Thursday, August 30, 2007

The AAPG brings forth a mouse (which is better than a rat)

The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has issued its new policy on climate change. James Annan and Julia Hargreaves will be very happy

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

They appear to be stuck in a time warp back in 1995 (or is it 1993?) , but hey, 50 more years and they might make it to the 21st century.

"Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, the AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important."

basic controls? Like "volume", "color balance" and "vertical alignment"?

It looks like most of what they "support" has caveats, so it won't mean much (not that anything they say about climate means much, or anything. Why do they even bother, other than for PR, that is)

I wonder if they have the little cards this time: "Everything you always wanted to know about climate science but were afraid to ask a petroleum geologist" (because you thought he might bite your head off)

BrianR said...

like Eli says, it's better than a rat...as a sedimentary geologist and member of AAPG, I have been unhappy w/ their past statements in this regard (I guess I'm part of that division). Many have written letters expressing their distaste.

This statement seems to want to appease the more science-y members, while putting in those parenthetical caveats (as anonymous above points out) to appease the business types.

Anonymous says: "not that anything they say about climate means much, or anything. Why do they even bother, other than for PR, that is"

Certainly this organization does not have much say when it comes to climate research...the connection to the issue is an interesting combination of geologists (many who study aspects of paleoclimate) and oil co. interests (obvious connection to present situation). So, you are getting a statement that essentially says nothing useful because one component of the organization is science-based and the other is business-based. I don't know if other applied science industries (Big Pharma?) have a similar situation.

better than a rat....better than a rat...

Anonymous said...

It is because of organizations like AAPG that we are currently in the situation we find ourselves in.

Better than a rat?

At least rats know when the ship is sinking.

Anonymous said...

Always blame sombody else- Anonymous 3.47AM you drive your car, you turn your switch on, so point the finger at yourself if you see a problem. The AAPG was very measured and correct, and has not been taken in by the faith warmer arguments.

Its the people from AAPG who provide your power. They have to put up with your crap as you go about your power consumption.

Go live in a cave with the rest of your trog mates.

JohnS

FancyRat said...

The AAPG elephant labored mightily and brought forth a mouse, but rats make better pets than mice.

Anonymous said...

Always blame sombody else-

Touchy.

I was referring to the fact that they have postponed any action on the matter for over a decade now.

But clearly, such subtleties are beyond you, Johnboy.

Anonymous said...

Finding subtleties after the event, old anon. Go back to your cave.

JohnS

Anonymous said...

"Rats make better pets than mice,"

Rats have a lot in common with humans.

In that regard, its really kind of funny that some people find rats disgusting.

I wonder if Freud ever wrote anything about projecting onto animals those features that we find distasteful in ourselves.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to subtleties, context is key, Johnboy.



This post is about how the AAPG has just updated their statement on climate to reflect complaints (by some of their members) that it did not reflect (ie, that it distorted) reality.

it's not hard to see where my statement fits into that: oil companies and oil geologists involved in denying climate change because they have a vested interest in doing so.

Then again, judging from some of the your other posts that I have seen, context does not seem to be one of your strong points, either.

Anonymous said...

Your first message was delivered with a sledgehammer and was and not subtle old anon. You got a problem with the AAPG statement, okay. You got a problem with petroleum/gas, okay. You're a fool, a fool in context of course, a subtle fool, not so sure, but a fool. Stop talking about contextual subtleties, stop driving your car, go and turn of your lights and freeze. Contextual subtleties don't burn so warm.

I don't give a rats rectum about AAPG statements. You, anon, have a choice, but all you do is blame others for your wish to drive yor car and to turn your switch on. Context, subtlety- word games anon.

JohnS

JohnS

Anonymous said...

Poor Johnboy

Needs to sign his name twice to get his point across.

Anonymous said...

"AAPG supports the pursuit of economically viable technology to sequester carbon dioxide emissions and emissions of other gases in a continuing effort to improve our environment and enhance energy recovery."

Does anyone else think that the AAPG has, by thinking it had to take the Exxon-Mobil line, not only damaged its scientific reputation but also the interests of its members?

If we're to do carbon sequestration, it's going to take a lot of folks who an characterise deep formations and understand fluid flows in such formations. I wonder what group of people might benefit from a surge in such work?

Marion Delgado said...

Typical. Typical.

I propose this be sequestered in some permanent form so we can read it out loud in a future trial of these creeps in some future trial.

Rank denialism mixed with the least effective, most industry-promoted "solutions" - and even then, it's hinted that THOSE will cost too much.

Marion Delgado said...

anon 7:24 "I am I cried! To no one there! And no one heard at all, not even the chair!"

Anonymous said...

Marion,

Based on the fact that they and other oil industry "affiliates" have effectively postponed action on climate change over the past decade, I'm thinking that maybe sequestering petroleum geologists is the best way to go.

John Mashey said...

Hey folks:
I think it is unfair to tar all petroleum geologists with the same brush [I've worked with a bunch]. For better or worse, our current civilization was built on oil, petroleum geologists have performed useful services for which consumers paid, and still will.

This is going to sound weird, but we'd better hope they find as much more oil as they can ... which won't be a lot.

Of course, it's hard to get big organizations like this to have truly enlightened positions: if they would only do the following, I'd be ecstatic:

1) Human CO2 contributes strongly to global warming.

2) World Peak Oil is going to happen sometime during 2010-2020.

3) Oil is so important to the world economy that people should both conserve as much as possible, shift to renewables as fast as possible, and we (geologists) should keep finding what we can, hoping that we can stretch supplies long enough to keep an economy strong enough to afford massive infrastructure changes & GW mitigation and to avoid burning coal unsequestered.

Note: I think that's fairly close to what Hansen has been saying. As I recall, he expects that we'll burn all the oil+gas over the next 50+ years, but really worries about coal.

Anonymous said...

But Hansen is neither an economist nor a petroleum geologist.

Marion Delgado said...

By the way, confession time - I used to be a science translator, and most of my work involved AAPG stuff. Is that a full disclosure kind of thing? I do NOT remember them being this kind of dick-y group tho.

BrianR said...

anonymous5:28am says: "oil companies and oil geologists involved in denying climate change because they have a vested interest in doing so."

Yes, oil companies (i.e., executives, shareholders, etc.) do...but don't throw all geologists into one bin. Perhaps pointing out an oversimplified view is futile in blogosphere commenting, though.

anonymous7:24am says: "If we're to do carbon sequestration, it's going to take a lot of folks who an characterise deep formations and understand fluid flows in such formations."

Yes, that's right...if CCS is going to be a path we want to go down, then the knowledge and infrastructure of oil companies will be involved.

I'm certainly not trying to paint a rosy picture about oil companies and their involvement in AGW misinformation...but, the reality is that oil companies are not going to magically go away by people pissin' and moaning about it. We need to make them better...we still are going to need oil for many decades. Agreed...AAPG's statement is still not what I would like (I will write them...again), but it is a step.

But, I suppose practicality is not effective rhetoric in blog-comment discourse. Especially w/ anonymice.

Anonymous said...

I don't lump all petroleum geologists into a "them" category and I certainly don't entertain any ideas that "they" are responsible for global warming and I am not -- notwithstnding the claim made by JohnS above), but it's pretty obvious that organizations like AAPG have been dragging their feet on the issue of climate change for the past decade.



unfortunately, upon a brief read of the their latest "statement on climate", I'm not convinced that they have really changed their view.

It looks like window dressing to me, particularly given the actual state of climate science today.

It's really not OK to (conveneintly) remain 10 (or even 5) years behind the times on this one. It's simply not credible.

This is particularly true when they could have said something like "We endorse the view of IPCC" (gasp!) or something to that effect. Not that I believe they ever would engage in such blasphemy, of course.

Disclosure: i have never worked with or had any contact with petroleum geologists -- though I did once date an earthquake geologist (if that counts).

BrianR said...

"I'm not convinced that they have really changed their view."

you may indeed be right on that...if their statements are fashioned to appease their unhappy members (i.e., me), and not an actual representation, then it is pretty meaningless

sigh...it seems another case of those 'in charge' of an organization having much more influence than the actual due-paying members

Anonymous said...

Grow up, the lot of you. What, you frumps here want AAPG to say yes the A in AGW is real, is going to cause catastophic change. So what!
Without subtleties, without context, how about you people actually acting on your beliefs. Stop driving your car, stop turning on your lights, and go and freeze.

You don't do that. Its inconvenient, its incomfortable, its a whole lot of things. Pointy end argument here, folks. What it means is that you do not believe your energy use is contributing to the A.

I say again, don't start blaming others. Again the AAPG statement is the convenient whipping boy this week. But the AAPG today, or somebody else tomorrow has to make decisions like cabon sequestration, because you warmers will not change your lifestyles.

JohnS

BrianR said...

JohnS says: "But the AAPG today, or somebody else tomorrow has to make decisions like cabon sequestration, because you warmers will not change your lifestyles."

Agreed.
What is your point? How does being critical of AAPG's statement relate to your perception of people not changing their lifestyle?
I guess i'm new to the thread and this may seem obvious, but it seems like you, JohnS, desire more polarization of the issue. I have been critical of AAPG's statement, yet also realize the importance of the petroleum industry in our energy problems. It's complex...am I a 'warmer'?

You said for the 'lot of us' to grow up...I don't get it. Perhaps i'm not meant to.

Anonymous said...

Look at above comments Brianr. People critical of AAPG because they do not make statements that warmers want. Rabett has let the warmers run with this AAPG statement, other days its been criticism of Watts or SteveM, tomorrow another.

My point is what AAPG, Watts,SteveM say are immaterial. If warmers believe the A in AGW is the most important, then act on it. The mice don't. You wring your hands, whinge, but then go all Al Gore and emit the heat of small nations. You don't believe me- how many lights are on, at your home while you respond on this site.


However the criticism of AAPG is easy, its all pretence. That why I say grow up. Polarisation from my part- come off it. You say warming is important, you do nothing and then want me to pay for your lifestyle. And you call me polarising?



JohnS

BrianR said...

JohnS...that makes no sense...

Please urge the CA folks to submit an abstract to the upcoming AGU meeting...I think it is important they present their findings.

Anonymous said...

"how about you people actually acting on your beliefs. Stop driving your car, stop turning on your lights, and go and freeze."

Were it only that simple (except for the freezing part). The changes require actions not ONLY on the part of "we, the people" but also on the part of our government: increased CAFE standards, funding of alternatives to oil and coal, funding of sequestration technologies, etc.

As long as organizations like AAPG drag their feet (ie, by not accepting the FULL assessment of climate scientists), some in our government will use the "statements on Climate" by them and others as an excuse for inaction.

It would seem from your statement "you do nothing and then want me to pay for your lifestyle" that you may have a problem with government involvement in this case, but such involvement is simply not optional, no matter what you might think.

If you don't believe me, read some of the stuff that Roger Pielke and others have written on this subject at the Prometheus blog (sorry Eli). You may learn something.

This is not a vast left-wing conspiracy to take your taxes away from you. It's an effort to address a real issue and when some people and organizations apparently believe they can downplay the problem, you simply can't blame others for calling them on it (or you can, but it's not logical).

Lazar said...

Without subtleties, without context, how about you people actually acting on your beliefs. Stop driving your car, stop turning on your lights, and go and freeze.

But those aren't my beliefs. So whose beliefs are they?

I don't drive a car. So who is driving a car? Who is claiming that everyone ought stop driving cars?

Who is demanding we turn the lights out on civilization?

You're arguing with a rather unsubtle strawman whilst talking about subtlety and context.

Anonymous said...

lazar,

The "subtleties and context" part of this comment is somewhat subtle -- and would not make sense to most people outside it's original context (an earlier exchange with myself)

It's understandably difficult to keep track of all the mice at your feet around here, with their subtle darts.

EliRabett said...

Eli has no issues with people reading and commenting on Prometheus, Ethon dines there often.

Anonymous said...

Warmer guru Hansen has said the tipping point to catastrophe is nigh, just around the corner, upon us, no turning back or whatever. With civilisation as we know it coming to an end, particularly coming from guru Hansen, why aren't you all, not just one, stopping your cars, turning off your switches and freezing.

You don't do it because you don't believe it. You are all Al Gore like by telling but not doing. You bang on about AGW but you do nothing about it. Lazar, if you believe the A in GW then you act, you challenge others in their car usage, power usage etc. So don't play games and say who is saying you do this or that- you and your warmer mates are saying that daily, and guru Hansen supplies the amo. Your are the reason I say grow up.

You warmers, running with the Rabett, give the feign fists at AAPG. You are children.

JohnS

Lazar said...

With civilisation as we know it coming to an end, particularly coming from guru Hansen,

No he didn't.

why aren't you all, not just one, stopping your cars, turning off your switches and freezing.

If you read his preferred emission scenario in Hansen and Sato, 2004, your mischaracterizations... turning the lights out on civilization, destroyed in order to be saved... are neither logical nor necessary.

You don't do it because you don't believe it.

because he never said 'it'.

You are all Al Gore like by telling but not doing. You bang on about AGW but you do nothing about it.

I suspect people like Eli will continue to educate.
Green organizations will continue to pressure.
Individuals will continue to reduce their co2 footprints.
Politicians will continue to legislate.
Market forces will continue to drive scientists to innovate.

You warmers, running with the Rabett, give the feign fists at AAPG. You are children.

You need to read what people are actually saying first.

Lazar said...

Hansen on tipping points. Nothing about 'the end of civilization'. Rather, keeping within 1 deg rise in temperature to avoid the risk of large sea level rise. For which, to follow his scenario, does not require turning off the heat, cars, and freezing or starving.
He's not saying that.
We're not saying that.

EliRabett said...

Read what people wrote?

Don't be a spoil sport. OTOH, you need to be able to read to do that.

Anonymous said...

The above "debate" should make it clear why "volunteer" measures will solve the emissions problem.

People believe what they want to believe -- and do what they want to do.

Unfortunately, John S is right in one regard (and really the main one): that lots of people (not all, but lots) talk the talk but do not walk the walk. That goes for people on both sides on this issue.

People usually do not change their ways unless they are pushed -- or at least nudged -- to do so.

What that means, of course, is that sometimes you have to provide incentives -- yes, government incentives and/or disincentives -- to get them to behave in a certain way that may not be in line with what they would normally choose to do.

If people will not quit driving huge SUVs by choice, then you can make the gas more expensive so they do and/or mandate that the car companies make the SUV more efficient so that when people do drive, it has less impact.

It does not have to be all disincentives, of course, and some of the incentives can actually go to businesses so that they change their offerings (to more fuel efficient vehicles, for example.)

Anonymous said...

oops,

left "never" out of the first sentence:

Should be

"The above "debate" should make it clear why "volunteer" measures will never solve the emissions problem."

Lazar said...

Agreed... problems with relying solely on volunteer efforts include inertia/comfort and freeloading. Probably why people will vote government action for what they wouldn't do themselves.
Incentives and disincentives; carrots for the Rabetts and sticks for the gas guzzlers.
I think you're pointing toward carbon credits.
Which would be a cool idea.

Anonymous said...

Even Rabetts need a good stick sometimes -- to keep them in line with the mice.

Anonymous said...

Lazar, above, has pointed out the very recent Hansen statements. If you don't read that and see Hansens deep pessimism about the how the end is nigh, then we are not reading the same message.

Personally I believe the A in AGW is a crock, but the little mice at play here with Rabett don't. And for you mice its always government or business or somebody else who must provide incentives or disincentives. Again you shake your fists at AAPG for not making statements you like.

Stop driving your car, turn off the lights and freeze. You don't like being told that do you. "Its not what Hansen said" you say. Read between the lines, little mice, because that is exactly what he is saying.

JohnS

Anonymous said...

"Personally I believe the A in AGW is a crock"

You mean "humans are a crock?"

Why so antisocial, John?

In case you missed my post above, I said that people like you (and lots of other folks -- on both sides of the issue) are the very reason why volunteer efforts are doomed to fail.

You don't believe the science and never will because you basically decided at the very beginning what the "reality" you wanted was.

Your view (that AGW is not even real) is really little different from some of the irrational views of people on the other side who have decided that global warming will be the end of the world.

That's fine. It's your opinion and you are free to hold it, but don't pretend it's science because it ain't.