Foster in error
Sir, Stephen W Foster's letter (Dec/Jan Geoscientist) conflates several issues. First, it is true that not all members can subscribe to all the Society's position statements. The Society is a democracy, but democracy has its limitations. (Cartoon example: The left is traditionally associated with liberalism and state-run ventures and the right with authoritarianism and free enterprises. However some on the right are liberal and some on the left value private enterprise in a mixed economy, yet they vote the way they do.) This is why the Society constantly asks for Fellows to stand for Council, participate on committees, and vote so as to make it as democratic as we humanly can, flaws and all. (Indeed the only reason I have not put myself forward for any role is that I belong to neither academia nor industry and so could not be representative of the fellowship at large.)
Stephen opines that the IPCC does "not reflect the views… of even a majority of meteorologists, climatologists and physicists". Actually, surveys of those working in climate change related science (including geologists and physicists) from Oreskes, N., (Science, 306, 1686) onwards demonstrate that the majority do agree with the IPCC's core conclusions and only disagree in aspects of its detail and nuance; but then the IPCC is providing a consensus view. The Geological Society's view largely chimes with that of other learned bodies including the Royal Society and indeed the international collective of such academies.
Stephen says that the case for CO2 concentrations being a cause of direct temperature change "has not been proved". Leaving aside the philosophical question of strictly not being able to prove anything, science works by falsification (see works of Karl Popper and others). So if there is an alternative view to the IPCC's it is up to science 'sceptics' to try to falsify it with a contrary view that better fits all the evidence as a whole. Yet after a quarter of a century since the IPCC was established, this they have failed to do so turning climate 'scepticism' into 'denial'.
Stephen also says '"we can see from the past that the climate warms when CO2 goes up" but it is equally valid to say that "as temperatures rise so do too CO2 concentrations"'. In fact, this is the IPCC's view regarding glacials and interglacials: Milankovitch insolation variations act as a pacemaker of the ice ages and various feedbacks amplify the temperature change between semi-stable climate modes. For example: as the Earth cools so CO2 is drawn into the oceans enhancing cooling and as it warms the ocean vents the greenhouse gas amplifying the warming. Among the latest supporting evidence for this is Shakun et al. (Nature, 484, 49-55). They note that "a net global warming of about 0.3°C precedes the initial increase in CO2 concentration at 17.5 kyr ago" (the Milankovitch pacemaker) and that subsequently the deglaciation saw "warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations" exactly as conventional theory predicts (you need the greenhouse gas to provide the warming). This neither alters the fact that we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere today, nor CO2's thermal-absorbing properties that can me tested in most school laboratories.
Finally, despite saying climate change "has become politicised to such a degree it is now almost impossible to hold reasoned debate" Foster goes on to say that "the wider public is being deceived by pseudoscientific reports". This is derogatory to the professionalism of the IPCC and the literally thousands of researchers' papers cited by three IPCC Working Groups over five Assessments together with an assortment of interim specialist reports. He then says that this is "largely driven by the politics of academic science", a statement that more than suggests a lack of ethical standards and hints at fraudulent behaviour. I am indebted to Stephen alerting us to this. He should present his evidence to the authorities forthwith: there may well be a legal case for fraud and, indeed, he warns that "science in general, and this Society in particular, will suffer".