Planet Panel
washingtonpost.com/planetpanel
|
TOOLBOX
COMMENT
Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
Who's Blogging |
Excerpts from comments by The Post's panel of experts on climate change.
Q What doubt is there about the science behind global warming?
Bjorn Lomborg, author of
"The Skeptical Environmentalist"
Looking at the big picture, there is very little doubt. The vast majority of climate scientists tell us that increases in carbon dioxide cause higher temperatures over time. We know that this will mean changes in rainfall, melting of snow and ice, a rise in sea level and other impacts on plants, wildlife and humans.
There is still meaningful and important work going on looking at the range of outcomes that we should expect -- it is wrong to suggest that "all of the science is in" -- but I think it is vital to emphasize the consensus on the most important scientific questions.
Donald F. Boesch, president of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science
Even a "skeptical scientist" would have to conclude without doubt that -- based on evidence, not just theory -- humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, CO2 traps heat, and the planet is accumulating heat. . . .
Where the biggest doubts reside is on the human side of the global-warming equation. Despite the range of uncertainty inherent in computer models used to project future climate, they are far more reliable than the models used to estimate the economic costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Yet we are frozen in our tracks by the mere suggestion that the economic costs of reducing emissions are unaffordable or lulled into complacency by the vaguest assertion that we can just adapt to the certain warming. Go figure.
For additional responses, go to http:/