The discussion continues...

I’ve included below two of the questions that we didn’t get to the other day. Please find some time over the next two weeks to post some of your thoughts and responses to these two questions. I’ll try to keep up, but if I don’t respond right away, look for me to do so over break. I look forward to your thoughts...

1) Climate change “skeptics” (their word; my word choice is “deniers”) often claim that the science of climate change is not being carried out appropriately. To begin a discussion of the true “scientific method”, please take a look at http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/howscienceworks_01. It’s a simple website, probably intended for an audience younger than you, but its content is right on target. Thoughts, comments? How does this differ from what you learned in primary school; how does it differ from what you believed before you read it? How do computer models of the global climate “fit” into the scientific process described in the website above?

2) In a nice synergy of accident, Elizabeth Kolbert contributed the segment at the end of Chapter 2 of Schmidt & Wolfe: Picturing the Science. Read that segment (pp. 70-71) and think about the way climate change is portrayed in the media, both locally (i.e. the Spectator) and nationally (USA Today, perhaps or even the Web); maybe even Google some articles to get a feel for it. Also read (or re-read) the segment at the end of Chapter 6 of Schmidt and Wolfe: Picturing the Science by Naomi Oreskes (pp.153-155). What are your thoughts on the reporting of climate change; is it generally “fair and balanced”? What does that phrase even mean in the context of reporting an inherently scientific story, but one with enormous socioeconomic implications? What sources do you trust; which do you exclude?

Letter: Global warming evidence exists

When you have a minute or two, read Dr. Crispin Pierce's letter to the Spectator.  I've included a link to the on-line edition (which I hope will work-it's an awfully long URL).

Climate Engineering?

I was browsing through the Reader's Digest at work today and came across an article that might interest some of you. It is very short, definitely Reader's Digest style, but it is very applicable to some of our discussions. Personally, I think the idea of re-engineering our climate is almost as scary as global climate change itself! This article (which I linked the title to) does pose some interesting questions though, especially the section about "unilateral action." Anyway, check it out and let me know what you think!

Cows Can Curb Global Warming

I was in a waiting room earlier today and I looked over and saw an article that someone was reading in Time. I noticed that the title had something to do with cows and global warming, so when I got back to the dorms I looked it up and really enjoyed what I read. It doesn't pertain to what we're doing so much at the university (unless the university's considering raising cattle in the near future), but the science is definitely still relevant. Check it out if you get a chance!

Reading Kolbert . . . .

Field Notes' fourth chapter, "The Butterfly and the Toad," ends Kolbert's first section, "Nature."  Please feel free to post questions or comments on that chapter.

I've been continuing to think about media coverage of global climate change.  If you click on the title to this post, it will take you to an article "Environmental Journalism in the Greenhouse Era: Looking for Climate News beyond Corporate Media."  Check it out.  It provides some vital information as we consider how media in our country cover this urgent topic--and as we decide where to turn for factual reporting by experts.