oakwood

Yes. I despair. I was a Geol Soc Fellow for many years but eventually lapsed my sub mainly because I ran out of bookshelf space plus the subs kept rising. They were supposed to embrace all members views, and I think they were disingenuous to make an upfront statement that views are strong and disparate. Much as the AAPG statement, which is exemplary in honesty, even unique perhaps. The greatest irony, for the very mention of petroleum appears to summon down frothing visceral hatred and scathing dismissal of any possibility of ethical integrity, for the faithful.

(I've also posted this at WUWT Notes and Tips) ...there are a brace of “precipitation” papers in today’s edition of Nature – both based on computer models of course and both featuring some of the usual suspects:

Human contribution to more-intense precipitation extremes

Seung-Ki Min, Xuebin Zhang, Francis W. Zwiers & Gabriele C. Hegerl

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09763.html#ref16

Anthropogenic greenhouse gas contribution to flood risk in England and Wales in autumn 2000

Pardeep Pall, Tolu Aina, Dáithí A. Stone, Peter A. Stott, Toru Nozawa, Arno G. J. Hilberts, Dag Lohmann & Myles R. Allen

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v470/n7334/full/nature09762.html

Thanks Pharos
In fact I followed some of those discussions at the time. But I see this as a new development. The recent letter of Summerhayes seems surprisingly immature and amateurish in its style for a senior member of a leading scientific society and lead author of an important policy statement. He criticises the denier blog sites, but his text would be very at home in the comments section of such a site or the Guardian's CIF pages (putting the pro-AGW view).

He criticises others for being unthorough and cherry-picking, but does exactly that in a long waffly comment of his own.

Jane Coles

Thanks for the link. I did a bit of browsing on the subject of remineralisation and came up with this:

Enviro-Roll (Miracle) Toilet Tissue
Combat Climate Change, Loss of Biodiversity and Mass Extinction

That's that sorted then.

http://www.enviro-roll.com/

oakwood Feb 16, 2011 at 12:57 PM

FYI there has been a lot of debate on the Geol Soc Statement a while back here. If you use the search facility for 'geol soc' it finds 104 entries.

I checked and now see Dr Colin Summerhayes was the lead author for the recently published Climate Change Position Statement by the Geological Society. As a Fellow (FGS) and AGW sceptic, I was rather concerned at what they would come up with, but am ultimately quite satisfied with the non-sensationalist and measured tone its summing up paragraph.

http://geolsoclive.soukdev.com/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/climatechange
(see below)

The contrast with the tone of Summerhaye's letter indicates he had a battle on his hand as lead author, and indicating there at least some moderate or even sceptic voices of influence in GeolSoc.

"In the coming centuries, continued emissions of carbon from burning oil, gas and coal at close to or higher than today’s levels, and from related human activities, could increase the total to close to the amounts added during the 55 million year warming event – some 1500 to 2000 billion tonnes. Further contributions from ‘natural’ sources (wetlands, tundra, methane hydrates, etc.) may come as the Earth warms22. The geological evidence from the 55 million year event and from earlier warming episodes suggests that such an addition is likely to raise average global temperatures by at least 5-6ºC, and possibly more, and that recovery of the Earth’s climate in the absence of any mitigation measures could take 100,000 years or more. Numerical models of the climate system support such an interpretation44. In the light of the evidence presented here it is reasonable to conclude that emitting further large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere over time is likely to be unwise, uncomfortable though that fact may be."

To Bishop Hill

You may be interested in this letter to Geoscientist from a Colin Summerhayes, the magazine of the Geological Society in which Bob Ward recently had a rant published by its sumpathetic editor (for which Ward seems to have joined up as an FGS for the sole purpose of getting a platform for his rant).

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/op/%20%3C%3C/geoscientist/letters

oakwood FGS

Feb 15, 2011 at 6:07 PM, Jane Coles: 'I've just discovered The Survival of Civilization.'

That is indeed an eyebrow rattler of a book!! Glancing through it, I wonder if at the heart of the malaise it represents is the attraction of omniscience. I suspect that through the ages, the doomsayer with enough flair and assurance has some kind of hypnotic appeal to us. I'd love to see a bit of the 'climate change' funding bonanza spent on digging more deeply into such vulnerabilities.

Just wondering, did anyone catch the opening to the Brits last night? The award has been changed and is now a blank canvas for a designer to decorate each year. This year the award was designed by Vivienne Westwood.

When James Corden announced the award upon opening the Brits, he announced the award as the "Stop! Climate Change" award. Luckily, that was all you heard about it all night, but I still found it repugnant. Bloody Celebs.

Here's a link with info.

http://fashion.telegraph.co.uk/columns/belinda-white/TMG8255694/BRIT-Awards-trophy-gets-a-high-fashion-makeover-courtesy-of-Dame-Vivienne-Westwood.html

matthu said

Serious questions have been raised about the quality, accuracy and political motivation driving the Australian temperature records

Please give us a break. These are not serious questions nor are they addressed to any competent authority. They are a typical drive-by attack with no substance and full of empty words like 'audit'. Steve McIntyre does real technical audits. These guys just sling mud with no technical basis whatsoever. Their main expected outcome is more publicity.

Any competent questioner would have a detailed analysis and verifiable criticism.