• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Resistance Against the "Consensus"

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The tone is polite and the tone is collegial, but there's no mistaking the serious threat to "consensus" claims in The Geological Society. It will be interesting to see where this leads.


A Second Letter to the Geological Society

Continue reading →

In June of this year, Howard Dewhirst, a fellow of The Geological Society (London), wrote a letterto the President of the Society voicing the concern of 33 current and former fellows of the society, as well as other concerned geoscientists, that the Society’s position on climate change is outdated and one-sided. As of this writing, receipt of the letter has been acknowledged, but no reply has been received. Given the long period of time, Howard has sent a second letter to the Society, it is reproduced below.
Dear President
We understand that the council is reviewing the The Geological Society’s 2010 and 2013 position papers on climate change which was the subject of the letter we wrote to the society in early June. We also understand that despite the clear interest amongst Fellows – and other scientists, that the society will not be publishing further letters until the new position paper has been agreed. If true, we (the contributors to the first letter) think this is unfortunate, as now would be the very time to solicit informed opinion from Fellows and others as there clearly is not a consensus. This is a new field of scientific endeavor as there were very few graduates in ‘climate science’ as little as 10-15 years ago, meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, yes and many others with some knowledge of what is a very wide field, to some of whom your current committee will doubtless listen.
That there are so many aspects of this exceedingly important debate which have yet to be raised let alone evaluated, it seems strange for the Society to close down that debate, as if everything that needs to be looked at is well known and agreed. This concern informed some of the thinking behind the open letter and which I will be reviewing at a Climate Change Conference in Portugal in early September. The conference is very difficult to find on Google for some reason, so I have attached a link, [url]https://www.portoconference2018.org[/URL]) and a copy of the revised abstract of my talk, where you will find a dozen questions, or areas of uncertainty that we believe warrant closer examination. . . .
We were sure that the Society would update the 2013 addendum as much new data has been made available since then, but we are concerned that as presented, the two papers gave the impression that they were supported by the majority of Fellows. . . . The ideas of just a few, mainly academic committee members, however well meaning, is never going to reflect what the Society of Fellows thinks as a whole. . . .

 
The tone is polite and the tone is collegial, but there's no mistaking the serious threat to "consensus" claims in The Geological Society. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
A Second Letter to the Geological Society
[FONT=&]
Continue reading →

[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In June of this year, Howard Dewhirst, a fellow of The Geological Society (London), wrote a letterto the President of the Society voicing the concern of 33 current and former fellows of the society, as well as other concerned geoscientists, that the Society’s position on climate change is outdated and one-sided. As of this writing, receipt of the letter has been acknowledged, but no reply has been received. Given the long period of time, Howard has sent a second letter to the Society, it is reproduced below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Dear President[/FONT]
[FONT=&]We understand that the council is reviewing the The Geological Society’s 2010 and 2013 position papers on climate change which was the subject of the letter we wrote to the society in early June. We also understand that despite the clear interest amongst Fellows – and other scientists, that the society will not be publishing further letters until the new position paper has been agreed. If true, we (the contributors to the first letter) think this is unfortunate, as now would be the very time to solicit informed opinion from Fellows and others as there clearly is not a consensus. This is a new field of scientific endeavor as there were very few graduates in ‘climate science’ as little as 10-15 years ago, meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, yes and many others with some knowledge of what is a very wide field, to some of whom your current committee will doubtless listen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]That there are so many aspects of this exceedingly important debate which have yet to be raised let alone evaluated, it seems strange for the Society to close down that debate, as if everything that needs to be looked at is well known and agreed. This concern informed some of the thinking behind the open letter and which I will be reviewing at a Climate Change Conference in Portugal in early September. The conference is very difficult to find on Google for some reason, so I have attached a link, [url]https://www.portoconference2018.org[/URL]) and a copy of the revised abstract of my talk, where you will find a dozen questions, or areas of uncertainty that we believe warrant closer examination. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]We were sure that the Society would update the 2013 addendum as much new data has been made available since then, but we are concerned that as presented, the two papers gave the impression that they were supported by the majority of Fellows. . . . The ideas of just a few, mainly academic committee members, however well meaning, is never going to reflect what the Society of Fellows thinks as a whole. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

The comments section is very interesting.
http://euanmearns.com/the-geological-society-of-londons-statement-on-climate-change/
 
The tone is polite and the tone is collegial, but there's no mistaking the serious threat to "consensus" claims in The Geological Society. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

[FONT=&][/FONT]
A Second Letter to the Geological Society
[FONT=&]
Continue reading →

[/FONT]
[FONT=&]In June of this year, Howard Dewhirst, a fellow of The Geological Society (London), wrote a letterto the President of the Society voicing the concern of 33 current and former fellows of the society, as well as other concerned geoscientists, that the Society’s position on climate change is outdated and one-sided. As of this writing, receipt of the letter has been acknowledged, but no reply has been received. Given the long period of time, Howard has sent a second letter to the Society, it is reproduced below.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Dear President[/FONT]
[FONT=&]We understand that the council is reviewing the The Geological Society’s 2010 and 2013 position papers on climate change which was the subject of the letter we wrote to the society in early June. We also understand that despite the clear interest amongst Fellows – and other scientists, that the society will not be publishing further letters until the new position paper has been agreed. If true, we (the contributors to the first letter) think this is unfortunate, as now would be the very time to solicit informed opinion from Fellows and others as there clearly is not a consensus. This is a new field of scientific endeavor as there were very few graduates in ‘climate science’ as little as 10-15 years ago, meteorologists, astrophysicists, geologists, yes and many others with some knowledge of what is a very wide field, to some of whom your current committee will doubtless listen.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]That there are so many aspects of this exceedingly important debate which have yet to be raised let alone evaluated, it seems strange for the Society to close down that debate, as if everything that needs to be looked at is well known and agreed. This concern informed some of the thinking behind the open letter and which I will be reviewing at a Climate Change Conference in Portugal in early September. The conference is very difficult to find on Google for some reason, so I have attached a link, [url]https://www.portoconference2018.org[/URL]) and a copy of the revised abstract of my talk, where you will find a dozen questions, or areas of uncertainty that we believe warrant closer examination. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]We were sure that the Society would update the 2013 addendum as much new data has been made available since then, but we are concerned that as presented, the two papers gave the impression that they were supported by the majority of Fellows. . . . The ideas of just a few, mainly academic committee members, however well meaning, is never going to reflect what the Society of Fellows thinks as a whole. . . . [/FONT]
[FONT=&]
[/FONT]

There's some great information in their file:

https://www.portoconference2018.org...2822/porto_conference_volume_2018_revised.pdf
 
I've been reading the material. It's long. On pdf page 73, they say as members of the Geological Society of London, they were never asked, polled, voted on the consensus question.
 
Edwin Barry on page 29 is wrong. I don't dispute his numbers that the atmosphere only comprises of 18 ppm of CO2 from fossil fuels. He examines the carbon cycle wrong. His conclusion is that if we stopped emitting CO2, the levels would only drop by that 18 ppm.

Currently, nature emits around 210 GtC to our approximate 10 GtC annually. Since we source about 4.5% of the CO2, at a minimum, we can expect to see the atmosphere equalize to 4.5%, and 4.5% of 408 ppm is 18.5 ppm.

This is an invalid way for his contention.
 
Edwin Barry on page 29 is wrong. I don't dispute his numbers that the atmosphere only comprises of 18 ppm of CO2 from fossil fuels. He examines the carbon cycle wrong. His conclusion is that if we stopped emitting CO2, the levels would only drop by that 18 ppm.

Currently, nature emits around 210 GtC to our approximate 10 GtC annually. Since we source about 4.5% of the CO2, at a minimum, we can expect to see the atmosphere equalize to 4.5%, and 4.5% of 408 ppm is 18.5 ppm.

This is an invalid way for his contention.

Not sure I'd worry about 18ppm vs 18.5ppm.
 
Not sure I'd worry about 18ppm vs 18.5ppm.

I'm sorry, my point wasn't clear.

My calculation for todays levels come to the 18.5, his a few years ago to 18. We are in agreement with the calculations. However, the methodology of thinking the balance change is linear, is far from correct. The biosphere has already come to equalization for the 278 ppm of 1750 untill we started adding sourcing without sinking any of it. Nature simply cannot sink 100% of our annual added CO2, so it accumulates. They are not taking into account accumulation to a new equilibrium.

Now I agree that added warming has change the equalization point, but it should now be around 300 ppm. Not around 380 ppm. Just a small change. Not most of it.
 
Back
Top Bottom