AAPG shifting ground?

Via the Global Change newsgroup, and James Annan, I read a Proposed Global Climate Change Statement by the AAPG. The AAPG are the only known scientific (are they? probably close enough) organisation to have a totally wacko statement on climate chage and its clearly embarassing the saner folks over there. The new version is better, though not perfect.


  1. #1 uBeR

    Yeah, I read a statement by the head of the organization or some other, stating they were reviewing their statement on GW to amend it, because they’re constituents were not so happy with it. Their proposed statement is interesting, but still seems to beat about the bush.

  2. #2 Ian Forrester

    Don’t forget that this is the organization that gave an award to Michael Crichton. The award is “Presented for notable journalistic achievement, in any medium, which contributes to public understanding of geology, energy resources or the technology of oil and gas exploration”.

    Crichton’s books have nothing to do with the understanding of science, in fact they are trying to do the exact opposite. This organization is just another shill for the oil industry.

  3. #3 Eli Rabett

    Well, they are thinking of renaming themselves AACSG (American Association of Carbon Sequestration Geologists). This is a huge change. As Michael Tobis says you have to leave people lines of respectful retreat when they climb out on a limb and want to come back. However, it would almost be worth the price of admission to look at the members only comments page.

  4. #4 Munin

    There’s going to be an awful lot of money in carbon sequestration. The AAPG have recognised that the tide has turned and are readying themselves to leap aboard the gravy … erm, boat.

  5. #5 Hank Roberts

    > you have to leave people lines of respectful retreat
    > when they climb out on a limb and want to come back.

    First step is to get them to stop sawing away thinking they’re drawing lines between you and them.

  6. #6 Brian Coughlan

    Hi Guys!

    This is a revamp of a video about GW I did a few months ago, which I think you posted on your site. I used the term anthropomorphic instead of anthropogenic. Silly and rather embarrassingJ That’s corrected now, and I’ve tightened up the voice over so it’s a but shorter, coming in at about 5 mins.

    It also touches on the scientific method, and the damage that creationism has done to science in general, so although not the typical fare of your site, it may be of interest.

    If the video helps your audience, by all means use it.


    Brian Coughlan

    Brian Coughlan

  7. #7 Munin

    Eli has an interesting analysis of the AAPG statement, including a link to the member’s comment page.

    Having read some of the comments, I regret my cynicism about the position statement; there’s clearly a principled debate going on in the AAPG.

  8. #8 SCM

    The Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy hired a young woman (Monica Sarder – an arts law graduate no less) to write opinion pieces casting doubt on climate science. She is of the Pielke “honest broker” school of skepticism, but I notice the line she is running has softened of late. Maybe these guys are due for a change of heart too.

    The coal people here have already knuckled under and are now spruiking clean coal rather than no action on global warming.

  9. #9 Michael D. Campbell

    Regarding those who are faulting the AAPG for not yet supporting GM, one must remember that the oil & gas industry has been doing a great job for 100 years or so of bringing oil & gas products to the U.S. and around the world. It will take some time to re-tool their thinking but when they do, you all will know it becaue they do things in a big way.

    Signs are already present. APPG formed the Energy Minerals Division in 1977, which included the Uranium Committee. As Chairman of that group, I can say that they have only been supportive of our evaluations of the conditions developming around uranium and nuclear power. As you can see in our reports, we have called them as we see them:

    2005 Report: http://mdcampbell.com/EMDUraniumCommittee2005Report.pdf

    2007 Report:


    [Um, well its no surprise to see the uranium committee comfortable with GW – but even your reports seem to be giving credence to obviously unreliable anti-GW sources in the intro. But the AAPG currently has a statement on GW that has no basis in science, and didn’t have when it was written either. Which leads to it being singled out on wikipedia as the only organisation dissenting from the mainstream view -W]

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.