Do you think you have the necessary expertise regarding AGW to reverse the findings of the GSA?

Question

If you disagree with this...

http://www.geosociety.org/positions/pos10_climate.pdf

You have the ability to write them here to notify them of their mistakes...

http://www.geosociety.org/contactus/

I think we would all enjoy seeing the reply.

Answer 1

They say humans are partly responsible.  What part?  1%?  10%?  50%?  100%?  No one knows.  

Why do you trust the GSA?  Have you met the director of that group?  What makes you think a scientist is more trustworthy than anyone else?  

The burden of proof is on them, especially when their advocated policies would greatly weaken industrial capitalism, which they JUST HAPPEN to be against anyway.

Maybe you should be more aware of your NEED TO BELIEVE.  

AGW is a loony cult.  Follow the money.

Answer 2

Yes. I have read extensively and summarized the key points in an easy to read commentary on my website:

www.CitizensEnergyForum.com. The best science available today shows natural causes have almost total control over global temperatures. The evidential "footprint" of mans CO2 emissions is too weak to even be detected. This last point comes from an Australian scientist in charge of measuring man made GW effects for their Government. He started out believing Gore's hypothesis but was forced to change his opinion in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary over the last 10 years.

Answer 3

Are you going to ask the same thing for every scientific organization that agrees with AGW? Not only is it a dumb argument, but it is an absurd question as defined by Dana and Benjamin on this thread:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

"Many are simply veiled rants by the deniers, political rather than scientific in nature, of course."

Except, you aren't a "denier".

-------------

Edit:

" GSA strongly encourages that the following efforts be undertaken internationally:  (1) adequately research climate change at all time scales, (2) develop thoughtful, science-based policy appropriate for the multifaceted issues of global climate change, (3) organize global planning to recognize, prepare for, and adapt to the causes and consequences of global climate change, and (4) organize and develop comprehensive, long-term strategies for sustainable energy, particularly focused on minimizing impacts on global climate."

I agree with this.

"Do you think you have the necessary expertise regarding AGW to reverse the findings of the GSA?"

I didn't see any actual *findings* by the GSA, but just echoes of other scientific organizations (NAS, AGU, IPCC, etc.)

Oh, and I know several GSA members who have written the GSA explaining why they think their stance on GW is wrong.

Answer 4

Why bother?  The left is the left.

They'll find out through other means soon enough that their position is wrong.

Answer 5

I don't agree

The blanket statement that the climate is changing and man has some effect............that's not science, it's politics!

If they were interested in anyone else's opinion, (or even reality), it'd be worth doing........they don't care!

Luck

Answer 6

No I only use common sense to tell me man made global warming is a scam, but here are several thousand scientists who do have the expertise.

Answer 7

Can you provide me a link to the survey of its members.  I am curious to see how many of them actually support AGW.  But then again, there was  no survey taken, was there?

But I suggest you take a reality course in politics.  One can not go out and tell the world that drastic measures are needed to fight AGW, that the world is coming to an end, then turn around later and say "we may have made a mistake".  They lose credibly.  Not on an issue this serious.

Final word, you statement is also misleading.  You want people to believe that even if scientist support AGW, that these scientist also support the doomsday scenarios of Al Gore.  Very few scientists support the doomsday scenarios in the movie an Inconvenient truth.

Answer 8

That's interesting, because often the 'skeptical' scientists cited by the deniers are geologists.  My theory about this is that geologists study the history of the Earth's climate, but not the modern anthropogenic effects.  However, this position by the GSA illustrates that even most geologists agree with the scientific consensus on AGW.