Wednesday, February 3rd 2010, 6:42 AM EST
The Geological Society of America (GSA) has declined to endorse an official policy statement of the society which was proposed in October. At the national meeting of GSA in Portland last October, I strongly opposed adoption of the proposed endorsement of IPCC contentions and argued that "for a position statement of a scientific society of professional geologists, this statement is remarkably one sided and lacks the kind of depth and scientific analysis that one would expect from GSA. It totally ignores a wealth of well-documented data contrary to many of the statements made in the text and many of the contentions are not supported by any tangible data at all. This would be a much more credible document if it explored both sides of many of the issues and provided supporting evidence. The section on Rationale is shocking in its lack of scientific logic—it essentially claims that because we have had global warming (which no one denies), that in itself proves it is due to CO2. CO2. That shoddy logic must surely make T.C. Chamberlain and Hoover Mackin turn over in their graves!"
"To contend that glacier retreat proves warming due to CO2 is bad enough, but the authors clearly have very poor knowledge of glacier fluctuations since 1850.During the 1890 to 1915 cool period, glaciers extended almost to their Little Ice Age maximums, retreated during the 1915 to 1945 warm period, advanced again during the 1945 to 1977 cool period, and retreated again during the 1977 to 1999 warm period. None of these climate fluctuations prior to 1945 can be due to increase in CO2 so to contend that retreat of glaciers since 1850 is proof of warming due to CO2 is incredibly amateurish."
"The validity of climate models is seriously challenged by their failure to predict the global cooling of the past 10 years. In 2000, published graphs of IPCC models predicted a 1° F warming every 10 years and a 10° F rise in global temperature by 2100. Thus, according to the computer models, global temperatures should now be 1° F warmer than they were in 2000. But global temperatures have not risen beyond 1998 levels and global cooling has occurred. This means that the IPCC models are woefully inadequate and are contradicted by actual global temperatures. Lacking any tangible physical evidence that CO2 causes global warming, the entire argument for CO2 rests on these computer models that have proven faulty when compared to actual temperatures."
"CO2 accounts for only 3.62% of the greenhouse gas effect (water vapor accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect). Verifiable calculations of the possible effect of increased CO2 on atmospheric temperature shows that the maximum effect of even doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 0.1°."
"So we are being asked to believe that a change of 0.008% in the amount of a greenhouse gas (CO2) that accounts for only 3.6% of the greenhouse effect and which is incapable of changing the temperature of the atmosphere more than 0.1° is going to increase global temperatures by 10°F in the coming century! The argument that a small increase in atmospheric temperature by CO2 will increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere and cause warming is totally unsupported by existing measurements of atmospheric water vapor and is based entirely on undocumented assumptions."
"This is a very disappointing document—it contains a great deal of very badly flawed logic (e.g., retreating glaciers prove that climatic warming is caused by CO2) and is entirely one sided with no recognition at all of any data contrary to CO2 as the cause of warming. Many statements are made with no supporting data at all. GSA has always been a forum for discussion and debate of contentious issues, but this document is completely dogmatic in its approach.
At this stage in the climate change debate with many contentious issues, a much more open discussion is called for. To embrace a dogma with no attempt to recognize any data contrary to CO2 is a very unscientific approach—one that GSA may deeply regret in the future. In view of the rapidly accumulating data, I would strongly recommend a neutral stance by GSA at this point. We should see more clearly which way global climates are heading within only a few years and if the present trend continues, as all indications suggest, nature will have demonstrated that CO2 is not the cause of global climate change. If global cooling continues for another few decades that will solve the global climate issue and if indeed that happens, GSA would lose a great deal of prestige as a scientific organization."
(See complete text of my response to GSA in PDF file below).