Why are global warming alarmists conducting an organized assault on a geologist?
I'm just curious? Is global warming science so weak that they have to personally attack their opponents one at a time instead of having a civil discussion with all of them at once?
Honest "scientists" would have a more open and less hostile question and answer discussion about an issue.
As far as I'm concerned, this shows how weak they know their own point of view on the issue is.
- Bad Moon RisingLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
I have seen a number of these ad homonym attacks over the last few days and they are disgusting. It does seem to be a method of operation for the far left, to attack scientists, or anybody who disagrees, based on a variety of totally irrelevant issues. I have noticed however an extreme reliance by some in here on the opinions of others, especially large governmental agencies and quasi governmental agencies, without much critical analysis. Maybe it is unique to my particular discipline, but we are taught to question all conclusions and recommendations in light of the data (in its purest possible form). I have seen tons of peer reviewed articles and research that present wonderful data, which in no conceivable way supports the conclusions and recommendations.
Statements from various geological societies must be taken with a large grain of salt. Most statements issued are done so in order to bolster that society's position at the governmental table and is unrelated to AGW in any way!
The AGU has about 50,000 members (mostly astrophysicists or theoretical geophysicists) and the GSA has about 22,000 members. I used to belong to GSA but the membership had very little use to me and was a place where the "hard rockers" and tended to hang out. I was trained as one and I understand the need for those societies. They have excellent publications.
The combined SEG and CSEG have about 31,300 members who are mostly theoretical and applied geophysicists who are interested in applications and case studies. The combined AAPG and CSPG have about 32,300 members and are the largest body of applied and research geologists on the planet.
I can assure you that again, all of the discussion in the latter societies is in relation to a political position, not a scientific one. The vast majority of the membership, from what I read in the op-ed pieces or the Letters, are opposed to the concept of AGW and present very sound arguments in that direction. Maybe 1% of Letters support any significant role of anthropogenic causes!
None of the 3 Societies to which I belong, have even suggested a unified position or the aggregation of scientific literature for review on the subject. If that doesn't tell you that the issues are political as opposed to scientific, nothing will!
EDIT: The comments on the participation of membership in the various Societies, Associations and Licensing bodies by several posters indicates to me that they probably do not belong to any such organizations. If they did, they would understand the process of appointments and elections in such bodies and realize that apathy is a far more considerable force in these elections than is democracy or the will of the membership. The most "favourable" opinion of AGW comes from the licencing body to which I belong, which has a whopping 20% participation rate! Sad but true!
- 1 decade ago
Ian Plimer a Geologist has recently published his book on climate change and global warming and he argues that anthropogenic (Human Induced) global warming is just not possible but it is however due to natural events. Every climatologist and global warming alarmist has criticized his theory's because he is a Geologist claiming he does not research global warming and is not a climatologist. I highly recommend reading his book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming the Missing Science.
- antarcticiceLv 71 decade ago
I find these sort of nonsense "I'm being picked on questions" people here claim qualifications some certainly backup the claim with comment.
Some clearly have little or no understanding of the field they claim to be qualified in.
Bad moon rising
I find your comment interesting you claim "Statements from various geological societies must be taken with a large grain of salt." but say the membership 10s of thousands don't agree. That is clearly ridiculous and shows a lack of knowledge of what a society is who funds a society or who ultimately runs a society, the answer to both is the members suggesting that the majority of these societies don't agree with the statements of the leadership they elect in societies that their membership fees fund is utterly ridiculous.
Of your "the latter societies" ignoring the fact one is actually an association, you of course wont agree, but I think the AAPG & CSPG can be easily excluded from the above statement as I think the bias of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists & the Canadian Society of Petroleum Geologists (CSPG), by anyone's test, would be considered not a good source of information on AGW and in fact their websites ignore it as a subject or play the, 'it's natural card', no big surprise. If deniers want to play the stupid line that scientists are doing this for the funding then for the AAPG & CSPG it is not only the funding but the very future of their entire field relying on little or no action being taken on AGW.
It is no coincidence that many of the geologists who are in the denier camp have petroleum geology as their background.
- pegminerLv 71 decade ago
What geologist are you talking about? Geologists like Wally Broecker and Jeff Severinghaus are leading researchers in the field of climate change. My original field of study is geology too. Perhaps this geologist you're referring to doesn't know anything outside his narrow field, but thinks that disproves AGW.
Are you sure he's even a real geologist? Many of the people on here that deny AGW claim much more scientific knowledge than they actually have. I think you should test him. See if he knows where you'd find sheeted dikes, or what a palinspastic reconstruction is, or how to operate a Brunton. Is he happier chewing on mudstone or shale?
Edit: Jim Z, did you think that Peter was talking about you? I was just teasing a bit, I'm sure you know all those things. Not everyone on here that claims to have a certain background does, though. You didn't learn how to take dips and strikes in the Army, did you?
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
It's not an organized assault. We have an outspoken egregious purveyor of denialist nonsense. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down. I'll go toe to toe with any of the posters here, with the possible exception of some of our current (and previous) exemplary scientific contributors. You can't bullshit a bullshitter. You can't snow the snowman. Along with our own personally informed scientific opinion, we got the entire scientific establishment of the world. You got a bunch of pseudo-scientific crap stuffed in a leftist conspiracy wrapper. I say put up or shut up.
- berenLv 71 decade ago
I think it has more to do with a certain geologist claiming to have some sort of special knowledge that the rest of do not possess because he is a geologist. Funny though that other geologists are also lacking in this knowledge.
"The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has adopted a new position statement on climate change that recognizes the increasing alteration of the Earth's climate by human activities. "Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century," the statement says. "
In addition the geologist in question is probably one of the most hostile posters on here.
- davemLv 51 decade ago
They hate having their religion questioned or junk science debated. Their leader said years ago that the time for debate is over. To them it means it's time to preach.
Lately it seems they've become overly pompous with their 'I'm better than you' attitude. Just as in leftist politics they've resorted to personal attacks and word twisting.
I'm not a scientist but I'm sure that real science operates in a far different fashion than what we see from the alarmists here. I feel they are truly frustrated and agitated because they can't force their will here as they'd like to.
I don't know how well they know their topic, but certainly they're behaving much more like mini-Gores than people trying to figure out the science behind climate.
- JimZLv 71 decade ago
I don't speak for other geologists. I express my own opinion. Some things are obvious too me because of my geology training. Do I know things others don't because of my geology training? I hope I have a better understanding of geology or my training was a waste. I certainly don't claim to be omniscient. I leave that claim to alarmists. I constantly harp that we don't know as much as they claim. It is ironic they accuse me of pretending to be a know it all.
I don't have time to respond to everything. I probably miss half the stuff. Sometimes it is better just to let some people talk. Some things that are argued are simply mindless. It makes me realize that they really don't know what they are talking about.
Note: Capt comment was a bit bizarre. I certainly didn't make that interpretation. I realize I am biased, but it seems like it is a reflection of what is faced by those who dare speak out. I am anonymous so it isn't a big danger to me. If I were a climate scientist, I am quite confident there are those that would like to destroy my career. It is a political tactic with alarmists. Most geologists, however, agree with me but alarmists are working on intimidating them into compliance. I hope they keep their focus on science and ignore them but there has already been a willingness to compromise.
Note to Pegmatite miner. I learned to operate a brunton in the Army before I became a geologist. We no longer chew on shale in the environmental industry and a little grit in mudstones isn't so good on my hydroxy apatites.
- DavidLv 61 decade ago
Your entire question is based on the comments of one person as well, is it not?
Plus, the person in question doesn't go around calling himself a scientist. So your assumption that he represents all scientists is ignorant and, frankly, rather alarmist.
- RioLv 61 decade ago
The honest scientist expresses what's measurable and what isn't. I think the skeptic's assimilate this into the argument. Where most proponents simply emphasize a linear argument. That being said; I'll stick with the skeptics, they just incorporate more insight into the debate.