He's known as the "sexiest" astrophysicist alive, host of Nova ScienceNow on PBS, and Stephen Colbert's favorite interviewee. Neil deGrasse Tyson may be more comfortable talking black holes and cosmic quandaries, but on Friday in Silicon Valley, as the Climate Talks wilted in Durban, Fresh Dialogues asked him to weigh in about climate change and he didn't disappoint. Beginning -- like any good scientist -- with the facts (evidence from chemistry, biology and geology), he made this challenge to climate deniers:
"You have to be mature enough to recognize something can be true even if you don't like the consequences of it. That's what it means to be a mature adult."
Tyson shared plans for "an experiment" he will describe during his next appearance on Jon Stewart's Daily Show (slated for February). Here's a preview:
"All climate scientists should announce they're going to take their entire life savings and invest in industries that will thrive under the conditions of global warming. All those in denial of global warming -- which tends to be some of the wealthier people of the nation -- won't do that. As global warming unfolds, that will be the greatest inversion of wealth the world has ever seen. That's all it takes," said Tyson, adding with a smile and a shrug, "I could get rich off this."
Fresh Dialogues wonders if Tyson has shared his plan with green economy investor Al Gore, who's been criticized for "putting his money where his mouth is." Some say Gore is poised to become the world's first "carbon billionaire."
Dr. Tyson was in Silicon Valley as part of the Foothill College Celebrity Forum Speaker Series, hosted by Dr. Dick Henning.
Next year, Tyson will be hosting a new sequel to Carl Sagan's Cosmos: A Personal Voyage TV series.
Watch an exclusive Fresh Dialogues interview about climate change with Robert Ballard, the acclaimed ocean scientist of Titanic fame.
Read transcripts, see photos and check out other exclusive interviews on Fresh Dialogues with Charlie Rose, Tom Friedman, Paul Krugman, Vinod Khosla and many others
Join the conversation at our Facebook Page.
Follow Alison van Diggelen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/FreshDialogues
David Burwell: Our Global Choice: Asserting U.S. Leadership on Climate and Energy
Until the extreme weather events become severe and frequent enough to spook people, a lot are not going to understand.
Until they notice that the price of food is rising way faster than their (ha ha) wages, they won't have a clue.
Until people realize that being dependent on a single energy source (fossil fuel) to heat their homes, get them to work, and power all their appliances is a very unhealthy dependency, they will not kick start their brains and figure out alternatives.
I have to go work on some solar heat panels.
And do some more investing.
https://www.cdproject.net/CDPResults/CDP-G500-2011-Report.pdf
"While federal legislation is moribund and climate change regulatory developments have slowed, voluntary corporate action is moving forward. The Carbon Disclosure Project’s recently published survey of 396 of the 500 largest companies (based on market capitalization) found...
73 percent of the companies surveyed had GHG emission targets;
45 percent had reduced their GHG emissions in 2011;
97 percent implemented other emission reduction activities (e.g., energy efficiency, building fabric, building services and processes, low carbon energy installations and behavioral changes);
93 percent of the companies have given their boards or senior executives “responsibility” for their climate change programs;
68% companies are “integrating” climate change initiatives into their overall business strategy;
65 percent provided employee incentives to reduce GHG emissions;
37 percent verified their emissions using standards considered acceptable by CDP;
each of these percentages were significant increases from 2010.
"... companies in the 2011 Carbon Disclosure Leadership Index (CDLI) and Carbon Performance Leadership Index (CPLI) had approximately double the average total return on their stocks compared to the top 500 companies between January 2005 and May 2011.
"This study and the trends suggest that many of the world’s largest companies are concerned about GHG emissions and are taking precautionary steps to reduce their carbon footprints, EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT REGULATION."
CDP Global 500 Report 2011:
http://sustainability-counsel.com/2011/10/07/corporations-moving-ahead-on-climate-change-efforts-2/
a) $7.4 Billionaire (Republican and Aussie/U.S. dual citizen) Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News and hired Roger Ailes, who hired guys who tell deniers how to deny global warming.
Yet, in REAL life Murdoch believes strongly in man-made global warming. He said in 2007:
"Climate change poses clear, catastrophic threats. We may not agree on the extent, but we certainly can't afford the risk of inaction.” We must transform the way we use energy, and of course not only because of climate change..."
http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html
Putting his money with his mouth, in 2011:
"I am proud to announce that News Corporation has reached its first major sustainability milestone: we have become carbon neutral across all of our global operations and we are the first company of our kind to do so."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/01/rupert-murdoch-news-corp-carbon-neutral_n_829640.html?ir=Green
b) 11 independent reviews of so-called “ClimateGate”. Guess what? They're all exonerations;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/neil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change_b_1134054_122576790.html
c) More than a dozen recent temperature studies, all confirming Mann's hockey stick;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/neil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change_b_1134054_122581702.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/neil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change_b_1134054_122586959.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/neil-degrasse-tyson-climate-change_b_1134054_122499348.html
e) Along with 73% of America's 500 largest corporations, 11 of the world's 14 largest publicly traded corporations have greenhouse gas mitigation programs, including Walmart (right-wing Walton family). The top 3 laggards are Berkshire Hathaway and two Communist Chinese banks - all major coal investors (along with Peabody Energy; Arch Coal, and Koch Industries).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/weather-extremes-climate-change_n_1137587_122593388.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/maxwells/weather-extremes-climate-change_n_1137587_122592277.html
f) The Dept. of Defense, CIA, and Billionaires with net worth 1/3rd $Trillion have publicly stated beliefs in man-made global warming, along with 200 more CEOS, and investment groups controlling $20 Trillion.
http://www.defense.gov/qdr/images/QDR_as_of_12Feb10_1000.pdf
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/center-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15352764
http://investorsonclimatechange.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/2011-Investor-Global-Statement.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels...
While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.
http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/reports-in-brief/Science-Report-Brief-final.pdf
What in your mind happened after that publication that gives you that false impression?
Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
Which you don't.
If you disagree tell us exactlyy what happened since that National Academy of Sciences publication last year that in your mind invalidates that official NAS assassesment.
(And no, even more of your substance-free hand-waving, innuendo, and links to science denier blogs does not count as a valid answer.)
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/
And of course they looked at other factors. Known natural forcing agents of historical global warming - including changes in orbital cycles and increases in solar radiative output - cannot explain the bulk of global warming over recent decades. Neither has any scientific theory to explain the bulk of said recent warming other than anthropogenic global warming survived scientific scrutiny.
Much more info here:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
HTH.
Email 2383
"not to be a trouble maker but……if we are going to really get into the paleo stuff, maybe someone(s) ought to have another look at Mann’s paper. His statistics were suspect as i remember. for instance, i seem to remember he used, say, 4 EOFs as predictors. But he prescreened them and threw one away because it was not useful. then made a model with the remaining three, ignoring the fact he had originally considered 4 predictors. He never added an artifical skill measure to account for this but based significance on 3 predictors. Might not make any difference. My memory is probably faulty on these issues, but to be completely even handed we ought to be sure we agree with his procedures. best, tim"
A. Because they can't refute the science, of course.
Also:
Q. Why do climate science deniers obsess about 'a decade+ old, outdated 'hockey stick' that had been updated multiple times by multiple researchers?
A. Because they can't refute the science, of course.
Gee, I wonder why AGW theory has never been refuted then.
by Dec2011: 11 “Climategate” independent reviews, all exonerations; at least 14 more “hockey sticks”
1.Feb2010,RA-10 Inquiry Report:
http://www.research.psu.edu/orp/Findings_Mann_Inquiry.pdf
2.March2010,House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
3.April2010,Lord Oxburgh Scientific Assessment Panel
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf
4.May2010,Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency:
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/500216002.pdf
5.June2010 RA-10 Final Investigation Report
http://live.psu.edu/pdf/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf
6.July2010,Sir Muir Russell/Independent Climate Change Emails Review
http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
7.July2010,U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/petitions.html
8.Sept2010,Deutsche Bank Report: http://www.dbcca.com/dbcca/EN/investment-research/investment_research_2355.jsp
9.Sept2010,U.K. Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm79/7934/7934.pdf
10.Feb2011,U.S.Dept. of Commerce Inspector General's Review:
http://www.oig.doc.gov/Pages/OIGSearchResults.aspx?k=Michael%20Mann&cs=This%20Site&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.doc.gov
11.Aug2011,National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations
http://www.nsf.gov/oig/search/A09120086.pdf
CO2 is up and it means nothing at all. The temperatures are flat and even NASA says in we in for cooling.
And don't try to tell the the heat is hiding at the bottom of the oceans. What a cop out. The irony is there are probably 3 million undersea volcanoes. There is a chain of them in the North Atlantic.
Of all the things influencing climate, the present less than 4 parts per 10,000 in our atmosphere of
CO2 has to be as a flea is to an elephant.CO2
In both cases, however, they are vastly outnumbered.
Also: Svensmark is not at CERN, and he has not proven what you claim he has.
And neither does NASA say that we are in for a cooling that will overtake the global warming trend - in fact they say the opposite.
Again, stop getting your "science" from science denier blogs.
Reality denial - it's not a river in Egypt.
Here's one the relatively very few climate scientists who is also a so-called global warming "skeptic" -- Dr. Roy Spencer -- denying that evolution is real:
"Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_%28scientist%29#Intelligent_design
Dr. Roy Spencer -- a favorite and oft-cited climate scientist by other so-called global warming "skeptics" -- also believes that per the Bible God will protect us from global warming.
Coincidence?
We report, you decide.
Drunken driver to police officer:
"Of all the things influencingg my mental condition, the present less than 8 parts per 10,000 in my bloodstream of alcohol* has to be as a flea is to an elephant."
Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
-----------------
* = 0.08 blood alcohol level, which is legally drunk in every state in the U.S.
http://www.climatechange101.ca/assets/files/Archibald Graph.pdf
For example, they use deceptive wording to mislead people into think that there is always an 800 year time lag between warming and CO2 levels, which is false.
HTH.
Listen and learn:
http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/podcast/global-emission-of-carbon-dioxide-the-contribution-from-natural-sources/
Worse than that warming causes CO2 but does CO2 cause warming ? No one knows because no one has ever measured it.
"The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ‘slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
Try to take your science factoids from real scientists, not political science-oriented bloggers.
LEAD BY EXAMPLE LOL
-----------------------------
Waiting on climate is 'escapism': top UN scientist
December 8, 2011 by Jerome Cartillier
Leaders who wait for further evidence about the perils of greenhouse gases are flirting with escapism, the head of the UN's Nobel-winning climate scientists says.
"You cannot possibly keep waiting forever for new evidence of global warming to act," Rajendra Pachauri, head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), said on the sidelines of the UN climate talks in Durban.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-climate-scientist.html#firstCmt
--------------------
he said while JETTING back and forth to these conferences!
Dr Hansen is the pope of alarmists.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
http://tiny.cc/n05zf
when are you going to stop denying basic science..
such as for example your repeated, patently absurd denial that downward infrared radiation exists?
you'll never understand even basic climate science..
until you stop denying science!
No, seriously.