The Anti-Science White House

President Obama has organized bands of OFA thugs to target openly skeptical scientists. This is what AGU has to say.

AGU unwaveringly supports a scientist’s right to academic freedom, and nothing in my previous post should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. We view the singling out of any individual or group of scientists by any entity – governmental, corporate or other – based solely on their interpretations of scientific research as a threat to that freedom.

Protecting Academic Freedom and Holding Ourselves Accountable – AGU

Obama is a threat to all Americans, but progressives are so vested in their knee-pads, they can’t get back on their feet.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to The Anti-Science White House

  1. Stephen Fisher says:

    “Progressives” have mastered the most difficult of all yoga positions:
    bending over backward and forward at the same time…

  2. gator69 says:

    Where are all the other scientific societies? Or are they actually scientific at all?

  3. NancyG says:

    Oh jeez. Where’s Gail? WUWT has a petition up to nominate Judith Curry as the next head of the IPCC, but the US has nominated Dr. Chris Field. According to Wikipedia, “In 2009, Field was one of ten recipients of the 15th Annual Heinz Award with special focus on the environment.”

    Heinz Kerry…no conflict of interest? Considering the US seems to be at the forefront of this climate change crusade I don’t have a good feeling if this guy becomes head.

  4. darrylb says:

    Here is a letter I am putting in a local newspaper that has over 50,000 subscribers. I am in an ongoing verbal fight with about 6 to 7 college profs. and about a half dozen locals.
    It is of maximum length allowed. I stand alone in the battle, but I get a lot of encouragement.
    Comments if you like. — as always, if have had to shorten it.
    Also, I borrowed a couple of comments from Roy Spencer.

    Carbon Dioxide: An Elixir of Life

    Do you remember the 7th grade life science book with a cow giving CO2 to a tree and the tree giving oxygen to the cow? Do you remember that it stated that the CO2 eventually became the central part of the structure of all living things on earth including us?
    If a horizontal bar graph, showing the relative amounts of each gas in the atmosphere was the length of a football field, the length of the amount representing nitrogen would be 234 ft. oxygen 63 ft., argon 2.7 ft, and CO2 would be about 0.12 ft or 1.4 inches, the preindustrial CO2 amount would be one inch, and at 0.7 inches we would have plant starvation. Water is the only variable.
    A prediction by Charles Keeling who began measurements of CO2 concentrations at Mauna Loa has been proven correct. Satellite measurements have indicated that the earth is as much as 20% greener largely due to more CO2.
    Yet somehow, we have gone from carbon dioxide to carbon pollution to a carbon poison meme. A mockery of science!
    Another mockery: a list of so called climate deniers, compiled by college students and adopted by the National Academy of Sciences. Number three on the list is Freeman Dyson, like Albert Einstein a member of the Institute for Advanced Studies. Dyson has stated climate scientists have little idea of what they are doing. Number 28 on the list is Dr. Roy Spencer, and number 47 of the 496 names is Dr. John Christy. Together they received numerous awards for developing a method of measuring temperature by satellite. Check Spencer’s website for monthly temperature updates
    The first Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report presented a graph with a medieval warm period much warmer than today. A time of flowering prosperity, followed by a little ice age ending in about 1850. Oceans have risen at a constant rate ever since. A historical period verified by hundreds of studies.
    In the third IPCC report a graph completely wiped out the warm period and ice age. It was made by measuring a millennium of tree ring widths. Later, It was found that the methodology used created the shape of a hockey stick with an upturn in current temperatures, regardless of what data was entered. Worse, recent tree rings showed a cooling, so the graph was truncated and thermometer measurements spliced in. It was called ‘Mikes (Michael Mann’s) nature trick.
    One of many scientists changing their mind is Lennert Bengsten, who joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation which is skeptical of significant CO2 caused warming. Bengsten’s credentials::Head of European Center for medium range forecasting, Directory of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and an endless list.
    However, he resigned. From his letter of resignation: “I have been put under enormous pressure– unbearable to me –worried about my health and safety, –see no end, — reminds me of days of McCarthy– I wonder how my Jewish Friends feel about being called deniers”?
    I wonder why the Free Press and writers resort to Ad hominen attacks which diminish an event of such magnitude as the Holocaust, attributing the denial of climate change to denying the holocaust existed.
    Why are he and others changing their mind.? Perhaps because of the stoppage of warming for over 17 years as measured on almost all parameters. Or log onto Cryosphere Today and find that the Arctic sea ice has declined, but the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels. The combined world total sea ice is currently above average.
    Climate is always changing, sometimes it will be extreme. However, reading only the summary for lawmakers of IPCC reports, is barely getting one’s feet wet. Therein lies a danger. Richard Tol, a lead IPCC author asked to have his name removed from the IPCC report because the conclusions in it were the exact opposite of what he discussed. He emphasized the danger in blaming climate change when land and water use, and more were to blame.
    Free Press writers propose we follow the science. Absolutely!
    Here is a beginning list of questions.
    1) Do you trust climate models to tell us the future even when none predicted the 17 plus years of stoppage of global warming? In fact they could not hind cast correctly even when they knew the result.
    2) Do you believe the weather has gotten worse, even if the IPCC says it hasn’t, and do you wish to specify an area in which it has gotten worse? I have aerial photographs taken in 1937 by the University of Minnesota’s Borchert showing area lakes down over 20ft. compared to DNR topographical maps. What do you think people would say if the 1930’s conditions existed today: U.S. raw temperatures much higher!–and the Palmer drought index, extreme!?
    3) Do you believe it is correct for the EPA to impose impossible and unnecessary rules which hurt all of out citizenry even though EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy says that it’s really an investment opportunity, and not about pollution?
    4) Do you believe people of Africa should keep using such things as dung for heating while Secretary of State John Kerry tells them they should not develop farms because it will cause climate change?

  5. DD More says:

    I like Roger Pielke, Sr. comment on the posting

    Roger A. Pielke Sr. 28 February 2015
    I tweeted this https://twitter.com/RogerAPielkeSr/status/571383919376932865

    AGU response implicitly supports Grijalva (D-Ariz.) http://fromtheprow.agu.org/blog/protecting-academic-freedom-holding-accountable/ … A failure of leadership by Margaret Leinen – President, AGU
    The AMS statement is what the AGU (Dr. Leinen) should have endorsed. It included the strong message
    ” Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers”
    http://www.ametsoc.org/sss/letter_on_challenges_to_academic_freedom_Feb15.pdf
    I urge an improved statement by our AGU President, or at least an endorsement of the AMS Statement.

    Too bad he did not get the ‘Political Spin’ definition included of “And all those young researchers better understand it will happen to them also, if they don’t toe the line.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s