Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is AGU
December 11, 2017
It's that time of year again. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting is December 11 - 15. Unlike previous years when it was in San Francisco, this year it is in New Orleans. When we (Dr. Duane Thresher and Dr. Claudia Kubatzki) used to go, it was always in San Francisco.
New Orleans is actually an appropriate choice. It is a BIG oil city, with lots of oil drilling (in the Gulf), refining, shipping (e.g., tankers), and corporate offices. When my woman officemate at NASA GISS married another Columbia University DEES (Department of Earth & Environmental Sciences) grad student, he got a job with an oil company and they moved to New Orleans.
Why would big oil make New Orleans appropriate for AGU? Because AGU and its scientists take so much money from oil companies. That is as it should be. Much of geophysics was developed for finding oil. Oil companies practically built AGU -- and modern society -- by themselves. The new politically correct, climate change warrior AGU though, pretends to hate oil companies with a lot of public condemnation, but then officially and quietly decides to "engage the oil companies over the long term" (i.e., "we are never going to give up the oil money") and continue to take their money. Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
So all you environmentalists who need something to protest head on down to the AGU Fall Meeting in New Orleans. Toss some oil and blood on some scientists or whatever it is you do to protest oil these days. Wait. That would be some serious polluting (blood is a biohazard) so forget I suggested that. Or maybe hypocrisy, thy name is environmentalist? See the massive pollution environmentalists left behind where they protested the Keystone Pipeline for months.
Oh, protesters, don't look for the scientists at the meeting itself; mostly they will be sightseeing and at the bars. Hey, it's on the taxpayers so why not?
Actually, when AGU made the "keep the oil money flowing" decision there was a Twitter storm against @AGU. However, all AGU responded with was Robin Bell, next president of AGU, saying how great she is for women in science (see end of article for Bell's oil connections). In short, AGU will just ignore you and stay in their fantasy world.
New Orleans is better than San Francisco, city of climate change fascists, also because they are less likely to violently attack climate change blasphemer scientists. Wait. AGU has already eliminated those scientists, so there won't be any there anyway. Never mind.
I was thinking about AGU for other reasons recently too. The Weinstein of Climate Science was a president of AGU and I have been continuing my case against him. My FOIA requests to the NSF about him came back very quickly with "nothing found". If you don't want to find, you won't find. Don't worry, it was expected, and I have just begun.
More importantly, the NSF, including Director France A. Cordova, now knows the name of The Weinstein of Climate Science and I have a record of this. If they don't investigate now it will be a scandal and make defunding the NSF easier. I think I'll let AGU, particularly women-in-science warrior Robin Bell, know who he is too, since he was a president of AGU, and see if they investigate. They won't. Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
Guess who the keynote speaker at the AGU Fall Meeting is this year? Dan Rather. If you are older than 30 and not completely clueless, hearing this will make you shake your head in astonishment and then break out laughing cynically.
For the rest of you, you can look up the rest of Rather's often-embarassing bio yourself, but he was on the TV news show 60 Minutes during the 2004 presidential election and was desperately trying to smear Republican candidate George W. Bush (the mainstream media didn't just invent being completely biased last year).
Rather came up with some documents supposedly from the 1970's discrediting Bush's Texas Air National Guard service record. However, it was quickly found that the documents, supposedly typed with a common 1970's typewriter, used a proportional font, which was unavailable then but a standard feature of Microsoft Word in 2004! My God, Dan, how stupid can you be?
The ensuing scandal ruined Rather and caused him to retire. He apparently thinks enough time has passed, people will have forgotten, and he can spruce up his reputation before he dies (it worked for Bill Clinton), starting at the bottom of the barrel, AGU.
So AGU thinks Dan Rather is a role model for scientists. What's the message here, "be more clever than Rather was when you fake your data"? Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
Guess who won the AGU Climate Communication Prize this year? Stefan Rahmstorf. If you've followed us you know all about this fake climatologist Gestapo thug. For the newcomers, read Heil Klimafuehrer Rahmstorf! and AGU's "Climate Change: Believe It Or Else" Prize. In short, this great climate communicator does so by slandering, libeling and threatening anyone who disagrees with him. Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
If you are going to AGU say heil to Rahmstorf for us. Rahmstorf will know who you are talking about, particularly after our Rahmstorf-inclusive last article, Angie, Clever Hans, Pope Frank, and a Climate-Controlled World, which got the German Federal Office for Information Security after us again (from IP address 18.104.22.168 this time but they have the range 22.214.171.124 - 126.96.36.199 out of Bonn and 188.8.131.52 - 184.108.40.206 out of Berlin). Merkel apparently uses this BSI (German: Bundesamt fuer Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik) to censor, like we were, the Internet Germany sees and silence criticism of her and her political weapons, like climate change. It's no surprise that Germany produced Rahmstorf and AGU honors him. Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
Speaking of the Gestapo/Stasi, the AGU has its own this year. They've instituted a new "code of conduct", probably with the help of "climate scientist" Peter Gleick, who had to resign from the AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics after lying in order to steal from a global warming skeptic group. Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
The AGU code of conduct reads like it was written by the former East German communist dictatorship. In order to "protect" people, no personal attacks are allowed. Disagreeing with or criticizing someone is a personal attack (in science, where ideas are often very personal, this is often true). In short, no dissent from the "scientific consensus" mandated by AGU is allowed. Of course, AGU's main cause where this applies these days is another protection racket, climate change.
To enforce this code of conduct, they will have AGU agents, wearing "Safe AGU" badges, patrolling the meeting. Or if you think anyone has violated this code of conduct you can report them. In either case, they will be "immediately removed from the meeting without warning or refund". I wish I was making this up since it is nightmarish to us. (Antifa is right about one thing, if you don't speak up about fascism early, it will take over. Antifa is just wrong about who the fascists are.)
Dr. Claudia Kubatzki says this is just what happens with too many women, or womanly men, in science (or politics). Nobody can disagree or in any other way criticize someone else; it's considered "bullying" and is too distressing for snowflake scientists. Debate ends. Committees proliferate. Science, via scientific consensus, becomes just "what we all think it should be". Sociology is considered science. Sexual harassers abound (outing them would be criticizing them and be too distressing). It's how political correctness got started. I got in trouble in German climate science for disagreeing with/criticizing the science ideas of others -- Gerrit Lohmann your ideas, and you, are stupid -- and not only are there quite a few women but most of the men are womanly too. Dr. Kubatzki agrees.
Only in snowflake science is "trash talk" considered a personal attack, called bullying, and outlawed. It's a time-honored tradition in pro sports, politics, and debate in general (Congress: "To my esteemed colleague from the great pig-raising state of ..."). It's often the only reason any of these are watched. When you don't have taxpayer-paid sightseeing and drinking to attract an audience to a science talk, trash talk is often the only thing that will.
And seriously, trash talk is also a very useful tool. The smartest scientists will have the most clever trash talk, that's how you know they are the smartest. If it is not clever, just boo them or trash talk them back, don't have "enforcers" remove them from the building.
More importantly, contrary to popular fantasy, scientific ideas are not immediately obvious as brilliant or stupid, particularly in speculative sciences like climate science, where you can't actually prove by experiment (this is all climate models are really for, NOT prediction, although they are a poor substitute for the real thing). No, scientific ideas are usually put forth personally by one scientist -- not a committee -- and succeed or flounder based on that scientist's will. And that will is largely the scientist's ability to deal with "personal attacks". Survival of the smartest.
That's how I know climate change warriors are not smart: their attacks on me have not been very clever.
So for all those cowards in AGU who won't, let me trash talk/attack personally the next president of the AGU, Robin Bell, a woman from Columbia University, my alma mater. I was looking at her CV. She brags she has been on 38 committees! Those who can do, those who can't ... are on committees. I'm waiting for the Committee on Robin Bell's Committees (although that would lead to paradoxes; see Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem). She apparently did not have time to do any real science. Now she'll be President of AGU so will have even less time. Much of her time is paid for by the taxpayer, who thinks they are getting real science for their money.
But how much extracurricular money did Bell personally take from oil companies for her "Major Accomplishment" of Founded Start-up using Gravity Gradiometry Technology for Oil and Gas Exploration? Hypocrisy, thy name is AGU.
I got an invitation from Columbia DEES to go to the Columbia reception at the AGU Fall Meeting. Do you suppose I am still invited?
Obviously I can't go to the AGU Fall Meeting itself. I would instantly be attacked by Safe AGU agents. "Safe" doesn't include dissidents.