#AGU19 becomes “political science” – invites candidate Bloomberg to speak

From the “green just isn’t the color of money department”. You can watch this live for free.

From AGU:

Mike Bloomberg and Jerry Brown will participate in an on-stage conversation about America’s Pledge, which brings together private and public sector leaders to ensure the United States remains a global leader in reducing emissions and delivers the country’s ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement. Bloomberg and Brown launched America’s Pledge together in 2017.

AGU Executive Director and CEO Chris McEntee will join Bloomberg and Brown after their conversation in a fireside chat.

Livestream is available via AGU Go (registration required): agu.org/go or YouTube Live: www.youtube.com/user/AGUvideos.

50 thoughts on “#AGU19 becomes “political science” – invites candidate Bloomberg to speak

    • As a former AGU member (note the former moniker) and geologist, I find allowing a non-scientist as-yet non-elected US Presidential candidate to address the AGU Annual Meeting just another example of virtue seeking pandering that is all too common in scientific circles. The taint of leftist leaning thought (and yes Bloomberg is a leftest) has infiltrated AGU and now colors so much of what was, at one time in the not too distant past, a reputable scientific society. Science should be non-partisan.

      • +10 from another former AGU member geologist. Want to bet a AGU media consultant ‘specialist’ arranged this joke of a session.

      • Perhaps it’ll keep him in the running long enough to spend the other half of his fortune on a failed attempt and pull sufficient voters from a Dem Candidate that might otherwise show a stronger backing against Trump, thereby getting Trump reelected. Much like the Dems that couldn’t vote for Hillary.

      • co2isnotevil – What an interesting question. Which way do you interpret “political science “? If (a) “political science ” is a scientific process which is political, then it’s either (i) an oxymoron or (ii) just the way the scientific community have always behaved. If (b) “political science ” is the science of politics, ie. analysis/knowledge of politics, then “politicians are morons” is a good summary.

  1. One more and they’d have a gospel quartet… singing the gospel of CAGW… i.e. “Right or wrong we’re hear to save ya.”

  2. wow! As I said before the AGU was once an honorable institution, now they are a bunch of Tarot Card Readers, at best. What a shame.

    • That’s as may be in New Zealand, Richard, but the phrase is an American one and in the US of A all the denominations of US paper currency is traditionally/predominately green (though other colors are also incorporated to better distinguish different denominations). US paper money is also sometimes given the nickname “greenbacks” due to it’s green coloration (even though that nickname originally applied specifically to certain civil war era currency created by the Lincoln administration). Hence why here in the US green is referred to as “the color of money”

      • Originally the green colour was made from the wings of a South American butterfly – a big one. It was irreproducible for a long time (artificially).

  3. No real surprise. CAGW has been more politics than science since long before Hansen and friends turned off the AC and opened the windows the night before his big show in the Capital. So of course any organization that goes “all in” on CAGW is going to be long on politics and short on science.

  4. It’s all about feelings these days. Actual experience not required or desired. Especially not desired.

  5. Try to find a real Geology graduate program anywhere.

    Most have been incorporated into “multidisciplinary” Earth and Environmental Science departments.

    Might as well have rolled them into the Political Science dept.

  6. “America’s Pledge”:

    Across America, states, cities, businesses, universities, and citizens are taking action to fight climate change, grow the economy, and protect public health. America’s Pledge brings together private and public sector leaders to ensure the United States remains a global leader in reducing emissions and delivers the country’s ambitious climate goals of the Paris Agreement.

    That’s all very well and good, but how much of the UN’s expected $200 Billion/year are these pledgers actually going to, umm, pledge? More to the point, how much are they going to deliver?

    If you took all the net worth of Bloomberg, Tom Steyer and Bill Gates together it might be enough to satisfy the UN for the first year. Add in all the other billionaires pledging to fight climate change and you might get through year 2. But I don’t think that’s what these “pledgers” have in mind.

    • I pledge to vote against all Dems until they oust the socialist progressive party leadership and move back towards the center, which they have come to see as “the far right”.

    • That’s all very well and good, but how much of the UN’s expected $200 Billion/year are these pledgers actually going to, umm, pledge?

      They’ll gladly pledge all of it. Oh, they don’t plan on being the ones to foot the bill, don’t be silly. They’re pledging to push for the tax increases (OPM) that the little people (IE you, me, and every other taxpayer) will be expected to shell out in order to pay for it.

  7. If CO2 is so efficient in absorbing and trapping heat why isn’t it used as the insulating gas in sealed double glazed windows? From what I have read, carbon dioxide will break down in light and eventually turn into carbon monoxide and oxygen. Therefore, the resulting components from the breakdown of carbon dioxide would have a higher conductivity so it is not used for this purpose. Apparently AIR performs better between the two panes of glass than CO2. Does CO2 also breakdown in the atmosphere in a similar manner?

  8. Ironically US is already one of the most successful countries in reducing emissions and it’s not because of renewables but the conversion of coal fired to gas fired energy generation. The Paris agreement provides zero guarantees of emission reduction. Why would anyone want to be in it. If your in it and your meeting your targets like Australia they ostracise you and condemn you for not doing enough. Why any country ( other than the ones with no targets and are recipients of funds ) would want to be in it is a huge mystery.

  9. That would be the Michael Bloomberg who assured Margaret Hoover on PBS that China was tackling Climate Change by building new coal-burning power plants away from cities.

      • He won’t win the nomination. The Party of Bernie-AOC-Warren is completely incompatible with an elderly white billionaire heterosexual who recently left the Republican Party as its Presidential nominee.

        Mikey Bloomberg is just adding more greenbacks to the green slime trail of the GreenSlime. And NGO Bootlicks, Democrat sycophants, and scientist-rentseekers are rushing in to lick it up.

        • He will fail; and then Mikey will be allowed to spend as much as he wants of his campaign money on other Dem candidates, flouting FEC regulations?

  10. It would be far less painful to poke a very sharp stick into my ear than to listen to a couple of geezer greenies bloviate about how the “little people” need to change their lifestyles in order to “Save the Planet”

    Pi$$ off, jerks!

    The Planet has been around for a few billion years and is perfectly capable of taking care of itself. Or, to quote some brain-dead Climate Scientists, “It’s just simple physics”.

    Yes, it is. Water (liquid, vapor, and ice) keeps us just as we are and have always been. Thanks God.

  11. So maybe AGU meeting has become a surrealist version of America’s Got Talent where the louder you can shout “Armageddon” the more votes you get.

Comments are closed.