Debunking skeptics: pulling threads out of blanet statements.

[theclimateblog]

I got into an argument in the blogosphere yesterday about the climate change consensus, and the skeptic finally conceded that even if there was agreement, the scientists themselves are just doing bad science. One particular argument that really floored me was the assertion that climate scientists "ignore geology and orbital changes." Once I got

Comments

[tectonite]

It is very frustrating to see geology painted as the science that disagrees with anthropogenic global warming. The vast majority of geologists that I know are convinced by it. (The exceptions are mostly retired petroleum geologists.) We talk about it in our classes - and when we don't, it's because we're talking about times and places where anthropogenic (or the atmosphere) aren't all that relevant -- I don't talk about anthropogenic anything when talking about the lower crust, for instance.

I would like to read Oreskes' book about plate tectonics skeptics. My impression has been that continental geologists were slow to jump on the plate tectonics boat because, well, the data came from boats, not land. Geophysicists and marine geologists were working with the data that could really differentiate between plate tectonics and other models for mountain building - although continental geology can be explained by plate tectonics, it doesn't provide the kind of convincing evidence that the ocean floor does.

So although I'm a geologist, the "they ignore geology" doesn't carry much weight for me. The arguments for causes of climate change in, say, the Paleozoic are fairly indirect, compared to the techniques used to study more recent temperatures and CO2 levels. Just because other models have been proposed for the geologic past doesn't mean that those models are right, even if they explain some data sets. Unless those models can explain recent climate change, then they are irrelevant to the discussion of whether humans are warming the planet.

The skeptics make geologists look bad - like we are bad scientists, and reactionaries, and stuck in the 1950's. It's sad, because, well, I think the solid earth is beautiful and fascinating, and I don't want students to avoid learning about it it because it is associated with oil.

(Where is your blogger blog, by the way? I just started one as well - shearsensibility.blogspot.com, for the same reason - blogger seems more like a Real Blog site than LJ is.)

[theclimateblog]

I think part of the problem is that a lot of climate scientist aren't watching Fox News or reading the skeptic blogs (I know I can't take much of www.junkscience.com before I get incensed), because it takes so much time and energy to weed through these things and point out flaws.

My Blogger site is: theclimateblog.blogspot.com

It's going to be the same feed as the LJ version, but hopefully getting a different audience. When my personal website goes live in a week or so (for my lab page), that's the one I'm going to link.