Geologists On Global Climate Change

[Old Rocks]

• DPA Climate Change
  
• 
  
• AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future. This research should be undertaken by appropriate agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.
• Learn more:
  Read AAPG's publication that further discusses worldwide climate. Thefirst chapter of Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change is provided here as a PDF.
  
  You may order this bookedited by Lee Gerhard, William Harrison, and Bernold Hanson through the AAPG Store.
  
  Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.
• AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate. • AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain).

Part of the current global warming policy statement on the part of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Current because they changed it recently. The rest of the story;

American Association of Petroleum Geologists - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Global warming controversy[edit]
In 2006 the AAPG was criticized for selecting author Michael Crichton for their Journalism Award for Jurassic Park and "for his recent science-based thriller State of Fear", in which Crichton exposed his skeptical view of global warming.[6] Daniel P. Schrag, a geochemist who directs the Harvard University Center for the Environment, called the award "a total embarrassment" that he said "reflects the politics of the oil industry and a lack of professionalism" on the association's part.[7] The AAPG's award for journalism lauded "notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration." The name of the journalism award has since been changed to the "Geosciences in the Media" Award.[8]

The criticism drew attention to the AAPG's 1999 position statement[9] formally rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate. The Council of the American Quaternary Association wrote in a criticism of the award that the "AAPG stands alone among scientific societies in its denial of human-induced effects on global warming."[10]

As recently as March 2007, articles in the newsletter of the AAPG Division of Professional Affairs stated that "the data does not support human activity as the cause of global warming"[11] and characterize the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports as "wildly distorted and politicized."[12]

2007 AAPG revised position[edit]
Acknowledging that the association's previous policy statement on Climate Change was "not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members",[13] AAPG's formal stance was reviewed and changed in July 2007.

There were enough members that threatoned to drop their membership in the Society, that the board had to change the statement.

 

[Old Rocks]

I have been watching videos from the AGU fall conferance since 2009. I have yet to see anything presented there that would give the deniers any comfort. And even the latest issue of Geology, the Geological Society of America's journal, has a good deal of information concerning past climate changes.

I think when some people refer to "geologists" they mean this kind of geologist.
Geology Jobs Geologist Salary News Oil and Gas Jobs

They don't see this kind of Geologist in the news;

American Geophysical Union AGU - YouTube

 

[Old Rocks]

More on what geologists are doing at present. On the right you see many other videos concerning geologists investigations here on earth and our solar system.

 

[jc456]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

The only science known to climate change deniers is the science of mass media deception. It's funny to watch them repeat the same hackneyed phrases over and over again, as if they had actual meaning. The foundation of their fable is that all the scientists who agree that the climate is changing, for what ever reason, are obviously getting government grants or are in the direct employ of the government, thereby creating a conflict of interest and bogus science. A claim none of the deniers ever bothers to substantiate, in any way, shape , or form. The whole premise is a laughably childish preemptive tactic, designed to distract from the obvious conclusion that the small minority of scientists who deny climate change are all obviously in the employ of energy corporations and right wing institutions.

it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side. They have no answers, ask a question, get a model. It isn't how it works. See that's what you don't see. We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

 

[jc456]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

If they were smart they'd invest in mountain top real estate.

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically study finds Environment The Guardian

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahhaa

Your most eloquent rebuttal.

it's all it deserved. Post something that is original and factual and then you'd get a different reply.

 

[jc456]

One of those videos.

I didn't see a pot of gold!!!

 

[Liminal]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

If they were smart they'd invest in mountain top real estate.

Antarctic ice shelves are melting dramatically study finds Environment The Guardian

hahahaahahahahahahahahahahhaa

Your most eloquent rebuttal.

it's all it deserved. Post something that is original and factual and then you'd get a different reply.

No, all your posts are at about the same level, all stupid superficial nonsense. Not much to you, is there little man.

 

[Liminal]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

The only science known to climate change deniers is the science of mass media deception. It's funny to watch them repeat the same hackneyed phrases over and over again, as if they had actual meaning. The foundation of their fable is that all the scientists who agree that the climate is changing, for what ever reason, are obviously getting government grants or are in the direct employ of the government, thereby creating a conflict of interest and bogus science. A claim none of the deniers ever bothers to substantiate, in any way, shape , or form. The whole premise is a laughably childish preemptive tactic, designed to distract from the obvious conclusion that the small minority of scientists who deny climate change are all obviously in the employ of energy corporations and right wing institutions.

it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side. They have no answers, ask a question, get a model. It isn't how it works. See that's what you don't see. We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

 

[Liminal]

We deny AGW because there is no AGW. It's as simple as that.

I'm sure it's just that simple.

well you still haven't proved it.

Perhaps we should ask a geologist.
Geologists and climate change denial

Perhaps we should ask someone with no financial or political stake.

That must mean no one you know.

 

[jc456]

AGW is the science of pointing at the Weather Channel and yelling, MANMADE GLOBAL WARMING!!!!"

The only science known to climate change deniers is the science of mass media deception. It's funny to watch them repeat the same hackneyed phrases over and over again, as if they had actual meaning. The foundation of their fable is that all the scientists who agree that the climate is changing, for what ever reason, are obviously getting government grants or are in the direct employ of the government, thereby creating a conflict of interest and bogus science. A claim none of the deniers ever bothers to substantiate, in any way, shape , or form. The whole premise is a laughably childish preemptive tactic, designed to distract from the obvious conclusion that the small minority of scientists who deny climate change are all obviously in the employ of energy corporations and right wing institutions.

it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side. They have no answers, ask a question, get a model. It isn't how it works. See that's what you don't see. We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

 

[Liminal]

The only science known to climate change deniers is the science of mass media deception. It's funny to watch them repeat the same hackneyed phrases over and over again, as if they had actual meaning. The foundation of their fable is that all the scientists who agree that the climate is changing, for what ever reason, are obviously getting government grants or are in the direct employ of the government, thereby creating a conflict of interest and bogus science. A claim none of the deniers ever bothers to substantiate, in any way, shape , or form. The whole premise is a laughably childish preemptive tactic, designed to distract from the obvious conclusion that the small minority of scientists who deny climate change are all obviously in the employ of energy corporations and right wing institutions.

it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side. They have no answers, ask a question, get a model. It isn't how it works. See that's what you don't see. We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

 

[Liminal]

There are no scientists of any kind anywhere on this thread, or even anywhere on this forum. A whole lot of liars though, no shortage of those.

 

[jc456]

it's funny to see the warmers drift from the questions from the other side. They have no answers, ask a question, get a model. It isn't how it works. See that's what you don't see. We see that the earth is not agreeing with the models and the data is being adjusted to prove the models, they , warmers, admit it is recalculated, several on here from the warmers admit it, state all data needs to be adjusted, got into a discussion with car odometers and calibration needs as a an argument on why. So if you want to post here that the data isn't adjusted, then you are on the wrong side of that argument.

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

 

[Liminal]

Is that the consensus on FOX News?

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

Why would I ever ask anyone here anything? Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?

 

[jc456]

what difference does it make? You afraid of Fox news eh?

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

Why would I ever ask anyone here anything? Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?

no more than anyone takes your fiction serious. Ok? So what now. What is it you want out of the discussion?

 

[Liminal]

What difference does it make? None, except you obviously have never had any original thoughts of your own.

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

Why would I ever ask anyone here anything? Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?

no more than anyone takes your fiction serious. Ok? So what now. What is it you want out of the discussion?

What fiction is that? I haven't presented any theories. I leave that all up to you scholars.

 

[jc456]

what is it you'd like to know? See until you present an experiment that shows that 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperatures, almost everything else you discuss is hog wash. You prove to me the skeptic, that CO2 does anything to temperatures. Not a model of some persons idea of what is supposed to happen, no, experimental or observed. To date zip, dada, none. That's who I am. I'm a person who needs to see evidence to be lured down a hallway or in an alley. I'm not stupid, no matter what you think. Your stupid pills don't work with me.

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

Why would I ever ask anyone here anything? Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?

no more than anyone takes your fiction serious. Ok? So what now. What is it you want out of the discussion?

What fiction is that? I haven't presented any theories. I leave that all up to you scholars.

and who might they be, the ones fudging data? hahahahahahahaha

 

[Old Rocks]

One of those videos.

I didn't see a pot of gold!!!

No, you don't see anything at all. None so blind as those that will not see.

You have the world's knowledge at your fingertips, and remain willfully ignorant.

 

[Liminal]

It's funny to watch you pretend to know what any scientific data means or how to put it into a context. As if you actually understand something, rather than just mouthing what you've heard on FOX News.

hahahahahahaha I see you are an obsessionist. Obsessed with Fox news. I don't watch it. But hey, it's your favorite son so stick with it. Again, ask me what you want to know instead of going off half cocked on something you have no knowledge of. Ask. What? I'm not a scientist, the majority of the world isn't. What is it you are trying to say, you have no actual experiment or evidence to support your claim? Oh, I've seen that on here over and over again. So pal, just post up that there experiment that shows what 120 PPM of CO2 does to temperatures. A JC original, ask anyone on here.

Why would I ever ask anyone here anything? Are you kidding or what? And am I really supposed to take your little display of out of context, completely meaningless factoids seriously?

no more than anyone takes your fiction serious. Ok? So what now. What is it you want out of the discussion?

What fiction is that? I haven't presented any theories. I leave that all up to you scholars.

and who might they be, the ones fudging data? hahahahahahahaha

As if you or anyone else on this forum would know the difference.

 

[jc456]

One of those videos.

I didn't see a pot of gold!!!

No, you don't see anything at all. None so blind as those that will not see.

You have the world's knowledge at your fingertips, and remain willfully ignorant.

funny thing, there isn't any of the knowledge being presented here. Your posts are long and very boring, since most of what you post is not fact. I see posts of stupid from you and yours daily here. I look for one thing and one thing only and to date still not presented. See the arctic still has ice. Why? Why with doom and gloom about because the atmosphere increased in CO2 by 120 PPM? Why isn't the earth cooperating with the lies? Why? I merely look for those reasons. To date with all of the internet pages out there and web sites nothing.