Articles by Andrew Dessler

From the U. of Arizona

The U. of Arizona put together an impressive seminar series on climate change this past fall. There were seven talks by different U of A professors, covering almost all important aspects of the "climate change problem." The talks are now online.

I have a video iPod, and I downloaded the seminars and watched them during my recent trip to the AGU meeting. It's a worthwhile way to pass a 4-hour plane trip. If you want to learn more about climate change, I recommend you check them out. (They also have audio-only versions.)

What do the climate scientists think?

No Se Nada had an interesting post last week claiming climate scientists are starting to worry that they've oversold climate change:

What I see is something that I am having a hard time labeling, but that I might call either a "hangover" or a "sophomore slump" or "buyers remorse." None fit perfectly, but perhaps the combination does. I speak for (my interpretation) of the collective: {We tried for years - decades - to get them to listen to us about climate change. To do that we had to ramp up our rhetoric. We had to figure out ways to tone down our natural skepticism (we are scientists, after all) in order to put on a united face. We knew it would mean pushing the science harder than it should be. We knew it would mean allowing the boundary-pushers on the "it's happening" side free reign while stifling the boundary-pushers on the other side. But knowing the science, we knew the stakes to humanity were high and that the opposition to the truth would be fierce, so we knew we had to dig in. But now they are listening. Now they do believe us. Now they say they're ready to take action. And now we're wondering if we didn't create a monster. We're wondering if they realize how uncertain our projections of future climate are. We wonder if we've oversold the science. We're wondering what happened to our community, that individuals caveat even the most minor questionings of barely-proven climate change evidence, lest they be tagged as "skeptics." We're wondering if we've let our alarm at the problem trickle to the public sphere, missing all the caveats in translation that we have internalized. And we're wondering if we've let some of our scientists take the science too far, promise too much knowledge, and promote more certainty in ourselves than is warranted.}

I was also at the AGU meeting, and here's my take:

Discuss

People talk about the "politicization" of science all the time, usually in the form of an accusation designed to paint an opponent as biased or corrupt. Let's take a moment to think about the term and what it means.

Science is a multi-layered, collective, and impersonal process consisting of three parts:

1. individual scientists working under the scientific method,
2. the results of the individual scientists undergo peer-review and are published for the community to evaluate, and
3. important claims are then re-tested in the "crucible of science" -- they are either reproduced by independent scientific groups or have their implications tested to insure consistency with the existing body of scientific knowledge.

It’s disheartening

... can be found here (hat tip to pollster.com).

Here's the important result:

American voters tend to see Global Warming as a serious problem but are divided as to whether it's caused by human activities or long-term planetary trends.

This is important because: