Bishop Hill GeolSoc wants your input
Mar 20, 2010 Climate: other The Geological Society is going to prepare a position paper on climate change and wants your input:
The Geological Society has decided to prepare a position statement on climate change. A drafting group has been convened, which will prepare a document summarising the geological evidence. The resulting document will aim to provide a clear and concise summation, accessible to a general audience, of the scientific certainties and uncertainties; as well as including references to further sources of information.
The drafting group met on 18 February, and are currently working on finalising a draft statement. This will be discussed, revised and agreed by the External Relations Committee, and by Council, prior to publication.
Fellows wishing to contribute comments for consideration by the drafting group are invited to send their thoughts to Sarah Day at sarah.day@geolsoc.org.uk.
Please note: the deadline for receipt of comments has now been extended to 15 April.
Reader Comments (28)
The Geological Society appears to operate without government funding, so maybe their position statement can be objective. I wouldn't hold my breath though.
Dear Friends of Truth,
Please do not allow our governments to ram down our throats a new carbon tax and emmissions trading ponzi scheme, that is based on the pseudoscience of the IPCC. How can you trade something you can't see or hold?
The reality is, despite the daily lies spouted in the mainstream media, there is no conclusive evidence of man-made global warming caused by CO2 (a harmless gas plants need to make food). The only conclusive evidence we have is of IPCC-linked scientists, bankers, and politicians who all have their hands in the cookie jar of carbon commissions.
I ask you to judge these proponents of man-made global warming on these three simple rules:
1) Tell the truth.
2) Don't hide or spin the truth.
3) Admit and take responsibility for your errors.
Have any of these following individuals fulfilled these three simple rules?
- Al Gore
- Rajendra Pachauri
- Michael Mann
- Phil Jones
- Kevin Rudd
- Ed Miliband
- Barack Obama
Have these people shown integrity and responsibility in the conduct of their affairs? Should we base the entire overhaul of our economic system and way of life on the words of these people?
When I was young, I was taught this and it still rings true today:
"Your word is your bond,
Once broken, the trust is gone."
Please do not allow the greedy bankers, politicians, yes-man scientists, and unelected UN bureaucrats to dictate how we should live our lives.
Already, the UN secretary Ban Ki-Moon is pushing for global carbon taxation. THEY ARE TRYING TO SNEAK THIS UNDER OUR NOSES. For example, see here:
http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/news/IMF%20proposes%20climate%20change%20kitty%20/-/2558/878408/-/yco3d3z/-/
The rich and wealthy people don't care. Laws that affect the middle class don't apply to them. "Let them eat carbon" for all they care. Remember, most of these rich people own the hedge funds and venture capital that are all heavily invested in "green" technology -- and they are lobbying hard for carbon emmissions trading because they are going to make a lot of money at the expense of middle-class taxpayers.
The issue of global warming was never about saving the environment. It's all about scaring, extorting, and controlling middle class taxpayers. For the UN, this carbon emmissions ponzi scheme is the perfect cash cow to fund their New World Order agenda--no need for accountability and cannot be prosecuted by law.
Even worse, they are now attempting the unforgivable, which is to brainwash and indoctrinate our children into believing the global warming hogwash. Hitler youth, anyone? You can try and scare me but HANDS OFF MY KIDS. Growing up is hard enough, they don't need the added burden and guilt of a false idealogy.
It's time to close the IPCC. It's time to close the UN. Warn everyone you know about how the UN is hijacking our democracy and pushing their one world government agenda, so they can one day control the masses as they wish. So much power in the hands of a few unelected people, how can abuse and corruption not take place?
PLEASE BE VIGILANT. Our way of life is currently under serious threat from this unelected clique of elites under the guise of man-made global warming. THEY ARE TRYING AND WILL KEEP TRYING TO SNEAK CARBON TAXATION AND CARBON EMISSIONS TRADING UNDER OUR NOSES.
Please write to or call your representatives and tell them that you do not accept the pseudoscience of the IPCC/UN. Call for independent inquiries into the various AGW-related scandals errupting now but conveniently being swept under the carpet. Ask the AG to investigate Al Gore for fraud. Vote out any representative who continues to push this false religion of AGW.
Thank you.
Special note on Obama: When Obama was first elected, I had great hopes for him and his administration. In recent times, it has dawned on me that he is just a self-serving politician no different from Al Gore, out to make a quick buck at the expense of American taxpayers. Don't be fooled by the current healthcare reform nonsense--this is just a smokescreen for Obama and his wealthy patrons' real agenda: to push through a carbon emissions trading system in the US. Note how Obama tries to stay away from this issue at the same time instructing the EPA to regulate CO2. Further note how Obama played a crucial role in founding the Chicago Climate Exchange, of which now Rajendra Pachauri and Maurice Strong are board members.
the obvious one..
Stop using 'climate change' (natural) interchangebly to mean man made climate change..
One is reality.
One is an UNPROVEN theory..
We can't explain things in our computer models, therefore it 'Must' be man made climate change, IS NOT science.
they MUST seperate the 2.
The latest version of the Geoscientist magazine (published by Geol Soc) has an article in it very critical of models for ice movement and the "collapse" of ice sheets.
http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/page7209.html
No, it wants input from Fellows.
They also have a code of conduct:
Obviously terribly elitist and repressive of them.
I've just read the paper from the Geological Society that Derek Walton (above) guided me to.
It is an excellent discussion of the factors involved in the way that glaciers flow and melt at the edges. And even includes some physics and a physical description of how the glaciers are thought to behave.
Professor Ollier shows that current air temperatures have very little influence over the rate of glacier advance or retreat. These are determined by glacial conditions thousands of years ago. Or put another way, glaciers are very long lagging indicators of climate.
It should be required reading for all who try to use glacial observations as proof (or lack of) global warming. He shows that arguments on both sides are futile.
If his contribution in the Geoscientist (*) is typical, I expect that the Geological Society will have some harsh words for AGW-theory as currently propounded.
*Geoscientist is described thus: 'the Society publishes Geoscientist, a magazine for its Fellows'
"....which will prepare a document summarising the geological evidence"
There's tons of evidence the climate changes, it always has, there is little evidence man caused any via Co2 emissions - as Barry points out above I wonder if they will make that distinction.
Just for information (from the Geological Society website):
A Fellow is basically a member of the Geological Society. The term distinguishes them from Student or Candidate Fellows (who pay a lower membership fee).
Guts of an email I just fired off:
I am emailing you in the hope that the relevance of the problem of saltwater intrusion into fresh groundwater supplies in the climate-change debate can be raised with the Society and perhaps addressed in the statement.
Many low-lying tropical islands and coastal areas (the Maldives, Tuvalu and the Ganges Delta are most often in the news) are experiencing intrusion of saltwater into wells and boreholes. Media reports and pro-AGW advocates commonly ascribe this phenomenon directly to AGW-caused sea-level rise, to the extent that the connection is often not even explicitly stated, but simply taken as "obvious". To the layman, it seems simple and logical; so it's gained wide currency, and it's frequently cited in "warmist" advocacy.
In fact, the current rate of sea-level rise, at about 3 mm/year, is nowhere near rapid enough to cause significant insalination of groundwater supplies. As geologists, you'll be aware that sea-water intrusion is the result of depletion through over-abstraction of the fresh-water "lens" and the attendant elevation of the freshwater-saltwater boundary. In short the problem is not that sea-level is rising, but that fresh groundwater is being pumped out of the ground faster than it's being rained back in. There is an explanation, with a good diagram, at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltwater_intrusion#Ghyben-Herzberg_relation, which I find makes a good citation when debating this subject.
[end email]
Good example of the mendacious crap that this thing generates to be found there: http://www.desmogblog.com/mythical-tuvalu-pineapple (Don't bother trying to comment - comments at DSB are strictly Potemkin)
This is important. We've been dealing with a three-mil-a-year rise for over a century, no sweat - the warmies have already lost there. Day-to-day sea-level is concrete, verifiable, unfiddleabble. All the ammunition they have left in this area is in the future - UAE-type computer models, nothing more.
Salt-water intrusion is the number-one "fact" used to prop up the "disappearing islands" nonsense ). Kill this myth and we've pretty well nailed the "AGW's already here" argument.
As a footnote, a big factor in all this is the behaviour of the governments of affected nations like Tuvalu and the Maldives. They really, really want (a) AGW to be not true, so they don't have to wade to work in 2100 and (b) everybody else to believe AGW is true, so the aid money keeps pumping. Go figure.
I think this is all well and good, but the value of it is lost on me.
Another statement from an institutional body substantially 'endorsing' the IPCC position will have little impact.
Going against the grain and pointing out, what we know, what we think we know, what we know we don't know etc. (i.e. we don't really have good evidence for AGW one way or the other), will just generate 'hate email' for GeolSoc. A bit like standing in line for a good **** kicking if you ask me. They should have a quick word with the IoP - just keep quiet and hope it all goes away.
Also Geology, thats Oil isn't it?
Anihony Watts has an interesting article from Science News. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/20/science%e2%80%99s-dirtiest-secret-the-%e2%80%9cscientific-method%e2%80%9d-of-testing-hypotheses-by-statistical-analysis-stands-on-a-flimsy-foundation/#more-17521
Readers of "The Book" above probably suspected most of it.
Excellent news. I have been looking forward to hearing the institutional voice of geologists for a long, long time. I don't think they made a submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into the CRU fiasco. That's a pity because what they had to say would have significant bearing on my thinking about AGW.
I have always thought of Geology as a very territorial scientific discipline and hence their communal silence with regard to AGW as disquieting. Thus far geologists spoke as individuals. The two leading AGW sceptics from Australia, Ian Plimer and Bob Carter, it must be noted, are geologists. I have noted, and heard others say the same, that climate scientists never managed to get the support of the geologists behind their science.
What geological community have to say on the AGW is guaranteed to make a huge impact on the debate. And now they are on the march!
FOD
Still waiting for you erudite and brilliant mathematical rebuttal of VS's Root Unit argument. Surely someone with you scientific "knowledge" can do that in a moment. Just ask Al Gore for help.
At least the UK Geological Society is canvassing their Membership before publishing a position paper
The Geological Society of Australia (GSA) did no such thing. The "Executive Committee" of the GSA (comprised exclusively of academic geologists) simply publically pontificated that the GSA supported the AGW view of climate change. This high-handedness caused much chagrin amongst the Membership of course, but the "Executive Committee" simply said" "Too bad!!"
There is a mildly amusing footnote to this disgraceful episode. Another professional organisation for geoscientists exists in Australia - the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). The AIG has Membership entry requirements and caveats on Members' professional conduct very similar to that of the GSA (many of my colleagues were Members of both), but the AIG Membership is mostly comprised of people outside of Academia.
The "Executive Committee" of the GSA sought a merger with the AIG for reasons deliberately never disclosed to either Membership (in fact, questions as to why the merger was considered desirable were simply ignored). My educated guess is that the GSA "Executive Committee" involved themselves in an attempted power grab in order to claim that both organisations supported the AGW position, thus increasing the likelihood of garnering research funds
So the AIG polled their Membership on the desirability of such a merger. It was overwhelmingly defeated, primarily on the grounds that the AIG Membership did not want their organisation controlled by academics :) :)
The confluence of these events persuaded me to resign from the GSA (after 32 years continuous membership) and join the AIG
Don Pabolo,
After you.
Bring out the tea and biscuits. The Spaniard and Irishman are dancing again!
Be nice you two or His Grace will admonish you again.
This is just another example of top-down "science" and should be discouraged. Scientists do science. Organisations do politics. At best the result will be a review article written by committee, at worst simply a political statement motivated by a desire to take part in the wider political process.
And every statement of this kind is an institutionalised form of the Appeal to Authority. Attach the name of an ancient and distinguished institution and the implied (but entirely false) claim that it represents the views of thousands of scientists to an otherwise routine written statement and suddenly it's a major contribution to the debate.
Sceptics who read this blog tend to cheer the institutions who seem to agree with them (e.g. IOP) and boo the ones who don't. But really we should be rejecting all of these top-down pronouncements as part of the politicisation of climate science that is destroying all chances of rational debate.
@ianl8888
Thank you for the info. I live in Sydney but never knew that an Australian geological organisation had offered an opinion on AGW. I thought it was pretty much a standard procedure for a professional body to canvas the opinion of members before issuing statement positions on controversial matters. Many AGW proponents rapped the Institute of Physics for not seeking its members' views before the UK inquiry submission that called into question the integrity of climate science. But the difference is that that was a 'submission' that looked into the specific scientific misconduct that was exposed in the liberated emails, and not a position paper on the AGW science in general. It will be interesting to see whether other professional scientific bodies (including the IoP) will follow the footsteps of the Geological Society and write up position papers after consulting their memberships. I have repeatedly said elsewhere that unless other scientific disciplines put it under the microscope and declare it kosher, climatology will have as much credibility for me as astrology. I would like to hear especially from three disciplines: physicists, because they are the high priests of science; geologists, because they know about the earth system and its history more than anyone else; and statisticians, because there has been so many complaints about the statistical tools used by climatologists.
Another comment I'd like to make is about the difference which you highlighted well in your examples of GSA and AIG. When I was at the law school a long time ago, we would often have mock trials (moots) adjudicated by senior students or lecturers or, in more senior moot competitions, before real judges in real courtrooms. I still can't forget a lecture that was given by a judge at the end of one of the moots when he said that many students considered law in too abstract and idealistic terms whereas things worked differently in the "engine room". He was trying to highlight the distinction between the world of legal academia and the world of practitioners. I don't know how well that distinction applies to scientific professions but I have learned not to value the opinion of an academic more than that of a practicing professional. If the AIG membership refused the merger with GSA because they did not want to be controlled by academics, then they didn't do it without a valid reason. But then again they probably missed the chance to absorb a rival organisation that was previously run by academics. :)
Anyway...Since you've mentioned that you are a geologist, could you tell us what your colleagues generally think of the AGW hypothesis? Would the AIG consider issuing a position statement as well?
sHx and ianl8888
As editor of AIG News, AIG's stated position on AGW is that it has no position.
Excerpt from Feb Issue President's statement:
As an aside, some years back two academic AIG members tried to have me dismissed as editor for my sceptical position; AIG Council responded curtly via two letters which can't be printed here; however I remain as editor, so the silver plate was handed back to them without severed head.
Generally most industry geologists (non academics) dismiss AGW as crap, though some do support it.
I occasionally receive a pro AGW letter or article and it gets published. No pro AGW submission has been refused.
@Mark Weston,
Good post Mark, as were those from our Australian colleagues. The role of Institutional bodies is to act as 'referees' in the debates of their members. I thought the AIG Presidents statement was very good. From Louis' post above.
"What we do have is a commitment to promote and facilitate vigorous, robust and appropriately informed discussion of arguments for and against" (excellent!)
You can tell something is going wrong when the referee, as a result of appeals from either 'team', feels the need to take part in the game himself.
Entertaining as that spectacle might be, its not what we paid to see.
More free publicity?
http://sppiblog.org/
These imprimaturs and 'Good Housekeeping Seals of Approval' from the scientific institutes are a mainstay of the claim that there is a scientific consensus on AGW/CC.
Probably one of the reasons there was so much huffing and puffing and faux outrage over the IOP. In my experience, geologists and geophysicists as groups tend to be very dismissive of the narrative.
This is just another turn of the gear in the "democratisation" of science. Another scientific body whose editorialised voice misrepresents its membership by feeding the flames of consensus science.
This is a further example of a post-normal, value embedded activity engaged in by a scientific body because the Geological Society "position" will inevitably be a political stance - how can it be anything else?
Ultimately, the call to publish a result paper was made to force a political stance from an organisation whose paymasters are demanding that their position to be made public in order to leverage the result to their political advantage: It is simply inconceivable that the Geological Society will report anything other than an endorsement of AGW theory, and the matter of scientific integrity will reamain secondary to this.
AusIMM (Australian Institute of Mining & Metallurgy) also has lots of geologists (some of the prominent/world famous ones are in the associated MICA(Minerals Industry Consultants Association)) and a similar code of ethics. Due to the many geologists who know that present climate changes are in the range of past climate changes (which also applies to the levels of temperature and CO2) AusIMM has a policy to have no stance on present debate about GW. A reasonable position by the Geological Society might help the AusIMM to take a more firm stance.
Agree Chuckles,
From a Physics perspective, there has been nothing more invigorating to the field than a well argued challenge to the percieved wisdom.
The Theory of Light
(Royal Society Heavyweights Hooke vs Newton)
Quantum Mechanics
(God does not play dice with the Universe, Einstien)
The 'Big Bang' Idea
(the original pejorative name for it, Hoyle)
String Theory
(String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses. Feynman)
Jury still out on this one, Feynman may still be right.
There was a time when places like the Royal Society and other Institutions were the battleground for such debates. Now, they are simply asked to 'pronounce', safely endorsing an establishment position, all other arguments rendered moot. Disappointing.
As you say,
"In my experience, geologists and geophysicists as groups tend to be very dismissive of the narrative"
Physicists by their very nature are too.
Mark Weston above articulates well the objections of some fellow sceptics to institutional pronouncements but I must say I disagree strongly with that view for a number of reasons. I'll focus on and expand only two of them.
The first and foremost of these is that institutions are not there to protect the interests of its members only. Institutions have moral obligation to protect public interest as well. Institutions are meant to protect the general public by regulating the conduct of its members, and by keeping a watch on their field so that unqualified individuals do not enter and take advantage of the unsuspecting public. For example, Australian Medical Association is morally responsible to ensure that its members do not prescribe/sell snake oil to its patients. Similarly, AMA has a moral obligation to warn the public if it becomes aware that a quack has set up a shop selling a cure-all ointment to the gullible members of the public. We already have a precedent on this with medical professional bodies expressing doubts about the effectiveness of the so-called alternative medicine/therapy.
Secondly, the case for unprecedented, urgent, CO2-caused, catastrophic, apocalyptic, doomy-gloomy, etc, AGW has been made most forcefully by institutional arrangements. Not just the IPCC, but a whole variety of institutions, ranging from scientific bodies to political parties to governments to media to churches and to a host of other groupings and petitions enjoined by an endless number of know-it-alls. To think that this juggernaut can be rolled back by a Lindzen's, a Plimer's, a McIntyre's and several fellow traveler's individual efforts is naive in the extreme, no matter how honest, how correct these people are. What good to humanity, to the world economy, to science and to those individuals could there be, if they are proven right in 20, 30, 50 years from now? It is imperative that these individuals' efforts are augmented and fortified with institutional voices and support networks. I don't mean to say that scientific institutions should throw their support behind the sceptics. That would indeed be politics, not science. I am saying institutions should be urged to speak out if they have doubts about climate science and the methodology, especially so if such doubts are widely held by their members. I think a vast amount of climate scepticism remains unexpressed because individual scientists have been intimidated into silence. Institutional expressions of doubt and uncertainty with regard to AGW will comfort those individuals and encourage more of them to speak out as well.
So it is that I am really looking forward to hearing what Geological Society has to say. I was delighted with the IoP's submission to the UK Inquiry. It went much further than I expected. If I may express it with some humour, physicists are truly honest to god scientists. Indeed, their strong critique of the methodology as disclosed in the CRU emails may well be the catalyst for Geological Society's forthcoming position paper. I hope the IoP, statistical community and others will follow with their own papers. It is high time that politics fave way to science.
The GeolSoc is an interesting grouping. Although I am not a member myself (I am a geophysicist, not a geologist) a lot of my friends and colleagues are. The GeolSoc is not elitist, it simply has some minimum requirements for membership and in this sense is no different to many other professional and quasi-professional organisations.
Membership of the GeolSoc is quite varied and includes oil industry, mining and academic geologists as well as other groups such as geologists who may work for the British Geological Survey ie government geologists in many different fields.
Many of the members employed in industry (usually oil and gas or mining, but also hydrogeology and engineering) I would suspect are somewhat sceptical of AGW theory and certainly many of those that I meet from the oil industry are very sceptical. However, like me most see little point in speaking out even though they have relevent professional experience to comment on AGW. Any sceptical comment they make is likely to be labelled by pro-AGW supporters as simply the words of "big oil" or "mining" shills. Its a no-win for them, even though the oil industry only employs the very best whose opinion should really carry significant weight.
One point worth making is that if you work in the oil industry you have to propose hypotheses ("I think you will find oil here") based on proxy and other data and then your hypothesis is tested by people drilling wells costing millions of dollars. You soon learn a little humility about data, methods and uncertainty after making a couple of wrong predictions and drilling a few dry holes, something the scientists analysing proxy data could do well to learn before proclaiming how certain their (untested) models and predictions are.
@sHx
Louis Hissink's post above from the viewpoint of the AIG News Editor is sufficient, I think
Note: I did not resign from the GSA because an unknown % of Members are supporters of the AGW view - rather, it was due of the high-handedness of their "Executive Committee" in declaring a position without a Membership poll beforehand (no consensus allowed) together with the stubborn refusal of said Committee to expound on any reasons for seeking a merger with the AIG ... when the GSA News Editor simply repeats that he believes such a merger to be in the best interests of the GSA Membership without explaining why he thinks so, one can only wonder
It's a sad shame,but AGW has been and still is very, very divisive