Responses to 'Are There Benefits to Climate Change?'

Space doesn’t allow us to include all the responses to last month’s article covering Gregory Wrightstone’s talk at the Unconventional Resources Technology Conference, “How Rising Temperatures and Increasing CO2 Are Benefitting the Planet and the Human Condition,” nor some of the responses in their entirety.

Please log in to read the full article

Comments (7)

Following the data
I fully support the editor's position here. However, editors need to take care in what they choose to publish. Take, for example, Dr. Wrightstone's figure (link here:, which was published in the Bulletin. While the Bulletin is not a scientific journal, as a publication for scientists, it does have the obligation to apply scientific scrutiny to what gets published, just as an editor of a newspaper should apply the same factual scrutiny to whatever is published in the newspaper. Dr. Wrightstone's figure is the very definition of cherry-picking data. The dashed line is not a regression line - it's a qualitative interpretation, a clear example of Dr. Wrightstone seeing what he wants to see. By truncating the data at the Maunder Minimum*, and connecting the dashed lines to recent years hot temperatures, it gives an indication of 300 years of continuous increase. It takes only a cursory glance at the graph to see that a possible interpretation of the data is a cold period around the time of the Maunder Minimum, followed by nearly 200 years of stasis, followed by the 20th century period of warming. Time series data, especially noisy ones, are notoriously difficult to evaluate, but it is deceptive to plot a dashed line through two data points and call it a trend. *The Maunder Minimum occurs during the Little Ice Age, the loosely-defined, but generally accepted term for this cold period. The Maunder Minimum refers to a diminished amount of sunspot activity. However, the diminished sunspot activity is shorter than, and post-dates the onset, of the period cooling. The current most likely explanation of the cooling is global volcanism. No causal relationship between sunspot activity and temperature has been established (the way, for example, a causal relationship was established centuries ago between greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperature)
Show more
9/25/2018 2:55:38 PM
Climate change debate
Appreciate AAPG's effort in bringing the climate change debate among the geologists who are much better informed on the history of warming and cooling cycles the earth went through. Earlier, the issue strayed almost irrevocably into a well meaning emotional crowd of lawyers, politicians, chemists and environmentalists with minimal contribution from the geologists. While being engaged with the issue of climate change we need to remember that: i. CO2 is rising but, as it did so much earlier too (in Eocene and Paleocene for example) without assistance from humans, our race need not take the blame (if it's a blame at all) upon themselves. ii. CO2 being plant feed, the greening of earth that Mr. Wrightstone talks about looks a logical consequence. iii. Throughout the discussion we need to bear in mind, that the contrarian view doesn't necessarily deny that the earth is warming up. It says that the warming is not anthropogenic. Therefore, the stunning videos of ice crumbling somewhere can be allowed some rest. Much of what Mr. Wrightstone has said was published by AAPG in 2001 (Geological Perspective of Global Climate Change-AAPG Studies in Geology#47). He has added recent data and information. Looking forward to see a very objective, scientific debate.
Show more
9/22/2018 1:40:09 AM
Kudos for scrupulous efforts
Kudos to Mr. Wrightstone for compiling factual data which presents to the reader, both scientist and non-scientist, plain and simple evidence for what we know about the current state our planet with regards to climate change today. There is no effort to cherry pick data here, nor to present biased anecdotal evidence from one side or the other on this important issue. His work represents a well-documented alternative response to what the public is force-fed every day from the media, academia, and late night political entertainment industry. As scientists we recognize the importance of healthy and responsible skepticism in the analysis of data, and should applaud Mr. Wrightstone for his scrupulous efforts. Craig A. Eckert
Show more
9/14/2018 10:04:48 AM
Dig Deeper
How many of us read one article and decide it must be truth? Probably none of us- we are well educated scientists who thrive on data. I was intrigued to see a completely different narrative on climate change than that of the prevailing majority, the more information the better regardless of side. There were points brought up that I had not considered before and if we are to have an opinion we should base it on all available sources- not just the ones we want to hear. It is up to us as Explorer readers and geoscientists to dig deeper after reading an article like "Are there Benefits.." and figure out whether or not we draw similar conclusions from the studies he presented.
Show more
9/10/2018 11:36:16 AM
Follow the data
This was a great article by AAPG. Wrightstone is following the data and he isn't the only one. It's not like he is making this up, a number climate scientists, geologists and other scientists have been debunking some of the most basic concepts of climate change for years. Cruise the references in his book, keep an open mind and follow the data.
9/8/2018 10:01:21 AM
Finally the Climate Change Dogma is Challenged
AAPG should be pushing hard against the climate change dogma that has infected academia. For too long, dissent has been crushed by the power of the dogmatists to deny funding for any view different than their own. This is not science at work; it is group-think of the worst kind. It is hard to break the hegemony of the climate science mono-culture but every effort to crack the "consensus" facade is valuable. Thank you Explorer for doing so.
9/7/2018 4:25:28 PM
Explorer Response to "Are There Benefits to Climate Change"
It's good to see the Explorer and AAPG address the article titled "Are there benefits to climate change". I am glad to see that they will publish some form of rebuttal next month. However, there are some comments from the editor that do please need addressing. The Explorer is not a peer-reviewed medium. However, this does not mean that the Explorer should be publishing claims that are demonstrably false or selectively cherry-picked to misinform. As has been pointed out here, using evidence and peer-reviewed sources (, the majority of the Explorer article was demonstrably false. A lack of peer-review does not excuse Explorer's writers and editors from undertaking fact checking on what it presents. It is distressing to see such obvious falsehoods published in Explorer and simply dismissed with 'well, its not peer-reviewed'. The editor states that "It simply isn’t possible to give due attention to all sides of it in a single sitting". This is true. There is evidence from >100000 peer-reviewed papers that has resulted in the anthropogenic global warming theory, a theory that has been openly endorsed by every major science agency and organisation in the world (with AAPG as a notable exclusion). However, that doesn't mean that AAPG cannot try to educate its members on actual climate science. Rather than a single rebuttal, why can't AAPG Explorer present a regular series on the topic? Why not a short piece each issue explaining AGW, and some of the common fallacies and myths, to its members? After all, for every scientist like Gregory Wrightstone, there are >30 who disagree with his views. I don't see AAPG giving such 'equal balance' to those disputing plate tectonics or abiotic hydrocarbons - why would AAPG do it on climate? AAPG members can learn from climate science. I sincerely hope AAPG elects to educate, rather than misinform, and will publish factual science on this important topic in the future
Show more
9/2/2018 8:58:38 PM

You may also be interested in ...