November 13, 2009
Letter from Lucy M. Hancock, Consultant and AGU Member, to American Geophysical Union (AGU) and forwarded to President Obama, regarding membership consensus on climate change

Mr. President, November 11, 2009

This EM is a personal opinion and not a World Bank point of view.
I understand that the AGU, without effective consultation of membership, has presumed to speak for us all and to claim that there exists a consensus of opinion that climate change underway is driven by human-generated greenhouse gases.
There is no such consensus. I am not much of a scientist myself (and today -- I feel smaller than ever having been marginalized by my own supposed professional support organization), but there are first rate scientists who do not agree with the AGU position. In my judgment, the dissenters are the better scientists. Who on God's earth dares disagree with Richard Lindzen on atmosphere, and call it a consensus, or Dave Legates on climate history, or Willie Soon on solar effects, and I could name others? Those who disagree with them are not in my opinion second raters.
I too am a second-rater, but at least I know it.
My professional organization overstepped its mandate in claiming to speaking for all and describing the views of many -- even it may be of a majority -- as a consensus. Many of the better scientists do not hold the view that has been represented to you. I view AGU's action as impertinent and have told them so.
Yours very truly,
Lucy Hancock
____________________________________________________________________________________

Mr. President,

I saw in current EOS that AGU has written a formal letter to the effect that there is a consensus in AGU that climate change at present is caused by human-generated greenhouse gases primarily.
Consensus is a strong word. It means no one disagrees, who counts.
I do not agree; I suppose this means I don't count. Is this what you meant to communicate to your membership? Did you actually mean to marginalize everyone who does not agree with you, and subject us to the extent you can, to being marginalized in our various contexts? I suppose you did. You have heard of people being fired because they did not agree with this point of view, and ... I suppose... that was fine with you?
I think this exercise represents a mis-assessment of your responsibilities to your membership (it is impertinent), that it wrongly represents what people think, that it fails to acknowledge uncertainties, and that its publication will tend to promote the interests and careers of weaker scientists who do not see the uncertainties and questions or will not admit them.
Lucy Hancock
p.s., Have you heard of Lysenko?