the climate then was 2 C warmer in Suffolk than it is at present. And I recently, here, referred to a monograph from Oxford Archaeology with documentary evidence pointing to a much warmer medieval climate in southern England. A warmer England did not result in hell on Earth , quite the opposite in fact.
    I am beginning to wonder if people simply say these phrases, like “climate crisis”, without actually stopping and reflecting on what they are saying or about to say.
    After all no one with even half a brain is going to give up croissants for breakfast just because they are (ideally) made with butter , which comes from cows , which release CH4 and will kill us all in 11 years time because “climate crisis”.

    • mikewaite, “Should any researcher come up with data that, albeit only slightly, contradicts that “crisis” meme, what are the chances of that work being published in an AGU journal?

      With several tries over the last 10 years, I can say the likelihood is about zero. The editors always come up with a pretext to not publish.

      The editor of the AMS Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology rejected a manuscript critical of the global air temperature record after 3 of 4 reviewers recommended publication.

      His rationale was that long-term careful calibration experiments applied only to the experimental sensor itself, and not to the class of sensors tested by the experiment.

      The only exception to this rule in my experience, apart from Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen at E&E, recently retired, was Jing-Jia Luo at Frontiers in Earth Science, who, after positive reviews, insisted on publishing my “Propagation of Error…” over the objections of the Chief Editor.

      All praise to Dr. Jing-Jia Luo.

  16. I note that Heidi Cullen is no longer at Climate Central, as she’s listed here:
    “Heidi Cullen, Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute”
    A quick web search shows she’s now the MBARI Director of Information and Tech Dissemination , aka Minster of Propaganda.

    That is of course where Marcia McNutter was 10 years ago when James Holdren plucked her like some abalone out of Monterey Bay to be Obama’s political appointee to run the USGS. She only lasted a year there, as she was in way over her head both from a intellectual standpoint and running a large government agency with seriously big budgets, management meetings, and life and death issues that really matter like Earthquakes, hydrology-flood control and such.
    Apparently liking her politics and her willingness to tell half-truths, Holdren helped her get on at Science Magazine at Executive Editor where she guided climate agenda Pal Reviews for favored scientists papers and gate-kept out inconvenient science articles. Then he used his influence to help here get the NAS President job in Summer 2016 as the next stepping stone. Of course Holdren was grooming McNutter to be his replacement in the Hillary Clinton Criminal Syndicate Administration as Science Advisor to the President. Opps. Now PNAS is becoming the alarmists’ favored tool for pushing bad science, like Mark Jacobson’s deceptive 100% renewable energy paper that got a solid rebutted by actual working PEs. (McNutt couldn’t block the rebuttal paper becasue PNAS publishing rules for academy members precluded her.)

    Anywaze, back to Dr Cullen. So it probably seems Dr. McNutter is now grooming Dr Cullen for a similar track she took. I would watch for Dr McNutter to be named WH OSTP under a Democrat President should that besotted fate occur to US on Jan 20th, 2021. Then Ms McNutter will probably pluck Dr Cullen out Monterey Bay as she was and get a plush gubment job in Official Climate Propaganda on her way to pushing the Climate Scam to ever higher levels.

  17. The CSIRO tells us that the entire SH is a NET co2+ methane sink, so why aren’t they annoying China, India and the developing countries?
    From about 1988 co2 levels have increased by about 60 ppm or about the same as the period 1800 to 1988.
    So they should be annoying the non OECD countries if they really believe their silly delusional nonsense.
    And deaths from extreme weather events have dropped by at least 95% since 1920. See Our World in Data, or Lomborg, Shellenberger, Rosling etc. Population in 1920 just 1.8 bn and today 7.7 bn. THINK ABOUT IT.
    OH and the global economy has doubled since 1990 and average life expectancy around the entire world is now about 70 years. These so called scientists ought to wake up and look up the latest data.

    • Ah y’see it sinks only NATURAL emissions of CO2. The sinks of “carbon” in the SH the CSIRO talk about don’t include the climate changing emissions of CO2 from human activities. They are bad, the models say so.

  18. Wow, great gray picture of leaden skies in SFO.
    In the UK they usually reserve that for the death of a member of the Royal family, but I guess sewage-gray is now the color de-jour in San Francisco.

  19. The whole thing is beginning to sound like the American Temperance Movement of the early 20th century that led to Prohibition of alcohol in 1920 and lasted until 1933. It has all the elements morality and high mindedness.

  20. I would love it if someone had stood up in that meeting room and yelled out,”People, are we serious that we are living in a climate crisis?” To which the response from the faithful would have been a resounding “Yes”it would seem from the calibre of the identified participants. And then followed it up with, “And, are we serious that we really want to do something about it?” To which the response from the faithful would seem to be an even more resounding “Yes”, followed by the odd “Hallelujah” from the more religiously inclined. At which point, the compère should have switched off the lights, cut the electricity, heating, refrigeration and wifi access, running water, air con and modern toilet facilities, locked the doors and proudly announced, “Welcome back to pre-industrial times… you morons. I give you 24hrs before you start killing each other to escape back to the 21st Century. Who’s first?” Now that would make an interesting climate crisis focus group.

  21. I believe you are correct, however as the AGW propaganda (and other rather marxist concepts) have been institutionalized within a wide variety of government departments (as Agenda 21) for implementation by them at federal, state, and council level,it is very hard to see an effective defence by the demonstration of facts, logic and real scientific empirical results being successful.
    In Australia no politician wants to even acknowledge the existence of Agenda 21, and yet it was adopted here by the Labour party in 1992.
    Many laws have been quietly passed at all levels of government to implement its requirements (including education) on a bipartisan basis.
    The federal minister responsible for the department who among other things, administers the continued coordination and implementation of Agenda 21, refused to acknowledge that it even existed a few years ago in official correspondence from one of his constituents, and he was Liberal (that’s the Australian equivalent of the Republicans, Labour being the equivalent of the Democrats).
    How can you overcome the lavishly funded bureaucrats at every level of government, when both major parties are secretly supporting their activities and allowing them to continue with their long term work unhindered, whilst denying its happening, in spite of the laws being on the books and there for everyone to see if they are interested enough to check.

    Pete

    • “In Australia no politician wants to even acknowledge the existence of Agenda 21, and yet it was adopted here by the Labour party in 1992.”

      Yes, I believe it was Nancy Pelosi in the US who said it best (about another topic, but same idea): we have to pass the law to see what’s in the law”.

      I think politicians are getting scared in that too many people are waking up at the same time and saying “hey…mind if we read the fine print?”

      The farmers protesting in Europe have…

  22. What’s listed under the heading of “Updates to AGU’s climate change and data position statements” is nothing more than propaganda, which is obvious with the opening sentence that reads, “In a revised climate position statement released today, based on the overwhelming research and scientific evidence, AGU is declaring the world to be in a climate crisis.”

    Really? The world is “in a climate crisis”? The absurdity of the opening sentence makes their new “position” laughable. They’re simply parroting the current dogmatic catch phrase.

    This should bring anyone with the slightest amount of common sense to the conclusion that the AGU as it exists today is a political advocacy group, not a scientific entity.

    Regards,
    Bob

  23. I see Heidi Cullen on the AGU Climate Panel. Comes to mind a comment I submitted to WUWT back in 2010:

    …the Newshour’s Heidi Cullen. She put Laura Devendorf on national TV May 19 of last year with the following unrebutted statement:
    LAURA DEVENDORF, Sunbury, Georgia: We’re worried about sea level rise, indeed. I think everyone on the coast is. You can just sit there and see the tides getting bigger.
    ….
    Laura must have pretty good eyes….

  24. Is this the same AGU that surveyed over 10,000 “scientists” in 2009 where IIRC 77 out of 79 said humans were the cause of climate change, the origins of the 97% “consensus”?

  25. AGU Climate Position Statement; We are sitting on a comfy seat, the air temperature is just perfect (Thanks to aircon), at the front of the plane, with first class service.

  26. AGU is throwing science out the window.

    They are going to look awful silly when their dire predictions don’t pan out.

    AGU ought to give their members the ability to opt out of any position statements issued by AGU. They are taking their members free expression away from them by speaking for them. What do the members who don’t agree with the AGU position do?

  27. Good post. Looking forward to your write up on the official monitoring site for SF. I’ve been wondering where the site for San Jose is.

  28. “Immediate and coordinated actions to limit and adapt to human-caused climate change are needed to protect human and ecological health, economic well-being, and global security.”

    Are they denying that there is natural climate change or is it not a serious matter if one is drowning in rising oceans, burning from bush fires or being torn up from tornadoes by the same natural forces?

  29. The U of British Columbia succumbed to a bunch of students and declared a climate emergency.
    Another place to avoid.

  30. The AGU is an embarrassment to the profession of science and they typify how warmists have systematically infiltrated all the major influencers in this debate whether that be religions, academic institutions, big corporations, scientific societies, governments, public servants , media etc. Unfortunately once In control of these institutions they ensure dominance by employing and engaging like minded people. It’s actually quite disturbing.

  31. “The world needs to submit to my opinion, but I am special and should not have to change my behaviors or benefits”

    There, said it…that is the position of most climate change activists.

  32. San Fran, cant stop an epidemic of folk voiding on the sidewalk, but imagines the control of planetary climate is possible. 🙂

  33. “and calls for a culture that supports, enables, and nurtures data that is equitable, accessible, and ethical.”

    FFS !

    I hope they are going to be “inclusive” to TRANSDATA sources, these are ones which used to show cooling but have decided to “transition” to showing warming and now identify as warming even though they were born showing cooling. Many Australian records are transdata.

    This also included BIDATA sources which used to show both warming and cooling periods which have now decided to “come out” and identify as continuously warming datasets. These include GISS data which used to show clear cooling from 1950-1975 but has now managed to flatten out obviously incorrect behaviour.

    • One thing for sure, tho, is that they are not undecided about “which way they go” w/the data…. 😉

  34. Angry demonstrations are already taking place over measures that are being enacted (like carbon taxes) that only result in miniscule reductions of CO2 emissions, if at all. Any government that takes actual, real and effective actions that actually do cut human CO2 emissions to zero will quickly find itself overthrown by an enraged public.

  35. They say there is ‘overwhelming research and scientific evidence’ – well they always say that but they never say what it is.

    How about the evidence from the USCRN which shows that it isn’t getting any warmer?

  36. “I’ll start worrying about a crisis when your organization starts acting like there actually is one.”

    Quite so. There are now distance learning tools (with hand-raise capabilities) and virtual trade show tools (with private conference capabilities) that would allow organizers of any of the these conferences to conduct the whole thing electronically.

    If they’re serious, why not move electrons instead of people?

  37. If data is so precious, why do they keep changing it. I was on the Aust BOM site & their climate temperature graph has erased the 1930’s hot spot.

  38. American Geophysical Union (AGU) I had to look it up.

    Is there some reason people insist on using alphabet soup acronyms and never define what they stand for?

  39. AGU describes scientific data as a world heritage and calls for a culture that supports, enables, and nurtures data that is equitable, accessible, and ethical.

    well so far little is accessible
    even less is ethical
    and equitable? wtf its all leaning one way so where that equity?
    someone oughta ask the mannikin about access to his data while there;-)

  40. Maybe it’s just me, but there’s something ev*l about that Peter Sinclair guy. Like you better not turn your back to him….

  41. “Two writing panels and panel chairs were chosen—one for data and one for climate change—with an eye toward diversity of expertise, geography, career stage, and gender. ”

    So does that mean they didn’t pick the most qualified?

Comments are closed.