'When the facts change I change my mind' and so should you.

Show More

Posts tagged with climate

Sep 4, 2012

Comments

4 notes

“…But Clean Energy is Expensive”

I have a problem. Whenever I try to explain why humans should take serious steps to combat climate change if I’m not immediately facing long refuted myths I’m shortly hit with very bad arguments. When this happens, I have to contain the disbelief I want to show on my face and gently explain conclusions which I’d hope were obvious to everyone.

However disheartening it is to hear the 2012 Republican and Democratic platforms both downplay climate change relative to their platforms in 2008, I think I’m personally more frustrated by speaking with individuals who by and large accept climate change is happening, and is a serious challenge, yet still regularly produce a string of terrible arguments for why we shouldn’t do anything to combat climate change. Perhaps at the top of that is list if the often repeated focus on the current price of renewable or clean energy. This frequently falls off lips as something like “We shouldn’t do anything until the price of clean energy is competitive with gas and oil.” This, I think, is not just a bad idea because I have different values than those who utter these words, it’s a terrible argument for inaction on any issue even if you don’t think switching to clean energy will solve our the problem.

Having a high threshold for the potential long term costs of an action so long as the short term costs are low is value judgement. It’s not one I would endorse on this climate change but it is a possible reasonable position. However, categorically ignoring the possible long term costs, no matter what they are, because of the short term costs of a decision is irrational.

This would be obvious if instead of climate we were talking about a non-politicized issue like car maintenance. The family who says “We aren’t going to get our brakes fixed right now even though there are long term risks of not doing so.” is making a value judgment which may or may not be a good decision. Conversely, the family who says “It’s cheaper to not get our brakes fixed today so we shouldn’t no matter what the long term costs are.” has obviously failed to account for all the consequences of their actions. Believe it or not actions we take don’t just have immediate effects for the here and now but also have consequences for the future. In what is perhaps one of the least shocking conclusions I’ve been reduced to explaining to people, tomorrow is coming whether or not you plan for it.

Jul 28, 2012

Comments

6 notes

Medieval Warm Period — fact vs. fiction

The demonstrably false claim that the medieval warming period was warmer than today just won’t die because climate science critics never fail to come up with new recycled reasons as to why they think that it was.

This video looks at the scientific research to answer three basic questions: 1) Was the Medieval Warm Period global? 2) Was it warmer than today? 3) And what does this all mean anyway? I examine the internet feud over the hockey stick and the various myths and misinterpretations about the Medieval Warm Period that seem to be rife on the Internet. My sources for the myths are blogs and videos; my sources for the facts are scientific papers…

potholer54

Jul 23, 2012

Comments

2 notes

What a Climate Change Conspiracy Would Mean

I get into a lot of arguments discussions about conspiracies but the one that most bothers me of late is climate change. Over time in these discussions I realized that the alleged conspiracy would have to be the largest ever by a wide margin and, because no one else had, I built up a list of what would have to be true for climate science, as a whole, to be a conspiracy. After the jump is the quite long but still not complete version of this story:

Read More

Jun 9, 2012

Comments

1 note

Is the Science of Global Warming Settled Enough for Policy?

The late Stephen Schneider delivers an engaging talk on the science of climate change and it’s implications for policy. Schneider was great at explaining what the science of climate change is and at helping the average person weed through the absurd media discussion of the topic.

Dr. Schneider is the Inaugural Visitor in the Zurich Financial Services Distinguished Visitors Program on Climate Change. He is the Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies, Professor of Biological Sciences, and a Senior Fellow in the Woods Institute for the Environment at Stanford University. From 1973-1996 he served as a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where he co-founded the Climate Project. His research focuses on climate-change science, integrated assessment of ecological and economic impacts of human-induced climate change, and identifying viable climate policies and technological solutions. He has consulted for federal agencies and White House staff in six administrations.

(Source: youtube.com)

Jun 3, 2012

Comments

32 notes

Climate Change Denial Fallacies

Some of the funniest exposures of common arguments behind climate change denial I’ve ever seen from a talk on separating skepticism from climate denial by Richard Milne.

(Source: )

Mar 12, 2012

Comments

1 note

The Mash Up 3-12-12

A collection of items not particularly worthy of an individual post

  • I’m attending the Reason Rally… and I’m going in road trip fashion. This should be interesting to say the least with the long trip from Chicago to D.C. and because no one really knows how many people are going to show. Naturally I’ll cover my trip.
  • I’ve fleshed out my page with a long overdue simple links page on my favorite skeptical resources and like the NCSE I’ve also expanded into climate science (except, of course, I provide none of the expertise). Forever ago I’ve also created a simple page on what I am, have, and will be reading but I just added the beginnings of a list of books I recommend. Check these out… or don’t. No pressure.
  • If you aren’t watching the Vlog Brothers’ SciShow and Crash Course you are both missing out and, judging by the number of views their videos get, you may be the only person on the interwebs not to do so.
  • Did I mention you can follow me on Twitter?
  • This kind of post will become a regular occurrence

That is all

Aug 29, 2011

Comments

43 notes

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism

reblogged from divineirony

divineirony:

Scientific skepticism is healthy. In fact, science by its very nature is skeptical. Genuine skepticism means considering the full body of evidence before coming to a conclusion. However, when you take a close look at arguments expressing climate ‘skepticism’, what you often observe is cherry picking of pieces of evidence while rejecting any data that don’t fit the desired picture. This isn’t skepticism. It is ignoring facts and the science.

The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism looks at both the evidence that human activity is causing global warming and the ways that climate ‘skeptic’ arguments can mislead by presenting only small pieces of the puzzle rather than the full picture. 

This is a great site which explains in detail the evidence for climate change and the evidence this is caused by humans while addressing all of the common claims of climate change ‘skeptics.’