AAPG Announces New Climate Change Statement

Guest “not as bad as I thought it would be” by David Middleton

Over the past couple of years, the Executive Committee of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) has been working on a new position statement on climate change. The new statement was unveiled in the latest issue of the AAPG Explorer

Announcing the AAPG Climate Statement

May 2020 

In July 2019, when the current AAPG Executive Committee took office, they inherited one piece of outstanding business: review the AAPG Climate Statement that had been approved by the previous EC, but also tabled for approval by the incoming EC.

Over the last seven months, and long before the two black swan events that are wreaking havoc on our industry and our Association, the EC engaged many of the Association’s stakeholders, including the divisions, the Advisory Council, the Corporate Advisory Board and, by way of a survey, our members.

[…]

AAPG

The “two black swans” are the Russia-Saudi oil price war and the COVID-19 lockdown.

An AAPG log in is required to read the actual statement. It basically says the world needs oil & gas and says almost nothing about climate change. Based on the comments, it p!$$ed off both sides (It’s shocking that the other side has infiltrated AAPG!). Since it’s still behind the membership wall, I won’t quote the entire article and statement. Here are a few highlights:

With their feedback and comments the EC decided that:

1. AAPG should have a statement on climate change.

2. That statement needs to reflect the Association’s mission and the values of our members – a considerable challenge given the highly political nature of the climate change debate.

AAPG Explorer

It’s all politics.

AAPG continues to promote and encourage its members to employ their surface and subsurface geologic skills and knowledge to exploring for, finding and producing these materials in an efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable manner while minimizing their impact on the world’s climate.

AAPG Explorer

If we weren’t already employing our “surface and subsurface geologic skills and knowledge to exploring for, finding and producing these materials in an efficient, economic and environmentally sustainable manner while minimizing their impact on the world’s climate,” we’d be drilling a lot more dry holes and every successful well would look like Macondo (Deepwater Horizon).

As earth scientists our members have a unique perspective and understanding of climate change throughout the geologic history of Earth and how climate has varied through time. The current world population of 7.8 billion people puts an enormous strain on the Earth’s resources that requires, in addition to hydrocarbon resources, the economic development of alternative and renewable energy sources. The AAPG encourages its members, through their own research, to continue to develop their own understanding of climate science and policies that are outside the core competencies of the organization and to work on improving the human condition while reducing energy’s environmental impacts.

AAPG Explorer

I like to think of my participation with WUWT as continuing to develop my own understanding of climate science and policies through my own research. However, I disagree that this is outside of most geoscientists’ “core competencies.” Based on the reckless disregard for signal processing principles and the effects of resolution differences, the “Hockey Team” pretty clearly demonstrates that climate science is outside of their core competencies.

The full statement can be read here.

On the whole, it’s not awful. The AAPG gave up its clearly skeptical position statement due to threats by academics, students and European members that they would quit if AAPG didn’t take up a more “reasonable” position. AAPG’s 2006 decision to honor Michael Crichton with a journalism award for Jurassic Park and State of Fear was the the equivalent of President Trump firing former FBI Director James Comey. It was the right thing to do; but the backlash effectively disengaged AAPG from the climate debate and led to the revision of their hard-line position statement. The statement that was in effect from 2008-2019 (see below), was kind of clumsily worded, but more or less on target.

The new statement says almost nothing about climate change… And this might be a good thing, since climate change is totally irrelevant to the global demand for affordable and reliable energy. I was very concerned that the new statement would effectively mimic AGU and other academic/government run societies and relieved to see that it did not. Had AAPG adopted an AGU-like position, I would have terminated my membership… Probably half the membership would have quit.

While I personally wish AAPG would return to its combative position, it would be an impediment to working with academia to educate future petroleum geologists and would also cause a lot of members to quit.

AAPG’s 2008-2019 Position Statement

Quote:

Climate Change

Issue:

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.

Background:

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.

Statement:

  • AAPG supports expanding scientific climate research into the basic controls on climate specifically including the geological, solar, and astronomic aspects of climate change. Research should include understanding causes of past climate change and the potential effects of both increasing and decreasing temperatures in the future. This research should be undertaken by appropriate agencies involved in climate research and their associated grant and contract programs.
  • 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.
  • AAPG supports research to narrow probability ranges on the effect of anthropogenic CO2 on global climate.
  • AAPG supports reducing emissions from fossil fuel use as a worthy goal. (However, emission reduction has an economic cost, which must be compared to the potential environmental gain.)
  • AAPG supports the premise that economies must retain their vitality if they are to be able to invest in alternative energy sources as fossil fuels become more expensive.
  • 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.
  • AAPG supports measures to conserve energy.

Learn more:

Read AAPG’s publication that further discusses worldwide climate. The first chapter of Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change is provided here as a PDF. You may order this book, ST47 – Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change, SB edited by Lee Gerhard, William Harrison, and Bernold Hanson through the AAPG Store.

AAPG

End Quote

The link no longer leads to the 2008-2019 statement; but it should lead to the new one when the office of Energy Policy posts it.

I highly recommend Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change. In the nearly 20 years since its publication, climate “science” hasn’t improved.

Regarding “the black swans”…

In other oil patch news… What a difference a month can make!

The COVID-19 lockdown and Russia-Saudi oil price war did this to crude oil prices as the May futures contract approached expiry…

BBC

Well, the June contract will soon expire, and look what’s happening…

ENERGY
Oil prices jump more than 8% ahead of WTI June contract expiry
PUBLISHED SUN, MAY 17 2020

Oil prices climbed by more than $1 a barrel on Monday to their highest in more than a month, supported by ongoing output cuts and signs of gradual recovery in fuel demand as more countries ease curbs imposed to stop the coronavirus pandemic spreading.

Brent crude was up $2.00, or 6.2%, at $34.50 per barrel, after touching a high since April 13. U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was up $2.57, or 8.7%, at $32.01 a barrel, after rising to its highest since March 16.

“Oil prices may show further upside momentum as the easing in mobility restrictions grows,” said Stephen Innes, chief global market strategist at AxiCorp in a note, referring to curbs that were designed to counter the coronavirus.

The June WTI contract expires on Tuesday, but there was little sign of WTI repeating the historic plunge below zero seen last month on the eve of the May contract’s expiry amid signs that demand for crude and derived fuels is recovering from its nadir.

[…]

CNBC
CNBC

Still a long way to go to get back to $50/bbl… But not a bad start.

In fake news…

Texas reported its highest single-day increase in new COVID-19 cases as restaurants, salons, and cinemas open to the public
Connor Perrett 21 hours ago

The Texas Department of Health on Saturday announced 1,801 new people had been diagnosed with COVID-19 within the past 24 hours. The Houston Chronicle reported Saturday that the spike is due in part to a new outbreak in the Texas panhandle with more than 700 cases reported in the city of Amarillo — attributed to meat-packing facilities in the region.

According to The Houston Chronicle, the number of new infections in Texas had typically fallen around 1,227 new cases per day over the past week, and until Saturday, the state had not seen a single-day increase in cases larger than 1,500.

[…]

Business Insider

The spike was entirely due to “results from targeted testing at meatpacking plants.” Lying in the headline and then telling only part of the truth in the article is the antithesis of responsible journalism, but all too common these days. The State of Texas should sue Business Insider and any other media outlets that published similar fraudulent headlines. The spike had nothing to do with “restaurants, salons, and cinemas [opening] to the public.”

  • 1,801 – 700 = 1,101
  • 1,101 < 1,227 < 1,500

Meat packing plants are considered “critical infrastructure,” and have largely remained open throughout the COVID-19 lockdown. Had farmers, ranchers, meat packing workers, grocery store workers, truck drivers and the people who keep fuel flowing, kept the lights on and other critical infrastructure employees not gone to work over the past two months, a helluva lot more than 90,000 Americans would have died.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
172 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Joel O'Bryan
May 18, 2020 10:17 am

Truth can’t be allowed to get in the way of an alarmist story for Yellow Journalism, especially if it serves a partisan political interest.

From the Wiki definition:
Yellow journalism — Yellow journalism and the yellow press are American terms for journalism and associated newspapers that present little or no legitimate well-researched news while instead using eye-catching headlines for increased sales. Techniques may include exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering, or sensationalism.

climanrecon
May 18, 2020 10:40 am

Sheesh, why do you don’t need a position statement on anything? You are merely a society of people working, lawfully, in a particular industry. Get over yourselves!

John Tillman
Reply to  climanrecon
May 18, 2020 10:58 am

IMO, private sector geologists and scientists in general should make statements counterattacking the egregious 97% lie.

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 12:02 pm

It’s better when whole professional societies debunk alarmism, IMO, as well as distinguished individual scientists.

Dodgy Geezer
May 18, 2020 10:46 am

“…AAPG supports measures to conserve energy….”

I don’t ‘support measures to conserve energy’. That sounds like some kind of excuse for Extinction Rebellion.

I support measures to use energy efficiently. But as far as I’m concerned, if it’s justifiable to use more energy, go for it…

John Tillman
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 12:01 pm

COMVID-19!

fah
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 12:12 pm

Nature does a pretty good job at conservation of energy (and momentum, charge, etc.) too.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  fah
May 18, 2020 12:56 pm

I can never understand the meaning of ‘sustainability’ when EVERYTHING on the closed system Earth is recycled all the time…

Jack Dale
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 18, 2020 1:01 pm

The earth is not a closed system. Almost all of its energy comes from the sun.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 18, 2020 2:36 pm

. . . and almost all of the energy Earth receives from the Sun (plus the energy it generates internally from decay of radioactive elements) is eventually radiated to deep space.

It’s known as having an overall energy balance.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 18, 2020 6:58 pm

Not to mention all the material falling into the atmosphere from space every second.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 18, 2020 7:18 pm

Agree, I suggest in fact nothing is sustainable. Do you think your mobile (cell) phone or your computer is sustainable when they are outdated when they are made. All the mining with present technology has limited life. The present virus and past epidemics show that human life style can be affected any time. An earthquake could knock California anytime. How are people in crowded cities there going to escape? CO2 alarmism is a scam to move money from ordinary people for political purposes. The word sustainable is politics for people who have no vision. The only way forward is research and innovation with technology, particularly engineering.

John Endicott
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
May 19, 2020 6:27 am

No measures are need to conserve energy, it’s already a physical law IE The law of conservation of energy: energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transformed or transferred from one form to another. 🙂

Pathway
May 18, 2020 10:57 am

Fox Business reported that anyone in Texas that tested positive for the anti bodies was now included in the 1801 count.

Doug
May 18, 2020 11:00 am

I recently debated with a geologist (hard rock isotope guy) about natural changes. I mentioned that it is tough to study sequence stratigraphy and not appreciate how ubiquitous natural changes are, and how petroleum geologists all are familiar with global sea level curves. Clearly he wasn’t, and few outside the field appreciate that our skepticism is rooted in scientific insight as much as economic interests.

Dariusz
Reply to  Doug
May 19, 2020 10:36 pm

He should know better.
From isotopes we know that the Earth was liquid water cool 4.2 billion years ago when co2 was 10-20%. This is the one of the Occam razor gates that kills AGW, even if Sun luminosity was 1/3 less than now, still doesn’t account for liquid water that existed just 400mln years after the earth formation.

Ron Long
May 18, 2020 11:04 am

Good posting, David. Re the Texas reported Chicom virus increase, the mainstream media, by and large, are going to demonize the data any chance they get, in a futile effort to get Biden elected. I am not so callus as to suggest you have been on vacation, but with oil climbing above $32/barrel you will shortly be going back to a more dangerous setting, THE OFFICE! I, on the other hand, will be going back to THE GOLF COURSE! Semi-Retirement is great if you have enough savings to keep your balls in good shape. Just saying.

Dodgy Geezer
Reply to  Ron Long
May 18, 2020 11:49 am

My suggestion for their next statement…

“We don’t believe in any of it. Because our models have to work.”

John Garrett
May 18, 2020 11:04 am

Sirs and Mesdames,
I am a Royal Dutch Shell shareholder of thirty years’ standing…

I am appalled and utterly disgusted by Shell’s craven pandering to the proselytizers and promoters of the conjectural pseudoscience of “Catastrophic/Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming.”

You must realize that you will never satisfy these zealots and crackpots by appeasement when their actual underlying objective is to destroy Shell.

Grow a backbone. It’s long past time for you to start fighting back.

Very truly yours,
/s/John Garrett

Jack Dale
Reply to  John Garrett
May 18, 2020 11:21 am

Remember this from 1991? – https://youtu.be/vTlYYlRN0LY

Stephen Richards
Reply to  John Garrett
May 18, 2020 11:36 am

Shell have been a disgustingly corrupted bunch for years. I drive 10s of Kms on the autoroutes to avoid buying their products. We should all do the same where possible

Zigmaster
Reply to  John Garrett
May 18, 2020 2:01 pm

Agree.wholehearted with your comments. Leading resource companies such as BHP and RIO have been equally pathetic in their pandering to their activist shareholders. It makes me puke to listening to the utterances of their CEOs.

Firemann
Reply to  John Garrett
May 19, 2020 10:41 pm

She’ll has been actively collaborating with nazis during the war.
This current appeasement is nothing different to their attitude. If the believed what they preach, they would dissolve themselves 10 years ago. Cowards

Carl Friis-Hansen
May 18, 2020 11:43 am

I suggest AAPG uses “The Sound of Sirens (Sound of Silence Lockdown Parody)” for their statement.

Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 11:43 am

The head of Canada’s largest oil company says climate change is backed by science, and deniers, including politicians, need to do a U-turn and accept it.

Suncor Energy Inc. president and chief executive officer Steve Williams — speaking on a panel during the event in Calgary titled Bridging Divides: In Search of Sound Public Policies for Energy and Environment in Canada — said he’s unhappy with how the debate on climate change has become so polarizing.

“It is a matter of profound disappointment to me that science and economics have taken on some strange political ownership. Why the science of the left-wing is different than the science of the right-wing. Why it’s not possible for, certainly within Canada for conservatives, to take a conversation about, ‘Hey, it’s just a fact. Let’s get some facts out on the table,'” Williams told the crowd at the sold-out event.

“Climate change is science. Hardcore science. What we have been talking about here is economics. Science and economics. Both very important subjects, not perfectly understood. Periods of discovery go on forever and we keep getting better and better at those things.”

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/suncor-ceo-slams-climate-change-deniers-1.4694549

fred250
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 1:00 pm

“says climate change is backed by science”

Ok, so he is ill-informed.. Your point is ??

Jack Dale
Reply to  fred250
May 18, 2020 1:02 pm

He is well-informed. You are misinformed.

Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 1:44 pm

Prove-it 😀

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 1:51 pm

Natural cycles would have us cooling. We are warming? Why is that? Fairy dust.
http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.png

In science, mechanism + correlation = evidence of a causal relationship.

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 200 years.
https://history.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm#contents

The BEST study established a 250 year correlation between CO2 and temperature.
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/

Carbon isotope analysis attributes the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 18th century to the burning of fossil fuels.

The null hypothesis, that the warming is natural, fails.
Milankovitch cycles would have us cooling.
https://climate.nasa.gov/blog/2949/why-milankovitch-orbital-cycles-cant-explain-earths-current-warming/

Solar cycles would have us cooling.
https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-the-sun-causing-global-warming/

Cosmic rays have little effect on climate.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 3:07 pm

Do you really expect me to spend time on a site, know for misrepresenting science, whose principal contributor is a puppeteer and children entertainer?

Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 2:40 pm

@Jack Dale
Why, f.e. aren’t you asking f.e. for AMO state, or other ocean circulations responsible for temperature changes ?
https://ocean-climate.org/?page_id=3829&lang=en

https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/facts/climate.html

https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3335

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 3:04 pm

Do you bother to read what you post?

For example:

“The new study explores what happened to ocean circulation when the earth went through a series of abrupt climate changes in the past during a time when ice covered part of North America and temperatures were much colder than today. It looks at the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, which distributes heat as it moves warmer surface water from the tropics toward Greenland and the high northern latitudes and carries colder, deeper water from the North Atlantic southward.”

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 3:21 pm

The modern warm period is still cooler than the medieval warm period, which was cooler than the Roman warm period, which was cooler than the Minoan warm period, which was cooler than almost all of the Holocene Optimum.

CO2 didn’t cause any of those warm periods.

BTW, I love the way you claim that to know everything about what causes climate to change.

MarkW
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 18, 2020 3:22 pm

Jack, another model. And to think you actually claim to be doing hardcore science.

Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 9:06 am

@Jack Dale
Do you really expect me to spend time on a site, know for misrepresenting science, whose principal contributor is a puppeteer and children entertainer?

You are the typical victim of climate cult and climacteric, an first class ignorant 😀
Not shot the informant, but read the informations provided.
Following the links, you found nothing else than scientifc papers, even a lot of 😀

Further, as you mentioned Berkelyearth BEST “study” 😀
Christopher Booker’s recent piece along with a few others have once again raised the issue of adjustments to various temperature series, including those made by Berkeley Earth. And now Booker has double-downed accusing people of fraud and Anthony Watts previously insinuated that adjustments are somehow criminal .

https://judithcurry.com/2015/02/09/berkeley-earth-raw-versus-adjusted-temperature-data/

😀

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 9:14 am

You do know that three authors of the Curry blog post are part of the BEST team. I really cannot not take you seriously if you cannot read past the first paragraph.

Here is the second paragraph:

“Berkeley Earth developed a methodology for automating the adjustment process in part to answer the suspicions people had about the fairness of human aided adjustments. The particulars of the process will be covered in a separate post. For now we want to understand the magnitude of these adjustments and what they do to the relevant climate metric: the global time series. As we will see the “biggest fraud” of all time and this “criminal action” amounts to nothing.”

Rather than posting regurgitated material from NTZ – post the original sources. Think for yourself.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 9:20 am

BTW – The post by Mosher, Hausfather and Rhode is part of three part series on Curry’s blog explaining and defending temperature adjustments after Heller made his accusations which Curry called “bogus” and “problematic”

Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 10:28 am

@Jack Dale
You do know that three authors of the Curry blog post are part of the BEST team. I really cannot not take you seriously if you cannot read past the first paragraph.
What sholdd be your conclusion ?
Climate science is still controversal and far from setttled as you seem to imagine and provide.
Even temperature adjustments, main reason foar an extraordinary global warming, is, with reasons, controversal and suspect.
which Curry called “bogus” and “problematic”
Just curious, if today she would yet use these words 😀

Jack Dale
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 10:38 am

My conclusion is the all temperature data sets are adjusted as needed.

To the best of my knowledge Curry has not retracted those comments and Heller has told me he is not happy about the comments.

Almost all of the controversy associated with AGW stems from the policies that follow from it. The science is pretty solid. There are some uncertainties such as the role of clouds; however those are being resolved by studies such as the CLOUD experiment at CERN. Using the precautionary principle as guidance, we know enough to make policy decisions.

No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. None endorse the nonsense from the NIPCC.

Derg
Reply to  Krishna Gans
May 19, 2020 2:12 pm

“ The science is pretty solid. There are some uncertainties such as the role of clouds; however those are being resolved by studies such as the CLOUD experiment at CERN. ”

Settled science indeed 😉

Derg
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 1:58 pm

Ahh the 97%

I am still waiting for warmth.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Derg
May 18, 2020 2:10 pm

“Averaged as a whole, the global land and ocean surface temperature for April 2020 was 1.06°C (1.91°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F) and the second highest April temperature in the 141-year record. Only April 2016 was warmer at +1.13°C (+2.03°F). The eight warmest Aprils have occurred since 2010. April 2016 and 2020 were the only Aprils that had a global land and ocean surface temperature departure above 1.0°C (1.8°F). The April 2020 value is also tied with December 2019 as the 11th highest monthly temperature departure in the 1,684-monthly record. April 2020 also marked the 44th consecutive April and the 424th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average.”
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/202004

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Derg
May 18, 2020 8:05 pm

“Averaged as a whole”

That, is the whole problem.

Derg
Reply to  Derg
May 19, 2020 5:03 am

Jack I am holding out for a stinking hot summer. It’s been quite a while. Funny thing about global warming 😉

clipe
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 2:01 pm

Not putting ‘his’ money where ‘his’ mouth is.

https://www.suncor.com/en-CA/about-us/wind-power

Jack Dale
Reply to  clipe
May 18, 2020 2:12 pm

That is evidence that he putting his money where is mouth is. It is one of the ways Suncor is reducing CO2 emissions.

leitmotif
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 3:05 pm

“Carbon isotope analysis attributes the nearly 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 since the mid 18th century to the burning of fossil fuels.”

No it doesn’t. The same C12/C13 isotope ratio seen in burning fossil fuels is the same as decaying vegetation in oceans, forests and grasslands.

Atmospheric CO2 is only 0.04% by volume and only absorbs in the 15 micron band of the earth’s emission spectrum. Water vapour also absorbs in the 15 micron band and there is a lot more of it. Where is your evidence that CO2 does anything but feed plants?

Jack Dale
Reply to  leitmotif
May 18, 2020 3:11 pm

C14 is the isotope. it is radioactive and dies away to undetectable levels in 50,000 years or so. Fossil fuels, being millions of years old, have no C14 left. Adding ancient carbon have lowered the proportion of C14 in the atmosphere. It called the Suess effect (named after Hans, not Theodore)

Jack Dale
Reply to  leitmotif
May 18, 2020 3:17 pm

A chemistry lesson on the relationship between CO2 (a driver) and H2O (an amplifier) .
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

At 550 ppm CO2 compromises the nitritional value of food crops.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0253-3

Higher levels of CO2 result in increased predation by pests
https://www.pnas.org/content/105/13/5129
https://www.life.illinois.edu/delucia/2014%20Publications/annurev-ento-120811-153544.pdf

clipe
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 3:17 pm

peanuts

leitmotif
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 6:26 pm

“C14 is the isotope. ”

OMG. How does that make a trace gas that is only 0.04% of the atmosphere, that can only absorb 8% of the planet’s emission spectrum, that is swamped in that 15 micron band by water vapour, the driver of CAGW?

The very CAGW that has not been experienced since James Hansen’s predictions 32 years ago.

Don’t be ridiculous.

Jack Dale
Reply to  leitmotif
May 18, 2020 6:32 pm

Did you bother to read the American Chemical Society post?

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:17 pm

The poster questioned the the link between CO2 and H2O. The ACS has a good explanation. You should read it.

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:28 pm

My comments about the Ad Hoc committee are specif to your post. Clearly you were /are unaware of its existence.

My other comments are specific to the comments.

Pleas identify one comment that fails to meet either one of these criteria.

Robert Austin
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 19, 2020 7:05 am

Jack,

Let us suppose that there is detectable man-made climate change. Then you still have the even more wicked problem of proving that the change is net harmful. The theory proposes that most of the warming occurs at higher latitudes and with higher low temperatures and little increase in high temperatures. Sounds beneficent to me. Bring it on.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Robert Austin
May 19, 2020 8:52 am

When permafrost melts it turns into a bog, releasing methane, a powerful GHG.

Melting glaciers and ice sheet result in rising sea levels. People cannot simply pack up and leave as was once the case.

Marine life is migrating pole-ward disrupting the fishing industries.

More extreme weather is a thing.

Pine beetles are both a result and cause of global warming. (Canada’s forests have not been net sinks since 2001).

The soils of the boreal forests are not suited to agriculture.

Need I continue?

Derg
Reply to  Robert Austin
May 19, 2020 2:14 pm

“More extreme weather is a thing.“

You just make up stuff…oops things

Derg
Reply to  Robert Austin
May 19, 2020 2:51 pm

Lol…more predictions.

More EXTREME PREDICTIONS

Al Miller
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 19, 2020 8:34 am

In order to understand the fraud in climate change you needn’t know anything about science. Just do some simple research into the origins of the “climate crisis” and the oil rich founders of the “movement” such as Maurice Strong. He openly stated it was a political movement that would utilize a public fear of CO2 and was done through the UN for very intentional reasons, mostly that no democracy would touch such stupidity at the time. The intent was always and unequivocally a socialist government and the non-verifiable hypothesis that man-made CO2 was the cause would power this movement along with untold wealth of private scammers such as Al Gore – fossil fuel wealthy also.
Have you no shame man, the endless drivel of bad climate models the outright fraud of the UN paid models ONLY allow consideration of man-made CO2, the 100% record of failed predictions. The hypocrisy of the “leaders” of this movement is astounding and should be a huge warning beacon to all. There are far far too many examples on a daily basis to even begin listing them.
How any real scientist can hold their head up and talk about climate change is a complete mystery to me. But obviously money talks to these people.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Al Miller
May 19, 2020 8:43 am

You may wish to look at the role of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bsh in the formation of the IPCC.

https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB536-Reagan-Bush-Recognized-Need-for-US-Leadership-on-Climate-Change-in-1980s/

You conspiracies theories are truly laughable.

Reply to  Al Miller
May 19, 2020 9:30 am

“And the whole apparatus for spreading knowledge – the schools and the press, radio and motion picture – will be used exclusively to spread those views which, whether true or false, will strengthen the belief in the rightness of the decisions taken by the authority; and all information that might cause doubt or hesitation will be withheld. The probable effect on the people’s loyalty to the system becomes the only criterion for deciding whether a particular piece of information is to be published or suppressed.” –Friedrich A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, 1942 (Chapter XI – The End of Truth)

http://www.quebecoislibre.org/07/070128-5.htm

A UN scientist is declaring that his three fellow UN climate panel colleagues “should be barred from the IPCC process.” In a November 26, 2009 message on his website, UN IPCC contributing author Dr. Eduardo Zorita writes: “CRU files: Why I think that Michael Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf should be barred from the IPCC process.”

Zorita writes: “Short answer: Because the scientific assessments in which they may take part are not credible anymore.”

Zorita indicates that he is aware that he is putting his career in jeopardy by going after the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists. “By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication,” Zorita candidly admits, a reference to the ClimateGate emails discussing how to suppress data and scientific studies that do not agree with the UN IPCC views.
Source

That’s “Climate science”, Jack 😀

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 3:19 pm

Model projection have never been science, much less hardcore science.

We still are several degrees below the average temperature for the last 10,000 years.

Simon
Reply to  MarkW
May 18, 2020 7:15 pm

MarkW
“We still are several degrees below the average temperature for the last 10,000 years.”
You keep spouting that complete load of horse shite with no proof at all. You must think people won’t check….
comment image

ResourceGuy
May 18, 2020 11:55 am

They left out this statement:

* The AAPG ignores the big bulls eye painted on the back of the petroleum geologists and their associations as the next main target after killing coal. We know it, but we ain’t saying it in order to keep membership levels up in Euro-kool aid-land. You dues bill is enclosed.

nc
May 18, 2020 12:31 pm

I came across this and do not know who the author is. Great read.

The writing is on the wall for the future of petrochemical production? Bwahahaha!

A tale of your dream world:

One crisp winter morning in Sweden, a cute little girl named Greta woke up to a perfect world, one where there were no petroleum products ruining the earth. She tossed aside her cotton sheet and wool blanket and stepped out onto a dirt floor covered with willow bark that had been pulverized with rocks. “What’s this?” she asked.

“Pulverized willow bark,” replied her fairy godmother.

“What happened to the carpet?” she asked.

“The carpet was nylon, which is made from butadiene and hydrogen cyanide, both made from petroleum,” came the response.

Greta smiled, acknowledging that adjustments are necessary to save the planet, and moved to the sink to brush her teeth where instead of a toothbrush, she found a willow, mangled on one end to expose wood fibre bristles.

“Your old toothbrush?” noted her godmother, “Also nylon.”

“Where’s the water?” asked Greta.

“Down the road in the canal,” replied her godmother, ‘Just make sure you avoid water with cholera in it”

“Why’s there no running water?” Greta asked, becoming a little peevish.

“Well,” said her godmother, who happened to teach engineering at MIT, “Where do we begin?” There followed a long monologue about how sink valves need elastomer seats and how copper pipes contain copper, which has to be mined and how it’s impossible to make all-electric earth-moving equipment with no gear lubrication or tires and how ore has to be smelted to a make metal, and that’s tough to do with only electricity as a source of heat, and even if you use only electricity, the wires need insulation, which is petroleum-based, and though most of Sweden’s energy is produced in an environmentally friendly way because of hydro and nuclear, if you do a mass and energy balance around the whole system, you still need lots of petroleum products like lubricants and nylon and rubber for tires and asphalt for filling potholes and wax and iPhone plastic and elastic to hold your underwear up while operating a copper smelting furnace and . . .

“What’s for breakfast?” interjected Greta, whose head was hurting.

“Fresh, range-fed chicken eggs,” replied her godmother. “Raw.”

“How so, raw?” inquired Greta.

“Well, . . .” And once again, Greta was told about the need for petroleum products like transformer oil and scores of petroleum products essential for producing metals for frying pans and in the end was educated about how you can’t have a petroleum-free world and then cook eggs. Unless you rip your front fence up and start a fire and carefully cook your egg in an orange peel like you do in Boy Scouts. Not that you can find oranges in Sweden anymore.

“But I want poached eggs like my Aunt Tilda makes,” lamented Greta.

“Tilda died this morning,” the godmother explained. “Bacterial pneumonia.”

“What?!” interjected Greta. “No one dies of bacterial pneumonia! We have penicillin.”

“Not anymore,” explained godmother “The production of penicillin requires chemical extraction using isobutyl acetate, which, if you know your organic chemistry, is petroleum-based. Lots of people are dying, which is problematic because there’s not any easy way of disposing of the bodies since backhoes need hydraulic oil and crematoriums can’t really burn many bodies using as fuel Swedish fences and furniture, which are rapidly disappearing – being used on the black market for roasting eggs and staying warm.”

This represents only a fraction of Greta’s day, a day without microphones to exclaim into and a day without much food, and a day without carbon-fibre boats to sail in, but a day that will save the planet.

Tune in tomorrow when Greta needs a root canal and learns how Novocain is synthesized.

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  nc
May 18, 2020 1:00 pm

Love your story about “Greta From Wonderland”

When comes the next chapter?

Mike Lowe
Reply to  nc
May 18, 2020 1:09 pm

Thanks. Pasted onto my FaceBook page. But I wonder how many Alarmists will read and understand it.

Jack Dale
Reply to  nc
May 18, 2020 1:15 pm

Someone does not understand the difference between using petroleum as a fuel and using petroleum as a material feedstock. One produces CO2, the other does not necessarily do so.

Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 1:50 pm

Who is interested in exploitation of oil, if there is no more need of ?
For some petrochemicals ? To expensive 😀

Derg
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 2:03 pm

Tell us o wise one how the CO2 will kill us?

Jack Dale
Reply to  Derg
May 18, 2020 3:05 pm

I never said it would.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 3:23 pm

If it’s not going to kill us, then there is no need to stop generating it.

Derg
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 19, 2020 5:04 am

Nope, but you believe it will boil us 😉

Jack Dale
Reply to  clipe
May 18, 2020 3:21 pm

There is just one reference to plastic in the Greta story.

AndyHce
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 10:37 pm

Regardless, there are many of the leave-it-in-ground types who only care about “climate change” to the extent that they can reference the emotion to support their agenda that petroleum, and any means of acquiring and transportation it, are intrinsically evil. Petroleum must not be extracted or used! I have talked to some of them and those have indicated they are in contact with many others and know almost whole nations full of people whose land and lives have been poisoned by “the oil industry”.

HD Hoese
May 18, 2020 12:34 pm

While I don’t have any standing in this except for an oceanography background and working in graduate school with some interested in marine gases for other reasons, this report with broad representation, including astronauts, seems one reasonable approach. Even if we ran out of fossil fuels, this business of government turning a switch on things that should take decades to do properly could be more than a serious problem. Fisheries models have had the same problems, coming out in the literature more and more, which suggests a more widespread inherent problem with the models and modelers. I wish I could thank my long gone statistics course professor. We still have a county park closed on the Texas coast. So much for science!

https://nebula.wsimg.com/ff3168a9c41882691fb20000b8523c8e?AccessKeyId=4E2A86EA65583CBC15DE&disposition=0&alloworigin=1

J Mac
May 18, 2020 12:46 pm

David,
Are the Chinese buying up distressed assets in the US oil and natural gas industries?

Bill Everett
May 18, 2020 12:47 pm

The comment by the head of Canada’s largest oil company points out the recurring problem of misleading use of the term “climate change” when human induced climate change is intended. The available science may support the fact of climate change but it does not factually support human induced climate change.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Bill Everett
May 18, 2020 12:54 pm

Natural factors such as Milankovitch cycles and solar cycles would have us cooling. What is causing the warming?

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries.

Using carbon isotope analysis the nearly 50% increase in CO2 can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.

A quick read for you on the available science. https://royalsociety.org/-/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

Vuk
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 2:31 pm

Hi Jack
Sea water is electric conductor. Magnetic field offers resistance to a moving conductor.
Weaker the field faster the conductor can move.
Earth’s magnetic field is loosing it’s strength, allowing ocean currents to move faster. Ocean currents transport heath from the equatorial belt towards two polar regions, faster the currents more heath is moved.
There is very little or no global warming on the equator, most of warming is in the polar regions.
Remember what Richard Feynman said about hypothesis and the data.
There is the hypothesis and here is the data:
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm
Keep safe.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Vuk
May 18, 2020 3:28 pm

Interesting theory.

The Gulf Stream is slowing down, not speeding up.
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-gulf-stream-seas-hotter-florida.html

Vuk
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 11:45 pm

Jack that is wrong!
Deep-reaching acceleration of global mean ocean circulation over the past two decades
Abstract
Ocean circulation redistributes Earth’s energy and water masses and influences global climate. Under historical greenhouse warming, regional ocean currents show diverse tendencies, but whether there is an emerging trend of the global mean ocean circulation system is not yet clear. Here, we show a statistically significant increasing trend in the globally integrated oceanic kinetic energy since the early 1990s, indicating a substantial acceleration of global mean ocean circulation. The increasing trend in kinetic energy is particularly prominent in the global tropical oceans, reaching depths of thousands of meters. The deep-reaching acceleration of the ocean circulation is mainly induced by a planetary intensification of surface winds since the early 1990s. Although possibly influenced by wind changes associated with the onset of a negative Pacific decadal oscillation since the late 1990s, the recent acceleration is far larger than that associated with natural variability, suggesting that it is principally part of a long-term trend.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/6/eaax7727

Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 2:59 pm

Dale
Adding CO2 by burning fossil fuels with modern pollution controls improves plant growth on our planet. That’s good news, not bad news.

The actual warming is mainly at higher latitudes, mainly in the six coldest months, and mainly at night = the best locations and timing for mild warming, and more good news.

Blaming warming on CO2 is an assumption, not a measurement — ignoring natural causes of climate change is also an assumption.

Wild guessing the future climate, and being consistently wrong, is not real science.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Richard Greene
May 18, 2020 3:19 pm

What did NASA conclude about CO2 fertilization?

“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.””

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

Learn to read past headlines.

MarkW
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 3:25 pm

“What is causing the warming?”

What caused the medieval warm period?
What caused the Roman warm period?
What caused the Minoan warm period?
What caused the Holocene Optimum?

Until you can explain those other warm periods you can’t claim that only CO2 could cause the current warm perid.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 6:28 pm

You might be interested in Richard Alley’s thoughts on folks like yourself:

“So, using GISP2 data to argue against global warming is, well, stupid, or misguided, or misled, or something, but surely not scientifically sensible. And, using GISP2 data within the larger picture of climate science demonstrates that our scientific understanding is good, supports our expectation of global warming, but raises the small-chance-of-big-problem issue that in turn influences the discussion of optimal human response.”

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/richard-alley-on-old-ice-climate-and-co2/

Carl Friis-Hansen
Reply to  David Middleton
May 19, 2020 12:32 am

A wild guess: Could it be volcanic activity, or something similar underground?
Is the Bølling/Allerød event also see in cores from Antarctica?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 8:43 pm

“Natural factors such as Milankovitch cycles and solar cycles would have us cooling. What is causing the warming?”

The simple answer is, we really don’t know. And we really don’t know if we’re that far off from warming of the past, since proxies generally are pretty bad, and can’t really be compared to thermometer readings.

But, it seems you would rather we were continuing to cool since the LIA. I think that would indeed be disastrous. But the mild warming we’ve seen since then has been nothing but beneficial.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
May 19, 2020 6:50 am

And that’s really the bottom line. Even if you take, for the sake of argument, all the non-science nonsense of CAGW as true – Warmer has been better throughout history. The cold periods of history have been the worst for life on this planet where as life tends to flourish in the warm times. and the miniscule warming we’ve seen since the LIA has been mothing but a net benefit. Even the overblow projections of warming of the alarmists is nothing to be alarmed over when you realize just how small of an increase it really is (there’s a wonderful graphic of a thermometer with the temp. change anomalies shown against it at normal scale – really puts it into perspective – the change is miniscule. Wish I bookmarked it last time I saw it).

Vuk
May 18, 2020 1:54 pm

Forget about CGW, get some HCQ, if it’s good for POTUS it can’t be that bad for the rest of us comon garden mortals.

bigoilbob
May 18, 2020 3:56 pm

“An AAPG log in is required to read the actual statement.”

So, what is the reason for your post? Bored? I urge you to actually WORK for your employer from home. If you have justifiable geo development well justifications, they are good for all of us.

But as laggie as the AAPG is, they are WAY better than my guys at the SPE. 2 buggy whip guilds. See ya ree ya both…

John R.
May 18, 2020 5:30 pm

Any petroleum geologist worth their salt understands the concepts and processes that underpin sequence stratigraphy, which revolutionized the way petroleum geologists interpret stratigraphy since the late 1970’s. In a nutshell; throughout geologic history, the sea level has cyclically risen and fallen on a number of time scales ranging from tens of thousands to tens of millions of years.
The concept allows petroleum geologists to predict lithology distribution in basins where little to no rock data is available for analysis. Good clastic reservoirs are often associated with high amplitude sea level falls where coarse-grained sediment is “pushed” out into the basin.
Good source rock is often associated with high amplitude sea level rise, where seas encroach and flood the continental platforms. During these large flooding events, ice caps have usually melted reducing oceanic circulation and oxygenation of the water column creating oceanic anoxia which preserves organic material.
In most workrooms there is usually a coastal onlap chart hanging on the wall. Whoever is in the workroom can point out the eustatic events from the sea level chart, that were responsible for the deposition of the reservoir and source rocks in the basin that they are working.
A geologist working the pre-Caspian basin in Kazakhstan will see the same aged source rocks associated with the same sea level rise event in the Frasnian (Late Devonian) , as a geologist working the Permian Basin in west Texas. Likewise, the guy a room over working west Africa will be mapping reservoirs from the same Late Miocene sea level falls as the geologist working the Gulf of Mexico.
I recall that the AAPG had a series of forums regarding this same subject 10-15 years ago. I don’t understand the hand-wringing to come up with a statement.
The AAPG is composed of geologists who find and produce oil and for the most part understand the processes associated with historic climate cyclicity and eustatic change better than most scientists

Can’t they come out and say this?

Mike Dubrasich
May 18, 2020 5:34 pm

Paleobotany and it’s sister discipline, paleoclimatology, are or should be core competencies of geologists, particularly those who study oil and coal deposits. The plant fossil record in coal is rich. Much of what we know about the history of plants, and hence paleoclimate and the paleo-environment, comes from coal studies.

Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 6:24 pm

The proposed position statement from the ad hoc committee:

In the fall of 2018, and at the request of
several AAPG members, the Executive
Committee of the AAPG approved the
formation of an ad hoc committee to
address the issue of climate change and
serve at the pleasure of the president,
Denise Cox. The group took shape under
the direction of the chair, Edith Wilson,
and was populated with members
representing the geographic,
demographic, and career diversity of the
Association. The committee included
those recommended by members of the
Advisory Council and the Sustainable
Development Ad Hoc Committee.
Committee members focused on creating
a foundation for the AAPG to develop
a policy and strategy on climate by first
crafting a simple, scientifically focused and
forward-looking statement on climate
change. After multiple teleconferences and
drafting sessions, the committee proposed
a new climate change statement to the
Executive Committee at their February 15,
2019, meeting in Houston as follows.
The AAPG
• recognizes the abundant and
compelling evidence that human
activities are a key factor in current
climate change, as referenced in the
collective authoritative statements of the
global National Academies of Science
and the comprehensive analyses on
climate science as presented by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
• accepts that these scientific
observations require concerted
worldwide action to avoid the worst
impacts of future climate change.
• supports national and international
climate frameworks as important
roadmaps towards meeting climate
change commitments and accelerating
the market-led and policy-driven
transition to lower-carbon forms of
energy.
• offers to empower the future by
employing the surface and subsurface
geological skills and talents of our
members in areas such as carbon
capture and storage, geothermal energy
development, and critical minerals
extraction, and to use creativity and
innovation in the responsible and
sustainable development of
hydrocarbons, with the goal of reducing
humanity’s carbon footprint.
• accepts the immense challenges of the
energy transition and welcomes the
important role that AAPG scientists will
play in delivering sustainable energy to
the world.
The statement as proposed is currently
being considered and revised by Executive
Committee members. The 2018-2019
Climate Change Committee will sunset at
the end of the AAPGfiscal year on June 30,
2019, but itsmembers remain available as
a resource on this issue to future AAPG
members and leaders.
Edith Wilson, *(26), president and
CEO, Rock Whisperer LLC, presidentelect,
EMD 2018-2019 and chair of
the ad hoc Climate Change
Committee
Mary Barrett (40), professor
emeritus, Centenary College of
Louisiana, and president, DEG 2018-
2019
Paul Belanger (35),
micropaleontologist,
paleooceanographer and
paleoclimatologist, retired Amoco/
Arco/New Energy Colorado and OLLI
Lecturer on Climate Change
Tony Dor´e (10), senior advisor to
exploration management, Equinor
Andr ´e Droxler (30), professor,
Department of Earth, Environmental
and Planetary Science, and Baker
Institute Scholar, Rice University
Meredith Faber (16), geologist and
vice president DPA 2018-2019
Malcolm Fawcett (1), chairman,
Climate Change Group IPIECA
David Hone (ex officio), chief climate
change adviser, Shell
Maria Mutti (33), professor of
Sedimentary Geology and chair,
Department of Geosciences,
University of Potsdam
Iain Stewart (2), professor,
Geoscience Communication and
director, Sustainable Earth Institute,
University of Plymouth
*(years of membership in the AAPG)

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:11 pm

I did you your post. Crichton was a good novelist, with one exception. Period.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:13 pm

page 18.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:21 pm

It is a report of a Ad Hoc committee struck by the AAPG.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:24 pm

You are the aliterate one.

From the 2019 AAPG annual report (page 18)

In the fall of 2018, and at the request of
several AAPG members, the Executive
Committee of the AAPG approved the
formation of an ad hoc committee to
address the issue of climate change and
serve at the pleasure of the president,
Denise Cox. The group took shape under
the direction of the chair, Edith Wilson,
and was populated with members
representing the geographic,
demographic, and career diversity of the
Association. The committee included
those recommended by members of the
Advisory Council and the Sustainable
Development Ad Hoc Committee.
Committee members focused on creating
a foundation for the AAPG to develop
a policy and strategy on climate by first
crafting a simple, scientifically focused and
forward-looking statement on climate
change. After multiple teleconferences and
drafting sessions, the committee proposed
a new climate change statement to the
Executive Committee at their February 15,
2019, meeting in Houston as follows.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:30 pm
bigoilbob
Reply to  Jack Dale
May 18, 2020 7:43 pm

Thanks Jack Dale. Even with the caveat that “The statement as proposed is currently
being considered and revised by Executive Committee members”, it appears to tell the tale. No wonder David was allergic to actually quoting it.

David, please tell us any difference between what is in these proceedings and what comprises the secret squirrel “approved” version. Or will you be put on double secret probation if you do so?

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:01 pm

I see it now, and unequivocally apologize for the snark. it was uncalled for. Politically vague, and highly diluted from what the ad hoc committee of technical folks recommended. But hey, still better than the nada from the SPE…..

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:41 pm

5 of the 10 were academics.

BTW – what do you have against academics?

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:33 pm

Here are the annual reports. See 2019 Page 18.

https://www.aapg.org/about/aapg/overview/annual-reports

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:41 pm

Read page 18 of the AAPG annual report – you aliterate imbecile.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:40 pm

aliterate[ ey-lit-er-it ]SHOW IPA
noun
a person who is able to read but rarely chooses to do so:
Schools are worried about producing aliterates who prefer television to books.
adjective
of, relating to, or characteristic of aliterates.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/aliterate

QED

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:57 pm

It was response to this comment by you. Proof positive you are aliterate.

David Middleton commented on AAPG Announces New Climate Change Statement.
in response to Jack Dale:
You are the aliterate one. From the 2019 AAPG annual report (page 18) In the fall of 2018, and at the request of several AAPG members, the Executive Committee of the AAPG approved the formation of an ad hoc committee to address the issue of climate change and serve at the pleasure of the president, […]
The word is illiterate, moron.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:38 pm

Thankf doe proving my point.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:20 pm

Page 18 of the AAPG 2019 annual report.

May 18, 2020 6:25 pm

What’s AGU ? I don’t see it defined in the article.!

– JPP

Jack Dale
Reply to  Jon P Peterson
May 18, 2020 6:41 pm

The American Geophysical Union has 130,000 members worldwide.

Here is their climate change position statement.

https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Position-Statements/Position_Climate

No scientific institution in any country on the entire planet disputes the conclusions of the IPCC. Conversely none endorse the Heartland funded NIPCC

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:09 pm

Do you have anything other than invective and derision?

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:19 pm

Maybe if you read the thread you would understand. I am simply responding.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:26 pm

No I am not spamming. This is a public forum. if folks do not wish that the assertions be scrutinized, they should post them privately. That includes you.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:45 pm

I did. The EC wimped out with namby pamby, wishy washy statement.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 7:51 pm

That is true Some in the comments section were on the ad hoc committee of which you were unaware.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:01 pm

From page 18 of the AAPG annual report. An ad hoc committee was established by the EC to prepare a draft position. They did so. It follows the quote below.

“In the fall of 2018, and at the request of
several AAPG members, the Executive
Committee of the AAPG approved the
formation of an ad hoc committee to
address the issue of climate change and
serve at the pleasure of the president,
Denise Cox. The group took shape under
the direction of the chair, Edith Wilson,
and was populated with members
representing the geographic,
demographic, and career diversity of the
Association. The committee included
those recommended by members of the
Advisory Council and the Sustainable
Development Ad Hoc Committee.
Committee members focused on creating
a foundation for the AAPG to develop
a policy and strategy on climate by first
crafting a simple, scientifically focused and
forward-looking statement on climate
change. After multiple teleconferences and
drafting sessions, the committee proposed
a new climate change statement to the
Executive Committee at their February 15,
2019, meeting in Houston as follows.

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:11 pm

That “nonsense” was the proposed language of the best technical representatives the AAPG could find, for the ad hoc committee. It was completely H2O’d down for the wishy washy PC “position statement” that was finally approved…

bigoilbob
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:16 pm

Folks, here’s the proposed position statement of the best tech folks the AAPG could find. MUCH more to the facts than the feel good PC “executive” white wash that was ultimately approved…

The AAPG
• recognizes the abundant and
compelling evidence that human
18 Annual Report
activities are a key factor in current
climate change, as referenced in the
collective authoritative statements of the
global National Academies of Science
and the comprehensive analyses on
climate science as presented by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
• accepts that these scientific
observations require concerted
worldwide action to avoid the worst
impacts of future climate change.
• supports national and international
climate frameworks as important
roadmaps towards meeting climate
change commitments and accelerating
the market-led and policy-driven
transition to lower-carbon forms of
energy.
• offers to empower the future by
employing the surface and subsurface
geological skills and talents of our
members in areas such as carbon
capture and storage, geothermal energy
development, and critical minerals
extraction, and to use creativity and
innovation in the responsible and
sustainable development of
hydrocarbons, with the goal of reducing
humanity’s carbon footprint. • accepts the immense challenges of the
energy transition and welcomes the
important role that AAPG scientists will
play in delivering sustainable energy to
the world.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:37 pm

The values must include watered down, wish washy fence sitting.

Jack Dale
Reply to  bigoilbob
May 18, 2020 8:35 pm

That is correct. I do not know why Middleton is so adamant. It is quite clear in the the 2019 annual report.

Jack Dale
Reply to  David Middleton
May 18, 2020 8:33 pm

That was the draft from the ad hoc committee. The EC rejected it in favour of a gutless statment.

Tom Abbott
May 18, 2020 7:46 pm

From the article: “The State of Texas should sue Business Insider and any other media outlets that published similar fraudulent headlines. The spike had nothing to do with “restaurants, salons, and cinemas [opening] to the public.”

I agree, they should sue. They should hold these people to account when they lie, especially during a crisis and a recovery.

The lying leftwing news media is a danger to us all because they distort the truth for political purposes, even during a national crisis.

I bet those oil prices are going to continue to go up. Business in the U.S. is starting to roll and is increasing every day, and it’s not going to be long until everyone has enough confidence to come out of their homes, and it won’t be long before the Blue States join the Red States in conducting business, either because the authorities there see the light, or the people of those Blue States will ignore their “leaders”.

I said the other day that about 61,000 Oklahomans had gone back to work last week (we are in Phase Two). I bet that is happening in every State. It will be interesting to follow the unemployment/employment figures over the next few weeks.

One good thing about this Wuhan virus pandemic: All the petty little dictators have identified themselves for all to see. In November, it will be time to vote them out of office.

Jeff Alberts
May 18, 2020 9:01 pm

Why do so many of these associations need position statements on CC? Do they have position statements on gravity? On Black Holes? On sea ice? On cow farts?

AndyHce
May 18, 2020 11:55 pm

While I have read about some places like California and Germany paying outside jurisdictions to take excess sun and wind power generated electricity, I’m not sure what the petroleum price going negative means. Have there actually been cases of some holder of petroleum paying someone to take it off their hands?

Mike Dubrasich
May 19, 2020 12:03 am

If geology is anything like forestry, and I think it is, then there are two distinct camps within the profession.

The first camp is made up of Practitioners: private sector experts who locate and develop minerals, oil, coal, etc. and also engineers who build things on rock and with rock. They might be called Industrial Geologists. Their livelihoods depend on their practical knowledge of geology, which is deep. They love geology and have a pride in it.

The second camp are the Academics: university and other government geologists who teach and do academic research. Their livelihoods depend on institutions and grants, and their concerns are political. They don’t love geology. In many cases they despise it, resent Practicing geologists, and wish Practical geology would fail. In effect, they are anti-geology.

The Organization has both camps, but organizations are inherently political and the Academics have more free time and the inclination to foment politics within. It’s their thing. The Practitioners are busy making a living and have little time to play politics. Until they retire, that is. The Practitioners are represented in the Org by retirees mainly.

It is not surprising then that a large and loud faction pays obeisance to political causes. Anthropogenic Climate Change is a hoax, is hugely political, and has little or nothing to do with geology or anything else for that matter. Unfortunately the hoaxers blame Practitioners for all the imaginary ills of ACC. It fits their world view. Practical geology is killing the planet.

Thank goodness a cohort of Practitioner retirees is holding back the rabble, for now. The outlook is bleak, however. Or maybe not. It sure is in forestry.

Mike Dubrasich
Reply to  David Middleton
May 19, 2020 12:06 pm

In professional forestry schools today you would be hard-pressed to find a single faculty member who practices or ever practiced professional forestry.

Imagine a medical school with no actual doctors on the faculty. Or a veterinary school with no experienced veterinarians. Or an architecture school, an engineering school, or even a beauty school with no faculty who ever practiced.

But it’s worse than that. The academic charlatans profess against the profession. They wish to sabotage forestry and say so openly. They are opposed to forest management and write papers and sign petitions calling for the end of professional forestry.

When a new graduate is hired by a private forestry firm (which happens rarely these days) it takes at least a year to train them in the basics. First they must unlearn all the erroneous crap they were taught in the professional school. Typically new graduates go to work for the government where they are submerged in propaganda and lost forever.

Vuk
May 19, 2020 12:44 am

@ Jack Dale
Deep-reaching acceleration of global mean ocean circulation over the past two decades
Abstract
Ocean circulation redistributes Earth’s energy and water masses and influences global climate. Under historical greenhouse warming, regional ocean currents show diverse tendencies, but whether there is an emerging trend of the global mean ocean circulation system is not yet clear. Here, we show a statistically significant increasing trend in the globally integrated oceanic kinetic energy since the early 1990s, indicating a substantial acceleration of global mean ocean circulation. The increasing trend in kinetic energy is particularly prominent in the global tropical oceans, reaching depths of thousands of meters. The deep-reaching acceleration of the ocean circulation is mainly induced by a planetary intensification of surface winds since the early 1990s. Although possibly influenced by wind changes associated with the onset of a negative Pacific decadal oscillation since the late 1990s, the recent acceleration is far larger than that associated with natural variability, suggesting that it is principally part of a long-term trend.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/6/eaax7727

PROF D Q BOWEN
May 25, 2020 6:23 am

There is one name on this committee which invalidates the entire statement.

%d bloggers like this: