What are your current beliefs on climate change? Specifically, would you defer to the view that greenhouse gas forcing is the main source of long-term climate change? How long-term? Would you defer to the IPCC range for climate sensitivity estimates?

Based on asking UCSD scientists when I've met them at parties, I'd parrot them and say human emissions are maybe about 1/2 of the source of long term climate change. I would not defer to the IPCC or to anybody without giving them careful reads. The issue is too politicized to trust anyone merely because of fancy or scientific sounding titles.

What were your beliefs on climate change when you first came across the subject, and how did your views evolve (if at all) on further reading (if you did any)? (Obviously, your initial views wouldn't have included beliefs about terms like "greenhouse gas forcing" or "climate sensitivity").

When I first heard of global warming I thought it was ludicrous because I could remember a number of years ago reading about the coming ice age and all the evidence for that. The idea that we should bring CO2 emissions to a halt is ludicrous to me even in the face of real climate change because there are so many cheaper ways to cool the earth than to stop emitting CO2. The idea that we should stop emitting CO2 because it is emissions of CO2 that got us here is simplistic, and, I suspect, essentially reflecting a religious impulse of "purity," the same kind of thing that leads to strange dietary restrictions and proscriptions against associating with menstruating women. I was very influenced by Michael Crichton (a denier, more or less, but a damn smart one) and I accept the steady stream of obviously real experts who say we have nowhere near enough reason to think that trillion dollar changes like stopping burning fossil fuels is likely to be any more effective than solutions that cost a millionth as much. A good source of these experts is to look at the guests on "econtalk" hosted by Russ Roberts.

What are some surprising things you learned when reading up about climate change that led you to question your beliefs (regardless of whether you changed them)? For instance, perhaps reading about Climategate caused you to critically examine your deference to expert consensus on the issue, but you eventually concluded that the expert consensus was still right.

I was surprised that there is still no measurable ocean level change even as every hurricane or blizzard that passes by is claimed to be a sign of the changes that have already occurred. I was surprised to learn that there are easily worked out things that can be done that could cool the earth at a cost of a few billion US$ or less. I was surprised to learn that glaciers really are melting.

If you read my recent posts linked above, did the posts contain information that was new to you? Did any of this information surprise you? Do you think it's valuable to carry out this sort of exercise in order to better understand the climate change debate?

I started reading them, they seemed OK, just didn't have the energy to get through them at the moment.

other comments

The real question is not "what is really happening" but "what is the best thing to do now." Intelligent study is certainly a thing to do now and fortunately there is no shortage of that, even though the politicization will make it really hard to dig through and find reasonable descriptions of results as they are developed.

I am also fascinated by the idea that a slow rise in sea level is described as a catastrophe. It is not. The sea has always eroded the coast and houses and other structures last a finite time in many of these places. Oh Well. When I suggest that a sea level rise slow enough that "we can walk away from it" is not particularly frightening, I am warned that poor countries with no hills could see millions die... of drowning? It is not clear. The hypothesis is that since they are poor they can't figure out how to move somewhere else. So the solution is to turn off all the engines in the world to help keep Bangladesh above sea level? It would be simpler and cheaper to buy a few million square miles in Africa an pay to move all interested Bangladeshi's there. Oh but that is not politically realistic? But turning off all the engines is?

The usage of fossil fuels has not only NOT declined worldwide, it continues to grow as fast as it has ever grown. No matter at what rate renewable energy comes on line, more fossil fuel energy comes on line faster. " Solving" CO2 by having Americans and Europeans buy Tesla's is like "solving" population growth by having American's and Europeans use condoms. In each case, if you do not change what China, India, and Africa are doing you are for all intents and purposes doing nothing but rendering the US and Europe less important and powerful in the future of earth.