Everything you ever wanted to know about climate change...
...but were too afraid to ask.
Via Jason Bo Green comes an absolutely amazing article on climate change by Kerry Emanuel. It details the science, controversy and politics from an objective perspective, giving all sides their say and throwing plenty of blame at the extremists on both the left and right.
It'll take you a long time to read through it, but Emanuel explains complex science in a very easy to understand way and after reading this you'll have a much greater understanding of climate change. I know I did.
Bitching about Liberal or Tory policy will take a lot less time but trust me on this - it's well worth the read.
Via Jason Bo Green comes an absolutely amazing article on climate change by Kerry Emanuel. It details the science, controversy and politics from an objective perspective, giving all sides their say and throwing plenty of blame at the extremists on both the left and right.
It'll take you a long time to read through it, but Emanuel explains complex science in a very easy to understand way and after reading this you'll have a much greater understanding of climate change. I know I did.
Bitching about Liberal or Tory policy will take a lot less time but trust me on this - it's well worth the read.
posted by calgarygrit at
12:55 a.m.
13 Comments:
Thanks for this a good read.
By
EUGENE PLAWIUK, at 8:45 a.m.
THANKS for putting this up, man!!! It is the BEST read on climate science ever, I've emailed it out to so many people in hopes they would read it.
Two comment threads ago, I mentioned that I was directed to the article by Dodos, to whom I'm eternally grateful! :)
(Jose, if I recall correctly, Dodos originally found this on realclimate.org - I've never heard of the site til this week!)
D/art, you're the best.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:10 a.m.
Let me get this straight, if a group predicts man-made climate change catastrophe and another group considers it statos quo for our planet that has experienced far greater climate swings in its five-billion year old history, how do you get "extremists on both left and right?"
By
Dr. Strangelove, at 10:17 a.m.
Speaking for myself, personally, Dr. Strangelove, I think that either position is acceptable. "Extremists" in my mind are those who shout down others without engaging in a reasonable, honest debate.
(Between the two positions you give, I think the truth is far in between the both of them, personally)
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:30 a.m.
Perhaps the most bizarre aspect of this report is that while it attempts to cover many aspects of the issue, including the political debate, he never once mentions Kyoto. Not once. He had a terrific opportunity to do so when he remarks, "...political debate about global climate change became polarized along the conservative–liberal axis some decades ago. Although we take this for granted now, it is not entirely obvious why the chips fell the way they did." HELLO KYOTO!!!
As even-handed as this report appears, the professor's bias is amply illuminated by this statement, "...this soap opera is kept alive by a dwindling number of deniers constantly tapped for interviews by journalists who pretend to look for balance."
While I appreciate the reference, I've read most of this stuff before from google searches.
By
Dr. Strangelove, at 11:19 a.m.
By the way Jason, you may have noticed the term "deniers" employed by Jose in the first comment as well as Prof. Emanuel. This term is used pejoratively by the AGW crowd. I could just as easily call them deniers of non-AGW. The truth is that one side believes one thing, the other believes another. Each denies the other's hypothesis.
I can understand how this term is thrown around by the great unwashed in the blogosphere commentariat (deniers/alarmists). But when employed by someone of the Professor's stature, it's not a contributor to one's credibility in the political discussion.
By
Dr. Strangelove, at 11:37 a.m.
Bud, you are right - we count for, what, is it 1.9% of the emissions believed to cause warming? Or is it 2. something - anyway, it's very little. And China and India are exactly as you say, about to go into energy production big-time. This is part of why I feel Kyoto is a joke.
Well Strangelove (I loved your movie, btw!), I took that comment to mean journalists pretending to look for balance were interviewing crazies on either side. I got zero time for "radical" environmentalists crying about the end of the world.
I felt the article dished it out well to both sides. And while I'm with you that Kyoto is nuts (I believe that is your position), I think the left-right split on the debate happened before that idea. However, I don't doubt that Kyoto pressed the sides further apart, that is very probable.
By
Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:04 p.m.
leopetr: ". Are you saying that Global Warming is not Anthropogenic (ie not caused by humans)? If so, do you think that the correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is due to coincidence rather than causation? How do you dispute the evidence?"
Simple leo. Every time the earth has warmed in the past, which is several, and for most of earth's history, increased levels of CO2 have been present. Since this is the same this time, the presence of humans to witness the warming is the coincidence, not the causation.
By
Peter, at 8:16 p.m.
"...do you think that the correlation between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures is due to coincidence rather than causation?"
Since in at least some of the past warming / CO2 events the temperature rise has preceeded the increase in CO2, it is possible that they are both responding to another driver, as well.
By
deaner, at 12:23 a.m.
Yes it really is a good survey and gathers up many strands. But at the moment I would like to know what Harper has sent Baird, the political equivalent of Dave Semenko, to Paris for. I mean the work is done, the editing worked or fought out to a printable version, and all that remains is to hand out the copies. Is Baird over there for a photo op in a line up to receive the wisdom of science, which he may deliver to his boss who clearly needs some edicating. Or is he to come back with the inside dope from one of the Denialist hustlers who are probably hanging around outside the hall like ticket scalpers. Pick one.
By
garhane, at 7:51 p.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
pheenster, at 2:17 a.m.
Deleted my last comment after further review because some might have interpreted it as giving some credence to ID (which I definitively do not).
However, this still needs to be called out:
I don't disrespect them simply because their opinions differ from mine. I disrespect them because their behaviour warrants disrespect.
So hating some people is OK? Sounds like religious talk to me.
By
pheenster, at 2:27 a.m.
2015-12-22keyun
uggs boots for women
adidas originals store
michael kors outlet clearance
north face jackets
ugg boots
jordan shoes
ray-ban sunglasses
nike air max uk
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
marc jacobs outlet
ugg boots
michael kors outlet
cheap ugg boots
prada handbags
canada goose jackets
ugg boots on sale
louis vuitton purses
ugg australia
gucci handbags
kids lebron shoes
michael kors outlet online
timberlands
adidas superstar shoes
uggs outlet
louis vuitton purses
beats by dre
michael kors outlet
canada goose
ray bans
nike running shoes for men
canada goose sale
cheap rolex watches
ugg outlet
michael kors outlet sale
discount jordans
oakley store
hollister
uggs sale
jordan 11 concord
By
柯云, at 8:03 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home