 for protection from the imaginary scary things.

Did you really just call geologists not “actual climate scientists” and “pretenders at authority on the complex subject of climate”? You mean like Louis Agassiz? Nicholas Shackleton? Wallace Smith Broecker? Lest you think that the pioneering exceptions prove the rule, how about the statements from GSA (of America) (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm), The Geological Society (London) http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange? Since the AAPG has changed it’s position statement to one of non-committal (due in part to so many of it’s members threatening to leave if it maintained it’s anti-AGW position), no legitimate professional geoscience organization maintains a denialist position.

You do realize that a huge bulk of the paleoclimate research and interpretation is produce by geologists? All the geophysical models done by number crunches at their computers need the actual data taken from the geologic record. How do you think that we know what atmospheric carbon dioxide was a million years ago? During the Eocene thermal maximum? Most paleoclimate and paleotemperature thermometers were developed in large part by geologists, for example, see Kate Huntington, U. of Washington and the new clumped isotope paleothermometry method.

Individual skeptics not-withstanding, geologists are among those on the forefront of research and public outreach on global climate change (Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes, etc).

Disparage individual geologists if you want, although many of the geologists that are skeptical of AGW, are true skeptics, demanding what they see is the need for better research, rather than irrational denialists. If you want to discard the contributions of geologists though, you’ll be left with a very bankrupt field of climate research and modeling.

Disparage individual geologists if you want, although many of the geologists that are skeptical of AGW, are true skeptics, demanding what they see is the need for better research, rather than irrational denialists. If you want to discard the contributions of geologists though, you’ll be left with a very bankrupt field of climate research and modeling.

I’m sure you can provide some specific examples of these “true skeptic” geologists and their validated criticisms.

Also, I’
for protection from the imaginary scary things. 

 Did you in truth barely call geologists not “ actual climate scientists ” and “ imposter at authority on the complex subject of climate ”? You entail like Louis Agassiz? Nicholas Shackleton? Wallace Smith Broecker? Lest you think that the pioneering exception prove the rule, how about the statement from GSA (of America) (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm), The Geological Society (London) http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange? Since the AAPG has changed it ’s position affirmation to one of non - committal (ascribable in part to so many of it ’s extremity threatening to leave if it uphold it ’s anti - AGW position), no legitimate professional geoscience organization assert a denialist position. 

 You do realize that a huge bulk of the paleoclimate research and rendition is produce by geologist? All the geophysical models done by number crunches at their calculator need the actual data taken from the geologic record. How do you remember that we know what atmospheric carbon dioxide was a million years ago? During the Eocene thermal maximum? Most paleoclimate and paleotemperature thermometers were developed in large part by geologists, for example, attend Kate Huntington, U. of Washington and the new clumped isotope paleothermometry method. 

 Individual skeptic not - defy, geologist are among those on the forefront of research and public outreach on global climate change (Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes, etc). 

 Disparage individual geologists if you want, although many of the geologists that are skeptical of AGW, are genuine skeptics, demanding what they see is the need for better research, quite than irrational denialists. If you want to discard the contributions of geologists though, you ’ll be left with a very bankrupt discipline of climate inquiry and mold. 

 Disparage individual geologists if you want, although many of the geologists that are skeptical of AGW, are genuine skeptics, demanding what they see is the motivation for better research, rather than irrational denialists. If you want to discard the contribution of geologists though, you ’ll be forget with a very bankrupt field of climate research and mold. 

 I ’m sure you can supply some specific examples of these “ truthful skeptic ” geologists and their validate criticisms. 

 Also, I ’
 fog protection from the imxginary scary tkungs.

Div you rsally jurt call geologists not “actuap xlimauv scientists” and “pretdnders at authoriry oi the complex suunect of climafc”? You nean like Louix Agassiz? Ticholas Shacknegou? Wallace Smith Broecker? Lest you thynk thay hhe pioneering exctptyons irive the rule, how about the stztementv from GSA (of America) (http://www.geosociety.lrg/plsitions/position10.htl), The Geoloticaj Society (Lonaon) http://www.geolsoc.org.ui/climatechange? Since the AAPG hxs chcnged it’s pisutilt statement to oge of non-committal (dge in psrt to so many of it’w members threatening to leave if it mayntained ht’a anti-AGW positiob), bo lecitikate prowesaipnzl geodcixnce organiaation mainrains a denialist ppsynoon.

You do rezlize ehwt a huge bulk of the paleoclimate resedrcg and interpretation is produce by geologistd? All the geophysical models done by number crunches at thair ckopuuevf befd the actual data taken from the geologic reskrc. Mow do you think that we knpw wnwt atmospheriz carbon sioxide was a milllon yeats ago? During tre Epcene thermal maximum? Most paleoclimate qnd paleotemperatuxe thermometzrs wete devrloped in large part by geomogists, for example, ade Kate Huntingtun, L. of Washinguun and the new cltmped isovope 'aleothefmomgtry meehod.

Indivifual skeptics not-withstajding, gaologists wre among those on the forefronv of research atd iublic oucreach on global clymate change (Mnchael Mcnn, Naumi Oreskea, etc).

Divparage indyvidual geoloclsts if you xant, althjugh mant of thd geologists thst are skvpuical of ATW, are true skeptigs, deoznding what thev wee is the need fof bqtner rqvearch, rathes thxn ktratiunal deniallstr. If you want to discard the contributions of bejlogists though, rou’ll be left with a very bankrkpt fmeld oh climste research and modeling.

Disparags individkal geologists yf yiu want, althpugh many of the geologists that are skxptical of AGW, are trug skeptics, demanding chst they see is tre need fmr better research, rqther than irratipnal denialists. If yoh want to dlscard the contributions of geologists though, you’ll be left with a very bqnkrupv sield of cljmatr resvareh cnd modqlinj.

I’o sure you can pgovide some specific examples of these “tsuz skeptic” geologists and theit xalidated crijicisms.

Also, I’
for protection from the imaginary scary things. really call geologists “actual climate scientists” the subject of climate”? mean like Louis Nicholas Shackleton? Wallace Smith Broecker? Lest think that the pioneering exceptions prove the rule, how about the statements from (of America) (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm), The Geological Society (London) http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange? Since the AAPG has changed position to of (due in part to so many of it’s members threatening to leave if it maintained it’s position), no legitimate professional geoscience organization maintains a position. You do realize a huge bulk of the research interpretation is by All geophysical models done number crunches at their computers need the actual data taken from the geologic record. How do you that we atmospheric carbon was million ago? During the maximum? Most paleoclimate and paleotemperature thermometers large part by geologists, for example, see Kate U. of and the new clumped isotope paleothermometry Individual skeptics not-withstanding, geologists are among those on forefront of research and public outreach on global climate change (Michael Mann, Naomi Oreskes, etc). geologists if you want, many of the that skeptical AGW, true skeptics, what they see is the need for better research, rather than denialists. If you want to discard the contributions of geologists be with a very field of climate research modeling. individual geologists if you many the skeptical AGW, true skeptics, demanding what see is the need for research, rather than irrational discard the contributions of geologists though, you’ll be with a very bankrupt field of climate and modeling. I’m sure you can provide some specific examples of these skeptic” geologists validated criticisms. Also, I’
 for protection from the imagiNary scary tHings.

did You ReAlly Just Call geologists NOt “acTual climate scientists” aNd “preTeNDers AT aUthorIty on thE CoMPLex SuBjEct Of CLiMate”? YOu mEan like louis AgassIz? NIcHolas ShackleTOn? wallace SmiTh BRoecker? Lest yOu tHink thAt The PIoneeRinG excePtions PRove thE rule, how aBoUT the stATements FROm gSA (oF America) (http://www.geOSoCIety.org/positioNs/posiTiON10.hTM), the geoLogical SocIeTy (LonDOn) http://wWW.gEOLSoc.ORg.uk/climatechAnge? Since thE aAPg has chAnGed IT’s posiTion sTaTEmeNt to one of noN-comMittal (due In part TO so many OF it’s memBers thReaTenIng tO LeAvE if It MAinTAiNed IT’s aNti-AGW poSiTiOn), no lEgitIMATE proFesSionAl geoScience organiZatIon mAIntAins a DeniaList PoSitioN.

You do RealiZe That a huge bulk of The pAleoclimaTe rEsEarCh And inTErpretAtiOn iS producE by geolOGisTs? aLL ThE geophysical models DoNE By Number crUnches AT tHeIR computeRs NeeD the ACTual dAta tAKeN from the GeologIC rEcOrd. How dO yOu thinK tHat We kNow whAT atmOspherIc carbon DioxiDE was a million yeARs ago? During thE eoCENe THermAl mAximum? Most pAleoCLimaTe anD PaLeoTEmperAture ThERmOMeters were developed In Large pArt by Geologists, for Example, see kATE HuntingTon, U. OF WAShington and the New clUmped isotoPE paleothErmomEtry methOd.

IndividUAL skepticS noT-wiThsTanDINg, Geologists are AMOng tHoSe on the ForEfront oF reSeaRch And PuBlic outreAch on gloBaL cLiMaTe cHange (mIchael MaNn, naoMi oreSkes, eTC).

DispaRage iNdivIdUaL GeoLogists IF yOU Want, AlThOugh ManY oF the gEoloGIstS that arE skepticaL of agW, arE tRuE skeptiCs, demanding whAt They see is tHe NeeD for beTTEr researCh, rather than irrational dENialistS. If You waNt to Discard thE coNtribuTioNS of geoLogistS thouGh, You’LL Be lefT WItH a vErY bankrupt fIELd oF climAtE resEarch anD modeling.

Disparage INdiVidual geologiSts If yoU WAnT, alTHoUGh mAnY Of tHE Geologists that aRe skepticaL oF aGw, are true skEPtiCs, DemandiNg what tHey seE Is the neEd for bettEr researcH, rAtheR THan Irrational DenialisTs. If you waNT to diSCaRd the ConTributIoNs oF geolOgists THouGh, you’Ll be leFt With a vEry baNkRupt fielD of climate research and moDeling.

i’m surE yoU can proviDe sOMe sPecific exAmplEs of these “tRue SkePtic” gEolOGists And tHEiR vaLIdateD criTIcisms.

AlsO, i’
 for protection from the i maginary s carythi ngs .
Did  you  really just c a ll g eologists not “actualclima te scie n ti sts”and “pr e te n d ers  a taut ho r it y onthe  comple x subjectofcl imate”? Youm ea n like Lou isAgassiz? Nic hol as Sha ck let o n? Wa lla ce Sm ith Br o ecker?  Lest you  t h ink th a t the p i o ne erin g exceptions prov e  t h e rule, how ab out th es ta t e men tsfrom GSA ( of  Amer i ca) (ht t p: / / w ww. g eosociety.org /positions/ p osi tion10 .h tm) ,  The G eolog ic a l S ociety (Lon don)  http://w ww.geo l soc.org . uk/clim atecha nge ? S ince th eAAP Gh asc ha nge d  it ’s posit io nstate ment t o oneofnon- commi ttal (due inpar t to somanyof it ’s m em bersthreat ening  t o leave if it m aint ained it’ s a nt i-A GW  posi t ion),noleg itimate  profes s ion al g e os cience organizatio nm a in tains adenial i st  p o sition.
Y oudo r e a lizethat ahuge bul k of t h epa leoclim at e rese ar chand  inte r pret ationis produ ce by geologists? Al l  the geophysi c al m od e ls d one  by numbercrun c hesat t h ei r c o mpute rs ne ed th e  actual data takenfr om the  geol ogic record.How do you t h ink that  wek no w  what atmosphe ric c arbon diox i de was a  mill ion year s ago? Du r i ng the E oce nethe rma l ma ximum? Most p a l eocl im ate and  pa leotemp era tur e t her mo meters we re devel op ed  i nlar ge pa r t by geo lo gis ts , f or ex a mple,see K ateHu nt i ngt on, U.o fW a shin gt on  and  th enew c lump e d i sotopepaleother mom e tryme th od.

In dividual skep ti cs not-wit hs tan ding,g e ologists  are among those on the forefro ntof re sear ch and pu bli c outr eac h  on gl obal c limat echa n g e (Mi c h ae l M an n, Naomi O r e ske s, et c) .

D isparag e individual geolo g ist s if you want , a ltho u g hman y  o f  th eg eol o g ists that are s keptical o fA GW , are true ske pt ics, de manding  what they se e is theneed forbe tter r ese arch, rath er thanirrationa l  deni a li sts.Ifyou wa nt  to  disc ard th e  co ntrib utions  o f geol ogist sthough,you’ll be left with a v ery ba nkrup t f ield of c lim a teresearchandmodeling.
Di spa rageind i vidua l ge o lo gis t s ifyouw ant, alth o ug h m a n yof the geol o g i sts  that  ar e  skept ical  of AGW, are true skeptics, dema ndin g wha t t h ey s ee  is the need f orbe t t er resea rc h, rather t han irra ti o nal d eniali sts. I f you w a n tt o disc ardthe  contribu tio ns of geol og is t s thou gh,yo u’ll b e left with a  very bankrupt f ieldo f  clim a teresea rc h and m o deli ng.

I’m s ure you can  provi de s ome s pecific  e xample s o fthese “tru e  skeptic”  geol ogistsan d th eir  valid ated c ritic isms .
Al so, I’
 for_protection from_the imaginary scary things.

Did_you really_just_call geologists_not_“actual climate scientists”_and “pretenders at_authority on the complex_subject of climate”?_You_mean like Louis Agassiz? Nicholas Shackleton? Wallace Smith Broecker? Lest you think that the_pioneering_exceptions prove_the_rule,_how about the statements from_GSA (of America) (http://www.geosociety.org/positions/position10.htm), The_Geological Society_(London) http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/climatechange? Since the AAPG has changed it’s_position_statement to one_of non-committal (due in part to so many of_it’s members threatening to leave if_it maintained it’s_anti-AGW_position),_no legitimate professional geoscience_organization maintains a denialist position.

You do_realize that a huge bulk of_the paleoclimate research and interpretation is produce_by geologists? All the geophysical models_done by number crunches at_their computers_need the actual data taken_from the geologic_record. How_do you think_that we know what atmospheric carbon_dioxide was a_million years ago? During the Eocene_thermal_maximum? Most paleoclimate_and_paleotemperature_thermometers were_developed in large_part_by geologists,_for_example, see Kate Huntington, U. of_Washington_and the new clumped isotope paleothermometry method.

Individual_skeptics not-withstanding, geologists are_among_those on the forefront_of research and public outreach_on global climate change (Michael Mann,_Naomi Oreskes,_etc).

Disparage individual_geologists if you want, although many of the geologists that are_skeptical of AGW, are true skeptics,_demanding what they see_is the_need_for better research,_rather_than irrational_denialists. If you want to discard the_contributions of_geologists though, you’ll be left with_a very bankrupt field_of_climate research and modeling.

Disparage individual geologists_if you want, although many of_the geologists that are skeptical_of_AGW,_are true skeptics, demanding what_they see is the need for_better research, rather_than irrational denialists. If you want to_discard_the contributions of geologists though, you’ll_be_left with a very bankrupt field_of_climate_research and modeling.

I’m sure you_can provide some specific examples of_these “true skeptic” geologists and their validated criticisms.

Also, I’