"The AMS has not held the type of open and honest scientific debates on the AGW hypothesis which they should have."

Writes Bill Gray Professor Emeritus, Colorado State University, (American Meteorological Society Fellow, Charney Award recipient, and over 50-year member):

Why have they dodged open discussion on such an important issue? I’ve been told that the American Economic Society does not take sides on controversial economic issues but acts primarily to help in stimulating back and forth discussion. This is what the AMS should have been doing but haven’t....

Many of us AMS members believe that the modest global warming we have observed is of natural origin and due to multi-decadal and multi-century changes in the globe’s deep ocean circulation resulting from salinity variations. These changes are not associated with CO2 increases. Most of the GCM modelers have little experience in practical meteorology. They do not realize that the strongly chaotic nature of the atmosphere-ocean climate system does not allow for skillful initial value numerical climate prediction....

The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency....

Read the whole thing.

Science needs to be science. It is a great violation of ethics to make it politics or religion.