"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)

This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over five years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"

PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...

Wednesday, 4 June 2014

AGU: Enforcing the consensus

Judith Curry
JC comments:  Without making a personal judgment regarding the merits of Asten’s proposal or the suitability of his article for Eos, there are two things here that greatly concern me.
The first is that the AGU Policy Statement on Climate Change is being used as a rationale for editorial decisions in AGU publications.  My displeasure about the AGU policy statement on climate change is discussed in these two previous posts:
The letter from the Editor to Asten realizes my worst fear about the AGU statement on climate change:  that it will be used as a basis for making editorial decisions to reject papers or to not even send them out for review.
The second is this statement:  “I understand that you have a perspective that does not align with the consensus presented in AGU’s position statement.”   There is nothing in Asten’s submitted essay that is overtly ‘skeptical’; rather he is arguing that AGU needs to facilitate a broader spectrum of scholarship and dialogue on this topic.  However, if you google ‘Michael Asten’, he clearly shows up as a scientist that is skeptical of climate change.  It seems that the Editor of Eos also did the same googling, identified Asten as a skeptic, which motivated the content of the Editor’s letter.  So this was as much about the ‘person’ as about the content of Asten’s essay.
And finally, this isn’t just some naive, rogue editor.  After all, the editor engaged in “thoughtful and lengthy consultation with colleagues and AGU staff”
I received the initial email from Michael Asten about this on May 16.  With Asten’s permission, I forwarded his email to Peter Webster, who is President of the AGU Atmospheric Sciences Section and a member of the AGU Council.  He asked me to hold off on a blog post, while he tried to get the AGU to deal with this issue internally.  He sent emails to the AGU leadership, voicing his concerns about using the AGU policy statement as a basis for rejecting an article, and requesting permission to send an email to the Council voicing his concerns about AGU’s editorial policies in this regard.   He was denied permission to communicate with the Council regarding this issue, and was told that he had no standing to communicate with the Eos editor over this matter since he was not an author on the paper in question. (note Peter Webster gave me permission to report on this interaction with the AGU leadership).
Apart from the extremely disturbing editorial process, the concerns raised in Asten’s essay are important ones – he is concerned that the scientific dialogue on climate change at the AGU is too narrow, and  about the impact of this on graduate students and young scientists.
I am a member of the AGU, and am currently a member of the Fellows Committee that selects Fellows for the Atmospheric Sciences Section.  In the near term, I will remain a member of the AGU and I am highly supportive of Peter Webster’s efforts to work within the organization to effect change.  But I am increasingly conflicted about my membership in the AGU, with its irresponsible advocacy that is compromising its own core values."

No comments:

Post a Comment