I’m actually a recently graduated climatologist from Penn State, and a middle-ground anthropogenic climate change supporter. As a person who was a skeptic until I got into the government business, I am interested in finding a common ground between the climate change law supporters (cap and trade, taxes) and the skeptics (primarily those who doubt the IPCC reports or similar scientific studies). I do believe that humans are changing the climate, although I do question the legitimacy of knowing exactly how much the climate has changed based on a small time scale.
Now, being that I want to find a middle ground, I wonder what would climate change skeptics would change in the scientific forum to make AGW more acceptable.
Some ideas:
-An education campaign to inform the difference between climate models and weather models (and the fact that the two are distinct in their variables, scales, and outputs)?
-Limitations on the cap and trade strategies (perhaps reducing or eliminating taxes while promoting incentives, such as small reductions in property taxes for deploying renewable energy sources on-site)?
-Removal of the government completely from climate change legislation (having panels of scientists paid solely by non-profits, higher education, and the such)?
-A show of the models for public inspection (essentially a FOIA for climate models; computers nowadays can run the models in short periods of time, so you could input the variables and run them yourself)?
-Honesty and integrity on the part of climatologists (if we showed you how we do things and get our numbers, would we be more believable)?
The possibilities are endless. At the same time, I think climate change skeptics should make concessions, such as:
-Agreeing to reduce oil consumption (actually, not a bad idea, considering that we are beginning to run out of oil, and essentially would be good to run our ’68 Mustang for our grandchildren….)?
-Instead of spending money on anti-climate change politics, divert the money to exploring use of cleaner fuels such as natural gas, and renewable resources, such as solar, wind, and geothermal power?
-Concession of a small, initial job loss which would rebound (research indicates that initial environmental legislation would create a 2% unemployment rate, mainly in the industrial fields, that would be eliminated in 5 years) and would create jobs in a shift in industrial sectors?
There are many more, but I want your feelings on this. I will select an answer as best, but do not be extremist, instead looking for commonalities. 
Thanks!
More Pages:
- Solar Producer: Energy Resources And The Democrats? (1/17/2012)
- Solar Producer: How Does The AGW Theory, Take Money Away From Big Oil Inc? (10/14/2011)
- Solar Producer: Is The Notion Of Alternative Energy Being Economically Viable Wishing Thinking? (5/6/2011)
- Will the American Physical Society amend its ‘official’ statement on climate change?
- Solar Power: Carbon Credits And New Energy? (11/11/2011)
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
I could go on and on about my opinions on this issue, but I’ll keep it brief. I personally believe that AGW is apparent in the world. After researching global warming for awhile I realized that it doesn’t really matter if you think that AGW exists/is a problem. Either way I think people should want to try their best to reduce pollution, become less dependent on oil, etc. I agree with the points you made very much, and I hope that people can stop arguing about this, and start doing something about it.
I actually agree with many of your suggestions, but I’ll go through the ones I question
2) Promoting incentives sounds great, but I don’t think incentives alone can effect the large scale changes in energy infrastructure necessary to quickly and effectively deal with the problem. A straight carbon tax (to offset an existing tax?) with a majority going towards renewables R&D might end up working better.
3) You’ll have to go into more detail with this one — Unless the people are properly educated on the science of AGW and possible mitigation/adaptation strategies, as much as I don’t like say it, the government will probably need to be involved.
4) A fully-coupled AOGCM can take weeks to months for a single run on super computers. On a home computer this would be impossible. I believe there are “climate modeling at home” type sites where they use a fraction of your computing power along with thousands of others to mimic a supercomputer, but you can’t change any variables. More simplified models like energy balance models, box models, radiative-convective models can be done easily at home, but require some knowledge of physics, higher maths, and should be used more pedagogically than as a basis for climate policy.
5) What would this entail, exactly? It seems to me that the problem is more misinformation and undereducation than climate scientists being less than forthright. In fact, climate science in general has been far more open about methods and practices than most fields.
I don’t reject any of these outright, but some more detail would be nice. Speaking generally, some level of concession will be necessary on both sides, but I’m not one for populist platitudes.
There is certainly a need for research and discussion about many significant details concerning climate change science. The field as such is relatively new, very interdisciplinary, and highly complex. THAT, by the way, not some incredible conspiracy of thousands of different scientists in scores of different countries for decades, accounts for the long arcane IPCC reports that, like any thousand page long documents with hundreds of authors, cannot be expected to be 100.000% accurate.
There is also a need for informed discussion on climate policy: What can be done realistically, what are the costs and benefits or action/inaction, pro/cons of various policies, how to value the intergenerational trade-offs etc.
Your idea “Removal of the government completely from climate change legislation” is a complete non-starter, however. Google “tragedy of the commons” or “economic externalities” and Willliam Nordhaus, for background. Stern Report is also useful. This approach would essentially amount to doing nothing. Governments moreover WILL be involved no matter what, even if only in adaptation measures, so the idea of them being “removed” is an impossibility anyway.
No meaningful political debate or compromise is very feasible in the United States currently, however, because the political party with a majority in the House of Representatives has made a collective decision to incessantly mislead, distort and lie about the basic science involved:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782&page=1
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://nationalacademies.org/morenews/20100716.html
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
There is no “middle ground” or compromise between truth and deliberate dishonesty. There is no “commonality” between denying or accepting reality of the moon landings, the Holocaust, biological evolution of species, or the basic fact that human actions are significantly altering the global climate.
Lying as a policy platform position by a major political party has to end as prerequisite for any meaningful progress or search for “middle ground.”
What concessions are you willing to make to protect the planet from HAARP, or how about bringing the real 911 terrorist (the George Bush) to justice. Me personally I’d like to help the people that have fallen into believing in conspiracies.
I don’t agree with the doomsday predictions so I cannot agree with any concessions. With Global Warming you got like 4 groups of people and I’m not sure which you are talking about but in any case your question doesn’t make any sense and is only a slight variation from the useless argument of even if shouldn’t we do something.
Professional believers – these are scientist that work in the field and believe the earth is warming out of control because we’ve opened pandoras box.
Believers – well if scientist say it’s happening then who am I to questions.
Skeptics – this group doesn’t exist, because the debate is over
Deniers – these people have no clue, even children find there argumnets “stupid”. Believers throw skeptics into this group because any scientist who doesn’t agree must be working for the oil companies or isn’t really a scientist, and those who listen to them or don’t listen to the “real” scientist are only skeptical because or greed and selfishness.
But to your concessions?:
I don’t need to be educated, I am on a continuos quest for knowledge.
no cap and trade, no taxes, no government intrusion. provide incentives, but i’ve seen too many wasteful research projects funded by the government to trust they’ll put our money to any real use.
Panels of scientist – excluding the ones that disagree of course? We could use the same scientist who collude to shutdown scientific journals that print anything that doesn’t further AGW acceptance?
Models for the public to play with, just make it a video game.
Honesty and integrity – too late.
Reduce oil consumption – removing government invterference would be a start.
China does this already, you could move there is you want to ensure money isn’t spent on two sides of a debate.
Oh, yes, let’s let the government which did such a bang up job screwing up the housing market and our countries prosperity with an “everyone should be able to buy a home philosophy”, decide how our energy industry should be run.
Well I’m not an AGW supporter….I think the data is flawed and not all parameters or inputs are accounted for or adequately addressed… but I do still believe there are many ways we could and should reduce CO2 emissions while maintaining economic growth, sequester carbon or develop carbon neutralizing methods and improve/develop cleaner energy sources to meet future needs. It can be a win/win proposition although I still doubt that man-made CO2 is going to impact global warming as much as it’s thought and some reports state that global warming leads to global cooling….or at least certain areas. Others report that plants will absorb CO2 in higher amounts…the issue is whether that is sustainable or will peak out but increased CO2 should still be a concern.
Overall, I think we have been horribly wasteful and over-polluting of our energy sources in the past century and it’s time we do look into alternative means to provide cleaner energy, more efficient vehicles, etc.. while maintaining economic development and allowing for increased population levels in the future. Vertical farming methods closer to cities are one way to address that …much lower usage of fuel, water, fertilizers, pesticides, etc..
GW leads to cooling…
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/05mar_arctic/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/expect-more-extreme-winters-thanks-to-global-warming-say-scientists-2168418.html
On the other hand, methane released from Arctic tundra due to warming could increase warming rates…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/21/siberia-climate-change-methane_n_786554.html
At what point more warming will lead to more cooling and reduce the release is unknown.
One article on how to meet goals of 350-450 ppm CO2 in the future…
http://climateprogress.org/2011/01/10/the-full-global-warming-solution-how-the-world-can-stabilize-at-350-to-450-ppm/
As to what other means or methods may lead to improving CO2 levels…
There is a form of soil found in the Amazon called terra preta or biochar which they developed centuries ago yet still retains nutrients and is based on partially burned wood or crop wastes, bones, etc.. Terra preta soils can greatly improve crop yields and sequester carbon for centuries. Research is being done on how to recreate this soil and it could be a means to sequester carbon…offsetting CO2 emissions…and at the same time, improving crop yields in poor countries and converting poor soils into productive ones allowing more land to be available to grow crops. A win-win situation for those concerned about CO2 levels and global hunger issues.
“”The potential of biochar lies in its ability to sequester-capture and store-huge amounts of carbon while also displacing fossil fuel energy, effectively doubling its carbon impact,” said Steiner, a soil scientist whose research in the Amazon Basin originally focused on the use of biochar as a soil amendment”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217190439.htm
Related videos…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-hSl59ET2A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGurqqGTMW4&feature=related
Biofuels are thought by some to be a way to increase oil production to meet future energy needs but there are others who suggest it could be more detrimental. We have to go about it using the most beneficial means….algae-based systems that are carbon-neutral seem the most promising.
“Global Biofuel Drive Raises Risk of Eviction for African Farmers.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100422093534.htm
“Biofuel Crops That Require Destroying Native Ecosystems Worsens Global Warming.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207140809.htm
“Massachusetts biotechnology company making diesel with sun, water, carbon dioxide”
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/02/massachusetts_biotechnology_co.html