Then again, this is coming from a person who's various nicknames other than Seen always included the title crazy ahead of it.

Anyhow… Jonoh, the 2012hoax website attacks the science, or lack of science, to show that these claims are bogus. The website also provides sources for where the information used for a particular page came from to support its argument.
In my opinion, when the catalyst or catalysts are shown to be implausible or impossible, the believed effects of that or those triggering mechanism/s are also incorrect. The 2012 predictions by Patrick Geryl and others appear to me to ignore scientific method. It would not surprise me if 20 years from now; newer editions of earth science books showing examples of good use and bad use of scientific method would use someone like Patrick Geryl as an example of bad scientific method like Iben Browning and his prediction of a New Madrid earthquake taking place on December 3, 1990 (McConnell "The Good Earth: An Introduction to Earth Science" McGraw-Hill. 2008. pg 16).

Being a child in the time when "Saturday Night Live" was new and fresh, I went through school being called "Mr. Bill".

"Ohh noooo!"

I'm not sure if "Mr. Geek" is a step forward or back. Maybe it's sideways?

There will be no Pole Shift in 2012. How, as someone trained to be a scientist, can I make such a claim? The exact same way I can calmly assert that there are no "aliens", "fairies" and Bigfoot. All evidence is false and the proponents are "crazy".

Is the chance of a Pole Shift the same in 2012 as in any other year? Absolutely. Is this a contradiction? Of course not. This is exactly the same as if I received a note from a "psychic" telling me that a plane will crash into my house tomorrow. Will I pack up and move? Of course not. Is it possible that a plane COULD crash into my house? Sure… I even live near an airport. The POINT is, no one can tell the future. When some dumb booger like Patrick Geryl makes a claim that in 2012 our civilization will "absolutely" be destroyed, yet cannot even BEGIN to explain how he can predict that, then YES, his claim can be dismissed as one more phony psychic predicting plane crashes.

As the Geek-Meister says… it's not up to us to DISPROVE 2012 (though, I admit, it's kinda fun in the specifics) it is up to the whacko tinfoil-hat wearers to SUPPORT the 2012 Doomsday, which, sadly, they are unable to provide much more than 4th grade evidence of, mostly composed of "the aliens told me".*

(* Nancy Lieder, "Doctor" Jaysen Rand and others.)

Regarding "Shifting the Burden", I merely said that no one can say that a specific thing will not happen. If that is being unscientific, I apologize, but I got the impression that the article I read was being categorical that it will not happen.

Yes that is unscientific, and it is the very definition of "shifting the burden". When the proponent of a positive claim resorts to the argument that their assertion is true because the opposition cannot disprove it, then they have lost the debate. It is always the responsibility of the party making the positive claim to show that their position is supported by the evidence.

The basic (i.e., categorical) assertion of this website is that the "2012 doomsday" is nothing more than a money-making vehicle for various authors, video producers, and television studios.

We support this position by showing that the specific arguments made in support of cataclysmic or transformative events in 2012 are unsound, have no evidence, and therefore no basis in fact. We also support that claim by showing that many or most of the proponents have a vested financial interest in promoting the idea of a 2012 doomsday.

We do in fact make specific positive claims as a counterpoint to the various claims made by the proponents, and when we do so we support them with evidence.

I am not asking that it be proven that a pole shift will not occur, however given that the question being asked is "will a geological pole shift occur", how does one answer? I was not saying that there will be a geological pole reversal, I was legitimately saying that it cannot yet be disproved.

Actually, this specific claim can be disproved. We know from geologic evidence that the overall field strength of the earth's magnetic field has a bearing on when pole reversals can occur. I refer you once again to the Magnetic Pole Shift page, and specifically to the second image on that page. Click on it for a higher resolution version, or just look at it here.

This chart is showing the overall field strength of the earth's magnetic field over the last 0.9 million years. The thick black vertical bar represents the time since the last reversal. The dashed line represents a field strength of 4 VADM (10²²Am²). Below 4 VADM the locations of the poles begin to be more mobile, and there is a possibility of an 'excursion'… a significant geomagnetic wander. Under 2 VADM the possibility of a polar reversal becomes significant. Currently the level is a bit under 6 VADM, and dropping. The best estimate of when the field strength could drop under 2 VADM is somewhere between 1000 and 5000 years at the earliest… if the field strength continues to drop at its current rate.

In other words, based on the evidence before us, there is no possibility of a pole shift occurring in the next three years.

Second point: The geologic record is clear on the fact that pole shifts do not happen within a few hours, days, weeks, months or years. They occur over extended periods of time, usually thousands of years. This is sudden only on a geologic time frame. I refer you to the sources of the Magnetic Pole Shift page for the supporting citations.

In other words, it is impossible to say that even if we are at the beginning of a pole shift now, that it would occur in 2012. Rather it would occur over several hundred to a few thousand years.

A subtil difference from demanding proof of something NOT occurring, which is shifting the burden.

Not really. You are trying to make a distinction without a difference. You attracted my attention on twitter with the claim that you were 'debunking the debunkers'. You appear to be claiming that our position is incorrect, and are therefore requesting that we stipulate that a pole shift in 2012 cannot be ruled out. That is "shifting the burden". Regardless, we have answered your request with evidence, and you have not provided any evidence in support of the claim you are defending.

Moving on, you appear to be stipulating to my four bullet points. However, your final paragraph has me puzzled. You say:

In all seriousness though, attempting to prove that there will not be a pole reversal is not shifting the burden. This is a theory. Prove what will happen then!

I'm not sure what you mean. We are the ones showing that a pole reversal will not happen. You appear to be defending Geryl's claim that a solar-flare induced pole shift will happen between December 19th and 23rd 2012. If that is not your position, then what, exactly, are you arguing?

Then you demand that we "Prove what will happen". This is, once again, shifting the burden. We do not need to prove what will happen in order to refute the specific claim of a pole reversal. We merely need to show that the claim of a pole reversal in 2012 is not based on evidence. We go well beyond this, and show that the claim of a pole reversal in 2012 is actually counter to the available evidence.

To the three points:
(1) A coronal mass ejection can be predicted 3 years in advance
Statistical analysis of solar actiovity is based on about 200 or so years of recorded data. I do not believe that 3 years advanced prediction can be made based on this small sample size. I am under the impression that the sunspot cycle is behaving atypically this time around, so to be able to use historical data may be even more difficult. You'd need better technology than what we have to predict what the sun will do 3 years from now.

(2) Geryl can predict the electromagnetic alignment of this CME
A laughable proposition, given that he is an author with a personal agenda and not a scientist!

(3) The ions of the CME can 'overload' the polarity of the earth's magnetic field
This is the interesting bit to me. What has been happening to the earth's magnetic field since 1980? Unless some scientists are lieing, it has been weakening and drifting around in its polar alignment in a more dramatic way than the past. I'll get some references for this, unless you know what I am talking about already. A theory states that the magnetosphere is weakening and that this will open up the earth to a pole reversal due to mentioned overloading at one of the poles.

(4) the currents within the earth will react to this
They will or they won't, depending on what theory you subscribe to.

What happened to Mars's magnetic field? This is unknown. It is the unknown that scares people and folks like Geryl are capitalizing on people's fear. It is however relevant and appropriate to disprove specific things that are the result of theories that explain scientific observation. Purple fairies pulling the planet round or asking to prove that all the chinese wil not jump in unison on the 21st Dec 2012, causing a giant earthquake are indeed Shifting the Burden!
In all seriousness though, attempting to prove that there will not be a pole reversal is not shifting the burden. This is a theory. Prove what will happen then!

Let's dig right in:

2012 is a solar maximum year. This means solar flares will, under normal cyclical circumstances, be large and possibly spectacular.

Actually, the timing of the solar max has been pushed back to Spring of 2013. In addition, the timing of the Solar Max has very little to do with the size of CME events. The largest recorded geomagnetic storm (the "Carrington Event") occurred at a solar minimum. Solar max has to do with the increased frequency of activity, and does not necessarily dictate size or intensity. See our Solar Flares page for details on this.

… and there has been an indication that increased solar activity has a bearing on plate tectonics.

Please support that statement.

The mechanism within the planet that generates the magnetic field is not yet fully understood.

This is true. We say as much.

This leaves arguments about why there will definitely not be a magnetic pole reversal open to ridicule by rude logical people! You cannot categorically say there will not be.

You have just committed a logical fallacy, called "Shifting the Burden". It is up to people who make the positive claim (i.e., that there will be a sudden shift in the poles) to provide the evidence for their claim. On the other hand, the null hypothesis is that the geologic record shows no signs of sudden pole shifts followed by cataclysmic destruction.

I am given to understand that hardened Magma core samples say otherwise.

You are confusing the known geomagnetic reversals with Geryl's sudden "pole shift". The first is supported by science. Geryl's ideas are not. Please refer to our Magnetic Pole Shift page.

The magnetic poles do flip in a cyclical way, and quickly.

The process is not a regular periodic process. These occur at irregular intervals ranging from around 500,000 years to 40 million. The term 'quickly' is also misleading. The geomagnetic reversal occurs 'quickly' in geologic time, but probably takes several hundred years on the low end to a couple of thousand years on the high end.

The plasma that surrounds the earth does not 'push' the planet in any way! The mass pof the plasma is not a factor. The considered factor is how the plasma effects the currently enigmatic magnetic field of the earth. The geological pole reversal mechanism is based on a theory of how the earth's magnetic field is generated. The overloading of ions migrate to one of the existing earth poles and overload that polarity. The currents within the earth must react and this reaction is the root of all the fuss about hyge plasmas overloading our magnetosphere.

This is not what Geryl claims. We quote his claims directly. Look at his explanation of the pole reversal on the Penn & Teller episode. He claims that the core of the earth will be moved.

In addition you would have to show that a huge coronal mass ejection can (1) be predicted 3 years in advance, (2) that Geryl can predict the electromagnetic alignment of this CME, (3) that the ions of the CME can 'overload' the polarity of the earth's magnetic field and that (4) the currents within the earth will react to this. Simply asserting that it is true is not good enough.

2012 is a solar maximum year. This means solar flares will, under normal cyclical circumstances, be large and possibly spectacular. Solar activity has been associated with power surges and blackouts and there has been an indication that increased solar activity has a bearing on plate tectonics.

The mechanism within the planet that generates the magnetic field is not yet fully understood. This leaves arguments about why there will definitely not be a magnetic pole reversal open to ridicule by rude logical people! You cannot categorically say there will not be. I am given to understand that hardened Magma core samples say otherwise. The magnetic poles do flip in a cyclical way, and quickly. What this means for the biosphere or stability of the earth is still open to theory. Some theories about what will happen are scary. The other theories are touted as fact by 2012 disaster debunkers!

I also have to mention that the Patrick Geryl debunking failed to understand some of what he is attempting to convey:
The plasma that surrounds the earth does not 'push' the planet in any way! The mass pof the plasma is not a factor. The considered factor is how the plasma effects the currently enigmatic magnetic field of the earth. The geological pole reversal mechanism is based on a theory of how the earth's magnetic field is generated. The overloading of ions migrate to one of the existing earth poles and overload that polarity. The currents within the earth must react and this reaction is the root of all the fuss about hyge plasmas overloading our magnetosphere.