Articles by Andrew Dessler

Carbon trading vs. carbon taxes on Science Friday

The question of climate change has finally moved on from is it happening? to what should we do about it?.

There has been some great discussion here at Grist on carbon trading vs. carbon taxes (e.g., here or here).

For those who want more, Bill Chameides, chief scientist of Environmental Defense, was on Science Friday to talk about carbon trading. Check out the mp3 here.

Bill basically reiterates the points he made here on Gristmill a while back. But it's still worth listening to.

Debunking the ‘water vapor’ nonsense

On March 8, the Newport Daily News published a commentary that recycled one of the stalest skeptical arguments around: because water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide must be unimportant.

This is incorrect, of course, and has been debunked on several blogs (e.g., here).

In response to this, my colleague Chris Reddy and I wrote this response, published March 16:

What should be the cost of skepticism?

Every few months, it seems, someone comes out with the great idea about how people who are wrong in the climate-change debate should have something really bad done to them. Who can forget our very own David's, ahem, indiscretion? Or Heidi Cullen and her suggestion to strip skeptical meteorologists of their AMS credentials?

Over on Roger Pielke Sr.'s Climate Science blog, guest blogger Hendrik Tennekes suggests some tit-for-tat:

More than once I have dreamed of regulations that would cut the retirement pay of climate modelers in half if their forecasts proved off the mark at their retirement. Such an arrangement would also help them keep their feet on the ground concerning the prediction horizon of climate scenarios.

What's interesting is Tennekes doesn't mention what should happen to scientists who claim that climate change is not happening, yet turn out to be wrong. Perhaps they should have their retirement taken away, too?

Is it a communications failure?

Recent news articles have pointed out that we in the U.S. do not consider global warming a critical threat. Some bloggers have argued that this is the result of a communications failure (e.g., here or here or here).

The decision whether to worry about a looming issue is a value judgment, not a scientific one. You and I could agree entirely on the science of climate change, but disagree about whether it's something for our society to address.

For example, one argument against us worrying about climate change is that our descendants will be much richer than we are, so they will be better able to address whatever climate change occurs -- thus, we should leave the problem for them. At its heart, this is a moral choice.