People Who Are Mad About Climate Science Need to Chill


The New York Times article phrases the impending global problems to occur by 2040 as “a world of worsening food shortages and wildfires, and a mass die-off of coral reefs.” However, in general, the conversation is addressed through the discussion of avoiding a 2.7 or 3.6 degrees of warming, and carbon emissions. While it is possible to but enough changes into place fast enough to avoid the 2.7 degrees of warming, it is unlikely because of the current political climate. The greenhouse pollution would have to drop by 100 percent in the next 30 or so years, the use of coal would have to be less than 7% and renewable energy would need to increase more than threefold to near 70%. In order for this all to happen, there would have to be sever taxes, in the tens of thousands, per ton of carbon, especially here in the US, as we are one of the biggest producers. That is, however, unlikely to happen because of the view on climate change and taxation related to oil and other carbon emitters.


The article on Tyndall shows a more personal look into the life of one man, who studied climate in the Victorian era, which gives evidence to the argument that climate science is older than most give it credit for, as old as many other forms of science we give more credit on a daily basis. The figures used in climate science are not arbitrary, and anyway it is pulled, there has been an increase of global temperatures since the pre-industrial age, and any amount of warming is a cause for concern.