Quick Search:    advanced search

GSW Home   GeoRef Home   My GSW Alerts   Contact GSW   About GSW   Journals List   Help

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (2) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lovell, B. Search for Related Content GeoRef GeoRef Citation

Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Discussion

^{1 1}Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, Cambridge, United Kingdom; lovell@esc.cam.ac.uk

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

Gerhard (2004) argues that our reasoning on the causes of climate change should be guided by observational science, instead of by results derived from computer models. Given that the nature and balance of the controls of the Earth's climate remain uncertain, this appears to be a sound suggestion. On the strength of his own reading of recent observational science, Gerhard adheres to the view set out by the AAPG Ad Hoc Committee on Global Climate Issues in its 1999 annual report: "Because no tool is available to test the supposition of human-induced climate change and the range of natural variability is so great, there is no discernible human influence on global climate at this time." (Gerhard and Hanson, 2000, p. 466). Gerhard (2004, p. 1219) now asks: "Why is it that we spend so much time and resources trying to prove a theory of greenhouse gas climate control instead of testing the hypothesis?"

A contrary view is expressed in a position paper of the Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society (London) (Zalasiewicz et al., 2004, p. 1): "We find that the evidence for human-induced climate change is now persuasive, and the need for direct action compelling." Oreskes (2004, p. 1686) cites evidence that such a view is representative of a notable consensus in the refereed scientific literature, and that "all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements."

Where does that leave Gerhard and the AAPG? That question can finally be answered when this particular scientific dispute is agreed by all rational parties to have been settled by the weight of observational evidence, instead of by majority voting or social pressures. This particular debate on climate change is of major economic and political significance as . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				T. R. Green, M. Taniguchi, and H. Kooi Potential Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activity on Subsurface Water Resources Vadose Zone J., August 23, 2007; 6(3): 531 - 532. [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. C. Gerhard Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply AAPG Bulletin, March 1, 2006; 90(3): 409 - 412. [Full Text] [PDF]