For those of you wishing to dig a little deeper into this week’s episode on climate change, here are some additional questions for your consideration. Share your thoughts in the comments, or share the questions with others, and let us know how it goes.

1. Why do you think non-experts are so passionate about climate change and macroeconomics? How do you think they would justify their passion? Do you think evidence can settle these disputes? What can be done to “detribalize” these debates?

2. In August, 2013 Roberts talked with MIT Economics Professor Robert Pindyck about the policy challenges of climate change. Unlike his MIT colleague Emanuel, Pindyck argues the climate change debate is not characterized by uncertainty, but by disagreement. How does the way Pindyck views the “climate change dilemma” compare to the views of Christy and Emanuel? By whom are you most persuaded, and why? [Note: The Pindyck episode also has a corresponding Listening Guide, which may be useful for further questions and/or instructional use.]

3. In December, 2013, Roberts spoke with Georgia Institute of Technology atmospheric scientist Judith Curry about the complexities and uncertainties of climate change. Like Emanuel, she emphasizes the variability and multiple factors that contribute to temperature fluctuations. But she concludes, “There’s bigger things to worry about than climate change.” What sorts of things is Curry worried about, and how do they compare to the concerns of Christy and Emanuel? What do you think our focus should be in terms of climate policy, and why?