Global Warming Debate Update | Robert Frank |MIT
GreenTracker| Writing for the NYTimes, Robert Frank has put forth a comparatively neutral essay on global warming, compared to yesterday’s tirade by Dr. Jeffrey Sachs in The Guardian.
Frank also doesn’t acknowledge the confusion among intelligent people and tends to crate two climage camps, but he uses his words to inform, not berate, which is relevant to me.
Frank cites sources including the Integrated Global Systems Model at MIT, which I will read. The website appears to be logical and highly detailed. And the analysis is integrated and holistic, which is critical to me.
In all my reading, this is the first time I’ve been introduced to this model and MIT website, instead of the UN and East Anglia — even before ‘Climategate’.
According to the MIT models (writes Frank), the median forecast from assorted climate models is a median forecast climb of 9 degrees Fahrenheit by the century’s end, in the absence of effective countermeasures.
That forecast, however, may underestimate the increase. According to the same M.I.T. model, there is a 10 percent chance that the average global temperature will rise more than 12.4 degrees by 2100, and a 3 percent chance it will climb more than 14.4 degrees. Warming on that scale would be truly catastrophic.
Scientists say that even the 3.6-degree increase would spell widespread loss of life, so it’s hardly alarmist to view the risk of inaction as frightening.
There is a cost of action to mitigate climate change, although I’m not clear how much can be accomplished by humans with a carbon tax. We can do a lot, but can we forestall any natural evolution towards a warmer climate, as has happened in history? I don’t know. Most of us would die anyway.
On our end, we are committed to taking this topic of climate change out of Palin|Gore ‘self-evident’ soundbite accusations, laying out the arguments of both side in some kind of coherent fashion.
FYI, I’ve noticed this morning that the scientific community is acknowledging that their communication skills with the general public have been poor. This is a first step in trying to communicate accurate information about the situation to global citizens, who must buy into the costs they will bear in trying to mitigate the problem.
Read on: A Small Price for a Large Benefit NY Times
Climate Change Debate Over? It’s Just Begun! American Thinker (this essay isn’t particularly good or informative, but I want to include opposing arguments, which we will look for.)
More reading Top Scientists Affirm Consensus on Global Warming Environmental News Service
Climategate’s guerrilla warriors: pesky foes or careful watchdogs? The Globa and Mail
Share Article Sun, February 21, 2010 1 Comment in Nature, World Events tagged climate change, climate politics
Reader Comments (1)
I would just like to say that there isn't that much of a major concern over global warming anymore. One of the two major political parties (Republicans) has no interest in addressing climate change. In fact, Republicans are increasingly denying that climate change is even a problem. Out of all the Republican contenders for the Senate in 2010, none support action on climate change, and most deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming.The media has done a terrible job covering climate science, and as a result the public is very poorly informed and often misinformed about the science. When the public doesn't understand the science, it's hard to make them understand that climate change is a problem we need to address.The economy is in the crapper. The public is much more concerned about creating jobs and fixing the economy, and as a result climate change has been put on the backburner.