Minnesota legislators and scientists team up on climate change

  • Article by: JOSEPHINE MARCOTTY and BILL McAULIFFE , Star Tribune
  • Updated: January 16, 2013 - 5:37 AM

Five researchers described the environmental challenges ahead.

  • 46
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
PassOut76Jan. 15, 1310:25 PM

All of the scientific models on climate change have failed to correctly predict climate changes. Sunspot theory is much more predictive. Which scientific model are we going to follow? The science around climate change is all over the place. I remember the winters of the 60's, 70's and early 80's. They were brutal. Really folks, things will even out. Just live long enough.

25
29
jnerbonneJan. 15, 1311:00 PM

Looking forward to seeing Minnesota advance the Next Generation Energy Act passed in 2007. How will be meet our carbon reduction goals of 80% reduction by 2050. So many creative and economically stimulating ways.

11
21
martytoilJan. 15, 1311:20 PM

Skeptics argue that we should wait till climate models are completely certain before we act on reducing CO2 emissions. If we waited for 100% certainty, we would never act. Models are in a constant state of development to include more processes, rely on fewer approximations and increase their resolution as computer power develops. The complex and non-linear nature of climate means there will always be a process of refinement and improvement. The main point is we now know enough to act. Models have evolved to the point where they successfully predict long-term trends and are now developing the ability to predict more chaotic, short-term changes. Multiple lines of evidence, both modeled and empirical, tell us global temperatures will change 3°C with a doubling of CO2 (Knutti & Hegerl 2008). Models don't need to be exact in every respect to give us an accurate overall trend and its major effects - and we have that now. If you knew there were a 90% chance you'd be in a car crash, you wouldn't get in the car (or at the very least, you'd wear a seatbelt). The IPCC concludes, with a greater than 90% probability, that humans are causing global warming. To wait for 100% certainty before acting is recklessly irresponsible

26
16
irishdemJan. 16, 13 1:11 AM

PassOut76 provides no evidence for the so-call sunspot theory to be significant. And in fact there has been steady warming for decades now so PassOut's claims about the brutality of the 60s, 70s and 80s certainly are not born out. In fact each of those decades was warmer than the preceding decade and look at how much warmer the current decade has been in relation to those decades!

19
12
bgronniJan. 16, 13 5:53 AM

Sure, lets spend more taxpayer money on this and put more regulations in place that will contract our economy even more. All over a false, unproven science. History proves that climate does change. warm on the eraly 1000's and cold (mini ice age in the 1700's.

17
27
elind56Jan. 16, 13 6:48 AM

Man's extractions and emissions are so miniscule as to be insignificant as compared to the natural processes of the incredibly vast planet we live on. This insignificance is exceeded only by the arrogance and hypocrisy of those who preach about carbon footprints and green living. For many decades now, progressives and their environmentalist allies have been using relentless and totally unsubstantiated fear-mongering in their efforts to halt western civilization's industrialized march into the future. No 'footprint' could ever possibly be small enough for them and they will never rest as long as humans roam the earth. They intend to use their theology to negate wealth through taxes, bans, and, the holy grail of environmentalism, rationing. Stop placating the extremists with expensive laws and regulations that are meaningless from an environmental standpoint. We cannot put our prosperity and freedom into the hands of a few individuals and organizations who have alterior motives that are far less pure than they appear on the surface.

15
23
danjJan. 16, 13 7:01 AM

If mother nature ain't happy, ain't nobody going to be happy. It is time we work to radically reduce our CO2 output. It is critical that we reward conservation efforts and new "greener" energy sources.

16
14
circleoflifeJan. 16, 13 7:14 AM

All this is, is a set up for the government to scare everyone into paying more taxes and fees for something humans can not control. Climate change is a way of life and part of the earth's cycle and has been forever. To be so arrogant as to think or believe we can alter that is irresponsible and misguided. You can ALWAYS find a scientist or study to support an agenda.

13
21
efleschJan. 16, 13 7:19 AM

Science is a much more sound base for policy decisions than are conspiracy theories. Those who fail to plan had better plan to fail.

19
9
circleoflifeJan. 16, 13 7:32 AM

eflesch "Science is a much more sound base for policy decisions than are conspiracy theories" Science IS a conspiracy theory. Considering these "scientists" can be bought to have the so call scientifics facts support a political agenda. People need to wake up to reality.

11
17

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT