Two days ago David Dilley wrote about the widespread suppression of alternative scientific views on climate change at the academic level, even though these skeptical views are far more in line with observations than the climate model projections.
Today he comments on the apparent suppression of science at the American Meteorological Association (AMS).
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) – Living Up to Their Mission – or Suppressing Vital Climate Information?
By David Dilley (former NOAA meteorologist)
Suppression of science is not only going on at universities and academic institutions, but also at societies and government operated agencies.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) mission statement claims they are “a prestigious membership scientific society that promotes the development, dissemination and education on the atmospheric, oceanic and hydrologic sciences – and the advancement of their professional applications”. Is there a play on words here – maybe advancement of “their” professional applications? Does this mean they promote only “their” views and not others? Could this mean they are obstructing some advances in science by refusing to consider certain aspects of climate change research, such as natural cycles?
This very well may be the case, especially their statement gives the appearance of a final conclusion: “Warming of the climate system now is unequivocal” and “is beyond what can be explained by the natural variability of the climate”. Further into their mission statement they talk only about warming during the past century, and absolutely nothing about prior climate cycles. Have they taken sides with the aim of promoting only anthropogenic grants and dismiss natural cycle research entirely? Indications that this is so are hard not to notice. How will history judge an institution that excludes the huge factor of solar activity from the climate equation?
AMS Suppression of Science Concerning Natural Climate Change – and Other Views
In my last post we saw that according to Dr. William Gray of the University of Colorado, and other researchers, if you are associated with a university and believe in cyclical climate change rather than anthropogenic induced change, you’ll have to wait until after retirement to publish science that supports alternative views. And then you will still hit major snags, among them cut-off grant money, journals that will you jump through hoops, unreasonably nitpicky editors and reviewers,who often refuse papers simply because they do not like your view.
And the same holds true for private researchers. I submitted a proposed natural cycle paper to the AMS Journal of Climate back in 2007 and promptly received a curt reply by the editor: “not in this journal”. As a result of the obstacles encountered in publishing natural cycle research, I took an alternative route and proceeded online by publishing the EBook “Global Warming-Global Cooling, Natural Cause Found”, which was peer-reviewed by three meteorologists and published online in 2009. It was later updated online in 2012. A video update was published on the NoTricksZone on 12 August 2015: “We Are Now Starting To See A Dramatic Cooling In The Arctic”, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist … “Extremely Cold From 2025 To 2050!”
And finally, a few years after my manuscript was rejected by the AMS in a very curt manner, I submitted a membership request in 2010 for my Global Weather Oscillations Incorporated (GWO) to become a corporate member. GWO fulfilled all of the AMS guidelines for membership, yet the board voted membership down 5-0. Prior to the vote the AMS office looked through the GWO web site, and especially our views on climate change. This heightened my curiosity concerning membership denial, so I wrote to the AMS asking why the corporate membership was denied. Their response came about 3 months later: “do not know why“. I then found out through an AMS employee that during the past 30 years – only 3 corporations had ever been denied membership. So again I tried to find out why by calling the Executive Director of the AMS. His reply: all 5 board members voted not to grant membership and that there were “no records regarding the decision“. Really? No records or recollection? Does this seem odd?
What are they trying to hide?