Climate change — alarming or alarmist?

It’s worth tracking discussions on Weds. Dec 6th, when Senator James Inhofe, the outgoing chairman of the Environment and Public Works committee, holds a hearing examining media coverage of global warming.

Sen. Inhofe has claimed that catastrophic human-caused warming is a “hoax,” while many climate experts see human-caused warming as the keystone environmental issue of the century. Inhofe had criticized my new book on global and arctic warming, The north pole Was Here, in a senate floor speech on climate alarmism, while crediting me with questioning some of the overheated coverage this year.

What I’ve been saying is that, amid all the talk of real-time catastrophe or hoax, people should not forget there’s a huge amount of consensus on on the basics: more CO2= warmer world= less ice= higher seas & shifting climate patterns.

In other words, no one disagrees that people have a hand on the planet’s thermostat, and that — to me — is more than enough to focus our attention!

-- Andrew Revkin

JockGill Says:

I concur that a prudent person would act on the mass of evidence, even if there is some chance that the process is not yet completely understood.

Do you know of any climate models that integrate CO2, methane and D’Aleo’s concerns with cyclical events?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

RussellPotter Says:

I fear that the real problem is that so many senators and representatives have themselves had very poor education in science. They may have attended prestigious law schools, but who taught them fifth-grade natural science?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.