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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.