I was pointed to this clip by a another writer here at DKos. Its the wide spectrum of climate denial in the three clips that is on display here. The candidates are asked whether government should take steps to limit climate change. But, it is also an illustration of how an abstract concept can get muddled the journalists asking the questions. If I had my way, the fantasy interview would go much differently and start in territory under much less debate.
http://www.wmur.com/...
Even if you my believe--as the first candidate stated-- the answer is "no," we can see here how tough it is to get a simple answer to the powderkeg questions which I will save for later. on a brighter side,wrapped up in the digressions here is a rhetorical triumph that climate change makes even the deniers mention carbon fuel is somehow linked raising atmospheric temperatures.
(By the way,Scott Brown has real estate on the seacoast. The reporter could have asked what would his response be if his insurance provider raised his rates citing global warming,)
To begin with I would like to build a basis from simple facts, in measurable facts or physical principles to discover what concepts the candidate learned along the way of his or her education. Since I expect jargon like heat capacity or the behavior of a fluid in solution is not familiar, I would just ask if the candidate understands that water boils at a higher temperature with sugar and salt, and many other things dissolved in it. I doubt few have not learned this in high school.
I would then ask if they understand that carbon dioxide and methane work this way in the atmosphere. If the answer is "no" the candidate has a great deal to explain. But, if the answer is yes, I would ask the candidate if he or she know this was well explored ground already in the nineteenth century. The Nobel Prize winner Svante Arrhenius and his contmeporaries tried to explain the ice ages with this effect from dissolved gases.
"In 1896 Arrhenius completed a laborious numerical computation which suggested that cutting the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by half could lower the temperature in Europe some 4-5°C (roughly 7-9°F) — that is, to an ice age level."
http://www.aip.org/...
Yes, even they made the leap to conclude that the temperature changes with changes in levels of carbon dioxide. So I would ask of anyone whether this theory has had any track record of prediction and what is the evidence to support the concept of green house gases in the atmosphere. What do they understand about evidence and theory.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/...
Now comes the not so new fact that carbon dioxide concentration is rising. Does a candidate agree this observation is a real one? Do they know for close to a half a century now carbon dioxide concentration has been measured accurately at multiple locations and it is rising everywhere it is measured? I know I am not the only one who learned about the Keeling curve in college chemistry. (this is one of the two curves that Al Gore made famous and has an downward spike during the northern hemisphere's winter.) So, it would be nice to see every candidate acknowledge this is an important observation, a fact.
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/...
If the journalist then acknowledges that global warming is made possible by increased greenhouse gases --in this case carbon dioxide, is there evidence it is happening today? And the bit of insight I learned both in botany class and biochemistry class in college is that ocean algae dampen the effect of carbon dioxide production--absorb it actually; so, I have carried with me the perspective (hope) that a rise in carbon dioxide production need not raise carbon dioxide concentration and consequently atmospheric temperatures. So the yearly ratchet of the Keeling curve upward is a failure of the theory ocean algae will save us from any consequence of too much CO2. This made the news recently with a sobering report that shatters the hope I have had.
https://www.wmo.int/...
The algae aren't here to save us.
Now comes a big muddle. A candidate is forgiven for skepticism. A candidate might know that since 1998 no real increase in temperature has been measured. That is true as far as we can measure, but could they explain the decades of measurements that went before which demonstrate a warming phase? Were the measurements in error for all those years? If they are willing to deny the principle of the greenhouse effect, but accept the measurements, where did all that heat come from? And, then go.
"Although there have been jumps and dips, average atmospheric temperatures have risen little since 1998, in seeming defiance of projections of climate models and the ever-increasing emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate sceptics have seized on the temperature trends as evidence that global warming has ground to a halt."
http://www.nature.com/...
A good question for any candidate is to ask what might it take for them to take the theory of greenhouse principle and accept it as fact. Arrhenius and so many others have concluded carbondioxide cause warming, what does a skeptical candidate think where their error in understanding.
I offer this quote from National Geographic for a reason. I was persuaded to believe global warming is in fact happening not by climate models or tough winters or melting glaciers but by The National Geographic. This month is no different.
http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/...
The National Geographic find no controversy in this premise and explained why in a Spetember 2004 Issue. this month is a specialten year reexamination of the evidence. Climate is changing. They make the case for leaping from correlation and causality; increased carbon dioxide is the cause for rising temperatures.
"On a raw winter day you might think that a few degrees of warming wouldn't be such a bad thing anyway. And no doubt about it: Warnings about climate change can sound like an environmentalist scare tactic, meant to force us out of our cars and cramp our lifestyles."
"From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up 1°F (.5°C) over the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities."
Tim Appenzeller and Dennis R. Dimick published these words in 2004
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/...
So far we have had the candidate discuss strength of evidence and avoided for a moment policy driven questions which should be a more familiar area of discussion. If my fantasy interview continued, before I would entertain any policies specifically, I would begin with a question that was poorly answered by Marco Rubio recently in a diner here in New Hampshire of all places.
"I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it. That's what I do not -- and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it. Except it will destroy our economy,"
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...
This is actually an optimistic place to end today. In adopting this position -- as I can tell this is new this past year, he is bringing those concerned another rhetorical triumph. He links climate change to government intervention. Furhermore, he presents an opportunity for any reporter to challenge him on something anyone can see: Even a small effect on something as big as the atmosphere is bound to have big consequences so people everywhee are led to think about the government measures including emergent interventions such as disaster preparedness and preemptive measures are not far out considerations. What measures does the candidate propose that would not 'destroy the economy.'