Title: Letters to the Editors
Publication: The Outcrop, May 2004, p. 14
Editors’ note: The March lead article, “Carbon Storage in the Rockies – How do we address the challenges?” by Genevieve Young, elicited the responses published below. The RMAG represents geoscientists from many disciplines, and the primary purpose of The Outcrop is to serve the RMAG membership as a newsletter. As such, we report on the studies and projects underway from many august institutions such as those participating in this study. We strongly encourage the membership to contribute their comments and suggestions.
We enjoyed reading your nice article “Carbon Storage in the Rockies” in the March edition of the RMAG newsletter. It is a service to readers to update them on this rapidly evolving topic. We noted an error in the lack of mention of the Texas participation by the Bureau of Economic Geology to cover that critical part of the map area.
Dr. Susan D. Hovorka, Research Scientist, Bureau of Economic Geology
John A. and Katherine G. Jackson School of Geosciences
Box X, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX 78713
phone (512)471-4863, fax (512)471-0140
web: http://www.gulfcoastcarbon,org, e-mail: email@example.com
I’m writing to comment on the cover article from RMAG’s March, 2004 Outcrop titled “Carbon Storage in the Rockies – How do we address the challenges” by Genevieve Young from the Colorado Geologic Survey.
As a long time geologist and member of RMAG, I am very troubled when this type of article is published by the primary geologic organization for this region. Although it seems innocent enough, it gives the appearance of a “stamp-of-approval” from another scientific body towards the legitimacy of the highly debatable concept of manmade, greenhouse gasses as the cause of global warming.
What I find especially irritating is the deafening silence on this matter from our professional organizations, which has in part contributed to the mistaken perception by the general public that the scientific community has totally bought into this mythology. I would offer that if anyone were selling oil and gas prospects based on as little evidence as is presented to sell the global warming scare, they’d be laughed out of the office.
Unfortunately, the implementation of greenhouse gas “solutions” is not a laughing matter. Besides being a complete waste of time and effort, it would likely lead to dire economic and political consequences for the country.
It goes without saying that all entities should operate in the most environmentally responsible manner at all times. Wanton polluters should be brought to justice. But it is completely absurd to legislate penalties for CO2 emissions based on this bogus, unproven theory, which in reality is a distraction from genuine environmental problems.
Based on discussions with fellow geologists, I suspect that a good majority of the rank-and-file membership of RMAG believe that the evidence for the greenhouse gas theory is very suspect and under whelming. We, as earth scientists and earth historians, are uniquely informed and qualified to judge global warming issues and to consider the earth’s present climate within its proper historical context. It’s past high time that geoscientist associations like RMAG and the AAPG begin to advocate the beliefs and principles of their own membership in this regard, rather than advertising the inane and punitive measures enacted by government bureaucracies.
The real “challenge” for the reputable scientist is the quest for the truth-of-the-matter, not the advancement of a politically-correct agenda.
Robert J. Kenney, Condor Exploration LLC
Member, Rocky Mountain Association of Geologists