Marc Hendrickx tips me to this story in the Australian: Earth scientists split on climate change statement
AUSTRALIA’S peak body of earth scientists has declared itself unable to publish a position statement on climate change due to the deep divisions within its membership on the issue.
After more than five years of debate and two false starts, Geological Society of Australia president Laurie Hutton said a statement on climate change was too difficult to achieve.
Full story here, but behind a paywall: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/story-e6frg8y6-1226942126322#
It seems there is dissension in the ranks, and that has caused them to be unable to reach consensus on a statement. Faced with such a stalemate, the GSA higher ups will probably just ignore it and throw out a statement with a 97% number attached.
And, time to call in Herr Cook to deal with the consensus denying miscreants.
You’ll find the 97% consensus in La La Land, along with all the other alarmist propaganda we’re all expected to nod stupidly with in agreement.
Could this development have anything to do with a new government whose leader is skeptical regarding CACA?
Now, if we’ll just peruse the papers written by these guys 20-30 years ago on the subject and engage in some simple between-the-lines mindreading, then I’m sure we’ll obtain the same 97% consensus that Cookie obtained. I have no doubts.
and as one of WUWT’s more observant readers mentions is an earlier blog regarding de-calcification of shells due to acidification of the oceans….
observa says:
June 4, 2014 at 3:05 am
This sort of stuff just has to stop as it’s all most unsettling for earth scientists-
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/fault_lines/
the actual reason given by the Geological Society of Australia was a total mind disconnect between the GSA Board and their normal members. Guess which way round their views were??
From the Australian Daily Telegraph –
Lank of the GSA (Reply)
Wed 04 Jun 14 (01:48pm)
“More than three quarters of GSA members who were surveyed in early 2011 WANTED the GSA to have a position on climate change.
Because most GSA members believe that AGW is not a concern the position paper was dropped.
I’m proud to be a geologist and not a Board Member of a Geological Society.
I am also proud to be a geologist and not a Board Member of a Geological Society.
They are one helluva lot of us and we are possibly one of the greatest threats to the alarmist nonsense of our Establishments.
Geologists employed by government and quasi government organisations do not count as they are obliged to use alarmist speak to maintain their jobs.
Title correction: Peak Consensus
😉
Half know it’s a lie, the other half has mouths open, having swallowed said lies.
Glad to join with AleaJactaEst and Peter Miller as a geologist and a deep-dyed skeptic. Why do so many of us know the man-made climate change is a hoax? We study paleoenvironments and know better than ascribe climate change to variations in one minor, albeit biologically important, atmospheric gas.
Yes, the gorilla in the room question od, wjat DID a survey of the members on AGW show? Is the reality of serious skepticism too non-PC to reveal? And if so, why? What power is threatened and why does the executive fear it?
We need a reverse survey.
“I am 95% confident that the majority of global climate change is man made.” [y]/[n]
Think you’d get 97% yes?
“Faced with such a stalemate, the GSA higher ups will probably just ignore it and throw out a statement with a 97% number attached.”
HA! I guess it just became the “96% consensus”./
More complete coverage without a paywall:
http://www.thegwpf.org/earth-scientists-split-on-climate-change-statement/
The fact they even feel any kind of urge to come to a consensus is proof that it’s just political. If an organization stands for grounded scientific discipline, and practices what it preaches (as it were), there is no need whatsoever to issue a consensus statement. Is the GSA confirming they’re more of a political organization?
But what about the Koala Bears?
“NoFixedAddress says:
June 4, 2014 at 11:45 am
But what about the Koala Bears?”
They’re NOT bears!
To avoid such an embarrassing stalemate, other scientific societies wisely avoided consulting their membership, leaving the “statement”-writing to a panel of volunteers (of alarmists, natch).
Imagine if this were a survey amongst scientists and the results published.
1) Would you agree that the Earth is warmer now than during the LIA, and that the current temperature is more beneficial than the former?
2) Would you agree that CO2 is a necessary compound for Intelligent life on this earth?
3) Would you agree that crop yields are affected by CO2 concentration?
4) Would you agree that CO2 is currently around 400ppm?
5) Would you agree that 400ppm CO2 is better for plants than 200ppm?
Yes, but Aussies are walking upside down.
Berényi Péter says:
June 4, 2014 at 12:13 pm
“Yes, but Aussies are walking upside down.”
Makes my head hurt just to imagine that.
Geologists are real scientists.
Incidentally, sites are obliged to serve pages which are reached via a Google search; even content which is ordinarily paywalled. So if you google “Earth scientists split on climate change statement” you’ll be able to read the Australian article, which is one of the first links.
NoFixedAddress says:
Re Koala Bears:
Classic. Obviously the Koala Bears are affected by less ice cover at the North Kole
Well played those Aussie geologists. All of us involved in earth science realise that climate change is the predominant theme of the geologic record.
The estimated difference between a glacial and an interglacial is 8 to 10 degrees C, based on oxygen isotopes. How can a scientific body (IPCC) come to the conclusion that a change of less than 1 degree C over the last century or so (that is less than 10% of the natural variability over a glacial cycle) may be ascribed with 95% confidence to anthropogenic causes?
I guess that shows that GSA science in the northern hemisphere spins in an opposite direction, or at least is manipulated that way.
It’s not so much the Aussies walking upside down as it is them having to hold on to something with each step to keep from falling off the bottom of the Earth.
I can tell you it must have been more than 50% to qualify as an uproar. If it were more than 30% a zealous secretariat would have fiddled and dissembled and imposed their will and apparently they tried on a few occasions over several years. ‘Split’ is a news-speak disingenuous attempt to make it look like at least 50-50. Hey Cook did it converting only 3% into 97%. I’m reminded of the old joke:
”There we were two against a hundred. Boy did we ever kick the **** out of those two guys.”
More here
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/climate-science-hopelessly-politicized-geological-society-of-australia-gives-up-on-making-any-statement/
Even attracted one W. Connolley to comment
sounds like mass job losses. Thug mentality needs to take effect.
Breath of fresh air, not like Obama who is power hungry, not solar or wind either. Hot air might be a ‘solution.’ Hot air energy development.
faboutlaws says: June 4, 2014 at 1:38 pm
It’s not so much the Aussies walking upside down as it is them having to hold on to something with each step to keep from falling off the bottom of the Earth.
A posted saying in an Irish theme Pub in town here.
“I am never too drunk as long as I can hold on to a piece of grass and keep from falling off the face of the earth” – “an old Irish saying”
It’s amazing the bogus 97% has managed to survive and reinvent itself each and every-time. Media operatives were essential to the selective filtering and question steering to be sure but the science community is suppose to be remotely logical. Of course the magic of this AGW agenda fraud is extrapolating acknowledgement of any human impact becoming immediately assumed as “significant” and/or “dangerous” as these words are carefully distorted and manipulated in any polling process and what is projected on to any sample return.
53% of the GSA opposed the 2009 statement when asked, only 2% said they were consulted before the statement was issued. The GSA at least asked its members which would be very unlikely in Orwell’s American science associations of today. I can’t think of any commonly used factoid (fraud talking point) that is more embarrassing to the modern science community then the 97% coded claim.
http://www.gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/TAG%27s/TAG%20167WEB.pdf
That’s a nice declaration. My, those alarmists can’t keep their heads in the sand for much longer – they’re running out of sand!
While I applaud the membership of the GSA from stopping this, I have to suspect that a lot of Aussie geologists are practising geologists working in industry (mining etc.) as opposed to teaching geologists working in academia. Professional societies in most developed countries are overloaded with academics – especially the Boards as time spent serving as a officer of such a Board is an accepted use of time for an academic and can even be a route to promotion.
There is very likely to be a bit of a split here as to where they see the butter for their bread coming from….
wat dabney says: (June 4, 2014 at 12:59 pm) “sites are obliged to serve pages which are reached via a Google search“. Nonsense. Sites are entitled to protect their information, regardless. Some sites may fail to protect their pages properly, thus allowing direct url entry, but that is a different issue. I suspect that you will find TheAustralian pages well-protected for subscriber access only.
Here’s a copy of the actual newsletter – the statement is on page 7.
http://gsa.org.au/pdfdocuments/publications/TAG's/TAG%20170%20WEB.pdf
Berényi Péter says:
June 4, 2014 at 12:13 pm
Yes, but Aussies are walking upside down.
*
Only some of us are. 😛
Did they really think they would get such a consensus from Geologists?
Actually this is not the only scientific peak body in Australia that cannot reach a consensus, so I have no idea why anyone thinks it’s 97% or even close.
Here’s a suggestion for all those scientific societies to implement after the CACA Clamor fades away and you are left holding the bag: Don’t just promise to be a good boy in the future, ensure that it will never happen again, thusly: Establish a “ground wire” to common sense in the form of a Common Sense Committee that is randomly chosen from the membership. Its remit is to be skeptical and hear both sides whenever the society is urged to take some world-saving, far-seeing, progressive stance, or, in brief, to Never Blunder Again.
Its members will have less need to be collegial with one another and indulge others in their hobby-horses. They will have less fear of being out of step with other scientific societies, because they will not be as identified as permanent or elected officials of the society with its “rep” at scientific confabs. They will be less incentivized to Go With the Flaw.
Why do they even need a position statement? Do they have a PS on igneous rocks? If not, I DEMAND they come up with one!
Does this mean there is hope for poor fellow my country?
This is why it’s easier not to ask your membership and just express a position on behalf of the membership.
I do a google search for ‘Climate Change’ each day. ‘The Australian’ story was one hit. Clicking on the link provides the page and then a ‘Subscription’ form appears. Closing the form gives access to the article.
lee – that may not be the full article, try the cut and paste into google or head over to JoNova.
An interesting point about this article is that it is questionable as to whether the GSA is the “peak body of earth scientists” in Australia. The GSA has around 2000 members, probably more academics than industry. The Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) has around 4000 members and the Australian Intitute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) has some 13000 members, possibly around a third geologists and these two tend to be more industry related. Petroleum related geologists and geophysicists generally belong to the Petroleum Exploration Society of Australia (PESA). There is some cross over in membership between the groups.
I believe the AIG refused to take a position on climate change as they considered to do so was more political than scientific.
I wonder what the split was between “Believers” and Deniers”? My guess (as prescribed by the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group) is that 97% are “Deniers”!