2011-08-19 01:11:06Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?


Climate Ethics: What Can Science Tell Us?

2011-08-24 05:33:00
Dana Nuccitelli

Looks good.  When you link to John's post on Samson, I would instead link to the rebuttal CO2 limits will hurt the poor (which John created from the post you link).  Bart Verheggen also had a recent post on his blog on a similar subject that you might want to reference/link. 

2011-08-24 06:17:08Agreed re linking to rebuttal
John Cook

The general rule of thumb (more a suggestion than a rule) is if there is a choice between rebuttal or blog post, link to the rebuttal. They're where we want traffic going.

Curious about figure 2 - if it shows global warming of 1.2 degrees, why does each location show warming of 4 to 6 degrees?

2011-08-24 06:19:20BTW, great post
John Cook

Thanks for spotting this paper. This is a crucial theme and being a big fan of the educational power of repetition, bears mentioning at every opportunity.
2011-08-24 07:18:40


Thanks, I put in the Bart link and corrected to the rebuttal.


John, if I understand your question, the 1.2 is only to show when the temperature (summer) begins to move outside the normal variability (over the last 50-100 years depending on confidence in poor temp records).  The rest of the warming up until 2100 isn't the focus of the paper, but shown anyway for perspective, I assume.

2011-08-24 07:54:35
Rob Painting

Under the 2nd figure -"Early onset of significant local warming inlow latitude countries" = in low.

Looks good.

2011-08-25 13:31:22Leading with Gore
Dan Friedman

Don't you think leading off with Al Gore and Inconvenient Truth will bring out the nut job deniers in force?

2011-08-25 21:26:02


Thanks Rob, fixed.


Muoncounter - It's a fair point and I hinted at it in the post.  I use Gore because he was the first "big" name to present climate change as an ethics issue and has a good understanding how to frame the risks involved.  But it's a catch-22 because while he communicates to independents and liberals, he is also a target for all opposing to frame the issue as political.  This is the challenge we face.  How to make the science and the ethics the focus?  The opposition has tried to make Gore out to be an exaggerator and a political operative.  That needs to be turned around.  He's a great communicator who knows how to make people understand the risks and ethical dilemmas.  There's a reason why skeptics keep telling us to "disown" Gore.  They know he can reach people all over the world.