I’ve been finding it quite difficult to think of things to post about. One reason is that I’ve been rather busy. Another, though, is that I think the debate has changed. It seems that there is more and more discussion about what we should do, and less and less discussion about science. This is, in general, a good thing, but I find it quite difficult discuss things that are less well-defined, and more subjective, than science.
I also enjoy discussing science, even if it is contentious. I realised this a few days ago when I was part of a lengthy Twitter discussion about various policy options. I was mostly just reading what others were saying, and then someone chipped in with some claim about CO2 having little effect on climate. I suddenly thought I can deal with this one (it was pointless trying to, mind you, but that’s beside the point).
On another note, a group of us, led by Andrea Sella, have had a letter published in the Financial Times today. This was in response to an earlier letter that claimed that the climate emergency…is entirely computer-generated. Computer models play an important role in advancing our scientific knowledge, but our understanding of what might happen if we continue to dump CO2 into the atmosphere is very certainly not entirely computer-generated.
I’ll finish by suggesting that those who have been involved in the online climate debate might be interested in reading this free chapter of David Toke’s recent book (which Dave also discusses in this post). In particular, the discussion about the role played by Roger Pielke Jr. Since I don’t want to incur the wrath of Roger, I’ll refrain from commenting myself (okay, I think it’s pretty spot-on, but don’t tell anyone).
I’ll think stop there. Have a good rest of the weekend.