New Consensus On Climate Change
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-08-14/new-consensus-climate-change
The United Nations Environment Program says the news about climate change is "bad and getting worse." In the U.S. alone, thousands of heat records have been matched or set so far this year. Most climate scientists have long accepted that the planet is warming and human activity is partly to blame. But global warming deniers have had a strong voice in the debate - along with substantial research dollars from conservatives such as the Koch brothers. Diane will talk with a prominent skeptic who has changed his mind. And her guests will explore not just the dire predictions, but also possible solutions.
Guests
Juliet Eilperin
national environmental reporter for The Washington Post and author of "Demon Fish: Travels Through the Hidden World of Sharks."
Michael MacCracken
chief scientist at Climate Institute and lead editor for the book “Sudden and Disruptive Climate Change: Exploring the Real Risks and How We Can Avoid Them.”
Richard Muller
professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, and author of "Energy for Future Presidents: The Science Behind the Headlines."
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I am very glad to see Dr. Muller as one of the guests on your panel. Having testified and published on this topic recently, he is one of the "news makers" and I am greatly looking forward to hearing him explain the evolution of his views based on the BEST research.
The political left loves the climate change issue. What I find perplexing is that they obviously are unable to see the perils of unsustainable and destructive social welfare programs that are affecting us right now but are somehow able to see problems developing from man made global climate change fifty and a hundred years from now. Couple that with the reality that the left makes political hay out of the smallest issues like government paid for birth control and the willingness to trash the first amendment for it, who in their right mind can trust them to be rational on any issue.
Not to be ironic, but see the book "Fool Me Twice." :) I find the nature of our political debate troubling, in scientific issues and elsewhere. There is no distinction between opinion and data. Too much of the arguement is based on rhetoric rather than data. Too many participants seem to feel entitled to their own "facts" and express opinion beyond their expertise. I understand that the arguements in favor of climate change are driven by scientific data, subject to peer review and reproducibility. I understand that over 95% of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is occuring, that it is largely due to CO2, that the CO2 responsible for climate change is largely from human activity, and that the potential consequences are huge. These are the scientific opinions of professionals in the field. The science is neither "politically left" or "politically right". There are few participating in the political debate who are qualified to question the data. They can debate the response to the data, but discrediting the data rhetorically, as is the norm in our political debate is not valid. Mox nox in rem!
Does scientific data have First Amendment rights?
Since the righties believe "corporations are people, my friend", it seems that methodically collected and scrutinized information is as valid as a corporation.
I am not a scientist; so I take a step back and let the specialists go at it until a consensus arises.
Maybe the tipping point is in the future....or the past. Lets hope it's going to be resolved in a safe and sane manner.
We only accept truth if it doesn't make us feel uncomfortable.
Earth has been heaven. Earth's inhabitants have made it hell. Earth's life sustaining resources are next to non-existent. Earth is contaminated by its inhabitants. Earth's over-population compounds the loss of resources.
The cause? Look into a mirror.
Amen!
dpath wrote: "The science is neither "politically left" or "politically right". "
I think that is a bit naive.
Interesting reading!
Waffling on climate change? Consult friends, not science
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2012/06/07/waffling-on-climate-cha...
@foolmeonce: If we don't get this under control, everything else will be a moot point.
Thanks for doing the show, Diane.
Republicans ALWAYS come to the party late if ever. Climate change....late, wars of choice bad.....late, pollution bad....late Then there are the evangelicals who think they are going to be Raptured out of this mess...so they still don't care and drive the GOP agenda Funny thing is when that Rapture fails to happen they along with the rest of conservative will cry the loudest and blame progressives LOL!!!
The news media deserves tremendous BLAME for helping the fringe skeptics PREVENT us from doing anything about a problem that has been known for over three decades. Over twenty years ago the vast majority of scientists believed that the verdict was in and that something had to be done. The news media can't making false equivalents between the views of the 1% and the 99%.
SHAME ON THE MEDIA!!! - Including the Diane Rehn show (you were no better). You have helped to condemn our children to a terrible future.
Can you clarify and be more specific?
The WORLD had to wait for this i@diot to make up his mind??? Give me a break. That doesn't excuse the news media. When 99% of scientists conclude something, that should be good enough. It should be good enough if there is a 90% consensus. This trend by the media to require EVERYONE to agree on every issue is absurd and will destroy our society. Non-scientists should have NO SAY what so ever.
Ask Prof. Muller to provide an example of how his conversion relates to his former political views and actions taken in the past by him and his acedemic colleagues?
Please don't let this come down to another discussion on how people need to weatherize their homes. Here in the USA it seems as if corporate America is determined to keep the thermostat stuck at 65 F no matter what the temperature outside is, probably so they can be comfortable living day in and day out in a full business suit.
Just this past week I froze in a dentist office and felt as if someone was shoveling snow out the window of a Taco Bell drive thru. I felt like complaining, but I've asked about this before and the employees often say that they are not allowed to touch the thermostat.
So it kills me to hear all of this concern about global warming and all these plans for big initiatives, but when will we get something so simple as businesses with windows that actually open, and corporations which trust their employees enough to let them touch the thermostat?
Nice piece foolmeonce. The hypocrisy is stark. When science is in agreement with their preconceived notions, the left is right there ... otherwise, not so much.
dpath wrote:
"I understand that over 95% of climate scientists are in agreement that climate change is occuring, that it is largely due to CO2, that the CO2 responsible for climate change is largely from human activity, and that the potential consequences are huge. These are the scientific opinions of professionals in the field. The science is neither "politically left" or "politically right". There are few participating in the political debate who are qualified to question the data. They can debate the response to the data, but discrediting the data rhetorically, as is the norm in our political debate is not valid. Mox nox in rem!"
The problem is the leap from increased CO2 to HUMAN ACTIVITY. (Notice they will not use the term "warming" anymore?!) There have been periods when there were far greater concentrations of CO2 and much warmer average temperatures ... perhaps the cavemen had too many automobiles and smoke stacks.
The bottom line is, the left is about control; from healthcare to the environment. In the case of the enviornment, what appears to be a warming climate has become a convenient tool of control - whether the change is due to man or not.
@Alejandra
The media now requires everyone to have an "equal" say and everyone to have equal credibility. This is nonsense. You don't have to give equal time to the 1%. You don't have to give equal time to people who are not experts in anything (most Republicans). You don't let people with a conflict of interest state their views and opinions, because such people are never objective. You don't let business interests dictate science and veto the advice of scientists.
We could have started solving these problems 30 years ago and we could have reduced CO2 emissions by at least 50% by now (starting with smaller high fuel economy cars 30 years ago). But, NO, people HAD to have their beloved SUVs and Hummers.
JD McDonnell wrote: "trust their employees enough to let them touch the thermostat"
Obviously you are not familiar with thermostat wars, I worked at a place where people were at each others throats over the settings. Too funny
I also got sick from salmonella in restaurants that did not properly control heat and humidity three times.
Electric cars are not a panacea... still, the dirty processes to create electricity to power them must be used. We need a sea change in zoning and land use for the US. We must basically quit commuting long distances to work and modify our homes to make much better use of solar power.
@ecgberht
Have you ever heard of radioactive CO2 "signature" that lets scientists point the finger at exactly WHERE the CO2 comes from?? The debate is over (it has been for 2 decades), it comes mostly from the activity of people (like you) and has been originating from the industrial age for over 100 years (started in the 1860s). Native Americans didn't contribute to global warming - it was a European "invention".
While we all understand that the only purpose of The Diane Rehm Show is to further a spectrum of progressive ideological narratives, it looks like Rehm's producers have once again served her up a pig in a poke in the persom of Muller, little more than a showboater like Diane herself.
When it comes to Muller's actual science, Ross McKitrick, peer review referee of Muller's most recent work, finds his BEST analyses unfit for publication:
http://www.rossmckitrick.com/
Hopefully, had Diane known in advance that her guest Muller's findings had been repudiated by his scientific peer review referee, she would not have knowingly deceived her audience by having him on the program.
The New York Times' Andrew Revkin gives a more balanced view of this situation than carnival hustler Rehm, including also Watt's new findings about problems with the temperature measurements themselves.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/converted-skeptic-humans-driving-recent-warming/
Watt's findings:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/#more-68286
Throwing out the phrase "the Koch Brothers" as Rehm does is on its face dog whistle politics (never mind that the Kochs also fund PBS' science program NOVA).
Continually evaluating whether the baseline sensor temperatures against which the whole phenomenon of AGW must be measured, as Watts does, should be the role of science - if AGW were actually being pursued as science rather than as NPR infotainment and its equivalent.
Rehm once again failed to do her homework -worldwide overwhelming majority of scientists have independently long since arrived at the same conclusion - yet she harps on and on giving skeptics - mostly politicized crackpots - not just a platform but almost the entire stage.
This is a typical manifestation of NPR's and the US media in general nauseating clinging to this charade of false equivalence -giving "both sides" of an issue equal time and credibility even though one side clearly deserves none. The creationism/ evolution debate is another sad example of this.
I was a skeptic who is very glad that further investigation has been done and continues. As an engineer for 30 years I can be convinced with facts and then act accordingly.
Would your panelist please discuss who has been helped by climate change in a favorable manor, ei "American Breadbasket", Iceland, etc.
Second, if the US makes "clean air" here we will then be at an economic disadvantage; therefore the US should charged a surtax on the imports from countries who have "dirty air" .
Thank You
I have been following the science behind the global warming debate.
Just for a minute, let us assume that global warming does exist, and it is caused, or effected by the human population.
There are so many proposals regarding ways to change the problems.
It seems so obvious that as the population continues to grow, humans will only continue to contribute to all the problems.
There need to be efforts made to contain the population of the world, rather than allow it to grow. Propulation growth can only make the world worse.
Population containment would help in so many ways, reducing the consumption of all resources, causing shortages of clean water, fosil fuels, air polution, etc.
Richard
Aren't the insurance companies the key?
Can they afford to keep paying off the results of all the accelerated climate damages?
Gail bloom
We were made to wait (by guys like this) FOR NOTHING!!! People like this are scientific saboteurs, nothing more.
I live in South TX and all around this area there are some thing like 150 to 200 companies
FRACKING here I would like to here the guests talk more about the effects that the FRACKING will have in the long run. I understand the the natural gas burns cleaner and that we need to drill this gas out, but in the long run is the FRACKING worth it?
President Carter implemented an energy independence program promoting solar and wind. We were world leaders until Reagan was elected and killed the US solar and wind industries.
As a result, we are no longer leaders and we buy these technologies from Europe and Asia instead of selling them around the world.
Jimmy Carter already recognized the problems - the American public is just greedy and stupid (and scientifically illiterate). This was NEVER just a matter of "opinion" by non-experts (including most journalists).