Keith’s note: This is somewhat baffling. The AGU is not some fly by night organization but rather one with an impressive history. That said, I cannot understand why they can’t take a moment to inform their membership that Jim Bridenstine has made several clear statements about climate science – statements that directly concern issues raised by the AGU and its membership.

Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member 🖖🏻

7 replies on “The AGU Is Ignoring Significant Climate Policy News”

  2. For one, is it now news that someone accepts the truth as accepted by 98% of the informed public?

    Secondly, they did RT at least one time direct quotes by Bridenstine to this effect, so I’m not sure what the problem is.

  3. Maybe the AGU doesn’t trust what he says? I mean, we’re talking about somebody who’s past statements (and self-dealing actions) do not lead one to automatically believe what he’s saying now.

    I’m not saying he’s not (now) sincere. But he has a ways to go before he instills confidence in the community.

    Besides, why is it baffling when a large scientific institution doesn’t shout hosannas from their roof top every time a government official makes a statement about something that is widely accepted in the scientific community? (Although, given the current administration, maybe they should. Good Lord, what have we sunk to in this country.)

    1. The fact that the Administrator’s views have evolved should be seen as a positive thing, and not as a criticism.

      Our tendency to nail someone by flashing previous statements while intimating some sort of dishonesty means that our officials cannot do what we want them to do: evolve.

      The blame for the “gotcha” predilection should be at the feet of where it started: 24 hour news.

      1. 1) There’s an old saying, “Talk is cheap.” Let’s wait a year or two and see whether he backs up the talk.

        2) I don’t get this whole “gotcha” bit. There’s more in his background than an “evolution” in thought from climate change denier to climate change believer. The man, as far as I can tell, was a self-dealer when he was head of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum, and I believe he needs to provide a more complete answer as to what he did back then. How is that a “gotcha” predeliction?

        2. You are at least partly right, in this case, Colin. Still I think that we see change in public figures as ‘bad’ more often than ‘good’, is all.

          (I’m not sure about the TASM story, but from what I’ve read the Admin comes out covered with stink).

Comments are closed.