Putting the rational back in geology

First, I love this quote

The Register: Australian geologist Ian Plimer spent a lot of time on CO₂ emissions from submarine volcanoes, which he said are not measured…”For people to call me a Climate Change denier is a demonstration of public ignorance – geology is all about change – it’s the science of climate change,”

This is what’s so funny about the AGW set. They think people are arguing whether the climate is changing. I think they’re simply asking whether they’ve mixed correlation and causation …but I digress. The Register reports on a May 2011 meeting between Climate change skeptics and AGW  proponants in Cambridge

…Nobody ambushed the CRU crew all day – it was all very polite. I noted that the skeptics made a point of listening politely to the warmists, and applauding them all. A group of students and a few others, simply giggled and mocked the skeptics, however from start to finish. ….I wondered why they had attended at all….

The most passionate believers in the view that man is irreparably changing the climate are the people with the long lists of radical remedies already prepared; their politics needs the catastrophe, for nobody would entertain their politics for a moment – it wouldn’t be mainstream – if it didn’t come with a catastrophe attached. Take away the catastrophe, and their politics collapses like a house of cards

Hopefully this comes across as neutral as I believe the author intended. If there was no catastrophe, there’d be no need for a lot of what the U.N. is attempting right now. There’d be no need to spend millions to create 14 jobs that last less than a year. There’s no need for this kind of shady (is this legal?)  job-killing behavior within the EPA reported at Hot Air

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is today making public an internal study on climate science which was suppressed by the Environmental Protection Agency. Internal EPA email messages, released by CEI earlier in the week, indicate that the report was kept under wraps and its author silenced because of pressure to support the Administration’s agenda of regulating carbon dioxide.”

Note a CERN (super computer) press release where the scientists do their best to very calmly ( in the most unemotional scientific prose possible) indicate that the climate change models need to be redone to account for the impact of cosmic rays in forming clouds.

Climate models will have to be revised, confirms CERN in supporting literature…When Dr Kirkby first described the theory in 1998, he suggested cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century…   Henrik Svensmark believes the solar-cosmic ray factor is just one of four factors in climate. The other three are: volcanoes, a “regime shift” that took place in 1977, and residual anthropogenic components.

What happens if scientific data becomes the real inconvenient truth in the mix?

UPDATE: Track back to Pirate’s Cove, who also notices the data is drying up….