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.
Stoat
Taking science by the throat...
Search this blog
Profile
I am a Dragon. I emerge from my Egg. More...
Recent Posts
- Hot air
- Joke
- How overfed are we?
- Another trail of twaddle
- When will they learn?
- On morality
- incredibots.com
- Polar orbiters and the testing of sci-fi
- Divorced - for having an affair in Second Life
- Nierneberg, concluded: Oreskes is wrong
Recent Comments
- CW on How overfed are we?
- Magnus W on How overfed are we?
- Nicolas Nierenberg on Hot air
- Dunc on How overfed are we?
- Dunc on On morality
- James Annan on Hot air
- Adam on Hot air
- Munin on Joke
- Badger3k on Joke
- Magnus W on Hot air
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
Blogroll
- Back Seat Driving
- Bryan's Blog
- CIP
- Climate Feedback (Nature)
- QS/DA
- Deltoid
- Eli t Rabett
- FPA: climate change
- Framing Science
- Jeb
- John Fleck
- Only In It For The Gold
- Reality Check
- Real Climate
- RP Sr
- RP Jr
- Sagredo
- Some are Boojums
Other Information
| Co-moderator of globalchange mailing list | Subscribe to globalchange |
| Browse at groups.google.com | |
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Another failed Pielke attempt to poke holes in the SPM | Main | The Legacy of Blur »
AAPG shifting ground?
Category: climate communication
Posted on: May 11, 2007 4:51 PM, by William M. Connolley
Send this entry to:
Email this entry to a friend
View the Technorati Link Cosmos for this entry
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
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.
Posted by: uBeR | May 11, 2007 7:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Ian Forrester | May 11, 2007 9:12 PM
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.
Posted by: Eli Rabett | May 11, 2007 11:45 PM
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.
Posted by: Munin | May 12, 2007 5:10 AM
> 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.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | May 12, 2007 12:37 PM
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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NcRPQeRp_M
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.
Regards,
--
Brian Coughlan
Skpe:briancoughlanworldcitizen
--
Brian Coughlan
Skpe:briancoughlanworldcitizen
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | May 12, 2007 12:59 PM
Eli has an interesting analysis of the AAPG statement, including a link to the member's comment page.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2007/05/earth-opens-and-swallows.html
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.
Posted by: Munin | May 12, 2007 1:31 PM
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.
Posted by: SCM | May 13, 2007 7:00 PM
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:
http://www.mdcampbell.com/EMDUraniumCommitteeReport033107FINAL.pdf
MDC
Houston
[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]
Posted by: Michael D. Campbell | May 15, 2007 2:26 PM