Honoris Causa

Michael,

Thank you for your answer. I share your conservatism in the usage of “scepticism”. My interest for the moment is the usage of the term “skeptic” in Groundskeeper’s political hit job.

Read More

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

Geological Perspectives

To add a backstory to SimonH’s comment #59, we could read Steve blogging about the geological perspective a while ago. For example:

The class of scientist who tend to be most unimpressed with IPCC-type climate science are geologists – which is where I got started in this. If you took an Oreskes-type survey among geologists, I don’t believe for a minute that you would get anything like IPCC solidarity. Unlike most scientists, geologists also happen to know a lot about climate history.

(Source: http://climateaudit.org/2005/05/22/climate-geological-views-1/ The second part is a tiny bit more substantial.)

One could easily agree that Steve “does not like the sound of his own voice” on matters where the authority of others naturally prevails. One should also easily agree that editorial choices are being made in Steve’s relays and expositions. How could one dare to openly discuss interests and desinterests anyway?

(Source: collide-a-scape.com)

I am a geologist, so I naturally have a different view than most. The Earth has seen much warmer periods than the present, and much colder. Sea levels have been much higher than the present, and much lower. Species have come and gone, with no concern to how they felt about it. The Earth has had no problem surviving these changes, and I’m sure that man can adapt to any climate shifts that occur.