Articles by Andrew Dessler

Why Broad’s NYT piece isn’t all that important

[ed. note from David Roberts: It appears everyone in the climate world was writing about this piece at once! My response is here; RealClimate's is here; Tim Lambert's is here. Now take it away, Andrew.]

William J. Broad writes today on the complicated relationship between Al Gore and the scientific community in the New York Times.

Here's the thesis of the article:

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Mr. Gore's central points are exaggerated and erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

Biofuels on Science Friday

For those who don't listen to Science Friday, shame on you. It's one of the best science shows around.

This week, they had an interesting segment on biofuels. Listen to it in mp3 format, Real Player, or Windows media.

The last to react

We all know and love the "canary in a coal mine" analogy, where the canary is a first warning sign of some potential catastrophe. The Arctic is a good example of a canary for climate change, since we expect (and indeed see) the effects of climate change there first.

Then there's the anti-canary. Rather than being the first to react, the anti-canary is the last. When the anti-canary moves on an issue, you know that everyone else has already moved.

In the climate change debate, Texas is the anti-canary. With the Governor, Lt. Governor, and other senior legislators arguing that the science is not proven, Texas has been stuck in neutral on this issue while other states have taken the lead. But there are indications that the anti-canary is beginning to take climate change seriously.

Debate shifting post-IPCC report

With the release of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, the debate over climate change has noticeably shifted from arguments about the reality of human-induced climate change to a debate over how to address the problem.

For example, here on Gristmill an interesting debate has broken out over whether a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system is best to price carbon emissions (e.g., here or here or here). This is exactly the kind of thing we need to be debating, and I'm glad to see it.