Roger Caiazza
Just when I think that the climate-related madness cannot get any shoddier something comes up even worse. The American Meteorological Society (AMS) Council adopted a special statement on 8 July 2022 in response to the Supreme Court decision West Virginia vs. EPA that takes the level of climate change hysteria to a whole new level.
Special Statement of the American Meteorological Society
The AMS is deeply concerned by the United States’ inadequate response to climate change and the dangers it poses to the nation and all life. This inadequacy is illustrated most recently–but by no means only–through the Supreme Court decision West Virginia v. EPA.
Climate change is a highly solvable problem and the available solutions offer tremendous opportunity for societal advancement and climate protection. We applaud the many people throughout the country who are working constructively to tackle climate change, including many government officials, politicians, members of the public, scientists, and members of the business community.
All people should know that:
1. Climate change is extraordinarily dangerous to humanity and all life
- Climate is a basic life-support system for people and all life.
- Global climate changes occurring now are larger and faster than any humanity is known to have endured since our societal transition to agriculture.
- The physical characteristics of the planet, biological systems and the resources they provide, and social institutions we have created all depend heavily on climate, are central to human well-being, and are sensitive to climate change.
2. People are changing climate
- Multiple independent lines of scientific evidence confirm that people bear responsibility.
- The warming effect of our greenhouse gas emissions is demonstrated through laboratory experiments, evidence from past changes in climate on Earth, and the role of greenhouse gasses on other planets.
- The patterns of climate change occurring now match the characteristics we expect from our greenhouse gasses and not the other potential drivers of change: the sun, volcanoes, aerosols, changes in land-use, or natural variability.
3. The scientific conclusions summarized here result from decades of intensive research and examination
- The scientific evidence has been assessed comprehensively by independent scientific institutions and independent experts that consider all evidence.
- Accuracy is central to credibility for scientific institutions such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, and American Association for the Advancement of Science, all of which have assessed climate science.
- No broadly contradictory assessments from credible scientific organizations exist.
4. Solutions are available and highly promising–a serious reason for optimism.
- Greenhouse gas emissions are an economically harmful market failure. Those who emit pollution to the atmosphere shift the costs of climate damage onto everyone, including future generations. Making emitters pay for all the costs of their use of our atmosphere would help correct this failure and thereby improve economic well-being.
- Regulatory approaches can speed the adoption of best practices, require broadly beneficial technologies, promote public interest, and enhance equity and fairness.
- As a result, reducing greenhouse gas emissions can increase climate security, national security, the well-being of biological systems, and economic vitality.
- Existing and emerging technologies such as roof-top solar, electric vehicles, and electric heat pumps can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality in our homes and cities, and often provide superior products or services.
- Building our resilience to climate impacts (adaptation) makes communities stronger and better able to deal with both existing vulnerabilities and emerging threats.
People are changing climate and it poses serious risks to humanity. There are a wide range of response options that are well understood, many of which would be broadly beneficial. We will need to work together to harness human ingenuity to address climate change. Therein lies an even greater opportunity for humanity. If we can address our climate problem, we will have a new template for the wide range of challenges and opportunities facing us at this point in the 21st century.
Discussion
Tony Heller writing at Real Climate Science eviscerated the “Climate change is extraordinarily dangerous to humanity and all life” statement. He showed that natural disasters are decreasing and life expectancy has doubled since fossil fuel use has become widespread across the globe. Willis Eschenbach’s post Where is the Climate Emergency is a more comprehensive rebuttal to this statement.
I stopped being a member of the AMS in 2012 when the organization ranked advocacy above science. The arguments supporting the “People are changing climate” statement appear to be talking points for the public. Near the end of the Trump Administration a series of short, easily understandable brochures that support the general view that there is no climate crisis or climate emergency, and pointing out the widespread misinformation being promoted by alarmists through the media were prepared. The following brochures address the other side of these arguments:
- Introduction (Dr. David Legates)
- The Sun Climate Connection (Drs. Michael Connolly, Ronan Connolly, Willie Soon)
- Systematic Problems in the Four National Assessments of Climate Change Impacts on the US (Dr. Patrick Michaels)
- Record Temperatures in the United States (Dr. John Christy)
- Radiation Transfer (Dr. William Happer)
- Is There a Climate Emergency (Dr. Ross McKitrick)
- Hurricanes and Climate Change (Dr. Ryan Maue)
- Climate, Climate Change, and the General Circulation (Dr. Anthony Lupo)
- Can Computer Models Predict Climate (Dr. Christopher Essex)
- The Faith-Based Nature of Human-Caused Global Warming (Dr. Roy Spencer)
The section “The scientific conclusions summarized here result from decades of intensive research and examination” is a direct appeal to authority. The recent Global Warming Golden Goose article summarizes the follow the money trail that suggests that the scientific institutions we are supposed to trust are not necessarily interested in only scientific truth and enlightenment.
The next section “Solutions are available and highly promising” shows an amazing lack of self-awareness. The point of the previous section was that you should trust only the “experts”. Why in the world would anyone expect that the American Meteorological Society has expertise in energy solutions. The vague, content-free arguments are a joke to anyone who has spent any time looking at the tremendous technological difficulties associated with running today’s society using intermittent and diffuse wind and solar or even follows today’s energy issues. My feed of followed websites had articles on copper shortages that will preclude the net zero by 2050 transition, the amount of solar panels needed for the transition, the German net-zero transition is running out of energy, and the current Texas heat wave is straining power supplies so much that electric car owners are being asked to charge off-peak. All of these issues invalidate the claim that the climate threat is “easily solvable”.
Once upon a time I was proud to be a member of the American Meteorological Society. This policy statement is so embarrassing I don’t want to admit I was associated with a scientific organization that could publish something this far detached from reality.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Nothing more needed to know why regular folks don’t trust the government. Well, regular folks like me. -smile-
I so agree, John Hultquist – laughter is the best medicine. And it won’t be that many years before statements like these from the American Meteorological Society will be the source of much hilarity.
Can you imagine future academics’ amusement – when we eventually return to the usually serene, humble, seriously searching attitudes to science we have enjoyed ever since the European Enlightenment over 200 years ago.
But, of course, that academic turn-around may (probably will) first happen in Russian, Chinese, Japanese or Indian universities.
No, the chance for an academic turnaround is long since past. This AGW will eventually run out of steam, but all those researchers will find something new to keep those “science” subsidies coming.
As the French discovered when they offered bounties for rats in Indochina, and as the British discovered when they offered bounties for snakes in India:
The toxic crap spewed by the Marxists who have taken over academia is tearing society apart.
Any college program with the word ‘critical’ in its name is explicitly Marxist. Critical race theory would be one example.
Scientific research is seriously broken. In biomedical research, perhaps nine out of ten (ie. 90%) of published research findings cannot be reproduced, even by the original scientists. link
Defund the universities!
And use a wealth tax on ALL university foundations and endowments of 50% of the wealth to pay off unpaid student loans.
As Terry Pratchett wrote:
The notion that they’re not all lefties is completely preposterous-
‘Preposterous’ to suggest cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory: Jordan Peterson (msn.com)
Marx couldn’t possibly foresee at the time that the current productivity of fossil fuels would eventually create all this surplus value and a new navel gazing class of stinkers in residence.
@mods
Spam
Felix
Rats and snakes are good analogies in the field of academic funding.
There is an apocryphal story that at some point, for economic reasons, a French supplier of edible snails to that great nation of gastronauts, started outsourcing their supply to the far-East. (I’m mostly English, so you know where this story is heading).
The supplying country doesn’t really matter, but after some time a visit was arranged to the supplier’s factory. Quality assurance, you know, and all that kind of stuff. To cut a long story short the inspector arrived and witnessed a large factory of employees conscientiously taking empty snail shells and pushing a slug into each one.
Even if it’s not true, it deserves to be true. But that is what the American Meteorological Society is doing for its members, customers, and the wider world.
Not just hilarity, but hopefully this statement will be sufficient to make everyone who’s name is on it, unemployable.
Why do you bring up your mistrust of government in the context of a story about a private interest group, American Meteorological Society? They’re bitching because the government isn’t doing enough to “prevent climate change” – specifically the recent SCOTUS decision that Congress hasn’t authorized EPA to regulate carbon emissions via the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 – a very successful “government” law that has resulted in cleaner air – not carbon free air – for everybody in the US. By the 70s and 80s, the air in most major cities was dirty, smelly, ugly, and unhealthy to breathe. Smog was a real thing in those days.
The reason Congress hasn’t authorized EPA to regulate carbon emissions is simple – Congress doesn’t believe that the so called “fix” to climate change can be done without humongous economic pain to the People. Politicians may not be the smartest or most honest people in the world – but they do know about elections and votes … and they know that the quickest way to get voted out of office is to impose economic pain on the masses. If you want confirmation of that right now, just look at Biden’s poll numbers and the likelihood of Democrats getting their butts handed to them in Congressional elections come November.
Our government is far from perfect, but at least it is democratic with representation based upon votes by the People every two years. As Winston Churchhill is credited with saying, “Democracy is the worst form of government … except for all the others.”
Churchill was wrong about a lot of things….
But he was correct about the important things. Like Hitler and Stalin.
One can never be right about everything. Churchill was the most important statesman of the 20th century. Millions of us owe our lives to him.
Because government is at the root of this problem. Let’s turn that question around: why do you defend the indefensible?
Do you really not know, Duane? The American Meteorological Society is a political institution that tries to justify its existence by virtue signalling and to exercise power by shaming, much like governments worthy of mistrust.
“Dha pbresidfent dovs noft halffv dha bability dhue impafct oil pfricless”.
Congratulations, DonM, you get the gold medal for the day.
Well, at least brass.
May we quote you on that Mr. President?
Repeat the line
Duane: The AMS is run by ACADEMICS. They have been living off of heavy government subsidy that started back in the early 1990’s when VP Al Gore, in the Clinton Administration, opened the flood gates to academic research money to help him advance his new book “Earth In the Balance” and whose administration was already conjuring up new ideas to tax and regulate energy through carbon taxes.
He was the first that incorporated the “Chicago Climate Exchange” as a business that would trade “emission offsets” and planned to get filthy rich as this hope was carbon trading would become mandatory event through government mandates even though it would solve NOTHING as would all the other idiotic ideas fronted concerning this as well as spending $ TRILLIONS MORE for this asinine “Green New Deal” which is nothing more than a public swindling and massive wealth transfer to all the special interests that want more subsidies as a life raft to keep them going and, in fact, massively increase these and give the administrative state of government massively more power to ruin businesses and peoples freedoms through massive tax hikes and punitive regulations.
Understand this: These creeps are turning into criminals. Their claims stand naked without the proof needed to be advanced to back them up with other than failed climate models which by their own mathematical and physical limitations cannot actually do what the promoters in academia claim, which is to accurately predict the climate. Pat Frank’s paper from Stanford gets into the specifics of why climate models are unphysical and overrated heaps of junk: Frontiers | Propagation of Error and the Reliability of Global Air Temperature Projections (frontiersin.org)
There were NEVER any expectations derived from the founding principles in atmospheric science that alluded to atmospheric CO2 being able to drive earth temperature or change the climate with the presence of the earth’s hydrological cycle. This dwarfs the radiative effects from CO2 as this cycle absorbs infrared radiation across most of the IR spectrum, which CO2 does not and it causes the short circuiting of optical depth from CO2 through cloud formation which also blocks the solar spectrum from reaching the surface. And going from a radiative to convective equilibrium which is required from earth hydrostatics, that process develops this cycle which is a NEGATIVE feedback to the increasing temperature effect of increasing CO2, not a positive one, as the failed models project.
NOTHING these people want to do to “fix” the climate will have any effect on the climate or weather and could only hope to minimally affect atmospheric CO2 levels and to see any change in direction or atmospheric concentration, nature would have to cooperate first because it ultimately controls the atmospheric level and direction of movement. Berry, Harde, and Salby have done a lot of work on the carbon problem and Berry has the only earth and atmospheric carbon model that is a realistic physical model compared to the non-physical and wrong portrayal by the IPCC. His results bear this conclusion out.
Advocacy science, which is fake science (because it is exclusive of data or results that prove its biases wrong) is what the climate establishment now consists of. The AMS, through its collective stupidity has ruined its once stellar reputation as it now promotes this sort of junk science from what is supposed to be real science. But this has been going on for quite a while and has only gotten much worse. The late hurricane expert, Dr. William Gray was well aware of this problem shortly before his passing:
Publications – On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society | Heartland Institute
On the topic, Duane is answered well by others, but I will respond to this: “ By the 70s and 80s, the air …”
You should have said the 1940s. See: 1948 Donora smog
Check out the “see also” section there.
Next note the Clean Air Act of 1963.
To enhance your understanding, go here:
The Deadly Donora Smog of 1948 Spurred Environmental Protection—But Have We Forgotten the Lesson? | History| Smithsonian Magazine
Are there any actual practising meteorologists running this organisation?
No, they appear to be all practicing liars (for fun and profit).
The number of outright lies in that statement indicates that, if their are practicing meteorologists running the organization, they, too, have been corrupted by the government money flow.
The problem with ALL professional organizations is that eventually they are taken over by those who never had the ability to practice in the field in the first place.
IE, if they were any good at meteorology, they would be out in the field doing meteorology. The failures always gravitate towards the political end of the talent spectrum.
That’s because what they really want to do in life is wear suits, attend luncheons, issue press releases no one reads and shake each others hands.
It appears that CAGW is back on the table. I thought that had gone the way of buggy whips. Most heating is (was?) supposed to occur at the poles and in the form of higher nighttime temperatures. It’s harder than hell to push daily maxima farther to the right, shoving them against a T⁴ Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
The AMS statement appears inspired by the “father of lies” whose intention is to deny honor to “God” who “saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.” Genesis 1:31.
That liar will rue the day he tried when he is evicted and we are provided with a new heaven and new earth. Genesis 1:31 And God looked upon all that He had made, and indeed, it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning–the sixth day. (biblehub.com)
I am old enough to remember that we were instructed to replace our incandescent lightbulbs with those twirly items would save the world. Now we have to smash capitalism for the same effect. Trust the experts and follow the science; yeah sure.
It is always the same group of loud experts, whether they trumpet global cooling or warming.
Except the twirly items were forced by the government because factories had been built to make them, and the owners of those factories saw LED lamps coming to take over the market.
When they passed the law, I bought several cases of the soon to be outlawed incandescent lamps and was able to go from them, to LED lamps without ever buying the mercury hazardous waste filled lamps.
So GE used crony capitalism to be able to pay off the cost of the factories they built.
Now CFLs are demonized because of the mercury in them. One of the problems seems to be that alarmists are not deep thinkers.
The good news is that when the twirly light bulbs fail, they fit perfectly into empty soup cans which appear as normal recyclable items in the recycle bins. It saves a trip to the hardware store’s hazmat disposal which lowers CO2 emissions.
I almost stopped reading after:
“The AMS is deeply concerned by the United States’ inadequate response to climate change and the dangers it poses to the nation and all life.”
Every time the phrase “climate change” is described it is meant as climate change is bad. Then, eventually they say something about warming.
Never do they define anything and they mix up things like pollution and “greenhouse gases”
This is meant to pander to policy makers and nothing more. There is no room for anything but panic in their world.
Yes, Mario – the constant pairing of “CO2” with “pollution” is insidious and, of course, deliberate. Carbon dioxide is clearly not a pollutant – even a child can understand that. Yet these ‘scientists’ link the two together on a regular basis. Just one example of the dishonesty displayed by the Catastrophic Manmade Global Warming cabal.
I am just glad I am not still teaching chemistry. It was hard enough it must be impossible now.
Last week I was preparing spaghetti sauce with my Chem engineer daughter in law and I made a sarcastic remark about a label on one of the cans that announced it contained organic tomatoes. I got a blank look.
😎
I remember a few years seeing a bag of ice melt near one of the doors where I worked. (Now retired.)
It actually had the word “Organic” on the label!
(It contained urea.)
Yellow ice?
As I recall the “organic” ice melt had a blue dye added.(so you could tell where it was spread.)
I don’t know if the blue dye was also “organic”.
I suppose since the dye was blue it wouldn’t qualify as being “Green” despite the word “Organic” on the label.
Ask her to find inorganic tomatoes.
Here’s one
Climate change happens four times a year, spring, summer, fall, winter – the four most dangerous enemies of socialism.
It happens at other times scales too. I saw an unprecedented *sarc* several 10’s of degree F swing today with a linear trajectory towards massive sea ice melt to follow if we don’t act now!
It took me a long time to be a full convert to the idea that climate alarmism is a hoax. Even when I believed that humans were involved in raising the temperature, I never believed it was a crisis. There were way too many warning signals —
Their previous alarmism about the coming ice age
Their shrill failed predictions of imminent tipping points
The continuous stream of reports in Nature and Science about how crappy the models were
The fraud in the hockey stick graph and its cherry picked data, the constant adjustments to old temperature records
The sheer arrogance of thinking puny little humans could destroy the Earth’s climate in just a few decades
I am not really surprised that so many people accept their garbage, because it’s such a slight acceptance. AGW is always bottom of the political priority polls, and when money comes into the picture, people reject all its demands. But because people get one vote every few years to stand for everything, they vote for the high priority items and the low priority ones come along for the ride.
It all comes down to government meddling far too much, so that it is literally impossible for those infrequent votes to guide government.
I completely accept mankind is causing some of the warming we are experiencing
Lots of hard surfaces, deforestation, dodgy computer games, dodgy adjustments, all must have an effect
CO2, yes, but not much and its benefits far outweigh the drawbacks
CO2 cause at most .2 to .3C for every doubling of CO2, and most of that is at the poles, or any place that has very little water in the air.
If your air is moist, then the amount of warming caused by CO2 is so low as to be practically unmeasurable.
I think the earth grew back plant life mass that offsets most of the net deforestation over the past 40 years. Me thinks that pesky CO2 pollution done it.
Only 3 choices (that I’m aware of)
Venus 96.5% CO2 and 90 times atmospheric pressure. (So is it the CO2 or Pressure causing Hot House Venus)
Mars 95% CO2 and 1% atmospheric pressure (Cold)
Titan 95% Nitrogen and 5% Methane
So what is the role of CO2 on Venus or Mars?
AND what is the role of Atmospheric Pressure?
Warming has never been demonstrated. Absorption has. Warming and absorption are different things.
Please excuse my knowledge of instrumentation.
“AND what is the role of Atmospheric Pressure?”
Excellent question Bryan A. IMHO the warming effect of CO2 is negligible.
Distance from the Sun dictates available power and atmospheric pressure dictates the concentration of molecules per unit volume. These are the primary factors that set the temperature.
The idea of dangerous atmospheric warming in response to our emissions has been politically oversold. Emissions are the result of energy production, and energy production is the primary cause of human wealth and prosperity.
I can’t say how many tv shows I’ve seen about astronomy where, whenever Venus is mentioned, it is noted that its atmosphere is mostly CO2 and that it’s hotter than an oven on the surface. However, when Mars is mentioned and it is noted how very cold and dry it is, they never ever state what gasses the Martian atmosphere is made of….Gee, I guess that would blow the AGW narrative!
Leave us not forget that Venus orbits the Sun at ~72% of the distance of Earth and that its day is longer than its year.
Uh, fourth choice, Brian: Mars average distance from Sun = 1.52 AU and its atmosphere is 1% of Earth’s density. Venus’ average distance from Sun = 0.72 AU and its atmosphere is 100 times as dense as Earth’s. More solar heating and more CO2 molecules per volume = more GHE at Venus than at Mars (or Earth).
Quote from the above:-
“Existing and emerging technologies such as roof-top solar, electric vehicles, and electric heat pumps can reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve air quality in our homes and cities, and often provide superior products or services.”
This, unfotunately, is a widely held opinion and believed by politicians who are deciding policy but in general it is completely wrong.
Roof top solar does very little in reducing CO2 emissions because it is a very poor source of power consequently it’s influence on CO2 reduction is small.
Electric vehicles and heat pumps cannot reduce CO2 emissions until there is a largely non CO2 emitting grid, which is not happening, because of the focus on building renewable generation. It is also believed that renewbales will replace fossil fuel generation, which is a nonsense, it canot as it is an inferior source of power not suited for large scale grid supply.
As this ‘solution’ is so ineffective the statement made early in the article saying “Climate change is a highly solvable problem” speaks volumes for their ignorance and naievity.
Climate change is a highly solvable problem .
Because C02 is not the problem .
The problem is in the heads of the believers.
Man cannot control the climate .
Trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels is a pointless exercise .
The AMS , sounds like some Druids society , should know that the world has been warmer and a lot colder than at present .
They should know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is logarithmic .
They should know that higher CO2 can have very little further effect on warming the planet .
They should know that water vapour is far the most prevalent green house gas in the atmosphere.
There is no problem with man warming the climate except the UHI effect in cities.
There is no climate crisis .
“… a highly solvable problem … in the heads of the believers …”
I agree. Smack them really hard, repeatedly, until they snap out of it.
Excellent comment.
Roof top solar is a gift to government that keeps giving.
There are no roof top solar departments tracking roof solar installations, maintenance or removal.
Instead, government get citizen home solar installation when citizens fill in solar tax forms, and/or when citizens file for permits to install solar.
Perhaps for houses with massive acreage actually have meters that track how much electricity is fed into the grid… A feature that is not possible for ordinary homeowners.
There is no process to track people removing or simply who stop using their roof top solar.
Meaning that roof top solar data base increments steadily without reductions.
It is also likely that people who file for a new permit to reinstall/upgrade their out of service roof top solar also increment the roof top solar database.
It also means that when government needs to fluff their rooftop solar numbers; it is easy to ‘improve’ the overall efficiency, output and usage because there are not any conflicting data sources.
“Multiple independent lines of scientific evidence confirm that people bear responsibility.”
I’m aware of one dubious line of evidence that claims to distinguish between human-caused CO2 and natural CO2, but what are the other independent lines of scientific evidence? Can anyone list them?
It’s just bafflegab and gobbledygook, designed to impress the unwary public. It’s a lie, and they know it.
There aren’t any. They’ve had about 50 years of heavily funded research into this and they have nothing to show for it – they are using the same failed hypothesis and assumptions as when they started this nonsense. All they can do is produce an endless stream of worthless ‘studies’ that still cannot show any connection whatsoever between CO2 and temperatures. It’s a complete waste of money and time but a very cushy gig if you can get it and keep the nausea down.
Lines of evidence: First and foremost is the UN IPCC CliSciFi’s climate models (which are demonstrably unfit for hindcasts and forecasts of temperatures). Second is the calculated ECS of a doubling of CO2 by itself. Third is the assumption that Earth’s climatological system will amplify any of CO2’s theoretical warming. Forth is that the Earth warmed during the late 20th Century while atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased (ignoring early 20th Century’s equivalent warming and the 21st Century’s drastic reduction in the rate of warming). There are no other “lines of evidence.”
Each time an acolyte of the original author re-runs the same program using the same data and the same algorithms, it’s counted as an “independent” investigation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_of_Nature_%28Star_Trek:_The_Next_Generation%29
Oh. Wait. That episode was about warp drive the fabric of space. Written to draw a parallel to the “Ozone Hole”, not Man’s CO2.
“Never mend.”
The “Special Statement” is just a series of unsubstantiated assertions followed by appeals to authority.
That’s right. Not one bit of evidence included. That would be because they don’t have any evidence humans are causing noticeable changes in the Earth’s weather.
AMS has no evidence, yet they assert that they do have evidence. AMS is lying to the public. Blatantly lying.
“…by appeals to authority.”
You really mean “…by appeals for money!”
Their available and highly promising solutions consist of “making emitters pay” and “regulatory approaches.” Would that include taxing anything that breaths and emits CO2? Taxes, spending, and onerous government regulations are what have gotten us into our current economic mess. If they regulate us out of gas-powered cars and into electric ones, how will they mine enough material for all those batteries? And how will they beef up the electric grid to handle all those EVs? Their “highly promising solutions do not sound all that promising to me.
Meteorology is a quantitative science. You don’t attain a degree or qualify to be a member of AMS without advanced education in mathematics and thermodynamics. It is not just cloud-gazing. I know. I am one of those, although not one of the practicing ones. My career took a different path.
Now leadership in the organization is another matter. For many years, the approach of the gutter extremists has been to infiltrate leadership in every institution. Of course, that may in this case include meteorologists, but even scientists have world views and their own personal motivations and political leanings, and many who make it to leadership are poor scientists but adept politicians.
Thus, an organization demanding high levels of expertise is nevertheless capable of issuing such a vacuous, fact-free, and frankly boneheaded statement. If professional societies cannot fix these problems from within, then many members opt out, simply go along just to get along, or even believe this nonsense.
So it is no wonder that trust in institutions is at an all-time low and falling.
In the case at hand, all that the AMS deserves is derision and laughter.
All the education in the world won’t help if you can’t apply it to reality. That’s become a real problem in many areas of expertise today. If your assumptions are wrong, i.e. they don’t match the real world, then all the math in the world won’t help you to a correct answer. It’s like quoting a “global average temperature” with no uncertainty statement. How do you know your stated value of the GAT can discern the small changes you are trying to find? No real world experience at all.
I quit the AMS a couple of years ago. I kept my membership longer than I should have, hoping for a turn around that never came.
The structure of the organization is that members elect other members to yearly appointments, such as committed chairs and even AMS president. But the vast bulk of the organization is made up of non-elected, salaried bureaucrats. These are the folks who write such statements that are then rubber stamped by the elected council often without any discussion or input. Indeed, the broad membership has no say in these statements. No vote is taken nor comments solicited. It is the Deep State on a professional society scale.
The AMS bureaucracy grew in the 1970s, as more money came in. Slowly, it transformed from a membership driven society to a non-responsive behemoth.
Since I wrote this I really started to wonder who actually authored the statement. The properties of the pdf file list the author as Peter Killela who is a digital content support specialist at AMS. He has a BS in writing from UMass. It is so bad that I wonder he wrote it without a lot of supervision!?!
Who signed/authorized the statement, Roger?
No signature. It was on a page with the letterhead of AMS and listed the Executive Director with her email address.
https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/aboutams/statements_pdf/AMS_Statement-EPA-2(1).pdf
The link has to include the pdf part so copy and paste in your browser. Sorry for the inconvenience
I see the new AMS Executive Director is named Kafka. Hmmm…
Her degrees were in astronomy, same as James Hanson. Hmmmm…
So I bet the junior staffer was assigned the task of writing a rebuttal and then Kafka merely OKed it for release under her name. Again, no sign the AMS President, Council, or membership were asked for either comments or approval.
Agreed.
Why? – As Mel Brooks said in Blazing Saddles “We’ve gotta protect our phony baloney jobs!”
I discovered this over 40 years ago in our consulting business. The expertise was what brought us there, but pretty soon there was a need for administrators to handle the business side. Unfortunately, the admin and the managers are the ones who control the numbers, so before long a tug-of-war ensues between the techies and the business side. In many businesses, the mediocre managers win out. Yes, there is growth in revenues and possibly profits, but soon the business flounders and loses its way as it emphasizes $ over quality, ethics and customer service.
The AMS, as it appears, is yet another component of the real world Orwellian Big Brother out there. We appear to be running out of institutions and organizations that are not part of Big Brother.
The usual illogical argument:
The USC decision was simply about what powers Congress had given to the EPA. Not in law as much as they wanted.
As to the US response – the question is what they want the response to be. Anyone demanding unilateral action from the US (or any other country) should be made to explain exactly what effects the action will have, measured in degrees C on the global climate.
The inconvenient fact is, there is nothing the US can do to have any effect on climate change. Whether its a small thing or a total disaster that is happening with climate, makes no difference. If you only emit 5 billion tons, nothing you do is going to have any effect when the rest of the world is doing 32 billion and raising their emissions as fast as economic growth requires.
To me, the saddest thing about this statement, is the unchallenged assumption that it is an awful thing that the Supreme Court is actually putting the Constitution above the opinion of so called experts.
In their minds, the law means nothing and can be ignored whenever it gets in the way of them doing what they want.
They actually want to turn this country into a dictatorship, with themselves in charge.
Three branches of government, each balancing and checking the other two. If Congress (the people’s voice) lacks the will to pass a particular law and the Executive issues regulations (law) to effectuate its preferences, then the Judicial (SCOTUS) checks the Executive overreach. F_AMS.
“Anyone demanding unilateral action from the US (or any other country) should be made to explain exactly what effects the action will have, measured in degrees C on the global climate.”
That is they key question. Unfortunately, it’s one that those pressing for such measures dismiss – for them it is all about virtue signalling.
t\This is not going to help the Net Zero air conditioning – or other things
” The price of polysilicon, which is crucial for production of solar panels is up 190% in the last 18 months”
More at
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2022/07/17/higher-please/
As the thread heading says “Higher, please:
I never feel I can trust bodies like the AMS when they do not know that the plural of gas is gases. What else do they not know?
CO2 does not equal carbon.
That both accuracy AND precision is necessary for scientific institutions to claim credibility.
(and wrt global warming as it morphs through to ‘climate change’ they have no credibility)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gas
gas
noun
UK /ɡæs/ US
plural gases or gasses
“Climate change is a highly solvable problem”
Two lies:
that changes in climate are a problem and that people can engineer climate.
These people do not believe there is a sovereign and providential creator God
but they nevertheless arrogantly think they can play God.
How well has this turned out in history?
This is a second major problem with this statement. That is they are claiming expertise way outside their field of study.
How do they know the problem is highly solvable? Are they mechanics, electricians and economists? If not, how do they know that wind and solar are capable of doing anything other than wasting a lot of money?
Nice of them to put all the junk so succinctly.
Seems to me that the Bandar-log are getting more and more shrill. I wonder if it is slowly dawning on them that perhaps they are wrong but they don’t know how to get out of their self-induced position so they are producing ever more implausable proposals to try to convince everyone of their so-called truths?
oldseadog,
spot on and let me expand on your post if i may. the climate jackals are finding it difficult to back track the lie of human caused climate crisis and still maintain credibility for lies to be told in the future.
“If we can address our climate problem, we will have a new template for the wide range of challenges and opportunities facing us at this point in the 21st century.”
Translation: Once we get global communism installed, we can do whatever we want.
Intersectionality.
Anticipatory lies?
The climate is changing exactly as expected due to changing in solar intensity and the 30C limit on ocean temperature.
NH is warming, Equator remains unchanged and Southern Ocean is cooling.
The current cycle of glaciation is 500 years into its 10,000 year progression.
[limit hit an hour ago-mod]
One thing I have noticed about MGC is that all he ever does is scream about how stupid you are if you don’t agree with him.
Alarmism is worse than we thought! (Just kidding.)
Notice that they jump from climate is changing to stopping it, without saying how it is bad. No mention of models, which the scare is entirely based on!
As glaring as omissions get. Emerging from LIA is good, not bad.
And absolutely no recognition that minimum temps going up can increase the average just as much as maximum temps going up! Do we want to stop minimum temps from going up?
UHI?
They never demonstrate that any of their “solutions” will actually work. They just proclaim that they will.
“Easily solvable”. Yes it is. Stop lying.
Boom. Done.
Another glaring omission. They say “Global climate changes occurring now…” without saying what these supposed changes are. Like what? I know of none except modest slow warming.
Just ask griff, he has all the answers.
“Climate change is a highly solvable problem and the available solutions offer tremendous opportunity for societal advancement and climate protection.”
Wow, that’s incredibly stupid.
Tremendous opportunity for authoritarian rule.
Us humans can control the climate? Yeah, right, control this:
https://electroverse.co/is-australia-experiencing-a-volcanic-winter/
Cap has a good one this morning.
Really ? “All” life ?!?
Including extremophiles of various types, e.g. :
NB : Endoliths have been found in “solid” rock in the deepest man-made “holes in the ground” (i.e. “mines”), up to 2 (or 3 ?) km below the surface.
How about the multi-cellular ecosystems around deep-sea hydrothermal vents ?
Modern corals have been around for over 200 million years. The GBR has annual SST ranges of 30-31°C (in SH summer, especially around 13-14°S latitudes) to 20-21°C (in SH winter, all the way from 20°S to 25°S latitudes) A rise of 2°C over a century (or two) will hardly be noticed by them …
Seems to me that the “professional” groups in our society are intent on destroying themselves and their credibility in their fields of supposed expertise.
AMS, AMA, etc. seem to have taken up with the current administration and decided to play along with the lefties. For profit and power, probably.
The regular folks who still have common sense and logical thinking abilities do see what is going on, and are laughing regularly at all of them.
The trust in “science” is slip slidin’ further and further away. Witch doctors and illusionists are starting to make a comeback. Should be entertaining, for a while.
It’s telling that the alarmists always blame the producers of fossil fuel for “pollution” and never the users. After all the easiest way to stop the process is for the consumer to stop buying the product. By doing this they imply the path forward is easy. It’s always somebody else that needs to do the heavy lifting. The public seems to be finally waking up to realize it each one of them that’s in the target hairs. It’s going to be interesting.
What a load of horse buckey!
ie: road apples
Organic sparrow food.
re: “The section ‘The scientific conclusions summarized here result from decades of intensive research and examination’ is a direct appeal to authority.”
Ridiculously false, as is most all of this essay. It is a direct appeal to decades of research data.
Meanwhile you ignored the main point of the post of which you will never understand.
Data is just data, until it is interpreted.
Among his many other mental shortcomings, MGC does not know what an appeal to authority is.
PS: The data shows a slow irregular warming since around 1850, which was 100 years before CO2 levels started increasing dramatically.
The data also doesn’t show what caused the warming.
The data also shows 4 or 5 warming intervals since the end of the Holocene Optimum.
The data also shows that all of the warming intervals and the Holocene Optimum were warmer than it is today.
Uh, no, it is MarkW (and the author of this piece) who do not understand what an appeal to authority is.
An appeal to authority is to merely accept the opinion of an expert without regard to any supporting data. In this case, there is a plethora of supporting data.
re: “The data also doesn’t show what caused the warming.”
False. As usual. There are many pieces of data pointing to increasing greenhouse gas effect as the cause of the current warming while also demonstrating why other influences cannot be the cause.
For example, more warming at night than during the day demonstrates that an increase of solar irradiance is not the cause.
The fact that the oceans are warming along with the air demonstrates that it is not a net release of heat from the oceans that is warming the air.
On the other hand, the fact that the lower atmosphere is warming but the stratosphere is cooling is a clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas influence.
The fact that there is more warming at night than during the day is also a clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas influence.
The fact that there is more warming at higher arctic latitudes than at the equator is another clear fingerprint of greenhouse gas influence (in fact, it was predicted 125 years ago that this would occur due to greenhouse gas warming).
Data: No significant CO2 increases and rising global temperatures in the early 20th Century. Rising CO2 and global temperatures in the late 20th Century. Rising CO2 and insignificant temperature increases in the 21st Century. Explain the data, MGC.
Another typical “focus on the noise, miss the forest for the trees” type of observation.
For a more rational perspective, see attached. Not to mention that the claim “Rising CO2 and insignificant temperature increases in the 21st Century” is, of course, false.
These kinds of ankle biting “objections” posted here by Dave Fair are why so-called “skeptics” are not taken seriously by the worldwide scientific community,
If you don’t see trees then how do you know there is a forest to see?
You didn’t answer the question, MGC. And correlation doesn’t prove causation.
“The American Meteorological Society (AMS) Council adopted a special statement on 8 July 2022 in response to the Supreme Court decision West Virginia vs. EPA”
I think both the AMS and Mr.Caiazza missed the real issue in W.Va. v. EPA. Whether or not any of the scientific statements or the supposed policy responses in the AMS statement are correct, SCOTUS did not rule on any of them.
What the Court said is that the EPA, being an arm of the Executive branch of the Federal government, has only the authority delegated to it by Congress. The Court further held that the EPA had over steeped its authority in promulgating its regulatory plan, and that it was up to Congress to authorize such a plan, not the EPA or the President.
Folks: the case was about who and how not what nor why.
The hysterics should breathe into a paper bag for a awhile. They should than gather their arguments and make them to Congress and the American people.
Note to the AMS: Because I said so is only a winning tactic when debating toddlers. Using it on adults invites derision, not acceptance.
I don’t disagree with you at all about the decision. My beef was with AMS ignoring that EPA never had the authority to regulate CO2 as they did and then went on to expound arguments that deserve derision.
As a classic example of fear porn it is much to be admired; clearly aimed at the untutored masses.
I have a question about heat pumps. The UK government are attempting to get everyone to get rid of their gas boilers and move to Heat Pumps (or the perpetual fuel of the future-hydrogen).
They want all old houses fitted with a heat pump pumping warm water round a radiator system.
Do any of you know if this has been successfully implemented on a large scale?
Generally I associate heat pumps with ducted air or underfloor heating.
Thanks.
‘Do any of you know if this has been successfully implemented on a large scale?’
No chance, I’m afraid, Beagle. If these things had been demonstrated to work effectively on even a small community-wide scale anywhere in the world, I think it is certain we would all have heard about it by now. In fact, I think we would all be having such undeniable real-world proof of the viability of the idea thrust into our faces night and day by the lefty-green MSM, so as to make a success of the Net Zero project as swiftly as possible. But all that can be heard about it from the normally-voluble green lobby inside and outside the British government is a deafening silence.
They work great until you really need them and then not so much. They are efficient because they move energy around and when it is really cold there is no heat to move. So you either have to have supplement resistance type heating with your heat pump or you have to upgrade the building shell with more insulation, eliminating of air leaks, install an air exchanger because you eliminated the leaks, and improve your window treatments. Proponents claim that they are cheaper and safer but don’t mention that the data in the US don’t show that they are cheaper than a high-efficiency gas furnace or explain what is supposed to happen when the power goes out. I addressed these points in my comments on the NY climate act plan here https://seam.ly/y4MHcsCy
Weather guessers still often can’t say if it will rain tomorrow, or not. They just say it’s a 50% chance (for instance) – which is useless for most purposes.
The AMS should realize that weather is made up of highly chaotic processes that Man has little to no influence over, and that climate has varied over time in ways we still do not completely understand. The AMS claims to rely on science, but they push the climate scam – shame on them!
“As a result, reducing greenhouse gas emissions can increase climate security, national security, the well-being of biological systems, and economic vitality.”
I’d sure love to find out how eliminating fossil fuels can increase national security. I imagine the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Space Force and Coast Guard would as well.
As for the AMS, it looks like Robert Conquest’s Second Law strikes again, i.e., Any organization not explicitly right-wing sooner or later becomes left-wing.
Regaining the energy independence we had under Trump would increase national security, but none of the alarmists are willing to listen to that argument.
“Global climate changes occurring now are larger and faster than any humanity is known to have endured since our societal transition to agriculture.”
Talk about a non-sequitur. Just because we transitioned to agriculture, an extremely short time geologically, no climate anywhere should ever change again?
Another group of socialists are upset that the Supreme Court follows the constitution rather than the latest bleatings of scientific illiterates.
Other than getting the words spelled right, there was nothing accurate in any of the claims made by the AMS.
Perhaps since the invention of agriculture, but not larger or faster than humanity has known, since humans were around at the end of the last glaciation. What we are experiencing is just a continuation of what started more than 12,000 years ago.
On June 30, at the invitation of the AMS, I sent the AMS a short article for its CCM newsletter (since I am an AMS CCM). Here’s what I wrote:
My December 2021 publication, The Impact of human CO2 on atmospheric CO2, uses IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) data to calculate the level of human CO2 in the atmosphere today is about 33 ppm and the level of natural CO2 is about 380 ppm, making human CO2 about 8% and natural CO2 about 92% of today’s atmospheric CO2.
Yet, the IPCC says natural CO2 stayed constant at about 280 ppm after 1750 and human CO2 caused all the CO2 increase above 280 ppm, making human CO2 about 32% of the CO2 in the atmosphere today.
Here is the AMS official reply:
From: Papa, Brian xxxx@ametsoc.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022, 1:15 PM
To: Edwin Berry xx@xxxx.com
Cc: Savoie, Kelly xxxx@ametsoc.org
Subject: Re: CCM newsletter
Dr. Berry,
Kelly shared your request with me and other senior AMS staff. Following guidance from AMS Council and referencing AMS’s statement on climate change, it would not be appropriate to feature your article in the CCM newsletter.
Regards,
Brian
Brian Papa, PMP
Associate Executive Director
American Meteorological Society
617.226.xxxx
So, the AMS does not recognize and will not let its CCM’s discuss with each other any peer-reviewed professional publication that CONFLICTS with the AMS Statement on Climate Change.
The AMS, once upon a time a scientific organization, now prevents any communication that contradicts its Statement on Climate Change.
Ed
[personal emails and phone numbers removed -mod]
They can’t stand the truth.
I used to be a CCM too. This is another example why they deserve derision,
Was the membership polled concerning this statement purporting to be the sentiment of the membership as a whole? The Society as a whole is not the administrators/politicians running the day-to-day functioning of the business of the Society, separate from the science as practiced by the membership.
The AMS did not poll its membership on its climate policy. In fact, I can’t remember any occasion where AMS polled all its membership.
One more group I can add to those I don’t pay attention to. Nothing more than bumper sticker slogans and utopian pipe dreams. No science, no evidence and more importantly nothing of substance. Yawn, next story.
The problem is that far too many DO pay attention and take them seriously.
No mention of nuclear in their “easy solution”.
What is easily solvable is that whoever wrote this has an IQ lower than their shoe size.
And a coefficient of honesty even less.
When good people with integrity abandon professional societies, these societies can claim consensus. Challenge within evaporates. The AMS is but one example of this happening. And corrupt agencies like the EPA relish having the authority of these societies to prop up their agenda, in the case of the EPA, the Endangerment Finding. We need fighters within.
The death of a science due to politicization is analogous to a caterpillar being parasitized by the injected eggs of an ichneumon wasp. The eggs hatch into larvae which eat the caterpillar from the inside, hollowing it out. Eventually only the dead husk of the caterpillar remains but the multiple offspring of the ichneumon hatch forth into the world.
Thus what was once climate science now only has the appearance of a science from the outside; but it is full of larvae of political activists which are busy destroying the functional and living elements of the science. Essential foundations such as climate records, and even logical structures such as falsifiability and the null hypothesis, are being destroyed. Geological climate reconstructions are being magicked into conformity with pre-ordained CO2 dogma. Soon all that will be left are the names and logos of scientific societies and journals and universities, but no science, only activists.
And this has not happened only to climate science. It happened previously to radiation biology when it was decreed that the science must serve the political function of shutting down the nuclear industry. This was to be achieved by inflating the dangers of ionizing radiation and birthing the corrosive fiction of the linear no-threshold radiation carcinogenesis (or mutagenesis) hypothesis-fact. This burdens the nuclear industry with needless and costly regulations and redundant measures, renders politically impossible the disposal of nuclear waste and allows activists to say with affected innocence “nuclear is interesting – but way too expensive”.
Now this ichneumon parasitization is being injected into another science – biological evolution. Ironically the arguments of creationism are being turned against classical Darwinian evolution not by bible-belt evangelicals, but by (equally religious) scientists concerned about the political correctness of evolution. The language and paradigm of life from natural selection and sexual reproduction are an awkward fit with current emerging political narratives, particularly that concerning gender, trans-gender and sexual orientation. The question for instance of what – if anything – is a woman, or a man?
So the new synthesis brings in a crowded and confused narrative of apparently new (but generally not new) ideas and mechanisms, such as epigenetics and statistical models of group selection. By the familiar smoke-and-mirrors wave of a wand, these new arguments sufficiently confuse the evolutionary and selective basis of living organisms to allow activists to effectively deny the need to acknowledge biology in political decisions, definitions and power structures.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis
So science after science is being hollowed out by the ichneumon larvae of political activism. Any science that causes any kind of obstruction to the advancement of the progressive political empire must be wasp-injected in this manner. More and more, science is servile to politics. As Russell Brand puts it so well – “don’t follow the science because the science only follows the money”. Science must be shaped to serve and not oppose new political mandates. And they’ve now got an efficient mechanism of changing science from the inside. Ironically it borrows from the same nature whose truths it so fears – the subversive, deadly genius of the ichneumon wasp.
“Multiple independent lines of scientific evidence confirm that people bear responsibility.”
For 40 years I’ve heard these charlatans always spew out that the evidence is overwhelming. But I’m still awaiting the very first time they ever provide any of this evidence. Apparently, leftists think that just the act of claiming something is all the evidence required.
Prophets with the claim: “Repent! The end is near!” have been with us throughout recorded history and probably before. Their predictions have yet to come to fruition.
spren says: “I’m still awaiting the very first time they ever provide any of this evidence”
Obviously you’ve never looked. “Skeptics” like spren think that if they don’t look, the evidence “doesn’t exist”.