Articles by Andrew Dessler

A professor of History and Science Studies explains

For those interested in why the scientific community is so certain about climate change, take a look at this presentation and this book chapter, both by Naomi Oreskes.

She does a great job explaining how science reaches conclusions, and why we can be pretty sure that humans are indeed warming the climate.

Especially for dermatologists

Those who argue that increasing carbon dioxide is good because it's "plant food" should consider this article from the WSJ about poison ivy. It says:

Poison ivy, the scourge of summer campers, hikers and gardeners, is getting worse.

New research shows the rash-inducing plant appears to be growing faster and producing more potent oil compared with earlier decades. The reason? Rising ambient carbon-dioxide levels create ideal conditions for the plant, producing bigger leaves, faster growth, hardier plants and oil that's even more irritating.

Although the data on poison ivy come from controlled studies, they suggest the vexing plant is more ubiquitous than ever. And the more-potent oil produced by the plants may result in itchier rashes. "If it's producing a more virulent form of the oil, then even a small or more casual contact will result in a rash," says Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist for the U.S. Department of Agriculture in Beltsville, Md.

Climate change science questioned

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, Emily Yoffe asks an interesting question:

All this is not to say that it's not getting warmer and that curbing our profligate environmental ways is not a commendable and necessary goal. But perhaps this movement is sowing the seeds of its own destruction -- even as it believes the human species has sown its own. There must be a limit to how many calamitous films, books and television shows we, and our children, can absorb.

It doesn't seem sustainable to expect people to remain terrified by such a disinterested, often benign -- it was so nice eating out on the patio! -- and even unpredictable enemy.

Skeptical about skeptics

One last comment on NASA administrator Michael Griffin's comments about global warming. The skeptics out there heralded his comments. For example, Bob Carter was quoted as saying, "My main reaction to Michael Griffin is to congratulate him on his clear-sightedness, not to mention his courage in speaking out on such a controversial topic."

What these skeptics seem to forget (or conveniently ignore) is that Griffin's comments were only about the moral question of whether we should address climate change, not about the reality of human-induced climate change. From the New York Times: "In his comments to NPR and in today's interview, he did not express any doubt that the warming trend is real or that humans have been found to play a part in that rise." Skeptics never comment on this aspect of Griffin's statement.

This is a good example of why skeptics cannot be trusted. A skeptic would only tell you the point about Griffin's questioning the moral aspect of climate change policy, and conveniently forget to tell you that Griffin specifically endorses the dominant scientific view that humans are warming the world. Remember that next time you hear a skeptical statement about climate change.