Guest CNN-bashing by David Middleton (a geologist)
I ran across this April 2018 article while looking for something else. I totally missed this episode of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Secretary Zinke’s stance on climate change is one of several reasons the Climatariat News Network decided that he was being dishonest in describing himself as a geologist…
Ryan Zinke refers to himself as a geologist. That’s a job he’s never held.
By Sara Ganim, CNN
Updated 12:08 PM ET, Tue April 17, 2018
Washington (CNN) Defending his decision to shrink the Bears Ears national monument to lawmakers last week, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke fell back one of his favorite credentials.
“I’m a geologist,” he said. “I can assure you that oil and gas in Bears Ears was not part of my decision matrix. A geologist will tell you there is little, if any, oil and gas.”
[…]
CNN should have stopped right there… But it’s CNN.
In May, he criticized the work of the US Geological Survey, saying at a press conference in Alaska that “I think the assessments of the USGS has done previous, I think they fall short, from a geologist’s point of view.”
Good thing he hired my friend and former coworker Jim Reilly to run the USGS. That said, past history shows us that government agencies always grossly underestimate what the oil industry will find and produce. Alaska’s North Slope has already produced 16 billion barrels of petroleum liquids. Currently developed areas will ultimately produce a total of about 30 billion barrels. The government’s original forecast for the North Slope’s total production was 10 billion barrels. The current USGS estimate for undiscovered oil in the Bakken play of Montana & North Dakota is 25 times larger than the same agency’s 1995 estimate. In 1987, the MMS (now the BOEM) undiscovered resource estimate for the Gulf of Mexico was 9 billion barrels. Today it is 45 billion barrels.
The MMS increased the estimate of undiscovered oil in the Gulf of Mexico from 9 billion barrels in 1987 to the current 45 billion barrels because we discovered a helluva a lot more than 9 billion barrels in the Gulf over the last 20 years. Almost all of the large US fields discovered since 1988 were discovered in the deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico. In 1988, it was unclear whether or not the deepwater plays would prove to be economic.
Zinke, however, has never held a job as a geologist.
And? From the 1976, edition of the American Geological Institute’s Dictionary of Geological Terms…
geologist
One versed in geology, or engaged in geological study or investigation.
Nothing in there about having a job in geology.
Maybe CNN didn’t read their own article…
Interior spokeswoman Heather Swift provided this statement to CNN: “Ryan Zinke graduated with honors with a B.S. in Geology.
So did I! Well, my B.S. was in Earth Science, with a geology concentration. After graduating, I came this close (holds fingers very close together) to joining the U.S. Air Force… But, I decided to first see if I could find a job as a geologist in the oil industry. Funny thing, my first employer hired me as a geophysicist because I minored in math… Go figure.
Former Secretary of State, General Colin Powell is also a geologist. He was even one of the keynote speakers at the NAPE Global Business Summit in 2017. NAPE is a YUGE oil industry trade show. It was originally known as the North American Prospect Expo, but it got bigger.
Colin Powell Tells NAPE Audience of Ways to Decentralize Energy
by Deon Daugherty | Rigzone Staff | Friday, February 17, 2017
A non-practicing geologist, retired four-star general and former Secretary of State Colin Powell still understood the important of oil and gas throughout his star-spangled career.
“As a national security advisor, Secretary of State and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, energy was an important component of that work. Not only the use of energy to fuel a military organization, but the geopolitical aspects of energy,” he told a charity luncheon audience gathered for the NAPE Global Business Summit in Houston.
[…]
I guess, since Secretary Powell supported Obama, CNN is cool with him being described as a geologist.
Back to CNN…
Interior did not answer if Zinke is or has been a member of the American Institute of Professional Geologists or the Association of State Boards of Geologists.
Neither have I. Nor do I think I even know any geologists who are members of the American Institute of Professional Geologists or the Association of State Boards of Geologists. I do know lots of geologists and geophysicists who belong to the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and/or the Society of Exploration Geophysicists. Not that membership in professional societies are requirements to be a geologist.
Back to CNN…
Several geologists who CNN has spoken with have flagged his comments as disingenuous, saying that someone with a 34-year-old degree who never worked in the field is not considered a geologist.
Several? How many? Who? Anonymous sources… Shocking! (/SARC)
Now we get to the crux of the Climatariat News Network’s beef…
“He seems not to be familiar with modern geologic knowledge,” said Seth Stein, a professor at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University. “In particular, geologists now know that the climate is warming rapidly because of human activities. This is is causing many serious problems including rising sea level, which is a major threat to coastal communities.”
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research… WTF is that? A department of science and non-science? A search for “institute for policy research” on the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences website yielded…
Your search for institute for policy research did not match any documents.
Dr. Stein is a geophysicist, not a geologist, who specialties are plate tectonics and earthquakes… Yet he’s qualified to say that Secretary Zinke “seems not to be familiar with modern geologic knowledge, In particular, geologists now know that the climate is warming rapidly because of human activities. This is is causing many serious problems including rising sea level, which is a major threat to coastal communities.”
Really? Geologists *know* these things? That’s news to most of us.
In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.
Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The earth’s climate naturally varies continually, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years.
[…]
Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.
[…]
Geologists now know that the climate is warming rapidly…
Riiight...
Because of human activities…
Riiight...
This is is causing many serious problems including rising sea level…
Riiight…
Which is a major threat to coastal communities…
Riiight…
The only communities threatened by sea level rise are communities already threatened by sea level.
National Monuments, like Executive Orders, enable a POTUS to make law without the inconvenience of Congress. As Obama said, he wished he could rule without Congress. He practically did, given lazy, cowardly, irresponsible legislators’ addiction to continuing resolutions instead of the hard work of budgeting.
Maybe Trump could declare Manhattan a National Monument and require all the people who live there to leave.
Except for Trump Tower tenants. And only if its other denizens leave the country entirely.
Manhattan does indeed have hyuuge historical, geographical and geologic importance.
I like your thinking. Everything east of the Hudson River could also be so designated. And the southern end of Lake Michigan. And the Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin. Maybe Boulder, CO and Taos, NM as well. Plus Austin and San Antonio, TX. And parts of Houston. For that matter, most of south TX. Portland, Tacoma and Seattle go without saying.
Way too historically important, scenic and ecologically precious for humans to inhabit and despoil.
Yes – the “water lots” of southern Manhattan that were sold by the King of England and then filed in by businessmen are certainly in terrible danger from sea level rise. Look at the devastation that are experienced from Superstorm Sandy 2012.
Trump could declare the beaches around Martha’s Vineyard and the Hamptons National Seashore Monuments. And then put up chain link.
Maybe Trump could declare Manhattan a National Monument and require all the people who live there to leave.
No thanks, because then all the lefty loons from Manhattan will spread out, infecting other areas of the country with their lunacy.
Maybe we could keep them there, and set up a zoo so the rest of us can view them in complete safety.
John, Indeed Congress since 2007 has only passed Continuing Resolutions (CRs) or worse Omnibus Bills, as they did this present fiscal year. Why? Democrats had the majority in both houses until 2010 when Republicans regained the House majority. From that point forward the House did pass budgets by Regular Order but once in the Senate Harry Reid refused to bring them to a vote. Even now with Senate Republicans having such a small minority they, based on present Senate rules, cannot bring a regular order budget to a vote. We shall see soon if it happens again. CRs were never intended to fund the federal government for an entire year, nor when first created were they intended to increase spending. CRs were to be strictly short term, weeks, months, emergencies to keep the government open and were suppose to be level funding. Instead under Obama the deficit spending increased as did the national debt.
What very few appreciate that since at least the 1930s Democrats have held the power in Washington, D.C. Under the Constitution, contrary to the mythology created by the Democrats and the media, the power is with Congress, not as it has evolved giving the Executive and Judicial branches unbridled authority. Democrats have either been in the majority in both houses of Congress or held such large minorities that Republicans could accomplish little without a few Democrats crossing the aisle. Starting after the 2006 midterm election the Democratic leadership would not allow their members to cross over, those that dared lost re-election support and became backbenchers with no important committee assignments.
What is ironic is that during the 2006 midterms Democrats recruited moderate, ex-military to run in competitive seats. Their campaign platform, get the country out of Iraq and to end deficit spending. In safe Democrat seats they ran on how much “bacon” they brought home and how much the supported their base.
I’m a geologist and i’ve known that global bloody warming is a load of climate bollocks since it first reared its ugly head back when I was in my 3rd year at Uni in 1988.
My college career was about a decade earlier… And I clearly remember That 70’s Climate Science Show…
Like you Dave, I’ve worn the hat of “geologist” and “geophysicist”. I prefer the term “geoslut” (they charge by the night, we charge by the day). We geosluts have had to work through the development of sequence stratigraphy, and know more about the multiple, natural, long term sea level changes than any other group of scientist or slut. How could we be anything but sceptical?
I usually just refer to myself as a “geo.” When I left “Medium Oil” for “Little Oil” in 1997, I quickly realized that the traditional geologist/geophysicist team was a big company luxury.
We were geodorks at college.
Knowledge of sequence stratigraphy – even of it’s existence – seems to be completely lacking from the repertoire of alarmists like Dr. Stein.
It’s time to do the Red and Blue team exercise already, and have the destruction – piece by piece – of climate alarmism witnessed on television for everyone to see.
Ah bless! Even an increase in tornados due to global cooling!
I’m a geologist and knew the runaway greenhouse effect and the UN IPCC was total clap-trap as I read their 1992 report. And that report was vastly less hysterical than the utter rubbish they pedal now.
peddle
Well, they do want the few humans allowed to survive to get around on bikes, at best.
Could be that pedal powered generators are in their plans, to backup wind and solar so the elite can have uninterrupted renewable power. 🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️🚴♂️
So that is how all the new energy jobs will be created . Go figure
Renewables is people!
I wonder how much CO2 per watt is emitted by human-powered generation of electricity.
Piddle
piffle
piddle
(Beaten to this by Gwan)
and also beaten by piffle!
(I need to try harder)
His name had “cycles” in it; he can “pedal”.
Sure you don’t mean “piddle”? 😀
I’m not a geologist – but I don’t think it takes a scientist to know it’s bunkum. 😉
“It doesn’t take a great actor to spot a bad one.”
Jason Nesbitt, “Galaxy Quest”
+42… Never give up, never surrender… A classic!
Jason Nesmith (sorry……).
I’m also a geologist. I gave the global warming movement the benefit of the doubt…until I saw the heralded hockey stick graph. That piece of bovine fecal matter convinced me that “global warming” had nothing to do with scientific reality.
Back in 1999, I was also starting to think there might be something to it. It was really hot in Dallas that year, they had published the ice core CO2 records which appeared to support AGW and the Hockey Stick was the only “scientific” reconstruction around.
Then it cooled down, it turned out the ice core CO2 lagged behind temperatures and Mann’s Hockey Stick turned out to be totally wrong, if not fraudulent.
Me too , geology degree in UK 1969. Worked as engineering geo for 30 yrs after post war minerals slump. Needed to understand quaternary glacio-eustatic sea level changes to design structure foundations. 1999 convinced by ice cores that agw was bs. Now looking forward to next glaciation.
Of course the Climate Globalist are concerned about “sea level rise”.
Their ship is sinking.
Another way to put it might be that their ship is grounded in quicksand. But that would be the maritime sciences [ship, quicksand] and only a geologist would understand it!
No,no.. they went on a cruise in the Arctic and became grounded.
Icebound
At the mouth of the Fitzroy River in north Australia at low tide, there’s a real danger of running aground on and becoming mired in the ever-shifting sandbars, then being swamped by the incoming tide. And the difference between high and low tide in that area is about, oh, 30 feet (9.14 meters).
Funny, nice gunga, sinking or trapped in ice.
Becoming a member of a “Professional” organization gets you a line or two on your resume, a magazine (often of no interest), and lightens one’s wallet.
Kenji Watts, member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (sic) comes to mind.
John,
I suspect the closest Sara Ganim-CNN has ever come to professional geology was playing ‘rock/paper/scissors’.
Don’t badmouth Kenji – his presence in that organization increased its average IQ.
I think he was badmouthing the organization. Kenji definitely uplifts its membership.
True – but then so would an amoeba. 😉
Given the choice of foregoing my local pistol club membership to join any of the so-called professional organizations which email me, I click the little garbage can icon.
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research are two separate organizations at Northwestern, I think.
Seth combines them with the ‘and’ conjunction to make his title more than just a professor of Department of Earth and Planetary Science at Northwestern.
By this sleight of hand he wants to look liker a player, a policy wonk. If he is just a teacher with the right arguments you could challenge his work and his position using math & science. But combine his science and political status he becomes an unassailable maven, a priest.
—Seth Stein, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Ill.; email: seth@earth.northwestern.edu; Jonas Kley and David Hindle, Geosciences Center, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany; and Anke Friedrich, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Munich, Munich, Germany
https://eos.org/project-updates/exploring-natural-hazard-policies-with-bike-helmets-and-bus-fares
IPR news:
“In Playing Against Nature: Integrating Science and Economics to Mitigate Natural Hazards in an Uncertain World (Wiley-Blackwell, 2014), geophysicist and IPR associate Seth Stein and his father, economist Jerome Stein, explore our often-flawed approach to natural hazard policies. The authors suggest that current policies do not take into account the many ways that science, economics, and risk analysis play into each situation of hazard. They recommend an approach to natural hazards combining policy with geoscience, engineering, and economics.
They advise humility in the face of nature, as well as improved communication between those who create natural hazard policies and those who use them.”
“As scientists, we want to improve the science, but I think we also need to communicate the uncertainties better,” Seth Stein said at the International Disaster and Risk Conference in Davos, Switzerland, on August 28. “People on the outside should ask us, ‘How much do you really know about all this?’”
I don’t think much of Mr. Stein.
Just because he got together with an economist does not mean he come up with anything except a spiel.
He was much to quick to condemn Zinke.
But, but he spoke at a conference in Davos!
That must mean something, yes?
I would assume more grants at the very least, maybe even a juicy sinecure at a well known university?
This sentence stops me: “AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.”
I am absolutely gobsmacked mystified at the continuing ignorance in so-called science people in regard to whether or not humans can “control the climate”, when for many humans, they can’t even control their own emotions.
I have said this before and will continue to repeat it: We humans have NO CONTROL AT ALL over the climate, the weather or anything else this planet does. We can’t even pick up after ourselves. The best we can do is be prepared for anything and everything.
This is just more evidence that the people howling about climate and “controlling climate” and “climate change” are living in complete denial of reality. I sincerely hope to live long enough to see them trying to push a glacier back north of Somewhere. It would not displease me to find on the news that a great many of them have been snowed in and no one will dig them out.
Rant over. Moving on….
The words “human,” man-made” and “anthropogenic are noticeable by their absense…
“AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.”
Human effects on climate change, if any, can’t be identified unless “the basic controls on climate” are well-understood and quantified.
“basic controls on climate” implies that there are any, and in the article the alleged influence of humans is included.
Considering the size of the planet, it would be more believable if the term ‘how the planet controls the climate’ were used, in MHO. 🙂
It’s not an “article.’ It’s the AAPG position statement on climate change. Unless the basic controls of climate are understood, you can’t even begin to estimate any anthropogenic effects.
The “basic controls on climate” are the pre-anthropogenic controls.
Regardless, of what definition we use to describe basic controls on climate, I think Sara makes a very important point. The MSM and academia constantly imply that we can stop projected global warming by changing are lifestyles and our economic/political systems. This is a major false assumption being pushed by the AGW proponents, IPCC, K -12 teachers of our kids ..and so forth to further their agendas. Just look at the graphic here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/climate-action-the-game/
Understood, David. But my perception of that phrase is that it implies human intervention to the less-informed.
I agree with you Sara, Middleton was being nitpicky
They also make an error by equating temperature with climate. There’s a lot more to climate than just temps.
Yep… The meteorological definition of climate ignores much of what actually defines a climate.
I get the feeling that the editors at AAPG would like to climb on the AGW train but they are too afraid of being laughed at by 90% of their members.
The current AAPG management is more interested in not offending students than engaging in the debate.
Rather than defending the 2006 award to Michael Crichton for State of Fear, they disengaged.
It’s hard to tell where the editors stand. The most recent Explorer featured an article about Gregory Wrightstone, author of Inconvenient Facts – the science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know and an article about “an oil industry physicist” who writes apology letters to penguins.
Gregory Wrightstone has been a geologist for 40+ years. The “oil industry physicist” is a recent college graduate, who had a summer internship with Columbia’s national oil company.
That’s a good point about not offending students. It seems we must be cautious of their feelings even if there isn’t much to support what they wish to believe is true. Sometimes the Explorer coughs up an article that supports the need to study the so-called problem. Greg, on the other hand is a tell it like it is guy. He went to China years ago and gave a talk on shale plays. He then proceeded to tell them it won’t work there because their economic system sucks. This, in a country where people they don’t like they run over with tanks. Too funny.
Greg strikes me as a “say it like it is” person… I think there’s a tendency for geologists to be blunt… Our favorite scientific instrument is a hammer, after all… 😉
Why do they worry about what students think.
Either they want to work in the industry or not.
Last thing i worried about was a labourers feelings, this feminisation of the work place is alien to me.
The “Great Crew Change” has them shaking in their field boots…
https://www.forbes.com/sites/gradsoflife/2018/08/28/corporate-mentoring-meets-the-classroom/#17511dc960f1
Took the words right out of my mouth 🙂
Words you can have, leave the teeth alone.
Yup. Taken on its own, that statement is a straight forward refutation of the idea that climate is “settled science”.
Waddy mean? Honeywell solved climate control decades ago. I’ve got on my living room wall. Sheesh.
Sara:
“We humans have NO CONTROL AT ALL over the climate, the weather,, or anything else this planet does”.
I am sorry, but unfortunately, you are WRONG.
Man made climate change DOES exist, and the recent warming trend has been CAUSED by the environmentalists.
The mechanism is the reduction in the amount of dimming anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions in the atmosphere due to global Clean Air efforts.
Climate is controlled by changes in the amount of dimming SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere (which in the absence of any changes in solar output) has solely been the result of volcanic eruptions–that is, until the burning of fossil fuels as a result of the Industrial Revolution put anthropogenic SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere.
These peaked at 131 Megatons circa 1975, and due to global Clean Air efforts, had dropped to 101 Megatons by 2014, causing the temperature rise (due to the cleaner, more transparent air) wrongly attributed to greenhouse gasses.
The sensitivity of the climate to changing SO2 levels is approx. .02 deg C. of warming (or cooling) for each net Megaton of change in global SO2 aerosol emissions, either anthropogenic, or volcanic.
So, Sarah, humans ARE capable of altering Earth’s climate!
(Not my first post on this topic, you must have missed the others)
Indeed humans like all life on earth alter the overall working of this planet’s biosphere. We are however part of nature and not a race apart from it.
In my view, any hypothesis that global climate is controlled by one single factor is laughable.
While aerosols play a role in cooling, they alone do not control the climate. Many other factors are significant.
Rich Davis:
“In my view, any hypothesis that global climate is controlled by one single factor is laughable.
While aerosols play a role in cooling, they alone do not control the climate. Many other factors are significant.”
No, there are no other factors apart from the effects of SO2 aerosol emissions, and you cannot name any other provable, non-speculative cause.
You acknowledge a role in cooling–removing them causes warming. It’s all about changing the intensity of the sun’s radiation reaching the Earth’s surface.
Thanks for the feedback, quickly, but you are referring to a temporary state, which is related to weather, not climatic change.
A brief bout of sulfates released into the atmosphere is just that – BRIEF – and frankly, volcanoes release a higher volume in a single eruption than anything we have done.
If anything, sulfate levels can be attributed more to volcanic activity than to human activities. See volcano discovery’s website for the current number of active volcanoes, and in addition, those which are showing potential upticks in activity.
You tell em Sara!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Climate *change*, by definition, is a temporary state… And since climate has always changed and will always change… 😉
Sara:
No, I am not talking about weather “the general condition of the atmosphere at a particular time and place, with regard to the temperature, moisture, cloudiness, etc”
Earth’s average global temperatures are controlled by the amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere. When they increase, the climate cools down , as after the Pinatubo eruption, with its lowest point (-0.5 deg C.) being reached about 2 years after the date of the eruption.
When its SO2 aerosols finally settled out of the atmosphere, after about 3 years, temperatures recovered to pre-eruption levels, and higher, resulting in the Sept. 1994-Apr 1995 El Nino, because of the cleaner, more transparent air.
Its 4 year effect upon the Earth’s climate was NOT a BRIEF bout, as you maintain. The climate was noticeably changed for that period.
You also stated that “frankly, volcanoes release a higher volume (of SO2) in a single eruption than anything we have done”
Again, not true. Pinatubo introduced about 20 Megatons of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere, while we humans, by 1975, had introduced 131 Megatons of SO2 aerosols into the atmosphere.
And like the warming that occurred after Pinatubo’s eruptions settled out, our climate has ALSO warmed because of the reductions in those SO2 aerosol emissions due to global Clean Air efforts.
Temporary increases and decreases due to volcanic eruptions will be superimposed upon this warming trend, if they are VEI4, or higher.
(It currently appears that Kilauea is having a cooling effect, with early snowfalls in the West, although other eruptions may also be involved)
Accidental “control?”
Accidents are not controlled, by definition…
But perhaps you are correct that the undimmed skies lead to slight warming. Makes sense to me.
Sara:
If we did, the military would be all over it. (Aside from Obama’s military paying $100 a gallon for “bio-fuel”.)
I am a geologist although I have never held a job as a geologist. In fact, I have a PhD in geology. I have always worked for engineers and chemists as an industrial mineralogist. Right now I teach geology as an adjunct at 3 schools. I do not belong to any geology society. Now how much can a mineralogist know about the field of climate except on a general level (you should see what is in our textbooks about Climate Change). I tell my students that Zinke is trained as a geologist so we have someone who know resources from a more informed position than a person simply trained in policy. I teach a lab on sea level rise – how we measure it and I then use data from the Sandy Hook buoy in the Barnegat Bay of New Jersey. The data is from 1932 to 2015. Extrapolating backwards to 100 years – sea level has risen 1.33 feet in 100 years. The students are always shocked, they tell me they were told sea level has risen over 10 feet!
I doubt that any photos of sea level of the shore of Barnegat Bay from 100 years ago will support the assertion that sea level has increased by 1.33 feet.
Most global benchmarks of sea level show around 2 millimeters per year in geologically stable regions. There are also peer reviewed papers showing about 1 millimeter per year for a realistic global sea level change in the last few centuries.
One example of a well documented sea level benchmark placed at the Isle of the Dead in Tasmania by Capt James Ross shows about 6 inches rise since 1841. There is some dispute on that due to a late 19th century earthquake.
100 years at 1 mm per year is 100 millimeters, thats 4 inches.
The thing is, that when you factor in waves, tides and seasonal variability, 1-2 feet of sea level rise is practically within the noise level.
Yes David and I teach that too. When I came back to Academia after many years away, I was so surprised to see what we teach in our Intro Geology courses. There was so much politics! However, I learned that you cannot argue with people. Facts do not matter. Young people have already been indoctrinated by their early schooling and many professors are too . So I took the time to develop labs where we really get down to topics like how do we measure sea level, what do we mean by sea level (then I get into eustatic versus local), why we use a reference ellipsoid, how different measuring stations are not all the same so our basis for talking about historical sea level has many problems. I always tell students that I am not there to tell you how to think, instead I will give you the tools to help you analyze the data yourself. I have very few problems with attendance and I do not ban cellphones. They turn them off willingly in my class. BTW, I begin my Climate Change lecture with our much missed John Coleman’s delve into how this topic became big in the US and I tell the story of George Mitchell’s tireless work that started hydraulic fracturing and how that affected our economy. It takes work to present material to students where you are not teaching at them with canned publishers material but instead showing them how ideas develop and who were the people who presented those ideas.
+42
I always like to give a +6×9 (the question)
and I’ll give you +58 to make it an even +100 (with apologies to both David and Deep Thought)
+142
Add another 10 or so. Don’t forget inflation :<)
+152
Thank you for your tie, your efforts, your accuracy and preparation.
It’s essential for our future. But too few take your quality of classes!
We need more teachers like you.
Give them a (soft) slap-up-the-side-of-the-head to reengage their brains.
(Show them how to think again rather than what to think.)
+42 quantity squared.
As the reservoir engineer for the first 18 or so Barnett Shale wells while working for George Mitchell in the early to mid ’80s I have to applaud you for teaching facts. The development of the stimulation method for the shale was an expensive evolution from nothing but nitrogen “frac” to 2 million pounds of sand in gelled water within a couple of years (vertical wells). Whoever heard of putting water into a shale? Each well better than the previous one. It was an interesting time.
bwegher,
1) 1.33 feet over 100 years is equal to a sea-level rise rate of 4 mm/yr, which is not unusual although it is higher than average.
2) Since we are concerned with just the last 100 years, your comment about 1 mm/yr over the “last few centuries” is irrelevant, even if imagined to be correct. And there is little credibility established by the current methods of conducting “peer review” for “scientific” publications. http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
3) The difference between 4 mm/yr and the “global benchmark” of 2 mm/yr over 100 years would be equivalent to 0.66 feet. I am certain that any two photos of sea level of the shore of Barnegat Bay, taken 100 years apart, could not reveal a 0.66 foot average difference, given that the typical daily tidal variation there is about 3 feet (ref: https://marineweather.net/tide/barnegat-inlet-uscg-station-barnegat-bay-nj-tides )
4) Without knowing what corrections need to be applied to the Barnegat Bay tidal gauge(s) to account for land uplift/subsidence, it is pretty meaningless to try to compare those measurements against “global benchmarks” with any assertions of accuracy.
Thus, Lois, the geologist, is entirely credible.
A mineralogist must know a whole lot about climate. “Do I need to pack a heavy coat or rain gear?” when going into the field, for example.
I wonder how much of that SLR was by the 1940’s. One of things that my relative noted while at Ft. Monmouth went to Asbury Park, was that he could see the foundations of buildings in the ocean.
The Jersey Shore has been experiencing sometimes substantial beach erosion due to hurricanes and our winter storms for many years. In fact the first jetties and groins were built on the northern beaches. In the past, people built right on the beach. There is also a longshore current that divides near Asbury Park, going north from there that helps build up Sandy Hook and then south to bring sand to the barrier islands. So Asbury Park is the erosion “hotspot.” Before we knew all this, many buildings in Asbury Park was built very close to the beach. It was a very popular tourist area for New Yorkers back in the 40s
“jetties and groins”
Sounds like a gang that spends a lot of time in physical therapy.
What they could/should have attacked was that he is not and never was a licensed professional geologist. But only 29 states actually have licensure for geologists, and I have seen referenced to careers as “academic geologists” and “petroleum geologists” where licensure is irrelevant.
We have a licensing option in Texas. I could have been “grandfathered in” if I sent the State a check and a couple of letters of reference. Unless, you routinely do international consulting or testify before government agencies, there is no functional need for a “license.” I opted not to send them a check. The “funny” thing is that I wrote letters of reference for two geologists who did.
I’m a PG in North Carolina and Virginia. I generally agree, especially because there are no requirements for PGs to sign or stamp anything in Virginia. However, NC’s regulations are a little stricter. If I do any study or write any report that is geological in nature in NC, not only am I required to have a NC PG license, but the company I work for also has to be licensed.
Having said that, I think it’s more a revenue thing than anything else. the fee for a two-year license in VA is $35, while the annual fee in NC is $85. Go figure…
If you’re doing engineering geology or geotechnics… There is a place for the geological equivalent of a PE stamp… That’s a public safety issue.
However, I think a lot of what drove the licensing in Texas was that some geologists were offended by having to have a PE sign off on their work.
As a petroleum engineer who has been doing environmental work for the State of Texas for 25+ years I had my chance be a pee-peg (PE-PG) by grandfathering in both of them but did not go for the PG (i waited too long). It would have made a difference if it paid more maybe but outside of that I did not see the need.
Love it!
Wonderful graphics.
Very well done David Middleton.
Sun Tzu says to always leave your adversary an exit, not sure you did that.
I was an interior lineman in high school… I want my adversary’s only exit to be through me… 😉
Noseguard (small and stupid). my adversary’s exit was through me…quite a bit. 🙂
Me too!
5-4 or was it 5-3 Monster defense? I loved playing noseguard. I was also a center… A very small center on a small town high school team in which only two people topped 200 lb… not counting the head coach.
At least my school had enough guys to play 11-man football, unlike some neighboring towns. When we played smaller schools (eight-man football) in non-league games, we sometimes had to lend them players.
Of course most kids played both offense and defense, so the noseguard would naturally double as center.
In the ’70s, my high school combined with a neighboring, formerly eight-man school, to produce a team with a ridiculous hybrid name, since the smaller school insisted on keeping its nickname in the mix after the Anschluss.
David, have you ever considered a career as a professional ironicist? 🙂
There can only be one George Carlin… LOL! And he’s dead.
From the article:
When I was a pup, geologists knew what the proper study of geology included. It would have included some paleontology and some description of ancient climates. It would not have included any detail about the modern climate. It’s a real stretch to say that one doesn’t understand modern geology because one does not subscribe to CAGW. Does that mean that the geological engineers I know should turn in their professional licenses? It does not.
What kind of out-of-touch arrogant twit could make the statement quoted above?
Maybe one who had never encountered the Principle of Uniformitarianism.
Good!
See: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/
Its frontpage “News” lists
“Advice to Researchers: Admit what you don’t know”
Excellent advice.
Applying an equivalent analysis: “Is Sara Ganim therefore not a practising writer because she has never published a book nor an academic article?”
The “non-sequitur fallacy” strikes again.
“Logic!” said the Professor half to himself. “Why don’t they teach logic at these schools? . . .” C.S. Lewis.
Brilliant contrast!
Geological resource assessments are like driving using only your rear-view mirror. You can do it, but you should be really uncomfortable.
That’s why they’re called “resources,” not “reserves.”
By the same token, just because someone has worked for CNN does not mean they are really a journalist.
Well, my BS in geology is now 50 years behind me, so in addition to the great cooling scare, I remember well the “continental drift” plate tectonic controversy. Think it was 66-67 when a map of the Atlantic basin went up in the geology student “lounge” , and that controversy ended for good. I only worked a short time as a geologist–spent most of my adult life working with stone as a mason and carver–but still consider myself a geologist, and read most anything science I can get my hands on. WUWT is great for continuing education, and has replaced some of the periodicals I’ve let go of because their science became too politically correct for my skeptical tastes.
Thanks David M. for all of your pointed contributions wouldn’t mind sharing a beverage and discussion with you some time.
The 70’s were a cool time to study geology… We got geosynclines and plate tectonics.
B. S. Geology, West Virginia University, Class of 1979
Most noted achievement in college: carrying a six-pack on ice to the top of Seneca Rocks so we’d have something cool to sip on after the climb.
If you’re not familiar with Seneca Rocks in WV:
Been there several times. Always did our drinking in the campground.
Geologist, stone mason, a rock is a rock.
But not a stone… 😉
“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.”
Unless you’re a biologist making rocks out of concrete https://youtu.be/1m7pPGrhamI
Some rocks are priceless, so……not all rocks are equal.
From the article:
“In the last century, growth in human population has increased energy use. This has contributed additional carbon dioxide (CO2) and other gases to the atmosphere. Although the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases, AAPG believes that expansion of scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate is important.
Geologists study the history of the earth and realize climate has changed often in the past due to natural causes. The earth’s climate naturally varies continually, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. In recent decades global temperatures have risen. However, our planet has been far warmer and cooler today than many times in the geologic past, even within the past 10,000 years.
[…]
Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Academy for the Advancement of Science, and American Meteorological Society. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum-case scenarios forecast in some models.
[…]
American Association of Petroleum Geologists”
I think this is a very reasonable and measured position the AAPG has taken. A little light in the darkness.
Honestly… I think the AAPG is too reasonable… 😉
At least the AAPG isn’t claiming CAGW is here now and causing damage. A breath of fresh air, I would say. They are basically saying “We don’t know yet”. Everyone should adopt their position.
But becase of the “P” in AAPG, they will be dismissed as industry shill deniers.
Funny thing… Most, if not all, of the P-dismissers think that the “petro-” in petroeum stands for “oil.” I always laugh when people babble about “petro-dollars.”
#metoo.
‘”I’m not sure Secretary Zinke was paying attention during those geology classes,” said Raul Grijalva, the top Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee’
I’ve never worked as a journalist (or a geologist) but I know defamation.
Apparently, the biggest perc in congress is being able to defame or smear others with impunity, and with no consequences.
Way better than franking privileges and not being questioned for whatever you said in Congress.
And Representative Grijalva should know the content of those geology classes because of his degree in sociology?
Apparently got an honours degree while goofing off. That’s a good trick!
Dang I love being a geologist in today’s climate.
What do you expect? CNN is the propaganda arm of the DNC.
““In particular, geologists now know that the climate is warming rapidly because of human activities. This is is causing many serious problems including rising sea level, which is a major threat to coastal communities.””
None of the things mentioned here have anything to do with geology. Human activities really do not affect geology. How does sea level rise concern a geologist, except regarding erosion? What they are complaining about is that he has not absorbed their propaganda and seen the world through their s**t-colored glasses.
The Holocene Highstand is correct. I have sampled the +2.0m perched heavy mineral deposits on both sides of Australia in exactly the position above sea level as described when I was doing heavy mineral exploration in beach sands in the mid to late 60’s and early 70’s. Indeed the sand miners mined them before the Gold Coast was created. A good time was had by all.
I’m no geologist just an old engineer and energy in and energy out has to drive the climate system.
TSI and all of its components shine upon our planet 24/7. With 70% of our planet covered to an average depth of 12, 100 ft with water, this energy is stored, transported and released in ways we do not fully understand. We do know that variations in surface water temperature such as occur during el nino and la nina effect our immediate climate in various ways; temperature, winds, rainfall, etc. We also know that clouds and wind, among other variables, effect the amount of energy which is received by the oceans and how it is stored, mixed and released. Then there is the underwater geothermal energy which is also pumped into the mix, of which we have little knowledge or data and everyone seems to ignore as trivial. It should be obvious that on a water world such as we have that the oceans are the thermostat for climate; absorbing, transporting and releasing energy into the relatively thin, compared to the oceans, atmosphere which cannot store, transport and distribute energy over as long a period of time. Trying to pin climate, temperatures, weather, etc. on the intervening variables which modify the two energy inputs, solar and geothermal, and looking at the system one variable at a time when there are complex interrelationships among the variables is a fool’s errand. Multivariate regression will have high multicolinearity when attempting to search for potential causal variables on say, temperature, as a dependent but I am wondering if a tool such as AID might be helpful as a discriminate analysis step to obtain insight as to what is effecting what within the independent variables themselves. Time series and looking for “signals” in them has not gotten us too far, so far, nor have all of the “models” which are, of course, tainted by the bias of the modelers as we have seen. It is the sun, and possibly geothermal, which define our climate as they are the only true energy inputs we have. It gets down to how these are modified on their way to their required entropy trip that they take to absolute zero. But the bottom line is that there is not enough data to analyze, over a long enough period of time, to get much more than perhaps a general idea of what’s going on in the shorter term, let alone in the longer term, where things like Milankovich cycles and tectonic plate movement changing ocean current pathways and such effect longer term climate. The complexity over time and the changes in the modifying variables over time makes tracking a single variable vs temperature pretty meaningless.
JimG1 your comment exposes what to me is the absurdity of the whole CO2 hypothesis. I’m no engineer, just another one of these geologists (ret.) but it seems clear to me that the idea defies the laws of physics. The thermal mass of the ocean is vastly greater than that of the atmosphere, and CO2 is only .04% of the atmosphere, yet were supposed to believe that CO2 is driving the system? If you believe that call me, I have this bridge….
Geothermal heat flow by the way is actually pretty well known since so many holes have been punched in the earth: it averages about 60mW/sq. m. at the top of continental crust and 100 mW/sq. m. over oceanic crust, of course away from volcanic point sources – numbers that can be found in Wikipedia now days or any number of places. So it actually is pretty small unless you get to several thousand feet of depth where it increases rapidly (in terms of humans trying to work in a mine for example).
David,
I’m talking about undersea energy input. Not sure how that relates to holes dug in the earth?
I expect tidal forces from the moon would also have a small contribution, in affecting fluidic motion on the oceans that they wouldn’t otherwise have.
A geologist like me who works in mineral exploration in northern Canada, has to be aware of climate. The most important thing that climate gives us is …… winter! We can move drills and other heavy equipment over frozen lakes and frozen swamps, to places we could not get them to without the cold season (except by helicopter, at 2 or 3 times the cost of going overland).
The last 20 years or so years, the winters haven’t been cold like they were in the good old global cooling days of the 1970s, when you could reasonably expect a couple of weeks of -40° mornings every January (-45°C in northern Manitoba and -50°C in the NWT). The ice hasn’t been as thick, or as strong. It’s not just us explorationists that are affected, there are the ice roads that service remote mines in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, and there are networks of ice roads supplying remote native communities in Manitoba and Ontario. Short trucking seasons on the ice roads have been a serious concern lately. That’s how they get their non-perishable supplies, and the diesel fuel for their community generators.
This year, I’m hoping for a long, cold winter. Signs are there. Geese are flying south already. Canada Geese seem to understand climate better than the IPCC.
Just on the second chart down, “Temperature reconstruction (Ljungqvist, 2010), northern hemisphere instrumental temperature (HadCRUT4) and Law Dome CO2…”
The HadCRUT4 Northern Hemisphere data superimposed on top of the reconstructed data stops in 2009, which is also where the Ljungqvist temperature reconstruction ends (the paper having been written in 2010). But there’s no reason why the HadCRUT4 data can’t be extended to the present: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.monthly_nh.txt
The chart shows a 30-year running average of Northern Hemisphere land and ocean data using HadCRUT’s own 1961-1990 anomaly base period. As the chart correctly acknowledges, in 2010 the latest full 30-year running average (Jan 1980 – Dec 2009) was 0.340 C. The most recent HadCRUT4 (NH) 30-year running average runs from Aug 1988 to July 2018, and now stands at 0.551 C, well off the top of the scale on that chart.
The image below shows what the current HadCRUT4 NH 30-year average data would look like if added to the above chart, using the same scale as the left hand y-axis on the chart. The current 30-year running average value is shown in the top right text box.
It’s sampled to match Ljungqvist and a few years old.
And tbe purpose was to show how the proxy record relates to CO2 and compares to the instrumental record.
“It’s a centered running average, not trailing average, sampled to match Ljungqvist and a few years old.”
___________________________
The running average I show is also a centred one, not a trailing one. It’s 360 months centred on July 2003. There’s a link to the data above, check this for yourself.
“And tbe purpose was to show how the proxy record relates to CO2 and compares to the instrumental record.”
___________________________
The relationship of CO2 and the instrumental temperature record is pretty clear, even more so when the up to date data are used.
There are no “up to date” proxy data.
I was referring to the up to date HadCRUT4 data of course, as opposed to the the data in the chart, which ends in 2009.
The chart compares the instrumental data to the proxy data and CO2 over the past 2,000 years. It demonstrates the following:
1) The high resolution instrumental data exhibit higher amplitude variability (more warming) than the lower resolution proxy data.
2) Over the period in which we have both proxy and instrumental data, CO2 has no clear effect on temperature.
“2) Over the period in which we have both proxy and instrumental data, CO2 has no clear effect on temperature.”
_______________________
That doesn’t follow from the data. Using the 30-year centred running average (which was your choice, or the choice of the person who made the original chart) we can see that the the most recent 30-year periods have been by far the warmest over the past >2000 years. We can also see that CO2 levels are at their highest over the most recent period.
We all know that correlation doesn’t prove causation, so that doesn’t prove that CO2 is causing all the warming; but nor is it true to say that CO2 “has no clear effect on temperature”. The evidence suggests it might well have.
“We can see that the the most recent 30-year periods have been by far the warmest over the past >2000 years”…
No we can’t… We can only see that the instrumental data show more warming than the proxy reconstruction over the most recent 30-yr periods.
The only data with a direct apples-to-apples comparison are from the proxy reconstruction and these data show that the Modern Warm Period is comparable to the Medieval Warm Period.
“….We can only see that the instrumental data show more warming than the proxy reconstruction over the most recent 30-yr periods.”
___________________________
Looking at the period of overlap between the Ljungqvist reconstructed data and HadCRUT4 as presented on that chart, from 1850 uo to the 1990s, there appears to be a pretty good match. The period of slight cooling from 1850 to the early 20th century and again mid-20th century appear to be well correlated between the two.
That being the case, why would we think HadCRUT4 has got it so wrong since then?
It’s not a matter of HadCRUT4 getting anything wrong. It’s a higher frequency signal than the proxy reconstruction. As such it has a larger dynamic amplitude range.
Then how come there’s such a good match 1850-1990s?
It’s not a “good match” during the early 20th century warming.
David,
Look, we’re not going to agree here, but thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.
I would probably be cast as an ‘alarmist’ on this site. I’m actually quite socially conservative, and I work in the aviation industry. It’s not like I’m some green behind the ears hippy with an axe to grind.
True, I accept most of mainstream climate science, which I have had some small education in. But then even Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH are on record as accepting that there is global warming and that CO2 is at least in part responsible.
Unlike those two, I accept the current consensus of climate scientists when they say that the warming caused by enhanced CO2 will be something other than minimal.
Unlike some of the truly alarmist websites and bloggers (for there are many), I don’t believe it’s beyond the wit of man to sort these things out in a responsible and non-economy wrecking way.
The key to achieving that though, is to owning up that there’s a problem. The sooner we do that, the better. The sooner we stop relying on out of date data, for instance, the sooner we get to the stage where we can admit there’s a problem.
I think WUWT can contribute to this process; but only when it finally relinquishes its tendency to promote articles that pretend no warming is occurring and that it’s completely insignificant.
DW,
If you are an alarmist, I’m a denier… and I’m a luke-warmer. My position is not terribly different than Roy Spencer’s, John Christy’s and Judith Curry’s… I just tend to load up my posts with sarcasm.
I think I’m not explaining clearly enough why the resolution differences between proxy reconstructions and instrumental data are so important. But, that wasn’t the purpose of this thread. Such a discussion would require a very long and serious post… One of my many long-term unfinished projects.
There is not, and never has been a consensus.
That is as bogus as the rest of their “science”.
You contradict yourself:
“relinquishes its tendency to promote articles that pretend no warming is occurring and that it’s completely insignificant.”
There if the warming in insignificant, it can’t also be non-existent.
Regardless, you completely destroy the reputation you are trying to create for yourself when you repeat the lie that people here do not believe the earth has warmed.
What we argue about is how much of the small amount of warming is due to man and how much is natural.
The fact that the earth has warmed up much more in the past, argues against your belief that it has to be CO2 this time and that this warming represents a problem.
I’m glad to be here to enjoy it. Thank you mother nature.
“Might”, means “not clear”!
Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the Northern Hemisphere has exceeded natural variability (defined as two standard deviations from the pre-1865 mean) three times: 1) the peak of the Medieval Warm Period 2) the nadir of the Little Ice Age and 3) since 1998. Human activities clearly were not the cause of the first two deviations. 70% of the warming since the early 1600’s clearly falls within the range of natural variability.
While it is possible that the current warm period is a little warmer than the peak of the Medieval Warm Period, this could be due to the differing resolutions of the proxy reconstruction and instrumental data:
The purpose in extending the instrumental data significantly beyond the range of the proxy data is to be deceitful…
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0459.2010.00399.x/pdf
If instrumental data existed from 0-1850 AD, they could very well have exhibited as much amplitude variability as the present day.
There is an awful lot of ceteris paribus when looking at only co2 and temp and attempting to infer any cause and effect relationship between them as the warmists continue to do.
What are they using as proxies? And I thought no one EVER EVER sticks thermometer records onto proxy reconstructions. According to Mann, anyway.
“The relationship of CO2 and the instrumental temperature record is pretty clear…”
DW,
Your faith that correlation equals causation reminds me of a story.
I was on a long drive and I kept noticing another car on the road all along the way. The other car was from a distant state and it was a red convertible so it was easy to recognize. That car would pass me and then for whatever reason slow down until I would pass. This went on for about 3 hours. Finally, the other car got off the highway and I continued on my way.
The two of us happened to be heading in the same direction at the same time. So I ask you, did I cause the convertible to go north or did the convertible make me drive north?
As cnn’s ratings continue to shrink, they are in “what the hell” mode and make less and less effort to conceal their hard left predjudice and their irrational contradictory ecofascist worldview.
Rats scrambling up a dung-heap.
I do hope they’re finding something nicer to eat up there than rice.
‘course they actually are, that’s why they do it.
I am completely wrong in all probability (97% interval conferdence error zero squared of about 42) *but* – shouldn’t A Geologist be concerned (more) about rocks, dirt and soil rather than atmosphere, atmosphere typically not composed of rock and thus subject to tonny tonics & sea-rises.
That, to my mind, the observed temperatures twitches actually are caused by (man-made = agricultural) changes to the dirt *and* that ‘Geologists’ want nothing to do with it gives a measure of how much shyte we are actually in.
They are trying to demonstrate how much they ‘care’ (as failing power-grab & mating strategies) to the detriment of real science – yet all they while claiming what great scientists they are.
Its exactly the sort of logic drunks use………
( *do* recognise that the primary ‘thing’ going on inside the brain of someone who is drunk is chemically induced depression – not the state of ‘Having A Good Time’)
I don’t look at rocks at work. I interpret geological data from wells and reflection seismic data. The closest I ever get to rocks are sidewall cores (spreadsheets and photomicrographs).
Sedimentary geology is a combination of paleoclimatology and paleogeography.
Geology is the study of the Earth. Petrology is the study of rocks.
Rats scrambling up a dung-heap.
One of my favourite pastimes as a teenager,…….
On the cow shed roof at dusk over looking the midden, watching the long grass move as they came to the sides,
Start up the side and get twatted with the 410.
I have never met a geologist who accepted the CAGW narrative. Full stop.
Same here. And happily that includes even the younger ones who were subjected to all the green brainwashing in high school and undergraduate school. And the same goes for engineers. Not many warmists in the ranks of those with any serious quantitative education.
I’m not a geologist but those who set me on the path of skepticism on these issues were friends that were. Indeed holders of PHDs. Paleo climate study is a sub discipline of geology. Geologists tend be skeptics because of their knowledge on such matters, not because of ignorance.
I guess I’d count as a real geologist then, as I have a BS in Geology and actually had a real job as a geologist — until I realized that “being a geologist” meant “standing in ice-cold streams in mid-winter attempting to take rate-of-flow measurements.” Ultimately the sciences of Cartography and Geodesy took me under their wing, and a career in comfortable government offices awaited me.
I would wager that geologists as a whole are probably far less likely to buy into the CAGW alarmism your garden-variety meteorologist or railway engineer, just because we’ve been educated in and seen evidence for massive climate change, in both directions, in the geologic record.
One of the most positive aspects of David’s as always informative piece is that there is always rather more oil/gas than governments think. I don’t know if this is because the officials who work for government departments are usually enviro-pessimists who think everything is always worse than the rest of us think, or they have to take their shoes and socks off to count. But the more oil and gas there is the better for us all. Sadly, David convinced me in a previous post that oil and gas aren’t produced deep within the Earth as many hoped but at least we are not going to run out soon.
A side point, we can now regard the BBC as officially a propaganda arm of the green fascist movement. Despite its charter to give even handed coverage to issues, it is no longer going to allow any dissenting views on climate history or change to darken the perception of viewers and listeners on the grounds the science is settled. I wonder at the silence of our witless parliamentary representatives about this outrage to open democracy. I wonder what they will ban next?
It’s more a function of the profit-motive. The more oil we find, the more money we make. I wish oil was infinite… But the volume of recoverable oil in Earth’s crust is large enough that we don’t have to worry about running out. As I like to say, Peak Oil is both real and irrelevant… kind of like AGW.
MC of EA.
That has been their position for a decade or more.
Google 28 gate bbc.
More evidence of the ignorance, bias, and hypocrisy of our main stream media:
Reported in the UK’s Daily Telegraph 08/09/18
Briefing note to staff from the BBC’s Director of News and Current Affairs:
“BBC staff have been told to stop using climate change “deniers” on its shows because the phenomenon is a scientific fact!”
This is totally contrary to the BBC Charter which requires balanced reporting. Also, if this is a direct quote, then it is also a further example of some possibly intended appallingly vague and ambiguous instruction. No one doesn’t believe in climate change because it’s been happening since time immemorial. Neither do many, if any, believe that atmospheric CO2 does not affect atmospheric temperatures but simply that it has only a very minor effect. What is denied is that claimed man-made CO2 emissions are driving up atmospheric temperatures and producing other extreme catastrophic climate events!
The government should immediately and formally castigate the BBC, and stop listeners’ and viewers’ funding until such time as opponents of this CC/CAGW false religion are granted equal and advance opportunity to present their case and to openly debate this subject on an equal basis on-line, on the radio and on TV. This must be on every occasion Climate Change is reported upon! The public need to be properly and fully informed of the arguments and counter-arguments involved to enable them to make their own assessments. They should not be denied balanced reporting on this subject or be terrorised by one-sided interested parties with interests in supporting these flawed theories!
Tragically, I won’t hold my breath, waiting!
CNN has 1 agenda. To impeach Trump. They will stop at nothing to accomplish that goal.
Actually, CNN’s main goal is to install socialism in the United States and Trump is rolling back all the Obama/Democrat socialist gains made over the last eight years, so they need to oust Trump to save their socialist agenda and protect the criminal Obama administration.
CNN does Geology – the “Coprolitic News Network”.
Drew Middleton tells us:
“Well, my B.S. was in Earth Science, with a geology concentration.
Back to CNN…
Several geologists who CNN has spoken with have flagged his comments as disingenuous, saying that someone with a 34-year-old degree who never worked in the field is not considered a geologist. “He seems not to be familiar with modern geologic knowledge,” said Seth Stein, a professor at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University…”
…WTF is that? A department of science and non-science? A search for “institute for policy research” on the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences website yielded…
Your search for institute for policy research did not match any documents.
This is B.S. of a very low order- google:
“Institute for Policy Research Northwestern University and you get a whole department- Stein is clearly qualified to blow the whistle on Zinke’s bogus expertise.
https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu
Drew Middleton? He was a national defense reporter for the NY Times.
Of course I could have found the Institute for Policy Research, if it had any bearing on Ryan Zinke’s status as a geologist. And I would have spent several paragraphs ridiculing it. I settled for… WTF is that? A department of science and non-science?
The CNN Article: “said Seth Stein, a professor at the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University.” I Googled Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University and it took me to the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences… Leading to a dead end.
This was a sarcastic commentary on the geologist “expert” cited by CNN.
Many universities have departments of Science and Policy… These are programs designed to teach non-science majors how to sound sciency when spouting enviro-psychobabble.
RGHE, CO2, climate change aren’t geology they’re physics, chemistry, heat transfer and thermodynamics, i.e. mechanical engineering.
CO2 and climate change prior to the instrumental record are 97% geology.
Metallurgical Engineering, to a greater degree.
Chemical Engineering also.
And let’s not forget the disciplines of logic, mathematical analysis (including statistical analysis and cross-correlation methodology) and unbiased data presentation . . . you know, those things lost by most of the CAGW crowd.
I’d say that the main thing geologists know is that when there is a theory that 97% of scientists support, it’s probably wrong. c.f. plate tectonics
Geosynclines aren’t totally dead… 😉
But a Canadian genetics scientist claims to be an expert on climate change.
More money in it.
Pfffft. We all know that
A classic…
https://youtu.be/_CBQv8Y3V4o
Field Geology 101
That’s what Lord Kelvin said and so he determined the age of the earth to prove that, ending his illustrious career on a very bad note because using the laws of physics, he was wrong.
I sometimes describe myself as a mechanic even though I stopped playing with motor vehicles as a job in 1994 doesn’t mean I suddenly lost all the years of knowledge that I’d built up just because of a change of job!
I know people who have never “used” the qualifications they got at school or university for the job they do doesn’t mean they can’t speak about those subjects.
If you had to be doing a job to be able to talk about it most if not all journalists wouldn’t be able to say anything (sounds like a good plan for many of them)
James Bull
Ah, the Slippery Slope Style of Reductive Argumentation: he doesn’t even have a science degree. Ok, he has one, but its old. Ok, that doesn’t make any difference because he doesn’t WORK as a geologist…
Sheesh, you can smell the desperation from here in Canada.
Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences and Institute for Policy Research… WTF is that? A department of science and non-science? A search for “institute for policy research” on the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences website yielded…
Your search for institute for policy research did not match any documents. –>
https://www.google.at/search?q=institute+for+policy+research&oq=institute+for+policy+research&aqs=chrome.