The Earth opens and swallows. . . .

As many of you may know (see, you should join Google's Global Change group, see box on the side of this page, and Eli should read it more daily, Stoat and Michael have beat me to this), the Earth has opened and swallowed the past American Association of Petroleum Geologists statement on climate change. The new draft statement is a major step forward starting with a recognition of the obvious. . . .

Public concern over the potential impacts of climate change is growing because observations demonstrate that the planet has been warming since the middle to late 19th century and increasingly sophisticated climate models predict increased future warmth (IPCC 2007). These conclusions have been articulated mainly by climate scientists, through reports of the National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Meteorological Society. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) respects the conclusions of these professional scientific organizations.

although they are quite muddled about it, a point that the membership comments makes clear

Climate research provides a consistent view that agents that increase incoming energy (an increase in the solar output) or act to selectively absorb outgoing energy (a greenhouse gas) will promote warming at a global level. Today's climate is a product of several contributing factors, including greenhouse gases, solar variations, volcanism and aerosol production. Since the middle to late 19th century the sum of these factors have promoted a warmer climate. Climate models predict additional warming at a global scale.

this is still a huge step forward from their previous basakwards policy statement

1. Scientific research has been stimulated by the proposal. Recently published research results do not support the supposition of an anthropogenic cause of global climate change.
2. Detailed examination of current climate data strongly suggests that current observations do not correlate with the assumptions or supportable projections of human-induced greenhouse effects.

Now this is important, but understanding the issues from the viewpoint of the AAPG membership is equally important, and you can follow the discussion. Among the most interesting so far is a statement from a previous past president of the organization

The AAPG position on Climate Change will never be accepted as objective since we are considered part of the oil industry. I suggest that we get with the GSA and let them put forth a statement that the AAPG approves of.
(Editor\’s Note: Harrison Townes is a past President of AAPG)

which shows exactly how far the Overton frame has moved, a point that many PG members make both for and against the new proposal. Eli thinks that his framing of the issue is superior to that of Mooney and Nisbet, although they have a better megaphone.

Those who do not like what is happening retreat to the idea that the AAPG should not take a position on a political (read public policy) issue

I do not think it is AAPG’s role to take a position on political issues or to engage in political lobbying of any kind. It is not AAPG’s role to issue political position statements.

Some want much more

Once again, AAPG is so obviously acting in its own interests that any unbiased reader of our statement will label us as self-serving pseudo-scientists with our heads in the sand. This statement will maintain AAPG\’s position as a (lunatic?) fringe group with little to add to the debate on global warming.

There are a large percentage of comments along the line of

In my mind, as a member of this association for nearly 30 years, the issue is fundamental: act now, or study and debate. I have been a petroleum geologist for nearly 30 years and have never been involved in a decision where there are no uncertainties. This is the same professional society that thrives on deepwater, sub salt exploration, signing billion dollar deals with emerging third world countries, and buying and selling old fields that are trash to one company and gold to another. 

I believe that a Climate Change Statement issued by AAPG must support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. What is more basic than recognizing that global warming may significantly change the way my grandchildren and great grandchildren live in this world? I for one, want to be a part of a society that errors on the side of my children’s future. AAPG is grounded in ethical behaviors and actions. Let our ethical foundation guide our Climate Change Statement.

Now there has been a recent trend amongst climate blogs to declare victory and go home, or at least play nice. The repetition in a policy debate of the trophs we have come to love and adore demonstrates the folly of doing so, as ignorance is recycled as faux wisdom to support bad policy.

We know that climate zones shift through time. Would it be that horrible if Germany developed a Mediterranean climate and Siberia and Sweden had milder winters or if Chicago got St. Louis weather, St. Louis got Houston weather, Houston got San Antonio weather and San Antonio got Cozumel weather? We also know species diversity increases exponentially toward the tropics. Wider tropical zones may be a good thing for the Biosphere and they are definitely preferable to another ice age. But we must also adapt and mitigate in economically sound and thoughtful ways as suggested.

Even that represents a large shift for the AAPG (which, btw like the APS, the ACS, the AGU has a large number of non-US members and is really an international organization), but still many have swallowed the Kool Aid

The levels of CO2 today (+/- 350 PPM) are far too small to be the actual cause of global warming. Therefore all we can say is that CO2 levels seem to correlate to global temperature in the past, though the reasons are not known to me. There is no conclusive evidence that man’s input of atmospheric CO2 in ways not seen before in Earth’s history will result in additional warming. It is more likely that levels of CO2 will not be as good an indicator of global temperature in the future. . .

and

There is no evidence that carbon emissions cause warming; on the contrary, there is hard scientific evidence that increased CO2 is an effect of warming.

and

The Earth is a large place covered 2/3 by water. Of the remaining 1/3 much is unpopulated. I believe it is pompous and unscientific to think that humankind living on less that 1/4 of the planet can undo the naturally occurring processes of photosynthesis that have taken place for eons.

and

Folks like John Gray (the hurricane expert at U of Col - google him) thinks this cycle of global warming is about over. Many climate experts in Russia (who didn’t vote for Al Gore) also think this current period of global warming is either at its end or will soon be. . .

Google mars ice cap, and you will see that the polar ice on Mars is also melting rapidly - probably not related to the pick-up truck you’re driving!

and

On the other hand, the correlation between sun spot activity and global temperature is an outstanding match. Work done by Nir Shavir (Univ. of Jerusalem), Piers Corbyn (Univ. of London), Friis-Christensen (Norway Met. Service), and others show that global temperature correlates with sun activity closely.

This brings up the question of what to do now if anything. Since it is unlikely that PGs will read this blog, perhaps the NAS would send the AAPG a letter welcoming the new draft and dealing with some of the issues raised in the comments in a friendly way. Real Climate might be the only climate blog with enough juice and readership to do this in the form of an open letter.