Petroleum Geologists and Climate Change, Revisited

authordefault
on

The last time I found myself paying attention to the American Association of Petroleum Geologistsย (AAPG)โ€“which calls itselfย โ€œthe worldโ€™s largest professional geological societyโ€โ€“the year was 2006. At the time, AAPG had caused something of an uproar by giving its โ€œjournalism awardโ€ to the late Michael Crichtonโ€™s anti-global warming novelย State of Fear. This triggered a variety of criticismsโ€“including this oneย byย the council of the American Quaternary Association, remarking that โ€œIn bestowing its 2006 Journalism Award on Crichton, AAPG has crossed the line from ย scientific professionalism to political advocacy. In our opinion, the group should be upfront about its new status.โ€ (Later, the AAPG changed the prizeโ€™s name to the โ€œGeosciences in the Mediaโ€ award, which certainly removes one criticismโ€“if notย others.)

You canโ€™t say the Crichton award was inconsistent: To this day, AAPG remains an organization that questions the seriousness of human caused climate change.ย Its website, for instance, has a policy statement on the matter that can be foundย here

Andย again:ย 

Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS, and AMS. 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 temperatureย dataโ€ฆ.

AAPG also has put out a publication entitled Geological Perspectives on Global Climate Change, edited byย Lee Gerhard, William Harrison, and Bernold Hanson. The first chapter is online here. And guess what it concludes about climateย change?

Climate drivers are variable in both time and intensity andโ€“regardless of the largely political belief that human consequences on global climate are pronouncedโ€“human influences are of comparatively low intensity and take place over short time spans. The nonequilibrium systems that control natural phenomena on earth very likely dwarf manโ€™s ability to affect climatic conditions on a global scale.

Why bring all thisย up?

Well, I recently came across a review of my book Unscientific America (co-authored with Sheril Kirshenbaum) on the AAPG website. The review could not exactly be called lovingโ€“our book is labeled ย โ€œnot only unscientificโ€ฆbut arrogant and unprofessionalโ€โ€“and sure enough, the issue of climate change seems at the heart of theย dispute.

The review is by one Bob Shoup, who according to his bio on the website of the conservative Canada Free Press, was previously head of the AAPGโ€™s Division of Professional Affairs (DPA). A fewย of Shoupโ€™s Canada Free Press article titles: โ€œGrand Theft Climateโ€œย and โ€œAgendaism and Fraud; the Sordid Tale of Climate โ€˜Science.โ€™โ€ย Presumably Shoup does not speak for AAPG simply by penning a book review in what appears to be an AAPG newsletter. However, itโ€™s worth nothing that heโ€™s not the only person involved with AAPG who didnโ€™t like the book, according to hisย review:

Several months ago, DPA President Dan Tearpock asked me to look at the book Unscientific America. He had bought it hoping to see why science literacy is on the decline in the U.S. and other western countries, and more importantly, what could be done to reverse the trend. Unfortunately, before Dan could get past the introduction he was so mad he threw the book away. Why? Iโ€™ll get back to that in aย moment.

Once you read the review, itโ€™s clear that the โ€œwhyโ€ involves our strong defense of climate science and climate scientists, and our calls for the latter to speak out about their work and combat misinformation. As Shoupย writes:

One of the authorโ€™s principal arguments that most Americans are scientifically illiterate is the increasing size of the โ€œscience โ€“ society divideโ€. And their evidence for the increasing size of the divide is that most Americans no longer believe in Anthropogenic Global Warming. This incredibly arrogant position assumes that Americans are simply too stupid to understand the science of globalย warming.

Thatโ€™s a misreading of our book. Yes, weโ€™re pro-climate science; but we also make the point that people who resist science on topics like global climate change are often very well โ€œinformedโ€ about the subject, in the sense of being quite conversant with the debate and even highly engaged in it. Shoup himself, for example, has written extensively about why he doesnโ€™t accept the science of climate. I am certainly not calling himโ€“or anyone else like himโ€“โ€œstupid.โ€ This isnโ€™t an intellectual problemโ€“itโ€™s a politicalย one.

Shoupย continues:

The authors argue that the โ€œClimategateโ€ scandal further proves their case that Americans are detached from science. The authors point out that in the scandal following the release of the climate e-mails, the climate science community were accused of withholding information, suppressing dissent, manipulating data, and worse. Instead of pointing out that these accusations flow directly from statements in the e-mails, the authors dismiss this as an attack on scientists by the โ€œright wingย media.โ€

โ€œFlow directlyโ€ from the emails? Thatโ€™s an interesting choice of language. Note that Shoup doesnโ€™t say that the accusations are โ€œfully substantiated by a thorough analysis of the emailsโ€โ€“and of course, they arenโ€™t. Any serious analysis (and many have been done) instead shows that the charges rely on taking a few phrases (like โ€œhide the declineโ€) out ofย context.

Anyways, you can read the whole review here. Presumably Shoup would have liked our book much more if it simply had a different stance on climate change, because he goes on about how scientific illiteracy is indeed a problem. And indeed, it would be great to have AAPG as an ally in the cause of broadening scientific literacy and engagement in ourย society.

But hereโ€™s the thing. If you really want to be pro-science, you donโ€™t get to pick and choose which science to acceptโ€“and climate scienceโ€™s core conclusions are, at this point, part of the essential knowledge base of every citizen. If Shoup and/or AAPG want to take a stand in favor of scientific literacy, they could start by revisiting that position statement that still, to this day, calls mainstream scientific conclusions about human-caused climate change intoย question.

Related Posts

on

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.

Major oil and gas firms are being represented by lobbyists that have given more than ยฃ300,000 in support to Keir Starmerโ€™s party.
on

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.

New documents show close coordination between the oil major and a coalition of free-market think tanks at a crucial moment in climate diplomacy.
Analysis
on

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.

Right wing YouTuber Tim Pool is the latest to own โ€˜climate peopleโ€™ with fake facts spouted by a grizzled TV oilman.
on

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.

Critics say the controversial GWP* method โ€“ which New Zealand appears close to adopting โ€“ is โ€œopen to significant abuseโ€.