This morning--or at least it will still be morning on the West Coast--I'll be appearing for an hour on the Bill Good show, the top-rated talk radio program in Vancouver. I'll be on with Ross Gelbspan, author of Boiling Point and The Heat is On, to discuss the role of the media in covering climate change (and whatever else comes up in the conversation). We go on the air at 11 am PT, which of course is 2 pm ET....you can listen by clicking the "Listen Live" link found on this website, and feel free to post any comments about the show here.
UPDATE: One of the callers to this show quoted something from MIT oceanographer Carl Wunsch in the context of calling human-induced global warming into question. I was suspicious that Wunsch might have been misrepresented, and sure enough, I now find where (I think) the quotation was coming from. It's a long and nuanced piece--written before the latest IPCC report--that does discuss a lot of the scientific complexities, but also ends on this note:
Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof.
Off topic, but the Carl Wunsch article you link to contains the following:
It has been argued that during the Neogene period (about 24 to 1.8 million years ago), that the entire Earth froze over.
which came to be as quite a surprise. I had of course heard of Neogene glaciations, but never one for which it was suggested the entire Earth froze over. I would appreciate it if someone could point me to the source.
All they can do is cherry-pick and misrepresent, Chris. It's all dey gots. Nothin' else.
Wunsch is a really really smart guy who takes various provocative positions. I wouldn't say he is a contrarian, rather the kind of valuable scientist who is prepared to take well reasoned shots at reigning paradigms. In particular, he has done this with Milankovitch:
and the general view of abrupt climate change:
I'd say that both of the above papers are essential reading for everyone interested in palaeoclimate.