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.
I guess they’ll let anyone in They certainly let me in 😉 No sign of Mann or Gleick yet.
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.”
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
The visualized statement can be found here.
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.”
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.
1000+ from China?
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.
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.
+++++ if only;-)
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…
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
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….
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”?
Look at all the tech, gadgets, food, waxed paper cups and plastic!!
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.
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?
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.
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?
The U of British Columbia succumbed to a bunch of students and declared a climate emergency.
Another place to avoid.
They changed without consulting the members/
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.
“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.
San Fran, cant stop an epidemic of folk voiding on the sidewalk, but imagines the control of planetary climate is possible. 🙂
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…. 😉
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.
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?
“AGU is declaring the world to be in a climate crisis” — since 12000 BC, if not before.
“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?
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.
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?