March for science

Dates to be determined, but there is an effort developing to have a march for science in the US.  There's a facebook group, and facebook messenger at @marchforscience, twitter as @ScienceMarchDC, and the main web site.  Things are evolving rapidly, having started very recently and now being over 90,000 in the facebook group.  One change being that it has moved from being a march by scientists to being a march for science.

Something which occurs to me as useful to know is senators and representatives whose states or districts have large numbers of scientists or companies which do large amounts of science or contracting.  Some which occur to me:

Some Large Centers

(Places, Senators, Congressperson)

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD -- Chris van Hollen, Ben Cardin --  Steny Hoyer (MD-5)
NOAA Headquarters, Silver Spring, MD -- Chris van Hollen, Ben Cardin -- ?Jeremy Raskin
Argonne National Lab, IL --
NASA Marshall, Huntsville, AL --
NASA Ames, CA --
NASA Johnson, Houston, TX --
Los Alamos National Lab, Los Alamos, NM --
National Hurricane Center, Miami, FL --
National Severe Storms Laboratory, Norman, OK --
National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC --
Center for Disease Control, Atlanta, GA --

Companies that build earth satellites:
Boeing (HQ in Seattle, WA, but many other offices) --
Lockheed Martin (HQ in Bethesda, MD, ditto) -- Chris van Hollen, Ben Cardin --
Orbital ATK (HQ Dulles, VA, ditto) --
Space Systems Loral (HQ Palo Alto, CA, ditto)

Biomed/Biotech/Pharmaceuticals
Computers/Technology
...

I've missed many areas, please add to my list.  Also, please work on adding to the list of states and congressional districts.  I expect that every state and most congressional districts have at least one large employer which depends on science.  It helps to have names and places.

Autism Awareness Month, 2016

A heads up that it's autism awareness month again.  Autism hasn't changed much in the past year, so I don't have much new to say.  My 2015 post covers what I have to say myself.  In brief: people are people, including autistic people.  People are all similar, because we're people.  And people are all different, because we are people.  All of this applies to autistic people too, no more, no less.

Merchants of Doubt Movie

Do go see the Merchants of Doubt Movie.  Los Angeles and New York March 6 opening, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington DC the 13th.  More widely starting the 20th of March.  The movie is inspired by the book of the same name, about how it is established industries can sell Doubt even in areas where the science is pretty well established.

The movie is not the book, nor does it make the mistake of trying to put the book on screen.  But it does pick up many of the threads, and, most importantly, shows well how the Merchants of Doubt ply their trade.  And it does so in an engaging way.  One element of that being the extended visual, and practical, illustration of close up magic.  Sleight of hand, misdirection, using shills (3 card monte was the example for this) all have their analogues for the Merchants of Doubt.

The phrase itself derives from the tobacco industry, PR firm, which concluded that doubt was their product -- they could not argue the science, but they could still cast doubt.  Decades later (not from the movie) this was echoed by Frank Luntz, who also observed "A compelling story, even if factually inaccurate, can be more emotionally compelling than a dry recitation of the truth," Mr Luntz notes in the memo.

We see this item primarily through the flame retardants theme in the move.  A doctor testifies to legislators about the harrowing death of a child, burned on the parts of its body that were on the non-flame-retardant pillow as opposed to the flame-retarded mattress.  Once the testimony is given, the bill to lift requirements for the chemicals is promptly defeated.  Except, it turns out, and the doctor confirms, that the events in his testimony never actually happened.  But his story was far more compelling that mere recitation of facts about the (in)effectiveness of the fire-retardants.  And that's the important part.  (? For the doctor, at least, and his funders.  See who that turns out to be.)

How did we get to fire retardants from tobacco?  Cancer is a long stretch from fire, after all.  But that's part of the tangled web of merchandising Doubt.  Burning cigarettes start fires.  Tobacco companies could have been told to develop cigarettes that didn't burn so long unattended.  Rather than do so (potentially expensive), they pushed the argument, successfully, that the problem was the couches/mattresses/pillows.  They shouldn't catch fire so easily; that was the real problem.  If you can convince people that it's the fault of couches for letting themselves be burned, rather than of the cigarettes for burning couches (thence homes and people), there are few limits to what you can convince people of.

That's one of the methods of the PR flacks, and those methods are what the movie explores in a number of difference stories and ways.  Climate looms large in the movie, larger than in the book.  That renders it a little hard for me to say much about -- I have too much first hand experience with the people and events.  What I can say from that first hand knowledge (or at worst second hand) is that it represents well how the people in the climate 'debate' actually talk.  And I can say with some confidence that it represents them fairly.  That's true whether it's Marc Morano (who's quite up front about the fact that he is attacking the scientists, not the science, and is pleased about the hate-mail that scientists get after he releases their email addresses) or Katharine Hayhoe (receiving end of some of that hate-mail, a scientist working on understanding climate who has been talking publicly to groups about creation care).  Katharine is also a conservative evangelical Christian.  One of the themes in the moving being about tribalism, so such identifiers sometimes are important.

I don't give away much, the meat is how you get to this point, in observing that I also like Producer/Director Robert Kenner's choice to end the movie with some optimism from Bob Inglis (6 time congressman elected from very conservative part of very conservative South Carolina) as to his belief that the problems of climate change are real (which got him massacred in his last primary) and can be addressed.  The Merchants of Doubt have their successes, as does the magician.  But, as more people see how the trick is done, the fewer who fall for it.  I hope.  See the movie and let me know in the comments what you think.

Since I was at a special preview, I'll write a separate note about that, and about some of the discussion we had with Kenner after the movie.

In the mean time, some potentially useful other links:
Movie's official web site with release dates
Rotten Tomatoes
IMDb

Civil Service Pride

Reading much of the commentary about civil servants during the current government shutdown has reminded me just how much so very much of the country loathes us.  Yes, us.  I do work for the US government (as always, I speak only for myself!).  It also occurred to me that I seldom see anybody writing about civil servants working hard and taking pride in their work.  The converse is common, that civil servants are lazy, should all be fired, that they're lying when they say they're there to help.  Such things are even more common in political speeches.  I'll redress that balance some.

A few years ago my workplace had an outside group review how we were doing..  The outside group not including civil servants.  As usual, some things they thought we did well, some they didn't think so.  But one point they criticized us on was that we work too hard!  50 hour weeks being routine.

At the meetings to tell us what was allowed or required, of whom, during the furlough, we had something of a 'Green Eggs and Ham' in reverse.  The people who were furloughed asking the questions, laws duly passed by congress and signed by president providing the answers:
Q: May I work upon the mainframe?
A: No, you may not work upon the mainframe.
Q: May I do it on my desk?
A: No you may not do it on your desk.
Q: May I do it at my home?
A: No you may not do it at your home.
Q: May I at least answer my mail?
A: No you may not even answer your mail.
Q: May I, can I, please, read my mail?
A: You may not, can not, any way, any how, even read your mail.

The 50 hour weeks and having to be told repeatedly that it is a violation of federal law to work while furloughed don't point to lazy people.  (I know there are other groups that also do routine 50+ hour weeks.  They're not lazy either.)  As insurance against people sneaking in to do work in spite of being furloughed, the guards were given a list of who is allowed to be working.  If your name isn't on the list, you don't get in to the building.  Don't know how many times people have been turned away, but I expect it has happened.

A little farther afield, it isn't lazy people with no commitment who walk to work through a blizzard to issue National Weather Service forecasts. I know of other NWS weather forecasters who, when severe weather was coming, simply slept at work -- because they weren't sure they could get in to work the next day.

I also live near a national park, which, of course, is shut down.  Like many, I saw the video of a congressman -- who had helped bring about the shutdown -- berating a National Park Service employee for doing what she is supposed to during a shutdown.  But, beyond the fact of his grandstanding (more of which followed at the WW II memorial by others), I happen to have talked to some park rangers over the years.  Also at some other national parks that I've visited.  They all love their parks, and the national system.  They're all (the ones I've talked to) committed to their parks and want to be able to share them, show them, explain them, whathaveyou, with as many people as possible.  Shutting down is very much against their nature.  But congress is who authorizes federal expenditures.  And they authorized none for national parks -- no budget.

Emergency employees (constantly mis-labelled 'essential' in the media) are able to work during shutdown only on the principle that congress is expected (not such a reliable expectation these days) to honor its debts and the emergency people are protecting life (NWS weather forecasters) and property (Park Service people protecting vs. vandalism, for instance) -- in the very near term.  Research for curing cancer might do such things later on, but isn't a near term guarantee.

But, speaking of dedication to their work, and concern for it, read How the Shutdown Is Devastating Biomedical Scientists and Killing Their Research for its profile of a scientist trying to keep experiments going -- which includes keeping animals alive -- in spite of everyone else having been sent home.

As I write, there's talk of an agreement having been reached.  But neither the Senate nor House has voted on it yet.  Until the votes are counted, it is not a done deal.  That fact is part of why we're currently in the shutdown.

Regardless of the inaction and insane action from Capitol Hill, a couple million civil servants have kept working -- without pay -- through this.  Walked to work through blizzards.  Didn't counterattack when a person who created the problem was berating her on national TV her doing what she's required to by laws that he passed.  And have been trying to prevent months and years of research from being wasted.  These are not lazy, uncommitted people.

Conservative and religious responses to climate change

Yes, there are such responses!

• Kathryn Hayhoe and Tom Ackerman  
• 4 EPA directors under Republican Presidents 
• Republican Secretary of State, George Schultz  
• Bob Inglis, Republican Representative  
• Sherwood Boehlert, Republican Representative, chair of House Science and Technology Committe 2001-2007

Kathryn Hayhoe and Tom Ackerman are both evangelical Christians.  Read their article for why the comedian is wrong to say that they don't exist.  I also happen to know both (not well, but email with Kathryn and Tom in person for a couple years when we were both at Penn State).

Boehlert, I think, said it best for the political side (forget about party) about a decade ago.  As I remember the quote, what he wanted from scientists was "Tell us what's happening, what's liable to happen, and what, if anything, we can do about it."  Actually deciding what to do, that's the job of politicians, such as himself.  As a scientist, I'm comfortable with that.  (Well, give or take my concerns about the political process; but we all have to live with that.)

There are quite a few more religious people and conservative politicians, and fans of free market economics, who also are willing to discuss what -- if anything -- to do in response to climate change.  See also my 2008 post Keep your vehicles how you choose for a couple of my thoughts.

Actually getting to the point of having that discussion publicly is ... different, somehow.  But a question I was asked recently points to a direction.  Q: "Have you talked to any of your neighbors about this?"  A: "Doh"  How to go from meeting a neighbor walking her dog to chatting about climate change ... I'm not sure how to do it non-awkwardly.  Then again, graceful has seldom been a hallmark of mine.  Maybe readers have an idea or two they'll share?

An encounter a while back gives me some hope that on the face to face level there might well be some hope.  I ran in to a former weather forecaster and modeller I've known for many years.  He commented about liking my blog (I didn't know he even knew it existed) even though we (probably) disagree politically.  We probably do disagree about what to do, as far as I've heard of his politics.  But, we could have the discussion about whats and hows and whethers.

My main line here is the science rather than politics of course, but ignoring politics entirely doesn't seem much more sensible than politics ignoring science.

Reality Based Decision Making

I have a radical idea - "reality-based decision making".  I'm in favor of it, is the apparently radical part.

• Reality: Local sea level is rising, and the rate of rise has been increasing.  (Note, by the way, that this isn't true of all areas.  Global mean sea level is rising and accelerating, but some local areas are seeing a local sea level fall -- the land is rising faster than the water due to solid earth activity.  But the examples below come from areas where it is true.)
• Reality: This increases the area that can be affected by storm surge if nothing changes.
• Reality: It means some areas currently occupied will go below sea level if nothing changes.
• Reality: Those previous 3 mean that if nothing changes, more people will be affected, possibly killed, than already are, each year or decade.

Decision? Well, I don't know.  Of course I know what I prefer, but that's neither here nor there.  I live more than 30 meters (100 feet) above sea level.  No plausible storm surge or sea level rise for the next several centuries is a risk to my house.

Given those realities, it would be reality based decision making to respond:

• I don't care, let the low-lying areas drown.
• Let the buyer beware.
• We should rezone to have less property in the way of the storm surge.
• No new building in the areas that already flood more than once a decade.
• If anything bad happens, we'll declare a state of emergency and let taxpayers from the rest of the country bail us out.  Too bad, though, for the people who are killed.
• We'll build a dike to keep the water out.  After all, that's what the Dutch have done.
• The cost of response is greater than the value of the lives and property that would be destroyed, so don't respond.
• The cost of rebuilding after this predictable event destroys the area is good for the economy.
• ....

What isn't reality based decision making is to respond:

Read more »

Adapted to the weather?

I'm going to do some complaining about the recent power failures from Chicago through the Washington DC area, and there will be some relevance to talk about climate change adaptation.  But first, a few words about my background to be making complaints.  I'm not someone who has never been without electricity for an extended period before, nor, for that matter, without running water.  I've hand-pumped my water for some weeks.  And I carried it a couple hundred meters in buckets to water my grandmother's recent plantings in the hot and dry, by the standards then, summers of 1987-1988 in the midwest. While I like modern technologies, not least because it is why I reached age 10, I know how to live ok on a late 19th century level, and have done so.

In discussions about climate change, I hear that "Don't worry, we'll adapt to it." and
"Mitigating climate change means returning to 19th century technology."

I'll leave aside whether the recent derecho represents climate change.  And even more so the question of whether the change has a human fingerprint on it.  I live in the national Capitol area for what is supposed to be the richest and most technologically advanced country on the earth.  And many, large population, counties around me are among the wealthiest in the country.  If any area should be well-adapted to current weather, forget to climate change, it is this area.  Let's just consider events already in hand.

Read more »

National Center for Science Education now also defending science on climate change

The National Center for Science Education is now also engaging on teaching good science on climate change.  I've long been a member, because they've been for even longer helping ensure that science is taught in biology classes.  I'm not quick on the announcement, it was originally made on the 16th.  But if you haven't seen the mention yet, it's new to you :-)

I'll add a few thoughts of my own as a long-time member, and one who had suggested some time back to the director, Eugenie C. Scott, that they take this step.  One of the things I like about the NCSE is that their focus is on the science.  They're not the place to go if, say, you want someone to lobby for your idea for solving climate change.  They're a good place for parents, teachers, school boards, to go with questions and concerns about whether the science in your school's textbook is good, or is even science.  NCSE is also a good place to go to find out what is happening in your state regarding attempts to change the science curriculum away from science.  The main page address is http://ncse.com/

It was partly the tracking of attempts to remove teaching evolution in biology classes and other such anti-scientific moves that made me suggest also covering climate change science.  Increasingly, over the last 10 years, bills opposed to teaching good science in biology classrooms have been including directives opposed to teaching good science in earth science classrooms.  Bills to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or deny that there's a greenhouse effect, or to deny that CO2 is increasing and this is due to human activity, and other versions of denial.

I am John Abraham

Those of you of a certain age, or a certain other age, will remember the scene from the movie Spartacus where everyone steps forward and declares himself or herself to be Spartacus.  So it goes now.  Fortunately, it is only threats against jobs and not, yet, lives which are at hand. 

Still, someone's job is indeed being threatened, and the 'transgression' involved is to address the scientific content, or lack thereof, in the whiner's threatener's presentations.  That would be no matter for concern if the threatener were some nonentity.  But it is a person who has testified to the US Senate regarding the science of climate change.  That makes it rather a serious issue -- this is not a marginal person whining from the distant reaches of the auditorium.  This is a person with the ear of US Senators.

The person being threatened is John Abraham.  He's a scientist at a small university in Minnesota who took the time to address the scientific claims of the person who styles himself as Lord Monckton, and, among other things, who recently was invited to address the US Senate on climate change.  Abraham's response is at his University of St. Thomas web page.  I encourage you to view/listen to the presentation Abraham made.  And, of course, to examine yourself the original comments of Monckton's.  And then to hit the scientific literature yourself to see who represented the science most accurately.

I'll include a raft more links below the fold, as many comments are already out there.

The thing which has me writing is the fact that this is such an absurd response from Monckton -- if he were at all interested in the science.  That places this in to the 'weeding sources' category.  If you're interested in the science, you, first, try to get it right yourself.  Then, if someone else points to places where you might have gotten your science wrong (and, in fact, spectacularly wrong), your response is to correct your errors.  You don't have to like it.  Scientists are human, after all, and nobody likes to have it shown that they're wrong.  Still, you do it.  What you don't do is try to get fired the person who showed that you were wrong.  But Monckton indeed responds to correction by trying to get his corrector fired. 

So I encourage you to send your support to Abraham, by facebook group, to email his university, or the like (see, for instance, Hot Topic's petition to sign).  We need more people who are willing to address the scientific content of public statements about climate.  And they need to be reasonably confident that they're not going to lose their jobs for trying to speak honestly about the science.

Read more »

Discussion vs. Debate

How do you have a discussion when you disagree? Unless, no one should disagree be cause "its settled". was asked over at http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17837&page=6 by TheGillz. That's a point near and dear to my heart, and to what bothers me about much of the public ... words ... that are spoken regarding climate (actually most science, I just know this area better than most others).

It really isn't hard, just not the sort of thing we're used to seeing any more (in the US at least). We're used to seeing debates and listening to them on talk radio. It's also something of how cases are tried in court and we have many courtroom shows on TV. Namely, you set up two people and they have to defend some position (or attack the other guy's -- often they never present any positive information about their own). There are good reasons for doing it this way in law. But it isn't good for public understanding. I'll leave aside formal debate, but this captures what I think most of us have in mind regarding debate.

So what does discussion look like between two people who do disagree? No problem. My wife and I don't agree about everything, so we discuss the matters. Some things we'll probably never agree on, but we can understand why the other person thinks as they do even without agreeing with their conclusion. This is an important part of a discussion -- part of what you're after is to understand the other person's view and reasons. Time to be neutral and just listen. Just what do they think? Why do they think it? Sit back a little and let them speak for themselves; there'll be time for you to explain why their evidence is shoddy and their conclusions unsupported :-) But you can't have a civil discussion without understanding the other person.

Conversely, you have to think some about just why you have reached your own conclusion. Can't explain it without thinking about it yourself. This is related to the business that you generally understand things better yourself if you try to teach it to someone else. It is easier to hold a conclusion than to explain one, and far easier to hold it than to defend it. So the two of you explain your conclusions and how you got there. If it were debate, then you start the mutual attacking and never budging from your original point. That, I find boring.

Discussion, on the other hand, is interesting. In discussion, you may both change your minds. You had some good reasons that lead to your conclusion, but so did your partner in discussion. (At least assume that to start with!) As you discuss, your partner may point out that one of your sources doesn't really support your conclusion (as, say, I have in looking at some sites). This doesn't make you a bad person, but it does mean that you need to find a stronger source to support that point -- or else modify your conclusion. Also doesn't mean that you have to abandon your eventual conclusion, just some portion of it, or maybe to place less confidence on it. Conversely, as you look at your partner's sources and reasons, they may well have encountered some information that you haven't -- and those different sources might lead you to a new position for yourself.

In a really good discussion, you both leave with different conclusions than you started with. In this vein, I've also had a discussion where a group of us started out in agreement in one direction (that a certain proposal was good) and as we discussed our reasons, wound up in agreement that the proposal was not good. People in general agreement can have discussions too, and wind up far from their original opinion.

Since the point of discussion is understanding, rather than 'winning', you can also relax a bit about ego. If you have a discussion and your new understanding has you change your mind, great! You understand more. If the person you're talking with changes their mind some because of the good information you provided, also great!

There are plenty of other places to go if what you want is debate. And plenty of others where you can see only one view, which is, to me, even less interesting than debate. Here, I'm looking for discussion, or at least helping folks do some learning.

Anyone else have a (brief) example of a good discussion they had?

Labelling instead of thinking

It's been interesting to see how rapidly some have labelled this blog and what labels are out there. Almost always, hence this note's title, labelling is done instead of thinking. Labels around the topic of climate include alarmist, believer, skeptic, denialist, and probably several others. Conspicuously absent is 'science-minded'. If you have to have a label for this blog, that'd be one to use. I like science and think it's a good way to answer scientific questions. Not all questions are scientific, but when they are, it's good.

So I'm puzzled that there's been reference to me being a 'believer'. What in, the source didn't say, and that's rather the problem with such labels. People using labels instead of reality often don't tell you what the label means. I do believe that science is a good way to answer scientific questions, but if that's all it takes to be a 'believer' then all scientific sources would have to be labelled so. Perhaps they are, which leaves me wondering what the utility of their classification is supposed to be. Help people avoid learning about the science?

Denialists, as I might use the term, used to be across the spectrum as to conclusions. That is, there were folks who insisted that sea level was going to rise and drown everyone (!) in the next few years (unless we all did what they wanted) and denied any and all evidence to the contrary. At the same time, there were folks who insisted that sea level couldn't possibly change except maybe to go down. And again, denied any and all evidence to the contrary. I don't see the former types much any more, but the latter have only gotten more vocal and seemingly numerous.

Skeptic ought to have been a good label for the science-minded. Instead, it's been appropriated by a very narrow viewpoint and, as usual for such swipings, one that is not skeptical at all. A true skeptic will sit down and look at all evidence regarding a point. They aren't foolish enough to think that there are only 2 sides. And they look even handedly at all evidence. They don't select only 1 'side' and make only that one defend their conclusion. They also use consistent standards of evidence. In my cherry-picking note, for instance, I mentioned some who (dishonestly) use trends from 1998 (or one or two other particular, even more recent, years) only to conclude that 'warming isn't happening'. If they were honest skeptics, they'd turn around and agree that warming is happening if 2009 were warmer than 1998 (or if, as already happened in one data set, 2005 were warmer). In practice, however, these fake 'skeptics' simply move on to some other point, never updating their conclusions in light of new information.

I'm also surprised to hear myself called 'alarmist'. Even less useful that 'believer', as folks throwing that label never do say what was alarming. Apparently they're scared to hear that there really is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. But I don't see that their being easily scared by reality should mean much to the rest of us. Again, the label has been taken by one particular group (the self-described 'skeptics', who also dishonestly took that label for themselves) to label only one viewpoint. Often, these same people turn around and make alarming statements themselves -- about how there'll be a worldwide depression if anything were done in response to climate change. That strikes me as much more alarming than a lab-tested statement about there being greenhouse gases.

In fairness, I do notice that I'm using a label myself -- 'unreliable'. On the other hand, I only use it after reading the source myself (and encouraging you to do so yourselves) and laying out exactly why I'm using it. It's a rather narrow usage, even more so since I'm only using it for sources which can be shown in error without knowing much science or math.

I'll encourage people writing here to not use the 'alarmist' 'denialist' and other such labels. If you think someone or some source (me included) is wrong about something, go ahead and say so and present the solid evidence (see my link policy) that supports your point. (Just saying you think they are, or I am, wrong is not enough and will likely be rejected regardless of who you think is wrong.)

Science not politics

Continuing with Dave's comments about climate science:

Secondly you have a topic that's polarized many different groups, and many an individual will merely argue a point because a group they might relate to is arguing the same point.

Many people have vested interests relating to climate change and thoughts about what, if anything, to do about it. That does produce politics, in that groups of people with interests act politically.

But the science is the science, and respects no party, no nation, no religion, etc.

This does make for the problem that groups with interests other than explaining and discussing the best science also establish web sites, write editorials, produce shows, etc. to propagandize their views, distorting and lying about the science along the way. So if you're interested in the science, you have to work harder to find it than in something which doesn't scare people. You also have to work harder to disentangle the parts of an article that are science from those which are opinion, wishful thinking, and such.

One thing which I think is helpful in deciding about sources is to, first, hold your nose about their political viewpoints. This can be hard when the politics are greatly different from yours, but bear with it. As you read through, look for scientific claims, or claims which the author thinks are scientific. As you find them, go hit the literature on the topic and see if the author has represented the point correctly. It may sound like a lot of work, but in practice, most web sites which are more concerned about their politics than the science display this fairly quickly by lies and distortions, and some are at an extremely basic level. Basic enough that you can check the truth of it by looking at a textbook from 30 years ago (before the topic was getting nearly as much press, but well after the scientific basics were understood). If not an outright lie, very often what you'll see is a quote selected from a scientific article and removed from its context. Once you find the context, you see that the original author's intent was quite different than the bit quoted.

As you proceed with this, you'll find some sites are very prone to distortion or lying, and some are, if not doing it, then at least only doing it on such a subtle level that you can't detect it. Eliminating the most egregious (and those who quote the same lines -- there's very little originality, so learning a few facts suffices to eliminate a lot of the bad sites) narrows the field greatly, and productively. The difficult part is where you have to eliminate sites whose politics you generally like. On the other hand, if you want your car fixed, you go to your mechanic, not to your representative (aside from the times they're the same person :-). Scientists working in the area are better sources than political groups anyhow.

After you start to understand the science, you have separate questions. (for all 'you', including me). I don't think the responses are dictated by the science. Once you understand the science and the probable outcomes, now you have to ask the questions of what is morally appropriate, what is politically appropriate, what is economically appropriate, and so on, by way of responses (including 'do nothing'). Different people, even if agreed on the science, will (and should) disagree here. But, if the discussion were to be based on our best understanding of the science, I think we'd be far better off.