Climate Change

[dharocks]

Yesterday, the EPA released its modeling of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill. A lot of the coverage focused on the agency's conclusion that the cap-and-trade program would be quite affordable—costing families less than a dollar a day. But I'd say the most salient part of the analysis was the section Brad Johnson highlighted: If the United States passes something like the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill and helps negotiate an international agreement on carbon emissions, we'll have a 75 percent chance of keeping temperature rises below the danger zone of 2°C. But if we do nothing, our chances of meeting that goal are roughly 1 percent. That's the difference between barreling headlong toward catastrophe and staying safe. And half-measures won't cut it. If the president can't make that case in a major prime-time address in the midst of the biggest environmental disaster in U.S. history, then who can? A speech, in itself, can't force the Senate to act, but Obama can at the very least lay out the situation plainly. Over at the main site today I have a piece arguing that the confused, tepid reaction to the oil spill doesn't bode well for our ability to fend off (or cope with) other major ecological crises. Obama's address last night gave little reason to think otherwise.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/756...climate-change

The Reid Carbon Tax thread has sort of gone in a weird direction, and I actually thought that was something worth discussing anyway.

Among climate scientists, AGW really isn't a controversial topic. I'd say an overwhelming would agree that 1.) global temperatures have risen over the past 200 years, and 2.) humans have a significant impact on global temperatures.

That said, it's certainly a divisive topic politically. Whenever you see Americans surveyed, it seems like the country's split 50/50 among people who believe in AGW and the climate change skeptics/deniers.

What's the deal with that? Inadequate media coverage? Blind partisanship? Do people just believe what they want to believe? Have there been legitimate studies done in the last couple years refuting the idea that humans have an significant effect on global temperatures, and I just haven't heard of them? Someone help me understand what exactly is going on here.

[Dave_78]

Originally Posted by dharocks http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-vine/756...climate-change The Reid Carbon Tax thread has sort of gone in a weird direction, and I actually thought that was something worth discussing anyway. Among climate scientists, AGW really isn't a controversial topic. I'd say an overwhelming would agree that 1.) global temperatures have risen over the past 200 years, and 2.) humans have a significant impact on global temperatures. That said, it's certainly a divisive topic politically. Whenever you see Americans surveyed, it seems like the country's split 50/50 among people who believe in AGW and the climate change skeptics/deniers. What's the deal with that? Inadequate media coverage? Blind partisanship? Do people just believe what they want to believe? Have there been legitimate studies done in the last couple years refuting the idea that humans have an significant effect on global temperatures, and I just haven't heard of them? Someone help me understand what exactly is going on here.

Lack of a strong scientific curriculum in public high schools.

[AustinBriggs]

I have this discussion with my Dad almost everytime I visit him in Corpus. Its like believing things are fine with the gulf cause it hasn't hit Corpus yet. It is funny how people can have blind faith in one thing and not believe what is factually documented on the other.

[Dave_78]

Originally Posted by AustinBriggs I have this discussion with my Dad almost everytime I visit him in Corpus. Its like believing things are fine with the gulf cause it hasn't hit Corpus yet. It is funny how people can have blind faith in one thing and not believe what is factually documented on the other.

This is actually an excellent analogy. Reminds me of when Mojoman used every cold day in Houston as evidence that global warming is not real.

[Depressio]

Originally Posted by Dave_78 This is actually an excellent analogy. Reminds me of when Mojoman used every cold day in Houston as evidence that global warming is not real.

Speaking of which, it's really hot outside. Global warming anyone?