The American Association of Petroleum Geologists has an obvious institutional interest in denying influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions on the greenhouse effect. In the past, these interests have been reflected in their policy statements regarding climate change. Proposed changes to the AAPG's position on climate change represent progress toward coming to terms with climate change, but many AAPG members on both sides of the issue are unsatisfied.
Hat Tip: http://rabett.blogspot.com/...
Science requires that all aspects of theory be investigated and that assumptions be tested.
Human-induced global temperature influence is a supposition that can be neither proved nor disproved. It is unwise policy to base stringent controls on energy consumption through taxation to support a supposition that cannot be substantiated.
Climate naturally varies constantly, in both directions, at varying rates, and on many scales. Warming events have been historically good for most human society, while cold events have been deleterious to much of society. It is vital that climate research to examine the effects of a colder climate also be supported. Critical target areas of this research should include the potential impact of climate change on food production. Further research should concentrate on mitigation techniques to combat any serious effects of either colder or warmer climate, naturally or artificially caused, on the ability of the world to feed itself.
The AAPG urges that any actions to implement or to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and any future declarations of climate policy be delayed until there is better understanding of present climate and the impacts of policy implementation, as well as some provision for mitigating errors in policy. There is no current viable substitute for petroleum-based fuels in the world’s energy budget and economy.
AAPG Present Policy Statement: Climate Change Policy
Notwithstanding this history of institutional interests impacting policy statements, the AAPG is beginning to shift its stance in the face of the very strong evidence of human impact on the climate.
In a change of position under discussion, the AAPG is considering accepting the findings of the IPCC.
Public concern over the potential impacts of climate change is growing because observations demonstrate that the planet has been warming since the middle to late 19th century and increasingly sophisticated climate models predict increased future warmth (IPCC 2007). These conclusions have been articulated mainly by climate scientists, through reports of the National Academy of Sciences, American Geophysical Union, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Meteorological Society. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) respects the conclusions of these professional scientific organizations.
AAPG Proposed Policy Change Statement: Climate Change Policy
It is a very carefully worded statement with very selective emphasis, rather than a clear acceptance of the climate consensus. However, the statement of the AAPG, an organization with an institutional interest in denying this fact, indicates tacit endorsement of the predictions of the global climate models including continued warming caused by human impact on the greenhouse effect. The careful wording and emphasis correctly states that human and natural factors have combined to cause warming in the 20th century. They cite the IPCC, which based their findings in part on mathematical models of climate such as the one responsible for this summary graph displaying the influence of various factors (including solar irradiance).
Meehl, G.A., W.M. Washington, C.A. Ammann, J.M. Arblaster, T.M.L. Wigleym and C. Tebaldi (2004). "Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate". Journal of Climate 17: 3721-3727.
Part of the selective emphasis of the proposed revision of the AAPG statement includes emphasizing the influence of the increase in solar activity during the 20th century. However, solar researchers and climatologists have dismissed any major role for the sun in the past 20-30 years, during which significant warming has occurred. Sami Solanki, of the Max Planck Solar Research Institute, has noted that "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming." The following graph produced by the Max Planck Institute displays Solanki's point unequivocally.
The debate on the AAPG website (please respect that their forum is for their members, btw) over the proposed changes, even with their selective emphasis, has been heated. Here are some selections.
"In my mind, as a member of this association for nearly 30 years, the issue is fundamental: act now, or study and debate. I have been a petroleum geologist for nearly 30 years and have never been involved in a decision where there are no uncertainties. . .
I believe that a Climate Change Statement issued by AAPG must support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. What is more basic than recognizing that global warming may significantly change the way my grandchildren and great grandchildren live in this world?"
--Bob Hutton
"The AAPG’s old rhetoric of denouncing anthropogenic climate change was tremendously embarrassing to me. Our organization has lost a great deal of respect in the larger scientific community because of it."
--Andrew Silver, Rice University
"AAPG (indeed, everyone) should acknowledge that we humans are and will be for the foreseeable future a fossil-fuel-driven society. AAPG should also acknowledge that there has been an unforeseen consequence to our use of fossil fuels. And finally, AAPG should state that its members are committed to \"cleaning-up\" fossil fuels to make their use now and for decades to come as \"environmentally friendly\" as our experience and knowledge allow."
--nhsuneson
"In my opinion we need to step up and support efforts to curb global warming. There is plenty of evidence to support a human contribution or influence on global climate change. The Earth is our only home and we cannot afford to be wrong. We sound like an organiztion afraid of change."
--Jim Nikas
One poster even blasted the proposed revisions, which do represent progress, as too wishy-washy, accusing the AAPG of sounding like the tobacco industry, and another worried that the proposed statement did not go far enough in recognizing the scientific consensus and for making economic and political statements that go beyond the science.
I can’t help but feel as though AAPG is starting to sound like to tobacco industry used to, e.g., uncertainty exists as to whether or not smoking really does cause cancer so we should not act.
--geomann1
"In it’s current state, this statement will no doubt be regarded as a testament to the public that the AAPG does not represent a scientific body, but a group that wants to cleverly side with where the money is made. Publicly, the AAPG will be regarded as the spokesperson of the major US oil and gas company. The constituents needs to ask themselves if they want to be viewed in that light."
--Tony
Those are the statements that I find encouraging. Going through the thread, however, one finds heated opinions in the opposite direction. I'll give some of those below, but I want to say that I think that it is important for liberal bloggers to applaud the progress the AAPG is making toward coming to terms with climate science, even if the statement is not as clear on the issue of attribution as it should be. When commenting on this, please consider the institutional pressure and biases that the AAPG must be under from its membership. In light of that, they should be applauded for the progress they are making. Those crafting of the AAPG policy statement need to contend with views such as these:
I want to cut to the heart of the matter. The Global Warming environmental movement is a political movement. It does not have a thing to do with controlling global temperature. Many of its prominent supporters and elite politicians want to rely on "energy credits" so that they do not have to change their life style. The solutions proposed, such as the Kyoto Protocol, carbon taxes, etc., are designed to ration energy use and availability, and control the economy – they do nothing to alter the course of the climate. The IPCC is a political panel controlled by the UN. To the last one, the solutions proposed by the radical environmentalists are not good for the United States or our way of life, or for that matter, they are not good for the human race.
--Rick Turner
I conclude with one more quote that represents, I think, the moral courage of some AAPG members in coming to terms with climate change despite their self-interest in denial.
Scientists are allowed to become passionate about a topic when the scientific evidence for a particular hypothesis is compelling and overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community. I have been a scientist in fossil fuel research and in paleoclimatology for over 20 years and confess my passion. I know both sides of the argument. The "wait and see" approach is no longer scientifically defensible and is economically shortsighted. It is appropriate to pay a little now for insurance (e.g., carbon tax) and not burden our descendants with a legacy that will potentially cripple future economies and exacerbate global strife. Mainstream science has long arrived at the conclusion that global warming is happening and that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are most likely a major contributing factor.
We as scientists and geological professionals have much responsibility to cut through the fog that some of our employers are spreading in order to confuse public opinion. AAPG should join the extensively researched mainstream scientific position in the current debate on global warming. We need to educate the public that we want to solve the problem. Undoubtedly we will need fossil fuels in the future, but at the same time we must work to achieve economic and feasible solutions to mitigate the environmental impact of carbon dioxide (e.g., via sequestration). This noble goal also offers tremendous economic opportunities for those who want to lead the way. AAPG should be a catalyst to ensure a bright future of the fossil fuel industries.
--Arndt Schimmelmann, Indiana University
With statements like that coming from petroleum geologists, I am increasingly optimistic that we will meet the challenge of the climate crisis.