by Judith Curry
Human induced climate change requires urgent action. – AGU
The AGU has just published its new Statement on Climate Change (via a tweet from Gavin Schmidt), with a press release. The press release describes the process and their policy on such statements.
“AGU has a responsibility to help policy makers and the public understand the impacts our science can have on public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security,” said Gerald North, chair of AGU’s Climate Change Position Statement Review Panel. “Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years, it was vitally important that AGU update its position statement. The new statement is more reflective of the current state of scientific knowledge. It also calls greater attention to the specific societal impacts we face and actions that can diminish the threat.”
It also lists the names of the panel that wrote the statement:
- Amy Clement, Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami
- John Farrington, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute
- Susan Joy Hassol, Climate Communication
- Robert Hirsch, U.S. Geological Survey
- Peter Huybers, Harvard University
- Peter Lemke, Alfred Wegener Institute
- Gerald North, Texas A&M University (panel chair)
- Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
- Roger Pielke Sr., Colorado State University
- Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
- Gavin Schmidt, Goddard Institute for Space Studies, NASA
- Leonard A. Smith, London School of Economics
- Eric Sundquist, U.S. Geological Survey
- Pieter Tans, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
AGU Statement
Here is the complete text of the statement:
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.
“Human activities are changing Earth’s climate. At the global level, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases have increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution. Fossil fuel burning dominates this increase. Human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsible for most of the observed global average surface warming of roughly 0.8°C (1.5°F) over the past 140 years. Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia.
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor; they document decreases in the extent of mountain glaciers, snow cover, permafrost, and Arctic sea ice. These changes are broadly consistent with long-understood physics and predictions of how the climate system is expected to respond to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. The changes are inconsistent with explanations of climate change that rely on known natural influences.
Climate models predict that global temperatures will continue to rise, with the amount of warming primarily determined by the level of emissions. Higher emissions of greenhouse gases will lead to larger warming, and greater risks to society and ecosystems. Some additional warming is unavoidable due to past emissions.
Climate change is not expected to be uniform over space or time. Deforestation, urbanization, and particulate pollution can have complex geographical, seasonal, and longer-term effects on temperature, precipitation, and cloud properties. In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.
In the current climate, weather experienced at a given location or region varies from year to year; in a changing climate, both the nature of that variability and the basic patterns of weather experienced can change, sometimes in counterintuitive ways — some areas may experience cooling, for instance. This raises no challenge to the reality of human-induced climate change.
Impacts harmful to society, including increased extremes of heat, precipitation, and coastal high water are currently being experienced, and are projected to increase. Other projected outcomes involve threats to public health, water availability, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), and coastal infrastructure, though some benefits may be seen at some times and places. Biodiversity loss is expected to accelerate due to both climate change and acidification of the oceans, which is a direct result of increasing carbon dioxide levels.
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
Actions that could diminish the threats posed by climate change to society and ecosystems include substantial emissions cuts to reduce the magnitude of climate change, as well as preparing for changes that are now unavoidable. The community of scientists has responsibilities to improve overall understanding of climate change and its impacts. Improvements will come from pursuing the research needed to understand climate change, working with stakeholders to identify relevant information, and conveying understanding clearly and accurately, both to decision makers and to the general public.”
Adopted by the American Geophysical Union December 2003; Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007, February 2012, August 2013.
Roger Pielke Sr
Roger Pielke Sr is a dissenting voice on the panel that wrote the statement. He sent me the following essay in response to the AGU statement.
Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The AGU Community Has The Responsibility To Accurately Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain [May 10 2013]
By Roger A. Pielke Sr.
I served on the AGU Panel to draft the updated Position Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate”. We were charged by the AGU to provide
“…..an up-to-date statement [that] will assure that AGU members, the public, and policy makers have a more current point of reference for discussion of climate change science that is intrinsically relevant to national and international policy.”
In my view, this means we were tasked to report on the most important aspects of climate change. This was incompletely done in the Statement, where they inaccurately, in my view, discuss a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Committee, under the direction of Jerry North, with the report writing subgroup led by Susan Hassol, was clearly motivated to produce a Statement of this one particular view. Under his leadership, other views were never given an adequate opportunity to be discussed.
The Committee, instead of presenting the actual state of scientific understanding on the issue of climate change, used the following approach, as summarized in my son’s book “The Honest Broker”
Scientific activity is diverse enough to provide information that can be used to support different perspectives on any topic … [to] decide the course of action and then find information to back it up is a common practice across the political spectrum. “
The Committee leadership already had a course of action in mind even when we were appointed.
I presented to the Committee what I have concluded is a more scientifically robust Statement. I started from their Statement, and accepted what I could, as well as sought to remain close to their length.
I sought to answer the following questions, which the Statement accepted by the Committee incompletely does and/or does not address at all.
1. What is the definition of climate and climate change?
2. What are the societally and environmentally important climate metrics (e.g. a global average surface temperature trend; changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns over multi-year time periods; sea level rise, trends in extreme weather etc)?
3. What are the main human and natural climate forcings?
4. What is the observational evidence for climate change?
5. What is the skill of the global and regional climate model projections
(predictions) of changes in these metrics on multi-decadal time scales?
6. What are recommended pathways forward to reduce the risk from climate,
including changes in climate over time?
My proposed text of a more balanced Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate” is
Humanity Has A Significant Effect on Climate – The Scientific Community Has The Responsibility To Communicate The Current Understanding Of What is Certain And What Remains Uncertain
Climate is defined here as the statistical description of all the elements in the climate system (including the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere), including both the mean state and any variations over time. Climate change is defined as a shift in the statistical description of climate. Climate change includes radiative, biophysical, biogeochemical and biogeographic effects. “Human-caused climate change” is a change resulting from one or more of the human climate forcings.
The natural Earth’s climate system, even in the absence of humans, is nonlinear in which forcings and response are not necessarily proportional; thus change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual. Climate has always changed over time. As Earth’s population has grown, however, human climate forcings have become significant on the local, regional and global scales. These human forcings include greenhouse gas emissions (e.g. CO2, methane, CFCs), aerosol emissions and deposition [e.g., black carbon (soot), sulfates, and reactive nitrogen], and changes in land use and land cover. A number of these forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation. Most, if not all, of these human radiative, biophysical, biogeochemical and biogeographic influences on regional and global climate will continue to be of concern during the coming decades. Natural climate forcings and feedbacks will also continue to be major effects on this time period.
With respect to human climate forcings, among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system. While the greenhouse and aerosol emissions, in particular, have resulted in changes to the global average radiative forcings, the use of a global averaged radiative forcing or a global average surface temperature are grossly inadequate metrics to diagnose such effects as circulation changes on multi-decadal time scales. It is these regional scale atmospheric and ocean circulations that have the dominant effect on societally and environmentally important weather events such as droughts, floods, tropical cyclones, etc and any possible alteration by human climate forcings is a major concern.
It is also important to recognize that changes in the global radiative forcings (global warming or cooling) represent only a subset of climate change. The ocean is the component of the climate system that is best suited for quantifying climate system heat change. There are major unresolved issues concerning the ability of a global average surface temperature trend to accurately measure climate system heat changes. “Global Warming” can be much more accurately monitored in terms of an increase in the global annual average heat content measured in Joules.
Scientific confidence of the occurrence of climate change include, for example, that over at least the last 50 years there have been increases in the atmospheric concentration of CO2; increased nitrogen and soot (black carbon) deposition; changes in the surface heat and moisture fluxes over land; increases in lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures and ocean heat content; the elevation of sea level; and a large decrease in summer Arctic sea ice coverage and a modest increase in Antarctic sea ice coverage. Over the last ten years, lower tropospheric and upper ocean temperatures increases, however, have been less than in the preceding years, for reasons that are actively being debated.
These climate changes are a result of human and natural climate forcings and feedbacks – the relative role of each in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features, and even the global annual average radiative forcing, however, is still uncertain. We do know that added carbon dioxide is the largest human-caused, and black carbon the second largest positive annual, global-averaged radiative forcing, while sulfates are among the largest human-caused negative annual, global-averaged radiative forcing. The importance of decadal and longer variations in natural annual, global-averaged radiative forcing (e.g. due to solar, and from internal natural climate feedbacks, such as from cloudiness), however, remains uncertain.
Climate models, unfortunately, are still unable to provide skillful predictions of changes in regional climate statistics on multi-decadal time scales at the detail desired by the impacts communities. Even on the global scale, the annual, global-averaged radiative forcing predicted by the models is significantly greater than has been observed based on the accumulation of Joules in the climate system. The summer arctic sea ice extent, in contrast, has been significantly under predicted by the models, while the summer Antarctic sea ice extent increase has been missed by the models. Also attribution of specific extreme weather events to multi-decadal changes in climate has not yet been shown, and is likely not even possible.
We recommend a way forward that promotes effective policy decisions even with these uncertainties. The Statement on Climate Change that was adopted by the majority on the Committee, unfortunately, does not provide an accurate summary of our understanding of climate change issues, and, thus, is not an effective policy framework to reduce risks from the climate system.
The effective use of mitigation and adaption to reduce the risk to water resources, food, energy, human health and well-being, and ecosystem function from climate (including changes in the climate system) requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach. Attempts to significantly influence climate impacts based on just controlling CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases emissions is an inadequate and incomplete policy for this purpose.The goal should be to seek politically and technologically practical ways (with minimal cost and maximum benefit) to reduce the vulnerability of the environment and society to the entire spectrum of human-caused and natural risks including those from climate, but also from all other environmental and social threats.
JC comments
Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement,since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.
That said, I will once again question why AGU or any other professional society is issuing statements on this topic. IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said (and is expected to say in the AR5; we will see).
What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me. It is clear that not even the 15 AGU members set to write this statement agreed, since one of their members (Pielke) has written a dissenting statement. The words ‘uncertainty’ or ‘debate’ are not used in the statement, leaving no wiggle room for them to pretend that this statement accounts for the range of perspectives in the AGU (or even within the writing committee), or the uncertainties.
If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection.
I am AGU member too. I wish if there was some way to express my support for Pielke Sr.’s version of the AGU statement.
you could resign – others have. depending how you feel about it..
I was a member of AGU, ACS, APS, etc., and a reviewer for mainstream papers before realizing something is basically wrong in science.
I respect our hostess for also being concerned that the search for truth has been seriously compromised.
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Resign. It’s a simple and effective way to draw attention to the discontent you have with the AGU, and if sufficient numbers were to resign perhaps the leadership would get the point that they have no business engaging in such advocacy. These sentiments include Dr. Curry as well. The more renowned the personality, the more bang for the buck (so to speak).
Farm Bureau Fires Back Against Climate Bill’s ‘Power Grab’
Bottom line (my emphasis):
“The Farm Bureau has been outspoken in decrying the legislation under consideration in the House and Senate, saying it will do little to mitigate climate change and raise costs for farmers.”
The Farm Bureau 6 million members strong and a powerful lobby. I agree. Nothing the United States can do to restrict CO2 emission will mitigate climate change enough to make any difference. It will just make almost everything produced by the US more expensive including food produced by American farmers. Phuck that. I’m with the Farm Bureau.
For those AGU members who don’t agree with the usual suspects in the climate change committee I suggest sending a tax-deductable donation to the Farm Bureau in an amount equal to your AGU member dues and write to the AGU climate change committee to tell them their advocacy caused you to donate the Farm Bureau.
The release of the AGU paper without agreement of its membership gives the best opportunity for skeptical scientists to assert themselves.Act now and do it with legal advice.Do not resign from AGU but encourage other skeptical scientists to join pronto.Judith Curry and Pielke Senior should circulate a dissenting motion and request a general vote of all membership
If AGU do not allow your actions to proceed take them to court
Publicise your position and develop a plan to go with this.
The timing for this to occur is now in view of warm in pausing and forthcoming report.
I am a strategic planner used to politics and with many wins under my belt. I would be willing to kick off a fund with a donation to support this action.Please take my recommendation seriously as I am good at timing and the timing is perfect.
If members of AGU don’t protest such a shabby statement and reject what has been produced in their name all is lost. They should be demanding that high sciencetific standards have to apply to all of AGU’s activities and political approaches have to banned. The same holds for all other scientific societies such as the APS, ACS and AAAS. The absolute nonsense the new editor of Science published as her editorial is simply shameful.
No, what is shameful is the 3%, dug in with the proposition that there is no problem. Dangerous too.
3% of the members of the AGU and AMS weren’t sure there had even been warming as of 2007 according to this poll. I suppose 5 years of talking about the pause may have changed the results of this poll to a more alarmist view but for some reason I doubt it.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
Surly not the infamous and worthless 97% claim again , is there no original or even valid claims that can be made for this consensus?
The AGU probably has a lot of fossil fuel people. I am sure they can rally together at least.
The fossil fuel geologists at the minimum
You can see why I have tried to propagate the term Urgent Mitigationism to describe the official “do something now” point of view. They put “urgent” right into their headline.
It’s interesting that we don’t see that many comparable “party-line” policy gestures from other professional scientific organizations. The American Economic Association generally avoids taking positions on policy questions, even when 80-90+% of its members agree on an issue (e.g. free trade or rent control).
On the other hand, the American Nuclear Society does list about 50 position statements on their website; those I’ve sampled are predictably pro-nuclear-energy, but are full of precise quantitative statements. They are a group representing engineers whose lives and careers are devoted to nuclear power and associated technologies, so perhaps their high level of position-taking is more understandable.
Toot, toot, clang, clang, whooooo’t, whooooo’t, All Aboard!; the train is leaving the station. Passengers will please refrain from noting temperature while it remains so sadly static.
============
Why don’t you resign?
” Because natural processes cannot quickly remove some of these gases (notably carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere, our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia”
Complete and utter tosh, it appears that they have given up on science.
Doc, you write “Complete and utter tosh, it appears that they have given up on science.”
I am sure you are correct. However, I am equally sure that there is a peer (pal) reviewed article in a prestigeous scientific journal, which claims that the AGW is correct. That is the trouble debating the warmists. Whatever aspect of CAGW is discussed, there is a pal reviewed article claiming that the warmists are correct. There are, for exazmple, several articles claiming that CAGW causes Arcitc sea ice extent to decrease, while at the same time, causes Antractic sea ice extent to increase.
The only thing the warmists do not control is the future empirical data; they can torture the past data to “confess” (Ronald Coase). It is this future empirical data which will prove us skeptics/deniers are absolutely correct.
The AGU ethics committee has taken no action on Gleick and the AGU continues to give him airtime. Therefore the entire AGU is complicit:
Quoting Megan McArdle:
The downward spiral of once what was Science continues.
Go Bully Gleick, Go!
============
Absolute tosh!
When Science achieves Consensus it is no longer Science.
Real Science is and must be always Skeptical.
HAP, science has achieved consensus on many scientific subjects, yet those subjects are still considered part of science. Your statement is totally wrong… Not even close. So the problem is not that science achieves consensus at times, the problem is when there is a drive to promote a false consensus. The problem is when consensus is used as a means to stifle debate. Scientific consensus happens and it does not mean the consensus renders the subject non scientific at that point. It’s true science is a skeptical type of behavior, but some things we have learned through science we need not be too skeptical about any longer. We are not perpetually stuck at the beginning of scientific knowledge. Quit making huge blanket statements that can’t be true.
Science is not done by consensus, but the existence of a consensus is a strong sign of a position’s validity.
Eli, existence of a consensus could also be a sign of shared theology, alignment with funding source interests, professional aspirations, attractive conference opportunities, etc.
“…the existence of a consensus is a strong sign of a position’s validity.”
So popularity strongly indicates validity. Now I understand what high school social dynamics was all about…
Science did not spiral downward. Climate People spiraled out of Science.
Science did not spiral downward. Climate People spiraled out of Science.
This was worth repeating.
+100
Herman Alexander Pope | August 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Reply
“Science did not spiral downward. Climate People spiraled out of Science.”
This is not skeptical thinking.
Herman Alexander Pope | August 5, 2013 at 7:58 pm | Reply
“Science did not spiral downward. Climate People spiraled out of Science.”
This is not skeptical thinking.
This was worth repeating.
Spirals are repeating ’til they aren’t.
=========================
…till they spiral out of control.
(The much ballyhooed “death spiral” is actually of climate science, rather than Arctic sea ice).
Max
“What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me.”
Hi Judith, I can certainly understand why it would. Are you considering issuing a statement in that regard, something to distance yourself from what many see as an inappropriate “call to action”. I understand and appreciate that you don’t see this as your role generally speaking, issuing statement, writing editorials etc. And that’s certainly served you well in enhancing your reputation as an exceedingly thoughtful scientist and academic who operates above the fray. But this strikes me as an exception since it effects you personally.
sorry “affects.”
Similar issues caused Nobel prize winner Gaiever to resign from the APS in 2011. Not sure that is the most effective push back for you and Dr. Pielke. Giving his excellent essay above more voice, perhaps not only here, might be more effective.
How saddening to see supposed trustworthy scientific organizations succumb to political correctness. AGU, APS, Royal Society (UK), AAAS (NRC and Science),… The list of fallen former luminaries seems endless. Does not bode well for future science funding if those of us with libertarian tendencies can get to the brakes on wanton government spending of borrowed ‘fantasy’ dollars on political chimeras.
Thanks for sharing this, which is obviously somewhat personally distressing.
Highest regards to an honest climate scientist.
On the word of no one and with an eye on Nature.
===========
One thing we can count on is that “skeptics” will never make an “appeal to authority.”
Oh.
Wait…
Joshua seems to ignore that the appeal to authority is not necessarily a fallacious argument. Jeezhua. I can’t wait for more such.
Oh, wait.
==============
I came late to the ripostes. Joshua, how does citing a simple objective fact equate to an appeal to authority not made, nor intended? Huh?
You, sir, have some significant problems with the discipline that used to be called rhetoric. So severe that further engagement is likely useless.
Auf Wiedersehen.
Right. You first intended to describe him by his height and weight. Then you considered eye color and hair color. Then you considered talking about whether he is right-handed or left-handed. But in the end you just chose his status as Nobel winner. Purely random, I’m sure. No appeal to authority there.
Sorry, sir, that I don’t meet your rhetorical standards. And I’m sure that’s why you won’t continue to engage. Not wanting to be accountable for your own rhetoric has nothing to do with it.
Yup.
Hi Kim, I’ve seen old josh make that same mistake many times. I’ve pointed it out to him as well, but guess he’s not interested. He’s having too much fun sneering and showing everyone how oh so superior he is, especially to Judith, whose pocketbook he’s not fit to carry.
An appeal to authority is often legitimate, which is really only common sense. For it to be illegitimate, it must be used fallaciously.
From wik…
“Fallacious examples of using the appeal include:
cases where the authority is not a subject-matter expert
cases where there is no consensus among experts in the subject matter
any appeal to authority used in the context of deductive reasoning.
[1][2][3]
In the context of deductive arguments, the appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, though it can be properly used in the context of inductive reasoning. It is deductively fallacious because, while sound deductive arguments are necessarily true, authorities are not necessarily correct about judgments related to their field of expertise. Though reliable authorities are correct in judgments related to their area of expertise more often than laypersons, they can still come to the wrong judgments through error, bias or dishonesty. Thus, the appeal to authority is at best a probabilistic rather than an absolute argument for establishing facts.
Gee, now where have I seen that before? I know I’ve seen it somewhere, if I could just figure out whe…..
Oh.
Wait.
Here it is:
Fire up that hot water heater now, PG. You’ve got a few showers in your future. After all, looks like you’ve “accidentally” read at least a couple more of my comments.
Too funny.
Gaiever did not “make an appeal to authority”.
He simply resigned from the APS in protest of its non-scientific, political position on AGW.
This is one method of expressing protest.
Pielke has chosen another – to simply give his own statement in protest of the obviously political but non-scientific AGU statement.
It’s called “having a dissenting view” (i.e. NOT agreeing with the politically forced “consensus”).
Max
Non-sequitur much?
It should not take the place of debate is the point Joshua. It should not be used to prevent debate in place of an argument. But there is nothing wrong with saying, “hey this guy is at Harvard in the Physics Dept.” or “that guy is a poet, not a scientist” but then you also address their arguments.
I completely agree, Bill. The problem I’m addressing is how often times some “skeptics” are hypocritical in their approach to the significance of “authority.”
Would anyone like quotes with that?
I could try to supersize them if there’s the desire.
Data is the authority; confirmation is agreement between hypothesis and data.
Actually, kim, my point is that appealing to authority is often not fallacious, but that “skeptics” ignore that distinction on a regular basis; it seems that the working theory is that appealing to authority is never fallacious when they do so and always fallacious when “realists” do so.
I think that “authority,” as in credentialed expertise, should usually (if not always) be considered evidence to go into the hopper, and it should rarely (never?) be considered dispositive.
I think that winning a Nobel does convey some authority which is worthy of note – and obviously so does Rud or he wouldn’t have mentioned it, but I’d be willing to bet that he’d be among the fist to cry “appeal to authority” if he saw a “realist” make the same sort of attribution.
Everything Joshua can teach me I already learned in Kindergarten.
=========
“I think that winning a Nobel does convey some authority which is worthy of note”
Kissinger
Arafat
Barack Obama
the European Union
the IPCC
Mann?
My Kingergarten teacher won the Nobel Prize. Or married a basketball player. Sumpin’ like that.
==================
Ah yes:
Tom L. sighs and gawks at
The Middle Kingdom.
Who’d a thunk Mao’s billion wouldn’t
Strike like Klingons?
=============
Hi Josh, Guess you were paying attention after all, Good man,
Supersize David Wojick:
http://judithcurry.com/2012/05/24/heartburn-at-heartland/#comment-203060
The Greens. Just a bunch of irrationals.
This is true, so it can’t be an ad hominem.
Kindergarten kim? Ouch!
The unfortunate fact is that the most capable and objective individuals tend to stick to doing science, while others advance their careers by playing the politics of the”leadership” game. AGU statement, whch scarcely recognizes how little is indubitably known about the functioning of Earth’s highly complex climate system and that system’s prior states, is an example of that sad truth. Agenda-driven mankind has likely had more effect upon available climate data than upon climate itself.
John S., I have heard that sentiment expressed about academic progress in a different way; It isn’t only cream that floats.
Roger Pielke Sr’s statement seems reasonable and accurate. I thank him for issuing such a statement on a timely basis.
It is also important that people such as Judith voice their opinions publically (as she has done) or politicians who advocate in support of Hansen’s policies will claim that to disagree is being anti science.
AGU ~61,000 members
“Human induced climate change requires urgent action”
Farm Bureau ~ 6,000,000 members
Legislation “will do little to mitigate climate change and raise costs for farmers.”
CO2 increases crop yields. See UN Study, Blick 2009, and CO2Science
The Farm Bureau has a much better grasp of climate science as summarized by Roger Pielke Sr.
I will tell my Rep & Senators to vote with the Farm Bureau.
Agreed, Rob, it is something that all policy-makers should see as an indication of the state of play of climate science.
Rob,
I agree. I commend Judith for stating her position so strongly and publicly.
AGU Members
Is it possible to for members to propose and second a motion for the general assembly to vote on to the effect:
I meant MINORITY climate statement by R. Pielke Sr.
AGU Members
Is it possible to for members to propose and second a motion for the general assembly to vote on to the effect:
That vote would be interesting. How does the AGU defend not having such a vote?
For some AGU members, this appears to be an “I’m Spartacus” moment. Roger’s version at least admits ” Known Unknowns ” which is a good start.
North to Alaska
The juggernaut fix is in.
Step out of the way
Or you’ll get the Hassolin’.
================
juggernaut
n.
Something, such as a belief or institution, that elicits blind and destructive devotion or to which people are ruthlessly sacrificed.
An overwhelming, advancing force that crushes or seems to crush everything in its path.
Used as a title for the Hindu deity Krishna.
jagannth (title of Krishna, lord of the world)- jagat (moving)
“from the fact that worshipers have thrown themselves under the wheels of a huge car or wagon on which the idol of Krishna was drawn in an annual procession at Puri in east-central India”.
Juggernaut / Jagannath – Imposing – but unable to move by itself. Its priests rely on the religious persuasion of true believers.
India is a vast and complex society which encompasses great wisdom and far more greater nonsense. In the West, we seem to be expanding the latter rather than the former. Pielke Senior provides a corrective.
Judith, you write “What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me.”
I understand the predicament that you are in, but unfortunately for yourself, you are not a minor player on the problem of CAGW. I dont think anyone can advise you what to do; only you can decide how best you should precede. But I feel the time is coming when, for your own personal integrity, you will need to do something drastic.
The 2:00 AM call is not being answered. Poison Control has OD’ed on COOl-aid. Where’s the Code Blue button?
=======================
Catastrophic is not a defined quantity and therefore cannot be measured by physics, therefore it appears to be the same as zero which means there is no such thing as CAGW. “Skeptics” need to define and quantify what catastrophic is and then need to show how it can be measured by physics if they expect the average person to agree to the concept of CAGW.
The suggestion that “catastrophism” is a straw man is almost an encouraging sign, because it implies a desire to disassociate from the doomsayers and cozy up to the lukewarmers (loosely defined). Why is that so hard to do forthrightly?
When Lovelock went from doom and gloom to “I exaggerated,” the response from the politically connected warmistas was to instantly demote him to crackpot, and pretend he had always been a crackpot, simply ignoring his expertise on aerosols and his previous contribution to the building of an IPCC consensus. Wow.
Lovelock will be remembered as a great scientist. Some of his ideas are a little goofy. Sometimes he was wrong. Sometimes he exaggerated. But when it mattered, he stood up and told the truth. That’s the highest standard of all, and the sine qua non of science.
There’s a lesson there for AGU members.
John Carpenter August 5, 2013 at 5:31 pm: “Catastrophic is not a defined quantity”
“Catastrophic” is loss of funding. (Just kidding.)
Snow White and the thirteen dwarves.
========================
“Snow White and the thirteen dwarves.”
Kim you really crack me up sometimes!
Gerald North of the Infamous Congressional Committee. Ben Santer, Sanitizer of Madrid. Gavin Schmidt, Long-Nosed Pinocchio of Progress.
And a cast of literally thousands of critical neurons.
===================
I noticed this in the AGW statement “they document decreases in the extent of …….., and Arctic sea ice.” There is a similar statement in the recent papers by the UK Met. Office, claiming that the decxrease in Arctic sea ice is an indicator of CAGW. Maybe so, maybe not.
But it appears that the data, this year in 2013, is not going according to the warmists plans. Arctic sea ice is not behaving the way it was forecast to behave in 2013. In fact, I suggest that this year the minimum ice extent may be much greater than it has been in recent years. We will know in about 6 weeks. I cannot predict the future, but I suggest Arctic sea ice is a Sword of Damocles hanging over the AGU statement. It could be as early as next year, or maybe 2015, when Arctic sea ice is seen to be increasing, rather than decreasing.
The oceans are warm and the low sea ice extent will keep happening until the oceans cool. The length of this warm period will be similar to the Roman and Medieval Warm periods. After every extreme year, the snowfall is extreme and the next year or several years has less snowfall. The warm periods with high snowfalls must last a good many years to build the ice that will advance later.
Because our understanding of climate change and its impacts on the world around us has advanced so significantly in the last few years
Hold that thought. the model forecasts get worse every year. There something really important that they really don’t understand.
Not having valid models is really strong evidence that their Basic Theory is Very Wrong.
Their understanding has not improved in decades.
Get the models to work and then tell us.
I maintain that each and every model is a separate hypothesis because the input in variables in each must be unique. Each in its own way is an attempt to match past climatic conditions, with the assumption that the future climate will be the same. None in the ensemble has matched climate thus far, therefore each and every hypothesis must be wrong and no theory can be formed.
Not only are temperatures not being predicted correctly, but of course predictions such as the well know tropical hot spot did not come into being.
Well, at least that was the scientific method used in the olden days!!
You are correct; each model is a unique hypothesis and must be accepted or rejected based on its statistically significant ability to forecast. Failure means it should be discarded.
They say:
Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming.
There is no dispute here. There is no dispute here. There is no dispute here. There is no dispute here. There is no dispute here.
Every Warming in the past ten thousand years happened just the same way. They say that this time should have been different and it is not different because of CO2. They never say why this time should have been different. That is because it is the same because what causes it is the same. They really don’t understand what is happening. Their failed forecasts are proof that they really don’t understand what is happening.
We must not let them mess with anything until they understand better.
We should not do anything to fix a problem that is not understood.
“Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming”
They are getting help from the draconians! Wait until we see the satellite images from the 1500’s.
“We should not do anything to fix a problem that is not understood.”
HAP, I don’t know where you come up with these golden nuggets, but sometimes you gotta take a step back from what you write and ponder whether that is really what you meant to say. Do you really believe all problems are understood before we fix them? I thought you were some kind of NASA engineer at one time, is that true? Did you understand every problem before you tried to fix it? What happens when things go wrong during a mission and time is of the essence? Do you not try to fix a problem before its too late based on the best available information? Or do you cross your fingers and hope it all turns out ok? You know the answer.
Citing Hippocrates: First, do no harm,
Any engineer who understands that things have gone wrong and that time is of the essence has more understanding of that set of circumstances than climatologists have demostrated WRT global climate.
“Extensive, independent observations confirm the reality of global warming. These observations show large-scale increases in air and sea temperatures, sea level, and atmospheric water vapor….”
Large scale? Until recently even Gavin Schmidt admitted that whatever warming there might be, it has been “modest.” I suppose on a “scale” measuring hundredths of a degree of change, an increase in a couple tenths over the last 40-50 years could be called “large scale.”
“While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential.”
Uncertainty only as to location, not as to degree? Well, they don’t actually say that do they? Nope, in the best obscurantist fashion they avoided the issue of uncertainty as to the degree of warming as though it doesn’t exist.
And who ever said climate change would ever be, or has ever been, inconsequential?
They have a straw man moving their goal post in this science free PR release.
But I do like the fact that Schmidt is shedding his sheep’s clothing. Not only does he favor government control of the energy economy, but he wants it RIGHT NOW!
“Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes.”
What do we want? Control of the economy!
When do we want it? Now!
sWell, I’m an outsider looking in. I lack the means to properly evaluate the secret magick supercomputer black boxes underlying these repeated, strident, panicky clarion calls to “urgent action”, though I harbor some technical doubts. Likewise, I lack the means to properly evaluate the endless “he said, she said”.
But a trouble is that said “action” almost invariably translates into the real world as “impoverishing and immobilizing people” by driving energy costs (in some combination of currency, queues, and unreliability) skyward. That tends to hit the people who can least afford it the hardest; as opposed to, say, university presidents and high-level bureaucrats who can always let their chauffeurs wait in line. And this, mind you, in a context where “science” can speculate (with large error bars) what the tradeoffs might be, but has nothing whatever to teach about which tradeoff to choose, that being a fairly arbitrary value-judgment.
So I’m left with precious little to go on, and a very strong inclination to apply a social test:
A custom academics and government scientists cling to most tightly is the ritual of rustling up a paper on the computer, eviscerating it of all content to shrink it to the page or two that is all that can possibly fit into a 30-minute talk-and-Q&A “conference” slot, and flying to the other side of the world and back to drone through the resulting valueless “talk”. You’d think we were living in 1400 and it were still impractical to deliver information except by traveling and droning. Or that talk-show hosts of all political stripes hadn’t learned decades ago to cut off instantly and summarily any caller who starts to read from written material.
Oh, and most gallingly of all, these energy-squanderers are the very people who seek to impoverish everyone else – and seemingly, in some cases (I would cite grist.org), lock everyone down (except a professorial/bureaucratic elite like themselves?) within walking distance of their homes.
So my social test is very simple. Let AGU and others providing platforms for these “action” calls exit the travel-agency business once and for all, and close down their “conference” operations. Maybe they could have one every 10 or 20 years in the highly unlikely event something comes up that’s truly impractical to handle via any of the other marvelous means of communication invented in the last century or so.
In other words, to the clarion-callers: get back to me when you do as you say, especially in your official capacity. Meanwhile I hear your words as little more than the all-too-usual “no sacrifice is too great provided only that *someone else* makes it.” And as far as I’m concerned (and as the saying goes) you can take that meme straight to the Devil.
“I lack the means to properly evaluate the secret magick supercomputer black boxes underlying these repeated, strident, panicky clarion calls to “urgent action””
But you have no qualms repeating strident, panicky clarion calls based on black box economic models?
“said “action” almost invariably translates into the real world as “impoverishing and immobilizing people” by driving energy costs (in some combination of currency, queues, and unreliability) skyward.”
The economy is probably more complex than climate. There’s a big uncertainty monster in it. To conclude that action on climate will translate into “impoverishing and immobilizing people”. You’ve made a series of assumptions. Assumptions that I don’t think you can justify given your attack on black box models. I mean what economic model did you use?
Was it the one these guys used?
“The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of “economic chaos” if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that “entire industries could fold” (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to “redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry…, smaller firms going out of business… and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally” (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).”
http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/ozone_skeptics.asp
The AGU has no more credibility than AGW!
Heh, Catastrophic American Geophysical Union, uncaged, unhinged.
==================
and totally untethered.
Unfeathered?
…and flying blind.
I swear I thought turkeys could fly.
=========
Les Nessman
Arthur Carlson.
Less- “Nobody touches my Tear-sheets.”
Andrew
Thanks – memory fades over time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lf3mgmEdfwg
Hmm …mebbe someone’s gonna cook that turkey’s goose.
‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’
You could ask if naturally induced climate change then would’nt need any action?
Natural climate change rocks gently back and forth, with only rare lurches, rare enough we likely do not have to worry and certainly we cannot predict.
Human climate change on the other-hand is certainly listing sharply in a particular direction.
Attention all, lolwot has discovered a metric to distinguish natural climate change from human climate change.
================
It’s a matter of magnitude. We have historical data to show us how nature rocks back and forth.
Even the low end predictions of climate sensitivity show human climate change will be greater.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.svg
Yeah, two to four tenths of a degree is greater than any change that could ever be explained by anything other than anthro CO2.
Wrong! Not certainly!!
The “particular direction” [i.e. warmer] may be more good than bad in that the consequences of warming may be good or bad but the consequences of cooling, are definitely bad and we are reducing the risk of cooling. We are reducing the probability, delaying the onset and reducing the magnitude of any cooling event that might otherwise happen.
We are nowhere near certain we are listing sharply nor that the effect of GHG emissions will be significantly damaging.
lolwot
We sure do have past measurements to tell us the relative importance of natural forcing and variability (several degrees C change from Ice Ages to balmy tropical climes) versus anthropogenic forcing (fraction of a degree C).
Nature still has the trump cards, lolwot, despite your anthropophobia.
Max
Ah but look at the rates
Climate models, unfortunately, are still unable to provide skillful predictions of changes in regional climate statistics on multi-decadal time scales at the detail desired by the impacts communities. Even on the global scale, the annual, global-averaged radiative forcing predicted by the models is significantly greater than has been observed based on the accumulation of Joules in the climate system. The summer arctic sea ice extent, in contrast, has been significantly under predicted by the models, while the summer Antarctic sea ice extent increase has been missed by the models. Also attribution of specific extreme weather events to multi-decadal changes in climate has not yet been shown, and is likely not even possible.
So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right. So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right. So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right. So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right. So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right. So, while they show they have nothing right, they still claim they have everything right.
Did I do this for enough years? Likely not but you should get the idea.
I don’t understand the calls here for people to resign. Why not collect scientists who will say that they prefer Pielke Sr.’s statement to the other? They don’t have to agree with everything in it, just be willing to stand up and say, You have no right to speak for me. How many members does AGU have? Is there a way to contact them?
Pielke is 1 out of 15 – hmm, pretty close to 97% agreement! I wonder what a canvass of the whole society would produce?
Are you advocating consensus seeking?
Because if I’ve been reading my skeptical blogs correctly, even if Pielke could make a rousing argument that convinces all the scientists in the world to his point of view, apparently that wouldn’t make his position anymore credible and it would be wrong to tell the public how many scientists agreed,
Lolwot, I personally have no doubt that a considerable majority of AGU members would agree with the official statement. I’d just like to know how much disagreement there is; this seems like a better way to pin that down than most of the silly polls I’ve seen so far. And if there is a solid chunk of disagreeing scientists (let’s say 15% just to pick a number) I do think they would have a right to ask the Union not to speak in their names.
miker613
If an AGU member is in the pay of a political group that wants him/her to agree to a political statement (no matter how absurd) he/she will agree.
Those (like Pielke) that are apparently not afraid of losing funding, will speak their mind honestly.
But that takes courage – and not everyone has that.
Max
I expect they actually do agree with the statement. I see no reason to assume otherwise; lots of people don’t agree with me on every issue under the sun. I don’t see why this should be different. It doesn’t mean that they have personally investigated each of the issues in the statements, though; a lot of scientists will just trust what some other scientist says.
Stork has it right:
Stork, David G. “Letters | MIT Technology Review. MIT News Pg 3” MIT Technology Review: Alumni Letters, June 2013. http://www.technologyreview.com/article/513481/letters/
The letter cites the need for the ethics of rigor, openness, relentless self-criticism, honesty, and reliance on evidence in science.
When a panel signs a statement like this one, it is an undisputed acknowledgement of the weakness of their scientific argument. History tells us that great scientific achievements were delivered by one (1) person and a good logic.
Nabil, you write “a good logic.”
I would prefer “good empirical data”.
Jim Cripwell
Let’s settle for BOTH “good logic backed by good empirical data”.
(The AGU statement is backed by neither.)
Max
Other may have mentioned this but, I think Pielke had ‘more voice’ by not resigning from the panel. The panel also benifited in some ways, by including Pielke, His inclusion broadened the range of members, perhaps in a small way. The dissenting voice approach to position statements.
Gerald North signed this political track and did not dissent, at least in part?
Here is what he told me as my consultant at Enron back in the late 1990s when temperatures were about the same globally as today!
“[A] little warming is not so bad. Glad I have kept my mouth shut on this issue of which I know so little.”
– Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), November 12, 1999.
“I do not like being too public on policy matters. It ain’t my thing.”
– Gerald North (Texas A&M) to Rob Bradley (Enron), October 2, 1998.
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/04/gerald-north-the-non-alarmist-alarmist/
He must have learned that there is not much money for people who are not extreme alarmists.
Enron people were known to lie and cheat. What about Enron’s public policy director? Those quotes aren’t verifiable.
I have the email correspondence–they are verifiable.
Maybe I should post them on a website like I did these Enron memos: http://www.politicalcapitalism.org/enron/
Whatever, you will never be able to shake your association with Enron. You are the rentseeker, and you don’t even know it. Did you know that Dick Cheney’s popularity rose after he shot his hunting buddy? Those are the kind of people you attract with your anti-science, anti-technology, anti-environment stance.
For anyone interested in how the AGU should have proceeded, Bill Hooke (“Living on the Real World”) proposes a more rigorous [and, I believe, better] way for societies to develop these kinds of statements.
I haven’t read any further than this line yet. But, if AGU thinks that is try they should direct their message at the ‘Progressives’ and tel them to stop blocking progress.
What is Gerard North’s and the other panel member’s expertise in ‘public health and safety, economic stability and growth, and national security’?
This is another example of a major scientists body advocating in areas way outside its area of expertise – not knowing what it does not know.
Perhaps it is time to take climate change out of the hands of climate scientists and make them subordinate to economists, lawyers, engineers and diplomats.
Why stop there? The statement continues to pontificate on AGU’s expertise on: public health, agricultural productivity (particularly in low-latitude developing countries), coastal infrastructure, greater risks to society and ecosystems, accelerating biodiversity loss, and impacts harmful to society.
Who knew geophysicists were so smart?
It’s quite apparent from the AGU statement that they aren’t.
Max
The quoted AGU text is pure Ravetz:
Ravetz, Ph.D., Jerome. The Post-normal Science of Precaution [An Article from: Futures]. Elsevier, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000RR09RU
Description: “Science now finds itself in a new and troubled situation. The traditional optimistic picture is problematic and compromised at every turn. The scientific system now faces a crisis of confidence, of legitimacy and ultimately of power. We can usefully distinguish two sorts of science. The ‘mainstream’ is reductionist in style, and increasingly linked to industry. By contrast, the ‘post-normal’ approach embodies the precautionary principle. It depends on public debate, and involves an essential role for the ‘extended peer community’. It is based on the recent recognition of the influence of values on all research, even including the basic statistical tests of significance. It is the appropriate methodology when either systems uncertainties or decision stakes are high; under those conditions the puzzle-solving approach of ‘normal science’ is obsolete. This is a drastic cultural change for science, which many scientists will difficult to accept. But there is no turning back; we can understand post-normal science as the extension of democracy appropriate to the conditions of our age.”
Pooh, thanks for reminding us of Ravetz’s statement, very relevant and insightful to the issue at hand.
Thanks!
AGU is sort of like the Loyal Order of Moose isn’t it? Only there’s over ten times as many members in the Moose fraternity. Or like the American Legion only you can have served no one but yourself and still get in the AGU? And the Legion has 50 times as many members?
OH OH I KNOW !!!!
The AGU is like the American Farm Bureau Federation only you actually have to have skin in the climate game to be an American farmer. The AFBF has over 6 million members or roughly 100 times the number of AGU members.
The official position of the AFBF is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Farm_Bureau_Federation#Climate_change
‘Nuff said.
The Union of Concerned Scientists.. … I know of one dog and also of one martian in it. I
Could current and former members write their own collective sort of official statement such as that of Roger Pielke Sr.?
Pielke’s statement is wishy-washy and doesn’t convey any risk of a large climate change in this century. If that is what the AGU wanted to say, they would not find it important enough to issue any statement. Clearly they have weighed up the probabilities and forcing changes and come up with a significant rate of climate change as a central estimate, especially with no mitigation. Having found this, they would be negligent not to issue a statement so that attention is paid to this probability.
Jim D
Yep.
Climate science is “wishy washy”, as you put it.
Pielke recognizes this.
The AGU panel apparently does not.
Do you?
Max
Pielke missed the point of issuing a statement which is to point out risk where a realistic one is seen. He made no attempt to do this, and his statement would be seen as a disservice when the obviousness of climate change surpasses his statement of uncertainty. He is making people think that he doesn’t know that a large climate change is coming without mitigation, but perhaps he doesn’t know that a 700 ppm atmosphere is significantly different from a 280 ppm one. I would have thought he did.
Jim D
Pielke points out the scientific fact (quite correctly) that the “unknowns” regarding what makes our climate behave the way it does far outweigh the “knowns”.
You blather on about a world with 700 ppmv CO2 (some hypothetical day in the far distant future) without having any real notion based on empirical evidence of what this could possibly mean as far as our climate is concerned.
AGU calls for immediate “action” without having any earthly notion what this implies or what effect will result from this “action”.
Pielke makes sense.
You and the AGU do not.
It’s just that simple, Jim.
Max
> [T]he “unknowns” regarding what makes our climate behave the way it does far outweigh the “knowns”.
Perhaps we called these “unknowns”: we can predicate unknown things about them.
If Pielke wants to muddy the effects of more than a CO2 doubling, that is his own personal case to make, but he hasn’t denied its importance, so his statement is just a side-track, not considering the central issue nor even saying clearly why he isn’t.
Jim D
You have again fallen into the logic trap of comparing the hypothetical CO2 level some day in the far distant future with that of the far distant pre-industrial past (when you talk of more than doubling).
For your info: CO2 level is close to 400 ppmv today and we are doing “jes’ fine”.
It would have to get to 800 ppmv before it doubled (not 700 ppmv).
Get your numbers straight, Jim, if you’re going to make proclamations about the future.
Max
While 800 ppm is also possible when CO2 equivalents of methane, etc. are added, 700 ppm is already something not seen for about 40 million years. This might give pause to a sane person before jumping into it.
The doubling level is about 560 PPM, considering 380 PPM is pre-industrial. Going from 280 to 400 PPM raised land temperatures about 1.2C. If we double from 400 to 800 PPM, we will add another 3C to land temperature warming. This may give a total land warming of 4.2C You ready for that?
Webby
Sorry, you got your numbers screwed up.
Latest (partly) observation-based estimates put 2xCO2 impact at “equilibrium” at around 1.6C.
This means that increasing from today’s 394 ppmv to a likely level of around 640 ppmv by 2100 would raise the globally and annually averaged land and sea surface temperature anomaly (HadCRUT4, for example) by 1.1C (at equilibrium).
Yawn!
Max
No, You have your understanding wrong. People do not live on the ocean, they live on the land. In that case, the climate sensitivity is closer to 3C.
I know it is difficult for you 3% types that can’t actually do the analysis yourself, and you are left to believe in some substandard line of reasoning. But Max, if you ever decide to give it a go, I can certainly desk check your work.
Webby
We’re talking about long-term global trends, not short-term local blips.
Get yo’ facts straight – befo’ you pon-ti-fi-cate.
Max
Data does not support the alarmism and Pielke is right to not support the alarmism.
This was Pielke’s departure point where he says
“This was incompletely done in the Statement, where they inaccurately, in my view, discuss a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. ”
However, just making that assertion, doesn’t make any kind of a case for his own view that potential followers can test. On the one hand you have the 20th and 21st century forcings dominated by changing GHGs and aerosols, and on the other you have Pielke with a blanket unsubstantiated denial.
Jim D
You got it wrong again.
Pielke is simply telling us that climate science does not know how much of the past warming was caused by CO2 and other human GHGs and how much was caused by natural factors. (And one can conclude from this that it is silly to call for “urgent action”, as the AGU panel has done.)
This point also becomes clear when one sees that there has been no warming over the past decade or more despite unabated human GHG emissions and CO2 concentrations reaching record levels.
Your statement that the 20th and 21st century forcings are dominated by changing GHGs and aerosols is pure conjecture, unsubstantiated by any empirical scientific evidence.
Sorry ’bout that. It’s the AGU position that is unsubstantiated, not Pielke’s.
Max
Anyone happen to know what percentage of the usual suspects in the Climategate debacle are also AGU members?
Methinks the AGU’s problem is that the public understands this kind of “science” too well.
It’s not the AGU statement on climate change.
And it’s not barely post-pubescent Asian chicks.
But it gives us an inkling of what it will be like if Obama does for climate what he has done for middle easterners trying to get free.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL_mEYP8N-A&feature=player_embedded
(Would that the U.S. GOP’s “leaders” had the cajones this woman does.)
ya know… Obama… has alien shapeshifters in the secret service
btw – steven,.. kudos for your comments on that “creepy” (h/t Johanna) post of Willis’
Bah, no contest with Egyptian shapeshifters.
=============
thx joshua.
I wouldnt use the word creepy. I just leave it ambiguous. It’s easy to realize that something is not quite right.. sometimes writers get possessed.. I know there are times when I fall in love with the way Ive said something even if it doesnt reflect my best considered judgement.
Not so unbelievable to someone who’s just seen Simon Pegg’s “The World’s End.”
Joshua, link? Despite my CAGW skepticism, I find Willis creepy myself sometimes. His defensive, angry style seems more in line with that of many alarmists. Come to think of it, you two have similar personalities, which is to say both of you seem driven to prove your own intellectual superiority through the use of a sneering, arrogance that can be, in a word, off-putting.
Of course in the case of Willis, we’re talking about a genuinely smart guy.
Yeah –
I do specifically like the way you critiqued it and note that you were basically identifying flaws that are likely to affect any author and as such would not = “creepy.”
Still, I’m adding “creepy” because I think that by using that descriptor Johanna captured something about the essence of the post.
Indeed – what you identify there is part of why it is interesting to read Willis’ reactions to the comments. I would suspect that he must recognize that the post doesn’t reflect his best judgement. I mean really, it seems to me to be awfully obvious. But he defends with all guns ablaze, indicating that the effect of his writing is exactly what he intended (Really? He intended for you to find his writing quite flawed and for Johanna to find him “creepy,” for example?). But, I have to say rather typically, he seems to not be able to get past a need to feel as if he’s infallible. Unprovable, of course, but that is my impression. And of course, all of us, and in particular those of us who engage in this kind of blog discourse regularly, have the same tendency. It is just more pronounced in some more than in others.
nobody knows what was last years GLOBAL temp; instead they are calibrating against the GLOBAL temp of 140y ago…?! is that science, or cheap fear-mongering?
Although no longer a member of the AGU myself, I strongly urge those people considering resigning over this not to do so but to take a stand instead. This committee is ultimately responsible to the membership of AGU. I suspect there are many members who strongly disagree with this statement and the way in which it was formulated and would be prepared to stand up and say so. There are perhaps even more who are concerned about how public disagreement might affect their careers.
Just how democratic is the AGU? Is there an Annual General Meeting at which dissenting opinions can be expressed, at which a motion of censure could be moved? Even if such a motion were to fail, the fact that it was moved at all would notify the general public that scientific support for climate extremism is not as rock-solid as they have been led to believe.
I fear none of this is really possible because AGU has long ceased to be a collegiate organization and has become a vast burocratic hierarchy which no longer represents the interests of its members. In which case it may be best to organize behind the scenes to counter this “one party state”. The Web, emails and the blogosphere may make this easier than would have been the case a few years ago.
Cyril M Kornbluth wrote “The Marching Morons” in 1951, about the vast expansion of those of lower intelligence to a point where the few intelligent people running the world could no longer cope. An updated version might be “The Marching Bureaucrats:” in my experience, their genius lies in expanding their number and reach while contributing little or nothing to human well-being. No organisation is immune.
Peter principle?
I am sure there is a more PC term now a days. I am beginning to believe it is unCJD contracted during long airline flights with United Nations climate change delegates.
Yes, that! And once the bureaucracy gets a hold on it, consider the consequences:
Parkinson, C. Northcote. Parkinson’s Law, and Other Studies in Administration. Cutchogue, N.Y.: Buccaneer Books, 1957
Here is a funny thing, more than half the people reading this blog are likely to suffer from dementia in the twilight of their lives and it costs the USA more than $200 billion a year to treat, yet in the 2012 NIH budget it shows that $157 million was spent on Climate-Related Exposures and Conditions compared with $503 Alzheimer’s Disease.
I hope I can get some credit for resiting the temptation to smack that hanging curve ball right out of the stadium.
I can’t resist the temptation. Unless you can show some evidence of your ability to smack a hanging curve ball right out of the stadium, I think it much more likely that you would miss the ball, strike out, and knockyourself unconscious by hitting yourself in the head with the bat.
Your prowess in the field of physics and logic is no doubt matched by your baseball prowess. It is entertaining to see you twist yourself in intellectual knots here. Pity we can’t see a similar physical ability demonstrated.
One can only hope.
Consider it awarded. But of course Doc has a point. So many problems, so few resources. Such an unwise decision, to put so much money into something that at the very least, is largely unproven. I still wish someone could explain to me how we can be so sure warming within limits won’t be beneficial in the main…assuming we even get that.
It’s a crackpot theory that excludes to a very great extent, overwhelmingly powerful natural phenomena in favor of a trace gas necessary to life. To believe in it takes willful disregard of empirical evidence and plain old common sense.
pokerguy | August 6, 2013 at 2:03 pm |
You really need this all explained yet again?
I still wish someone could explain to me how we can be so sure warming within limits won’t be beneficial in the main…assuming we even get that.
We can be ‘so sure’ — that is, we can find to 99.95% likelihood or greater, based on the measurements made in the lab confirming the GHE, and the consilience of measurements made worldwide in at least FIFTY essential climate metrics — of the best explanation, and of the failure of alternate explanations that do not mandate strong action to reduce CO2E emissions to pre-1950’s levels, that your use of the word “assuming” is simply ignorant at best, and disingenuous at its most likely.
We can be ‘so sure’ that we’re not just seeing warming because CO2 isn’t the same as warmth, and the climate is a complex system ruled by patterns of chaos on some timescales, but linearly predictive in other timescales on large enough regions for some effects. You can’t predict weather, or even short term warming, but those aren’t the only things to measure, and those things that are bigger than weather, longer term than decadal warming, they are profoundly important to the costs and risks we and our descendants will live with.
How much ocean acidification do you think is safe for the lobster fishery? How much drop in alkalinity for mussel farmers? What change in cation ratios is a happy limit for recovery of the lost cod stocks?
How much more cyclone is beneficial?
Who asked for these benefits you seek?
Who compensated those whom these ‘benefits’ you suggest so handwavingly are imposed on without consent?
Did you pay for these ‘benefits’? Did you get them tested beforehand to ensure they were safe for the Market?
It’s a crackpot theory that excludes to a very great extent, overwhelmingly powerful natural phenomena in favor of a trace gas necessary to life. To believe in it takes willful disregard of empirical evidence and plain old common sense.
Trace gas. You are deluded. N2 and O2 aren’t GHG’s. Of the remaining GHG’s in the atmosphere, H2O levels are largely an effect of the overall climate, so count mainly as feedback, despite their intense effectiveness.
NOx and SOx?
Microbial studies show that soil and water emit NOx depending on CO2E levels, so NOx is another feedback for the most part.
SOx is co-emitted with CO2E’s.
Methane devolves into CO2 in the atmosphere, making it a CO2E.
Which leaves CO2E’s the king of GHGs in the atmosphere.
Learn what the words you use mean before you blather about them. If you don’t, you end up sounding like a crackpot.
The empirical evidence is not explained by ‘natural phenomena’ without CO2E; that is pretty clear on at least FIFTY distinct metrics.
If your ‘common sense’ leads you to still be saying what you’re saying after all this, and you don’t realize how great a fool you appear in so doing, then you have no business using the phrase.
DocMartyn | August 5, 2013 at 9:17 pm |
Climate-Related Exposures and Conditions aka birth defects, melanoma, asthma, Rift Valley fever, occupational health and safety, Malaria, West Nile, GIS-based epidemiology, cholera, dengue..
You’ll have to explain the funny part.
Doc, your data is incomplete.
How much is the private contribution to Alzheimer’s research? Big pharma seems to be investing in that area.
Wow.
Pielke’s essay is rambling — and consider who’s saying that — and imprecise. It lacks point, and comes off as the whinging of a sore loser while marching off the field taking the ball home with him.
Took the AGU long enough to get as far as it did. Was the precision and adeptness of scientific language sharpened by wearing it against the obdurate and pointless opposition of Pielke et al, or was it only slowed?
1. It’s hardly the committee’s purview to define — is that the Frank Luntz version of definition? — what is climate and what is climate change; these terms are bound to change with time, and let’s face it, others have this ambit who do it better than any committee involving Pielke ever could.
2. What are the societally and environmentally important climate metrics are well delineated by WMO’s definition of 50 essential climate variables. Why ought the AGU impose a competing view?
3. What are the main human and natural climate forcings is always going to be a matter of quibbling. Why argue over what hole in the bottom of the boat is biggest or letting in the most water, or most likely to grow, when you can patch them all and argue about the details later?
4. What is the observational evidence for climate change? That train has sailed, and is the ambit again of a different body, the IPCC. If you don’t like the IPCC’s organized efforts to compile and categorize the observational evidence for unnatural normalised trends in climate, then just freaking use Google. Or read the NCADAC release. The observational evidence grows so rapidly now it would be pointless for a position statement to attempt to nail it down and call it settled.
5. What is the skill of the global and regional climate model projections
(predictions) of changes in these metrics on multi-decadal time scales? Did Pielke Sr. really not understand the statement? It specifically and in great detail sets out the sound and valid reasons to just not find skill of projections abused into the form of prediction relevant. Did he miss that? Did you? Do you still? Cite me the section of the statement that explains it, if you can. Otherwise, you’re just demonstrating the need to READ HARDER.
6. What are recommended pathways forward to reduce the risk from climate, including changes in climate over time? What a misleading loaded garbage pseudoquestion in the realm of policy. It’s not risks from climate the AGU is freaking talking about. It’s the risks from lucrative industrial fossil fuels and changing land and ocean life. The risks aren’t FROM climate, they’re through climate to us and our posterity.
Maybe Pielke Sr. ought look to his own posterity.
The important signifier is that the committee simply left RP in the dust. OK, he dissented, Fair enough, but that had no effect on the policy statement. As Willard points out below, the attack on Gerald North will do RP little good.
Bart R
Gotta disagree with you.
Pielke’s statement was concise and to the point as far as climate science is concerned (i.e. the “unknowns” regarding what makes our climate behave the way it does still far outweigh the “knowns”)..
The AGU statement was a political advocacy declaration with no scientific merit whatsoever.
Max
Max,
Pielke cannot resist beating the same old tired talking points. The AGUs statement was boring platitudes.. they make a call for action, they are covering their collective asses. No matter what happens the toads on the committee will say “we told you so”. Quick do something now. Roger tried to educate ( with his particular slant ) a mistake for a position statement.
The committee did what they always do. Say nothing of substance. Say nothing for which you can be held accountable. Say stuff that makes people think you care. Pretend it means something.
Distill the AGU statement down to its point and you see the silliness. Its point:
Somebody Do something.!
well duh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sj89hMVYhI
Steven Mosher,
You do not understand the consequences of the alarmist and advocacy statement by organisations such as AGW, IPCCm RS, NAS, AAS, CSIRO, APS etc. These sorts of statements are used as the basis for irresponsible, economically irrational policies, like carbon pricing, Kyoto Protocol, mandated and very heavily subsidised renewable energy, etc.
Can’t resist: Bart R observes from his own posterior.
Even better: Bart R observes from his own prior.
=====================================
Peter Lang | August 5, 2013 at 11:58 pm |
Steven Mosher,
You do not understand the consequences of the alarmist and advocacy statement by organisations such as AGW, IPCCm RS, NAS, AAS, CSIRO, APS etc. These sorts of statements are used as the basis for irresponsible, economically irrational policies, like carbon pricing, Kyoto Protocol, mandated and very heavily subsidised renewable energy, etc.
#################
Peter Im afraid you dont understand.
They advocated “doing something”
So co-opt their endorsement: “The AGU called for immediate action, therfore we should do X with Nuclear” Dont fight the endorsement, use it.
You know other people will use it.
” The agu called for action, therefore, spend more on solar”
“the agu called for action, reform insurance
the agu called for action, invest in hydro
the agu called for action, free manning…. opps
the agu called for action..
THAT is the game folks play if they work in a lobby.
willard will be along to comment on the color of my hat
Somebody do something – urgently!! Right now!
Mosher,
As I said. You don’t understand. The sort of advocacy employed by AGU and the other organisations I mentioned is largely responsible for empowering extremist NGO’s who then mislead the MSM, the public, policy advisers and governments so we have had 20 years of advocacy of policies that have no chance of success.
As I said, you don’t understand.
Steven Mosher
Agree that the AGU statement was “nothing of substance”.
But, even though Pielke’s statement may have been said several times before (“same old tired talking points”, as you write), it still has validity (i.e. we still don’t have enough answers to know what the human impact on climate really is).
That was my point.
Max
PS Unlike most of us, Pielke is a person who knows enough about climate science to know how little we know about it; the AGU panel apparently did not.
Look at that. Turn my back for a minute and the science is settled.
I will point at this, with emphasis:
That is all.
***
Did someone say something about ad hominems?
No. Just a witness account of what happened, who was involved and why.
That’s all.
Max
> Just a witness account of what happened […]
Indeed, Senior witnessed the Committee’s motivation.
Then he weighted some unknowns.
dude you should see the emails.
When will willard wonder well?
============
kim at some point willard will remind joshua that motivations are not observable. They are hidden like heat in the deep sea.
> They are hidden like heat in the deep sea.
Right next to Climategate III: For a Fistful of Bitcoins.
4 coffins…. willard, not three
Daniel can do better than that:
Climate is defined here as the statistical description of all the elements in the climate system (including the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere), including both the mean state and any variations over time. Climate change is defined as a shift in the statistical description of climate. Climate change includes radiative, biophysical, biogeochemical and biogeographic effects. “Human-caused climate change” is a change resulting from one or more of the human climate forcings.
The natural Earth’s climate system, even in the absence of humans, is nonlinear in which forcings and response are not necessarily proportional; thus change is often episodic and abrupt, rather than slow and gradual. Climate has always changed over time.
Major climate shifts occur on the scale of decades to mllennia and the regimes are statistically distinct. Understanding this is the core to understanding much about both extremes and climate variability.
Anthony Kiems is a leading Australian hydroclimatologist.
Abstract – ‘Traditionally, the chance of climate related emergencies (e.g. floods, bushfires) occurring has been considered the same from one year to the next. However, recent research has highlighted the fact that this is definitely not the case. Analysis has revealed strong relationships between the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the occurrence of
climate related emergencies, especially in eastern Australia. In addition, climatological studies have also revealed multi-decadal epochs of distinct
climate states across eastern Australia. Within these multi-decadal epochs significant variability exists in the magnitude and frequency of ENSO impacts resulting in elevated (or reduced depending on the climate state) risk of extreme events such as floods, bushfires and droughts.’ http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0015/8700/Kiem_Anthony.pdf
Statistically the difference is between stochastically analysing rainfall and other variables using all available data and stochastic analysis of stratified data using knowledge of these regimes that has been available in Australia since the 1980’s. Classically described as a non-stationary system – the means and other statistical measures are different for different multi-decadal regimes.
The power of ENSO ensures that there are global effects on surface and ocean temperature, biology and hydrology. ENSO is just the biggest of the globally interacting patterns of ocean and atmosphere circulation.
There are truly astonishing ramifications. The temperature hiatus for instance. The predictability of future climate is highly problematic if we don’t know the timing and nature of shifts. Climatic sensitivity is an idea that has little instrinsic meaning.
I am in favour of carbon mitigation – using energy innovation and social and environmental means I have outlined many times. Frankly it all seems doomed if even Amy Clement cannot understand how and why the world is not warming for a decade to 3 more.
After reading this call to urgent action I was pleased to see that the AGU’s position was not inconsistent with a call for more nuclear. Bravo! I love a clear call to action.
Also funny to note this
“AGU galvanizes a community of Earth and space scientists that collaboratively advances and communicates science and its power to ensure a sustainable future.”
Steven Mosher
Agree with you that building new nuclear power plants instead of coal-fired ones makes sense, as they appear to be fully competitive in most locations (provided political and regulatory obstacles can be overcome) and do not involve real harmful pollutants, such as black carbon, heavy metals, sulfur, etc.
The problem is that this will only have a miniscule impact on global average temperature, even if all future power plants were nuclear.
Figure it out for yourself. The net reduction in CO2 emission by year 2100 would be around 800 Gt. Half of that would have “stayed” in the atmosphere, resulting in a reduction of 50 ppmv or around 0.4C difference in global warming (i.e. “much ado about nothing”).
Max
So go the alternative energy route with a No Regrets policy. The replacements of wind, solar, nuclear, etc with storage technology will phase out fossil fuels, which is heading toward its death-bed anyways. The low-grade sludge will continue to foul the environment and generate lots of CO2 due to its low EROEI.
Let the climate scientists keep researching as spin-off findings will help with the renewable angle in the long run. Instead of a space race, we have an energy and environment race.
Speaking of research, recently I got the OK to release a comprehensive online environmental modeling server called http://ContextEarth.com
Providing comprehensive information on the environment will be a key to the success of renewables.
Webby
Switching to nuclear to replace all new coal-fired power plants will have a miniscule impact on global warming by 2100.
Adding wind and solar for part of this will have an even more imperceptible impact.
Figure it out for yourself.
Max
The induction of twitches in severed frog legs is not evidence that the community is still sentient.
But if they’re still twitching when they serve them, it’s a sign they’re fresh.
What’s amusing is the likes of Lewandowsky, Cook, Nucitelli, Appell, willard, Joshua, I could go on, twitching after being severed from the climate science that is glacially moving on recognizing natural climate change and losing the CO2 control knob fixation. Gruesomely amusing, ick. Funny, but peculiar not haha.
====================
They tried to turn the knob back – and it dropped off into their hands.
Ouch!
Bah. The statement is an abomination. Someday, they’ll be ashamed.
If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection.
Thanks JC.
They don’t acknowledge the contribution of the natural warming due to the warming phase of the AMO to the observed warming from 1975 to 2005.
Very sad.
Nature will teach them a lesson when the pause continues for two more decades.
The Roger Pielke more accurately reflect the climate observations since 1910. In particular the two periofs of falling or constant temperature 1940 to 1970 and 1999 to presemt were neither predicted by the models, nor projedted./
> The effective use of mitigation and adaption to reduce the risk to water resources, food, energy, human health and well-being, and ecosystem function from climate (including changes in the climate system) requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach.
I like what this sentence advocates.
willard, everybody loves motherhood and apple pie.
sadly when you push them on details they are against nuclear, against fracking, against evidence based taxes, against tackling soot, against geo engineering, against some disciplines playing a role ( like statisticians) against even looking at some facets of the problem.
basically they want one discipline working on the problem and a single faceted approach, but they talk a good game.
I got one thing to say Jerry
As I’ve said, they primarily lack imagination, and hope.
=========
Steven Mosher
Agree that “everybody loves motherhood and apple pie”.
But the devil is in the nitty-gritty.
What Willard doesn’t understand is that even extreme mitigation measures such as replacing all future coal-fired power plants with nuclear will have an imperceptible impact on global average temperature by year 2100.
“No regrets – no results”.
But it could have a positive impact on REAL pollution, so is worthwhile doing.
Wind/solar are limited to a small percentage of the total, due to the inherent lack of reliability – and, when you calculate in the CO2 from the required gas-fired standby plants for the 75-80% of the time they are idle, there is very little net reduction in CO2 and essentially no impact on global warming.
So the AGU calls for “urgent action” are really just hot air and posturing.
Max
Steven Mosher,
I concur with much of your comment, but wonder what you mean by “evidence based taxes“? Are ‘carbon’ taxes and ‘cap and trade’ schemes example of what you mean by “evidence based taxes“?
If so, what is the evidence they will succeed in achieving their objectives (whatever the objectives may be)?
This post (posted today) explains why carbon pricing (taxes or ETS) will not succeed: http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/
I suggest there is no credible evidence that carbon taxes will succeed in achieving global GHG emissions reductions, but they will damage the economies that implement them and, therefore, will reduce well-being and make those economies less able to afford effective policies.
peter,
evidence based taxes would be a tax like Ross McKittrick proposed.
The real problem of the consensus is not the scientific consensus.
The scientific consensus is that GHGs cause warming and that we cannot continue to dump C02 into the atmosphere and expect or count on no impacts.
Lets say we even have a scientific consensus that “something must be done”
But that is where the consensus stops: what measures? how to cut? how fast to cut, how to pay for the cuts, what sources to use instead, all of the nitty gritty… there is no firm science and no firm consensus.. Folks pretend there is a consensus about a global treaty on C02 and that dream has prevented people from taking real positive action on a number of solutions that may be viable. When anybody outside ( or even inside) the tribe suggests a new idea or a stop gap measure, or a no regrets measure, they get branded with scientific denialism or for example in my case where I suggested different discount rates than sterne, you get labelled as a sociopath. No proposed solution other than the one they have been failing to articulate or deliver is good enough for them. There is no negotiating with them no reasoning with them. They are the sky dragons of policy.
Mosher,
There is much I don’t understand in your comment.
No, Mckiricks scheme is a proposition. It is theoretical. It is not evidence based any more than carbon tax, fuel tax, ETS, ‘fee and dividend’, etc. are evidence based. They are all unproven theories.
No global carbon pricing scheme is going to succeed, including Ross McKittrick’s. I guess you didn’t read the link I posted which explains why, eh? http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/08/why-the-ets-will-not-succeed-peter-lang/ Ross McKittrick’s scheme is another of many proposed schemes which increase the cost of energy. It is the wrong approach. It will no succeed (for the reasons explained in the link). The solution that will work is to remove the impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost low emissions energy. That is government policy to re move blocks and regulations that are retarding progress rather than add m ore regulations interventions, bureaucracy and costs.
That is a strawman argument. No one (almost no one) is saying there are no impacts. The main disagreement is about the amount of impact, the net economic cost/benefit, the probabilities and, especially, the consequences of the proposed mitigation policies versus the climate damages that would be avoided by the proposed polices.
> sadly when you push them on details they are
It’s not about “they”, which might not include Roger Senior.
My point about Roger Senior.
***
What was the point about advocacy and scientists, again?
Judith & Roger,
Why don’t you two post Roger’s statement on your websites and ask your fellow AGU members to comment “I concur” Let’s see how many concurrences you will get. This is an acid test if AGU’s statement really represents the view of the majority of its members. It requires guts on the part of scientists to affix their names. It’s about time for scientists to speak up! That’s my challenge to all of you!
Better to also post the AGU statement side-by-side with Roger’s statement and see who will get more concurrences.
‘Human induced climate change requires urgent action.’
Statement of the American Geophysical Union.
‘Because our understanding of climate change and the impacts
on the world around us has advanced significantly in the last few
years, it was vitally important that the AGU update its Statement.’
So okay, proceed ter Statement ter look at the evidence because
this is a VITALLY IMPORTANT state of affairs,, okay, and we’re
gonna need ter DO SOMETHING GODDAM EXPENSIVE about it!
Say, expect a lot of heavy data because our understanding about
climate change has advanced so much … Now let me see .. (Page 1) dada-dadada-da-da, oh, here we are … ‘climate models predict …’ ….’human -induced climate change ‘may alter … … page 2 ….
‘a given (location or region) varies from year to year …’… Page 3
on IMPACTS! Hmmmm …while important impacts will be … er … look
… they won’t be good, okay! Page 4, there isn’t any …
Well I suppose climate change science doesn’t require the kind of staement engineers might present fer a project like a bridge or
a dam. Clouds and stuff are so, well, cloudy.
Bts
To be fair, AGU can push whatever agenda they like. What is not acceptable is that don’t allow others to pursue research that MIGHT challenge their assumptions. It is this intransigence that is objectionable and absolutely contrary to scientific principles.
There is an interesting comment on WUWT regarding this subject. This is about the timing of the AGU statement with respect to the upcoming release of the SPMs of the AR 5; in late September. I would suggest that our hostess may well have some soulsearching to do when the latest SPMs from the IPCC are made public. Climate Etc. was not a reality when the last SPMs were released.
“Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.” It’s always good to start a policy statement with a fiction. Saved me wasting my time reading another agitprop piece masquerading as science.
Global climate change in the past 50 years is all good. Name for me the regional climates that aren’t equally or more biologically productive today than 50 years ago due to higher carbon dioxide. Warmth and CO2 are good things. It makes the earth greener. Isn’t that what greenies are supposed to want?
There is such an amazing irony at the heart of all this mishigas.
==================
Judith, I don’t whether it was mentioned, but advocacy statements are not limited to just professional societies. Look at the official statement from the Atmospheric Sciences Dept. at Texas A & M.
Climate Change Statement
We, the faculty of the Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences of Texas A&M, agree with the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that:
It is virtually certain that the climate is warming, and that it has warmed by about 0.7 deg. C over the last 100 years.
It is very likely that humans are responsible for most of the recent warming.
If we do nothing to reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases, future warming will likely be at least two degrees Celsius over the next century.
Such a climate change brings with it a risk of serious adverse impacts on our environment and society.
Kenneth Bowman
Sarah D. Brooks
Ping Chang
Don Collins
Don Conlee
Andrew Dessler
Robert Duce
Craig Epifanio
Rob Korty
Mark Lemmon
Shaima L. Nasiri
John Nielsen-Gammon
Gerald North
Richard Orville
Lee Panetta
R. Saravanan
Gunnar W. Schade
Courtney Schumacher
Russ Schumacher
Istvan Szunyogh
Thomas Wilheit
Ping Yang
Renyi Zhang
Here is the link to the Texas A & M dept.
http://atmo.tamu.edu/weather-and-climate/climate-change-statement
Aggies are the butt of a lot of jokes in Texas. If I’d realized north was an aggie I’d have cracked a few.
The Texas A&M library burned down lasty. A total loss. All three of their books gone.
The Texas A&M library is always empty now because the last book got colored.
The Texas A&M football coach is only dressing ten players for the home game next week. The rest of the team is able to dress themselves.
Q: What do you get when you put 32 Aggie cheerleaders in the same room?
A: One complete set of teeth.
Q: Why do Aggie cheerleaders wear bibs?
A: To keep tobacco juice stains off their uniforms.
The biggest joke is that TAMU atmospheric physics dept backs climate alarmism but the actual agricultural community they ostensibly exist to educate and support is anti-alarmist. Classic. Texas farmers, a great many of whom are Aggies, aren’t buying the Aggie bullschit about climate calamity coming from a handful of professors there.
Toss their hats in tandem. Shall we call the North’s Department ‘well-regulated’?
==============
Thanks for spotting this, i wasn’t aware of it
Judith, it is no surprise that Gerald North AGU’s statement is harmonious with his own department’s statement
Now this is interesting, NewsWire has an article on the AGU statement
http://www.thenewswire.net/scientists-declare-human-activities-are-changing-earths-climate/
Pielke gets equal time, CE gets a mention, and North makes a sensible statement
Attribution, she’s a bitch;
Don’t know how,just scratch that itch.
Puff the Magic Carbon
Lived by the CO2.
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.
================
> Pielke gets equal time […]
On the one hand, AGU.
On the other, Roger Senior.
Equal time.
That’s balance.
That’s an ‘honest broker’.
That’s the twit-o-sphere.
Pere et fils, do not confiche.
Fils would be the first to claim he’s not a climate scientist, contra the article.
=======
An yet Père advocates lots of feel-good policies.
Please can you highlight which of North’s statements you think was sensible?
For example he said this:
“While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where,” the statement reads, “no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential.”
Do you think that is sensible?
Heh, consequential but beneficial. No imagination, less hope.
===========================
Yes, we don’t know where the damage will hit but we know it won’t be good.
We don’t know where the benefits will hit, but we know that they’ll be good. We know also that warmer sustains more total life and more diversity of life. We know also that damage from cold is worse than damage from warm. We know a lot, we ignorant bits of clay, strutting, strutting.
============
““I think it is going to be very, very hard for the world to come to grips with this,” he said. “So one thing we really need to do is think about adaptation: How are we going to adapt to climate change?”
Not very well if we continue with failed attempts to mitigate without knowing for sure what to mitigate. Hopefully, the Underdeveloped Nations Allied Geophysical Union (UNAGU) can use their Carbon Credit wind fall to buy a copy of Guy Callandar’s 1938 paper and a solar powered calculator.
We are going to adapt the way we always have, with imagination and hope. Oh, and cheap energy. Well, the Chinese will so adapt, and I suspect much of the world’s presently poor will, too.
===================
Yeah, i’m sick of all this whining about ‘the poor’.
Adaption will be easy for them. Take a Bangladeshi living in a flood zone. Bigger floods just means swimming a bit further and waiting a bit longer – easy!
Cyclones kill ’em, not rising sea levels, which may or may not be ameliorated in a warming world. So far, the warming world seems to have decreased cyclones, or their severity, or both, but surely not by much.
Don’t cry for the poor, oh dear Michael. The BRICs are a great deal more sensible about this matter than the Western Elite, with their precious Carbon Conceit.
==================
kim, ” I suspect much of the world’s presently poor will, too.”
The world’s poor will be well take care of. I hear in lieu of cash they will receive Solandra stock and treadle pump credits.
True dat. How hard is it to move a grass hut? Or even a shanty town? It’s not like you’re moving London or Moscow fercrisakes. Good point.
David,
I knew people like you would get it.
Disappointed that Koldie doesn’t seem to realise that cyclone=floods.
Your disappointed? Compare to my disappointment.
============
Meh, that was supposed to be ‘your disappointment’, but I’ll take ‘you’re disappointed’ as default.
The edges of the desert region, valleys of the great rivers, low level land in cyclonic paths. These are historically inevitable sources of weather calamities because of the urge to their fertility. That inevitability is not necessary, however, and the future may avoid them.
============
Michael, that’s such a pathetic argument. Swim further, indeed!
If you’ve ever lived in a developing country you will know that the poorer people are the more migratory they tend to be. They live wherever they can find work, food and shelter.
Are you living in the same place that you were 50, or even 20 years ago? How many people do you know that do?
If the NBC reporter was diligent, he would have looked at the Texas A&M website and determined that North was not an honest broker. As chair of the AGU statement, the statement was a fait accompli and Pielke Sr’s comments were never going to see the light of day. Given North’s history with Mann, no one should have expected anything else.
With Gerald North sighing about policy, and essentially giving up on mitigation, there’s a hint of giving up on something of the money, but retaining the power through guilt and fear. He’s the victim in a rigged game for which he hasn’t the cards.
Shuffle, deal, ante up.
===============
If you remember only one thing about the AGU statement, it should be that only one response, only a carbon fee and dividend passed by Congress, priced by the law of supply and demand, can solve the problem.
Right, like prohibition of drugs and alcohol solved both of those problems. Why not just prohibit global warming?
captdallas 0.8 or less | August 6, 2013 at 10:24 am |
The case you propose is parallel to the solution the AGU statement endorses in what universe?
Prohibition — which you promote — is command and control regulation with police action enforcing the will of the state; privatization — which is the only answer to the AGU findings — devolves power from the state’s command and control structure (in this case the EPA and judiciary) to the individual decisions of how to spend their money and how much to demand for their services by hardworking American families.
Are you trying to pull the wool over people’s eyes with some elitist trick you learned in Propaganda University, professor captain admiral lord dallas 0.8?
Bart oh Bart
If the US Congress passed the law implementing the carbon tax you support- how much would US emissions be reduced? I estimate it would result in a 5% reduction in gas consumption (at most).
How again does that solve “the” or any problem? Wouldn’t worldwide emissions continue to rise?
Rob Starkey | August 6, 2013 at 1:32 pm |
According to http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/08/climate-policy-canada and many other reputable sources, your estimated 5% is about 75% low compared to even a limited, inferior real world version of what Congress is being asked to implement by http://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend-faq/ — a far closer proposition to mine, though I’m not affiliated with it, either.
See, letting some politburo decide the price of dumping waste into the air is command and control regulation. Letting the Law of Supply and Demand fix the price? That’s Capitalism. And I’m not going to apologize to Frank Luntz for using the dirty word to the GOP. Capitalism is how families get a fair deal. Capitalism is how hard work and persistence are rewarded. Capitalism is what made America strong and healthy, once.
Capitalism is the shining example America set for the world. They largely followed America on that path, to their great benefit. Even the heart of communism — the UK House of Lords — and Socialist Europe, and absolutist China embrace Capitalism to fix the gaps in their deplorably mismanaged economies.
Capitalism is how carbon dividends will fix the world.
Bart oh Bart
The experience in BC showed a roughly 5% reduction and imo that is probably all that would result in the US, but let’s assume that was doubled–How again would that solve “the” or ANY problem????
Isn’t it true that worldwide CO2 emissions levels would continue to rise? Can you admit that you made an error and that such a tax would only have a meaning ful impact if combined with other nations doing the same thing
Rob Starkey | August 7, 2013 at 3:16 pm |
The experience in BC showed a net 18.8% reduction.
Where do you get a figure only a quarter as large as this?
And again, I’ve addressed your “whole world” question before. Once the USA privatizes the carbon cycle internally, then international treaties support the USA going after the world’s carbon cycle poachers and carbon waste dumpers through trade measures.
You want to sell into the USA?
You privatize your carbon cycle, or the USA is entitled to levy the carbon cycle price on your goods and pay it to US citizens, rather than your own.
What nation on the planet will long hold out, under such an approach?
BartR, “professor captain admiral lord dallas 0.8?” I have been outed!
Propoganda is often in the eye of the beholder. You preach a Carbon specific fee/tax/credit which assumes that the great and mighty carbon is “THE” problem that needs to be solved. Since you also preach about you minarchist, your lean mean total efficiency small government machine should be flexible enough to deal with whatever government scale problem should arise without mandates from the peanut gallery.
captdallas 0.8 or less | August 6, 2013 at 1:46 pm |
ONE: Propaganda, according to at least three different schools that study such things, can be objectively determined against specific standards. In other words, propaganda is never really in the eye of the beholder, regardless of what the authors and their followers claim.
TWO: I do not preach, and I don’t preach exceptionalism about ‘Carbon’, and I don’t advocate tax. S.R.E.A.=Privatize. Scarce, Rivalrous, Excludable, Administrable goods and services ought be privatized in the Market for most effective, fairest allocation of resources. The Carbon Cycle is S.R.E.A. Therefore it is the obligation of the government to withdraw from interfering in its allocation, and begin enforcing standards of weights and measures fair to all buyers and sellers by the Law of Supply and Demand.
THREE: “THE” problem? The AGU statement covered some dozen problems. Didn’t you read it?
Three strikes, you’re out.
Come back when you’re clean, capta-rod.
Pingback: U.S. scientists make official statement claiming that man IS to blame for global warming – despite data being ‘inconclusive’ | Business news
“Human induced climate change requires urgent action. – AGU”
“The Sky is falling.” -Chicken Little
“Global Warming is a Hoax.” -Bad Andrew
Andrew
+100
“The effective use of mitigation and adaption to reduce the risk to water resources, food, energy, human health and well-being, and ecosystem function from climate (including changes in the climate system) requires a multi-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach.”
Gee, sounds like a call to action to me!
So let’s get started on the mitigation, adaptation, and wrecking the economy and all that.
Judith, isn’t the plural of uncertainty, uncertainties?
Just asking.
Seems we are all lacking in reading comprehension.
Roger, Roger!
How in the world could the AGU not only have someone on their panel who clearly is a pro-CAGW propagandist (see Hassol’s bio at http://www.climatecommunication.org/who-we-are/staff/susan-joy-hassol/ ), but then allow her the key role of writing the AGU’s statement?
You can add the AGU to the long list of organizations that have traded their credibility for political expediency.
The AGU has become a self inflicted parody of science.
Pingback: (Ir)responsible advocacy by scientists | Climate Etc.
Maybe all AGU members should vote on which statement accurately represents their veiws. I can imagine a brief survey would be very insightful. Find out the background of those who agree with which statement and why. Would 97% agree with the AGU statement?
Pity the AGU did not refer to the predictions that this ‘settled ‘ science made about the 21st century global temperature trends. We are here after all, this is the 21st century. When I want to know the weather in my location I don’t refer to last weeks weather forecasts………..I look out of the window!
When I look out of the 21st century window I find no warming trend at all this century, none, zilch, nada.
What did the ‘settled’ science predict? Well……… the average warming rate would massively accelerate increasing to 4 to 5 times the 20 century rate!
The ‘settled’ science told us at the end of the last century that man had increased the total atmospheric CO2 by 90 ppm and this was responsible for all the observed temperature increase in that century. Well since that time man has played ball and apparently increased his total contribution to atmospheric CO2 by another full third.
This has lead to………….? Nothing, a slight cooling if you were to be pedantic. So what happens when man increases his total contribution by another third, anything, catastrophe, what and when?
So all these alarmists on here, man up, show some balls and faith in your statements and tell us by what years in this century will the average warming trend hit 4-5 times, 3 times, twice, and even reach the 20 the century warming rate? Indeed by what year will there be any, statistically significant, warming at all?
The science is ”settled’ after all, all the big questions sorted apparently, just bits and pieces to slot into place!
Alan
If one took the view that the AGU statement were gospel truth and then looked at the practicalities, it’s hard to see how one would not be driven to put all his chips on geoengineering of some sort. After all, the “mainstream” guys think you can do anything with aerosols.
Kinda funny isn’t it. High sensitivity would mean geoengineering like cloud brightening or crop brightening would be very effective. We could tweak climate anyway we please. Low sensitivity means geoengineering would be a waste of time. So the AGU makes a definitive state that something must be done, we just haven’t a clue what other than building more wind mills, neat little plug in cars and compact fluorescent light bulbs…
Sensitive dependence might mean we get more than we bargained for.
Chief, “Sensitive dependence might mean we get more than we bargained for.”
With Hansen having the imbalance down to +/- 0.15 Wm-2 a man of his genius could dial in just the right “adjustment”. :)
Here is Judy: “IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said (and is expected to say in the AR5; we will see).”
Amen.
Let me add some sciency things below that should show how really bad bad it is:
The AGU Statement on Climate Change in August 2013 uses incorrect science to justify an irrational response to the alleged human-caused global warming. For them, human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are responsibe for most of the 0.8 degrees Celsius warming over the past 140 years. There is no scientific support for this statement. Before we go any further let us understand that carbon dioxide is the only greenhouse gas of significance they can point to and using the plural is just creating a smokescreen. Their claim is that our past, present, and future emissions will influence the climate system for millennia. They claim also that the climate changes involved are consistent with long-understood physics and their predictions of how the climate is expected to respond. These predictions can be ignored as irrelevant since their physics is all wrong. The physics they use goes back to Arrhenius, is incomplete, and applies only when carbon dioxide is the only greenhouse gas. But it is not – water vapor is much more important and they both simultaneously absorb OLR, the out-going long-wave radiation. When more than one greenhouse gas simultaneously absorb in the infrared their total combined absorption effect is not the arithmetic sum of their individual absorption effects. A theory that does apply to this situation was developed by the Hungarian scientist Ferenc Miskiolczi. What happens is that an optimum absorption window is established by the several absorbers involved. It is maintained jointly by the gases present. For the earth atmosphere where carbon dioxide and water vapor are the gases the infrared optical thickness of their joint optimum absorption window is 1.87. This is equivalent to 15 percent transmittance or 85 percent absorption of OLR . Suppose that we now add more carbon dioxide to air. What happens is that CO2 immediately starts to absorb in the IR and total atmospheric absorption rises above the 1.87 limit. When this happens water vapor begins to diminish and some may actually rain out until the total absorption is again down to 1.87. The result is that the extra absorption from the added carbon dioxide has been effectively neutralized. This is equivalent to a negative water vapor feedback, the exact opposite of positive feedback that IPCC uses. They put it into their computerized climate models and it can boost the meager Arrhenius warming from carbon dioxide alone by a factor of two or three. Small wonder that their supercomputers are predicting dangerous warming ahead. Fact is, almost all of their predictions have been higher than actual measaurements. The question now is, who is right – Miskolczi or IPCC? During the six years that Miskolczi’s peer reviewed paper has been out not one so-called “climate” scientist has seen fit to even acknowledge its existence. And no peer reviewed rebuttals have appeared. But in 2010 Miskolczi found a way to use existing data to prove his theory. Using NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 he studied the infrared absorption of the atmosphere over time. And discovered that the absorption had been constant for the last 61 years while carbon dioxide at the same time went up by 21.6 percent.. This is precisely what his theory predicted. And no absorption meant no greenhouse effect, case closed. Now let’s look at the consequences of this. Miskolczi theory supplies the missing physics that they thought they knew. His theory also explains why there is no warming today. Actually, there has been no warming for the last 15 years but all this is denied by the predictions of warming we get and is missing from the AGU statement.. There is also more carbon dioxide in the air than ever before but it simply refuses to do its greenhouse thing . Again as predicted by the Miskolczi theory. It is a safe bet that the greenhouse effect never even existed. The alternative, to claim that it somehow got lost fifteen years ago, is an absurdity. It follows therefore that all past warming identified as greenhouse warming is natural warming, misidentified. This also explains why it is impossible for that warming of 0.8 degrees over 140 years to be human-caused greenhouse warming. And their claim that past, present, and future emissions will stay with us for millennia is also absurd. It contradicts the analysis of the Keeling curve and results from carbon 14 from atmospheric tests in the fifties. It is interesting to speculate why the pause is being denied. This is not a recent thing because two years before the issuance of the last IPCC report in 2007 experts already knew that the climate had stalled. The IPCC was formally established in 1988, same year as Hansen’s presentation to the Senate. The present pause in warming goes back to 1998, a time just ten years after the foundation of the IPCC. The pause itself has lasted for 15 years by now, five years longer than the preceding ten IPCC years without a pause.This entitles the pause to be considered the climate norm by now. Unfortunately, for more than half of its existence the IPCC has been talking of an imaginary climate that does not exist and spending real money to hide this fact. And AGU has swallowed it whole and supports all the nonsense put out by IPCC. They accept that global temperature will rise and to be determined by emissions. And then as a non sequitur they suggest substantial emissions cuts that are not backed up by any scientific reasoning. They do acknowledge that surprise outcomes, like the unexpected loss of Arctic summer sea ice, can happen. That last thing really annoyed me because two years ago I published a paper on Arctic warming that proved two things. First, that it was not greenhouse warming, and second, that its cause was North Atlantic currents carrying warm Gulf Stream water into the Arctic Ocean. These guys just don’t know the scientific literature in their own field but they get to write this propaganda piece in the name of a supposedly reputable scientific organization.
The climate definition by Roger Pielke Sr:
____• Climate is defined here as the statistical description of all the elements in the climate system (including the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere), including both the mean state and any variations over time.
___• Climate change is defined as a shift in the statistical description of climate.
A statistic is a statistic of the ‘element’ in question. To say climate is the “statistical description of all elements in the climate system” is circularity, obscure and explains nothing. The common explanation “climate is average (statistical) weather” is scientifically meaningless, if “weather” is not defined in the first place. Circumventing the problem “weather” by replacing it with indefinite “elements” (which can be several thousands) solves nothing. The collection, organization, analysis, interpretation and presentation of data ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics ) from the atmosphere, ocean, land surface and cryosphere does neither represents: weather or climate. More about Prof. R. Pielke Sr and the climate definition: http://www.whatisclimate.com/
What next, is the AGU going to start endorsing Democrats running for office? What a sad joke this group is making of tself. The Royal Society in the UK is also turning itself into a joke by endorsing advocacy and crap “science ala Lewandowsky.”
Judith: do you ever read your comments threads and wonder how you ended up presiding over this mess?
“Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement,since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.”
So do I. Although I am not a US citiizen and could be told to mind my own busibess, the US is a world power so US bbusiness is
vworld business.
Since the CO2 molecule is at the centre of all discussions of heat transfer, I’d have thought the AGU wouid have something new to say about its properties, inclufing its supposed vociferous appetite for heat.
While the specific heat of CO2 is about 36 at 25C N2 and O2 are about 29 each, hardly makes CO2 vociferous. This is probobly its base specific heat and at the earth’s average temperature of about 13C would not be higher.. AGU, why not explain that patadox?.
Pingback: Jaime Jessop: A Sensitive Issue and Why Advocacy is not a Moral Imperative | Tallbloke's Talkshop
Pingback: After Climategate . . . never the same (?) | Climate Etc.
Solar-Terrestrial-Climate 101:
a) http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/6451/1xx.gif
b) http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3161/zlp.png
c) http://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/scd_sst_q.png
Pingback: Mike Hulme: Has Climategate Been A Good Thing? | The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Hi Judy – With respect to your comment
“Now this is interesting, NewsWire has an article on the AGU statement
http://www.thenewswire.net/scientists-declare-human-activities-are-changing-earths-climate/
Pielke gets equal time, CE gets a mention, and North makes a sensible statement”
I found that North’s comments to the reporter were not an accurate summary of his input to the Committee (nor of mine).”
I
had sent the e-mail below to Jerry North the day the news article appeared
*******e-mail to Jerry North**************************
Hi Jerry
I am stunned that in the news article
http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scientists-declare-human-activities-are-changing-earths-climate-6C10853219
You were reported saying that
“For example, North’s sole contribution to the statement reads:
“In addition, human-induced climate change may alter atmospheric circulation, dislocating historical patterns of natural variability and storminess.”
This was actually one of the limited changes you made based on my input [which can be documented by our e-mails]. I have no doubt you ultimately agree with this, but it was not your text originally. You just slightly wordsmithed what I wrote.
My view on that statement was based on my material that was sent to the Committee, and that concept is already in our 2009 article
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union. http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/files/2009/12/r-354.pdf [all authors are also AGU Fellows]
where we wrote [see the last line]
“In addition to greenhouse gas emissions, other first- order human climate forcings are important to understanding the future behavior of Earth’s climate. These forcings are spatially heterogeneous and include the effect of aerosols on clouds and associated precipitation [e.g., Rosenfeld et al., 2008], the influence of aerosol deposition (e.g., black carbon (soot) [Flanner et al. 2007] and reactive nitrogen [Galloway et al., 2004]), and the role of changes in land use/land cover [e.g., Takata et al., 2009]. Among their effects is their role in altering atmospheric and ocean circulation features away from what they would be in the natural climate system [NRC, 2005].”
I extracted the text on atmospheric circulation features from that text.
I would appreciate if you would set the record straight.
Also, you played a much more dominant role in the Committee as Chair than inferred from the news article. The text
“Crafting the statement, North said, was anything but easy. Drafts went back and forth among committee members for months, with constant wrangling over wording.”
just involved minor wordsmithing with just a few exceptions. You were clearly directing the preparation of the AGU Statement.
Best Regards
Roger Sr.
The relevant excerpt from his reply is
“Roger, I did not copy this from your earlier work. I have said over and over in my climate change class for years that the Hadley Cell is widening. There are many published papers on this. It is thought to be a direct consequence of global warming. This is one of the few robust findings in climate models beyond temperature rise and polar amplification, the latter is not well understood. I wanted to get this into the text. In the discussion at the end, I suggested words like this. It was taken out, then re-entered with slight modification. No thought was given to your earlier statement or comments….”
*
******end of excerpt**********************
Quite frankly, I find his comment that “No thought was given to your earlier statement or comments” illustrates the lack of seriousness that he and the others on the Committee played in considering my input during the preparation of the Statement. Jerry and the others were informed of my studies of the importance of understanding the role of human climate forcings on regional circulations in both e-mails and during our teleconferences.
Jerry North was quite disingenuous and inaccurate in responding to the reporter.
Pingback: American Geophysical Union Issues Stark Warning on Climate Change | BelovedPlanet
Pingback: Scientists declare: ‘Human activities are changing Earth’s climate’ – NBC News.com | Scotties Toy Box
Pingback: Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
Pingback: Roger Pielke Sr and Douglass & Knox | Wotts Up With That Blog
Pingback: Scientists and motivated reasoning | Climate Etc.
“What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me.”
I’m having an interesting discussion by James Annan on this very question. Are they?
Sorry, forgot the link.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=9959776&postID=4091189117436335229&page=1&token=1377093569563
Pingback: Why we should listen to the 97% - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: Professors, politics and public policy | Climate Etc.
Pingback: Roger Pielke Sr and Douglass & Knox | And Then There's Physics
Pingback: 2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: So, when Obama says climate change is a fact..... - Page 12 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: Scientists and warnings. - Page 5 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: U.S. House Hearing on the IPCC Process | Climate Etc.
Pingback: AGU: Enforcing the consensus | Climate Etc.