Articles by Andrew Dessler

A look back

Here are the first five of my "Top 10 climate stories of 2006," in no particular order.

National Academy hockey stick report: I'm not sure if this helped or hurt the cause, but it did confirm what many scientists already thought: it's hard to figure out the temperature of the earth 1,000 years ago. The IPCC's 2001 report said there was a 3 in 4 chance that the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the last 1,000. According to the academy report, subsequent research suggests it's really a 50-50 proposition. In the end, we just don't know whether it was hotter 1,000 years ago or not. None of that, of course, affects our conclusion that humans are warming the climate.

Senators send letter to ExxonMobil

Today's Wall Street Journal printed a letter from Senators Snowe and Rockefeller to ExxonMobil (here) along with an editorial about the letter (here).

In the letter, Snowe and Rockefeller ask ExxonMobil to stop perpetuating the uncertainty agenda (which they refer to as the "obfuscation agenda"). The letter is similar in many respects to a letter sent to Exxon by the British Royal Society.

The editorial is a broadside against the Senators. How dare they write that letter! You can feel the anger in it -- I'm quite certain the first draft was written in all caps.

Here are a few thoughts:

The drum beat is bringing the public around

When discussing the recent Supreme Court case, those opposed to action on climate change often use the argument that the court should rule against Mass. et al. because these kinds of legal challenges are end runs around the legislative process. Rather, they argue, it is the president and Congress that should be taking up this issue.

Duh.

Why I’m disappointed with yesterday’s Supreme Court hearings

I was quite disappointed to see "uncertainty" front-and-center in the arguments yesterday by the EPA lawyer before the Supreme Court:

... now is not the time to exercise such authority, in light of the substantial scientific uncertainty surrounding global climate change and the ongoing studies designed to address those uncertainties.

I thought I'd detected a shift by those opposed to action away from this argument and toward economic and fairness arguments. I guess when your back's against the wall, you go with what you know.

The argument that there is too much uncertainty to act is a value decision, not a scientific one. Consider this example: the odds of dying in a skydiving accident are about 100,000 to one. You and I can agree on this statistic, but disagree on its implications. I can say, "that's too risky," while you might disagree and argue, "I'm jumping -- you can't live your life avoiding risk."