What Conservatives (and Everybody Else) Could Learn From ‘Cool It’
by Bjorn LomborgFor nearly two decades now, people have been arguing about climate change and getting nowhere. Right-wingers argue that global warming is a hoax based on unsubstantiated science, while left-wingers insist that not only is it real but unless we spend everything we have and more trying to stop it, the world will end tomorrow.
To which I say, “Stop—you’re both wrong!”
This, in a nutshell, is the message of the new documentary about me and my work that opens nationwide on Nov. 12. It’s called “Cool It” and, yes, the title is meant to be clever. The idea is that we do need to cool down the planet, but in order to do it sensibly we first need to cool it ourselves. That is, we need to dispense with both the anti-scientific denialism and the Al Gore-ish fear-mongering. Instead, what we should be doing is facing facts—and responding to them not with rhetoric but with smarter, more rational policies.
The first fact we need to acknowledge is the reality of global warming. Like it or not, the data is abundantly clear that man-made greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising. Yes, the “Climate-gate” emails and the disclosure of funny business at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exposed some deeply disturbing academic chicanery and prejudice at some supposedly prestigious institutions. However, these revelations did nothing to undermine the fundamental scientific basis of global warming. What they did call into question were many of the more extreme predictions about global warming’s likely impact—such as the idea that all the Himalayan glaciers were about to disappear (they’re not) or that half the Amazon rain forest would soon be destroyed (not likely).
Of course, these extreme predictions are at the heart of the mainstream environmental movement’s position on climate policy. And this brings us to another set of facts we need to face: that while global warming is real, it is not quite the imminent catastrophe so many climate activists would have us believe.
There may be some truth to the notion that in order to get people to focus on a problem, you need to scare the pants off them. But while worst-case scenarios may be a great way to get the public’s attention, they are a terrible basis for making public policy. If you believe that the southwest U.S. is about to become another dustbowl (as Paul Krugman has insisted) or that Greenland and Antarctica are on the verge of becoming huge piles of slush (as Al Gore would have us believe), of course you’re going to argue that we should do everything we can to eliminate carbon emissions as quickly as possible—even if that means amazingly costly and ineffective government policies.
And make no mistake about it—the kind of carbon cuts called for in the Kyoto Protocols and the European Union’s recently adopted 20/20 policy (under which carbon emissions are supposed to be cut to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020) are hardly a recipe for success. Not only would they rob us of trillions of dollars worth of economic output—the EU effort alone would cost an estimated $250 billion a year in lost GDP—but they would do astonishingly little to solve global warming. According to the DICE climate-economic model, if the EU plan were to be implemented every year for the next 90 years, the resulting reduction in temperatures would be too small to measure. (To be precise, the figure is a miniscule 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit.)
The good news is that there is another, better way to deal with global warming—a cure that is most assuredly not worse than the disease. As I have noted elsewhere, the big problem with the Al Gore approach to global warming is that it ignores the fact that despite all the hopeful talk about solar, wind, and other green energy technologies, we are still overwhelmingly dependent for our energy needs on carbon-emitting fuels like coal and oil. Why? Because coal and oil are far cheaper and more efficient energy sources than the alternatives. For two decades now, we have been putting the cart before the horse, pretending we could cut carbon emissions now (by taxing them) and solve the efficiency problem later. Unfortunately, this makes neither economic nor political sense. What we should be doing isn’t trying to make carbon-emitting fuels too expensive to use, but rather figuring out how to make green energy cheaper. If we could do that, we wouldn’t have to force (or subsidize) anyone to stop burning coal and oil. Everyone, including the Chinese and the Indians, would shift to the cheaper and cleaner alternatives.
This of course is a big if. But it’s not impossible. As the Breakthrough Institute has pointed out, we didn’t promote the digital revolution by taxing slide rules or restricting the supply of typewriters. We did it by investing massively in R&D. We could—and should—do the same with green energy technology. As we point out in “Cool It,” devoting roughly $100 billion a year to green energy R&D would likely produce the kind of game-changing breakthroughs needed to fuel a carbon-free future. Not only would this be a much less expensive fix than trying to cut carbon emissions directly, it would also reduce global warming far more quickly.
So why aren’t we doing this? I blame polarization. What’s keeping us from getting anywhere is the lack of any middle ground in the climate debate. As far as the alarmists are concerned, you either believe global warming poses an imminent threat to our continued existence or you are a denier. Deniers can be just as bad: in their view, if you don’t believe global warming is a nefarious hoax, you must be an empty-headed “warmist.” It’s time to retire the old shibboleths of both left and right—and stop branding anyone who dares question them a crackpot or worse.
Tackling global warming smartly is not (or at least it shouldn’t be) a political issue. Being smart is something we ought to be able to find bipartisan agreement on. For the politically conservative, the attraction of this approach is that it is a clear-headed, fiscally responsible response – and one that would actually fix the problem it is meant to solve.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
247 Comments
There has been so much malfeasance, corruption, incompetence and fraud in the climate change argument, the proponents have lost all credibility. They are telling us not to look behind the curtains, ignore that man behind the curtains. Just believe what we say. Money in the form of grants have corrupted the scientific community when it comes to climate change. You don't have to be a scientists to recognize hanky panky when you see it.
it is a fact that man made green house gasses are building, what proof do you have, and exactly what green house gas are you talking about? you obviously do not know, or didn't get the stolen e-mail, global warming is a hoax, at least the man made part. also, the world has been much warmer in the past then it is today, look at the 1300's. once you put forward a false statement, the rest of your post is made irrelevant. also, when the globe warms up, from conditions on it's own, why is this a bad thing? the extra warmth will create longer growing seasons, and better conditions for plants. and in some areas we will have less need for heat, and why is that a bad thing?
Hey, Bjorn! You've gotten it ALL wrong. The "Right" does not believe that global warming is a hoax at all. We believe that anthropomorphic global warming is a hoax…AND IT IS!
Funny how one subtle omission (or in this case, a subtle LIE) can make all the difference in the world, isn't it?
It's called the sun, it's hot and it's putting out more radiant energy than in the past.
The hockey stick is hockey bull and it can't be taken seriously when decades of data are deliberately ignored or thrown out to legitimize it.
CO2 levels have been much much higher prior to the industrial age and I'm pretty sure that dinosaurs and trees weren't driving around in Volvos and Beamers 50 thousand years ago…
CO2 levels have gone up and down over the aeons and blaming increases over the past one hundred years on humans is not only arrogant it's irresponsible.
I agree with Retief. Furthermore we've been lied to so many times by the "warmists" that anything and everything they say is now suspect.
1- There is still no solid evidence of global warming.
2- Bjorn fails to identify WHO should be "devoting roughly $100 billion a year to green energy R&D"! It is NOT our government's role to force this. It our government's role to GET OUT OF THE WAY and create an environment where this R&D can take place! I do agree that taxing fossil fuels is the wrong tactic to take.
I agree we need to be attentive stewards of our planet and be responsible… by reducing our waste and being clean. However, jumping off a cliff and reacting like Al Gore wants us to is sheer stupidity.
Stop using the Global Warming story as a crutch to rob America!
I am doubtful that $100b/year in government-funded research is what is needed. If there are breakthrus aborning, they will come from entrepreneurs freed from coercion and in a healthy, unconstipated economy. I keep seeing announcements about polymer-based solar, nanotech-based battery improvements, mini nuclear reactor modules – but the reports come, the reports go, and five years later we hear the same announcement. I'm not so sure more money is the problem. Basic science is just as much the problem. Or maybe it is engineering – the process controls needed to make the polymers pure enough and stable enough to perform, same for those battery electrode coatings – but if that is it, there should be private-sector investors willing to dive in, when they are not under the threat of confiscation or regulatory strangulation at any moment. Those who insist the government is who needs to fund this have lost sight of the source of our greatness – the power of human minds freed from the fetters of governmental or political oversight.
By the way, welcome aboard, Bjorn. You are highly (or at least somewhat – I started writing to a blank thread) respected here, my tone notwithstanding. Yes, government might help, but it more often than not ends up funding political suckups more than truly creative entrepreneurs, or so it appears to me.
And by the way the anthropogenic part of the equation is suspect, and CO2 is part of the carbon cycle we all learned about in school back when they taught just the facts – others are right about that. But cleaner energy is always welcome, when it comes from science and engineering rather than politics.
bjorn go back to Norway if you feel a warm breeze when you get there take off one layer of clothing and go back to bed.
Hmmm. Perhaps with the "increase" in CO2 which plants love, and the "consequent" increase in global warming creating a longer growing season, coupled with a burgeoning human population on the planet seeking better living standards and more food, we are witnessing Divine Providence at work. It is now incumbent upon us to seize the moment.
"Like it or not, the data is abundantly clear that man-made greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising."
Like it or not, this is where YOU lost me. I would like to examine this sentence and offer my "opinions" on your "fact" (or what you have stated as fact).
First, which "man-made" greenhouse gases are YOU refering to? It seems like such an easy statement. I am curious, do you mean carbon dioxide? Are you speaking of nitrogen or carbon monoxide or ozone or madeupium, etc? I wish that enviroMENTALists would define specifically what they are speaking about. If they are speaking about carbon dioxide, which is the main culprit being thwarted by the Cap and Trade bill that is now thankfully dead, that argument is a loser. Carbon dioxide will be used and absorbed as fast as the oil from the gulf oil spill. Remember that one? Nature takes care of that one. to be continued
Second, lets say we agree and the the earth is warming. Who says that is a BAD thing. Some might argue that it is good. Yes, some areas may experience too much heat, however, it is also possible that MORE areas will experience a beneficial rise in temperature.
When you say centuries, does that include the 1970's when we were going to enter another ICE AGE? Have you seen the scientific studies that suggest we are entering another 25 year cycle of declining temperature due to the inactivity of that great big burning ball of fire in the sky known as the SUN? Please, do NOT imply that your "facts" are correct, when there is abundant evidence that we, the human race as a whole, have NO idea what EXACTLY is happening in the universe.
Third, who says that we, the human race, can find a way to reverse your so called "catastrophy" that seems to help everyone in the world a century or two from now, without completely destroying us, here in the United States, today? Wouldn't it seem more palatable to take steps now, that allow us to be in a better stronger position in the future, with regards to food production, energy production, medicine, etc, to help everyone overcome the possible (or not) catastrophy in the (many generations) future.
I f we want clean and green energy sources get the govt out of the way so that research can be done. The best place for the research to be funded from is those so called evil big business. It is time to unleash the creativity of the businesses and people that are in our country, for far to long the govt has restricted what businesses and people are doing in our country. Just look at everything that has been invented in our country and where the research money came from. How much govt money went into inventing the light bulb? How much govt money went into inventing the pot belly stove? How much govt money went into inventing the first air plane?
All these invention that we take for granted today did have any govt money involved but they still were invented. We do not need govt involved with green and clean renewable energy, let the private business take care of and the market determine the cost.
My plants love the CO2. They can't get enough of it. but when they die they create methane, what is a mother to do?
Back in the 70's they were trying to scare us about an ice age, now they are trying to scare us with global warming…really?
I'll believe the hype once I see Al Gore et al debate Lord Christopher Monckton and win, but wait, Al Gore and his Democratic pals BARRED Lord Monckton from debating in a Joint Commitee a while back…. I wonder why?
There are at least 3 questions that have to be answered with regard to "global warming." They are: 1) Is global warming occurring? 2) Is it a man-caused phenomenon? 3) Is there anything man can do to correct it?
Leftists always focus on "proving" the first, then assume the answers to 2 and 3. Personally, I find the idea that the Industrial Revolution is responsible for warming laughable–but not nearly as laughable as the current state of scientific "consensus" as pertains to global weather patterns. Until meteorologists can accurately predict next week's weather (vis a vis wind, precipitation, diffusion patterns, to name a few), I'm disinclined to entertain their predictions about how the weather will behave in future millennia–let alone their explanations for their predictions.
Think about it! Do you really believe that the climate has been unchanged for any extended length of time? Do you believe that the atmospheric gasses have been the same for the last 1000 years? There is ample evidence the sea level has varied by meters in the past. We tend to measure things in terms of human lifetimes, the is a human trait, however it lends itself easily to making conclusions that have no validity. Our climate has been tumultuous over the centuries, and most of the upheavals were before any industrialization.
I didn't even finish the article L4S. GOD controls the weather.
Nuff said.
Mornin' BTW. Happy Friday. What a gorgeous crisp fall day with the foliage at full peak.
Amen Brother and good morning.
Someone dinged you, looks like we have company. : )
If fossil fuels are to blame (and I'm not saying they are) then why aren't the OPEC countries the target of taxes, fees, tariffs, etc.? Why not simplify the process greatly by focusing on the relatively finite production end rather than the almost uncountable consumption end? We all know the answer of course.
The "problem" has been hyped by the left so much because they have a set of "solutions" that they would like to see implemented. Many, many people have been convinced that they must do something, anything…
I think that this approach has value, in that it helps those that have integrated "global warming" into their own personal catechism to "do something" less extreme than trashing our civilization.
What I believe:
1) CO2 is not a pollutant.
2) Global warming is a hoax.
3) The GW scientists are phony and on the take.
4) AlGore is corrupt and wants our money.
5) The sun will rise tomorrow and we will still be here.
That's right sis. And these idiots seem to think they have the power.
The nicest thing I can think of to say is….. No thanks.
Sir, your data starts off from a false premise, namely that their is a right temp. for the planet. History demonstrates this. The Little Ice Age, although there is a frequently referenced series of events preceding the known climatic minima. Starting in the 13th century, pack ice began advancing southwards in the North Atlantic, as did glaciers in Greenland. The three years of torrential rains beginning in 1315 ushered in an era of unpredictable weather in Northern Europe which did not lift until the 19th century. Before that happaned, we had the Medieval Warm Period, which is generally thought to have occurred from about AD 950–1250, during the European Middle Ages. (you know when the Vikings founded Greenland when it was Green and could support a profitable grape production for wine enterprise) WWII was fought in some of the Coldest Winters on Record in Europe.
In other words, yes the World does Cool and Warms (according to this little plan that God put into place), and Mankind can not control natural forces. Just ask anyone who has been in a hurricaine, Tsunami, or Blizzard.
Simple and to the point. Well said.
If cap and tax passes, then it would be criminal as well.
Oh goody the trolls are hiding again.
Probably one of those people that think the only way things can be done is if the govt is the one doing them. Hopefully one day they will change their thinking (NOT) an join reality with the rest of us.
I think a study needs to be done with scientists from the both sides working side by side so there wont be any cheating, BEFORE anything is done at all.
And who is this guy anyway?
Whenever the Global Warming crap comes up…..Bible verses such as these pop into my head.
Psalms 74:17 Thou hast set all the borders of the earth; thou hast made summer and winter.
Psalms 147:16 He spreads the snow like wool and scatters the frost like ashes.
Hey, it's not April 1st; is this article legit, or is this moron just trying to tweak us? You know, satire doesn't often come across very well online.
For the record, just one more time, WE CANNOT CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT. We can't make it hotter or colder, and this is simply more moronic global warming nonsense.
Hey, it would be great if we could develop nuclear power, BUT THE LIBERALS WON'T LET US. Until the environmental wackos are decisively dealt with, there will be little progress of any type.
Remember that this is the same Bjorn Lomborg that Gore refused to debate, because he is an actual scientist and does not support Pope Gore's Church of Gaea, and by the way his prescriptions are not even remotely draconian. I am less trusting of government action than he is, but he does not support government abuse the way our left does.
Hey, it's people like YOU who caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, you conservative you!
Your first sentence, associating gases with GW draws into question the rest of your article. In addition, the central premise, "What we should be doing isn’t trying to make carbon-emitting fuels too expensive to use, but rather figuring out how to make green energy cheaper," is all well and good, except it ignores the fact that green technologies HAVE become more efficient and less expensive. The solar panels that Jimmy Carter put on the roof of the White House are dinosaurs by today's standards.
We are, however, bumping up against other realities. The materials needed to make these advances must be dug out of the ground, and are increasingly under the control of countries which are either enemies, or potential enemies. This is creating cost increases that have nothing to do with efficiency.
Having the government throw money at this issue will only result in the same kind of entrenched, dependent scientists that have made AGW such a thorn in the first place.
When I started writing my comment no one had commented yet. Your comment beat me to it, but I started with his same sentence. I agree whole heartedly.
So what exactly is the perfect global temperature and who decides that….?
The earth has had many temperature fluctuations that lasted hundreds or thousands of years and they had nothing to do with man. Several times most of what is now the United States were covered with glaciers. Was that the perfect temperature ?
Maybe if you produced more CO2 they wouldn't die! Save the plants — burn more oil!
As I read this article, I was momentarily excited about an approach to investment in more energy efficient technologies for this planet. Regardless if you believe in the planet's cycles of climate, cooling or warming, there is a credible proposal for investments in new technologies. Unfortunately, he could not let go of the LIE and so his message will be lost. AGAIN.
Can we start by getting rid of the waste that is Al Gore, the UN Climate group and any so called scientist that has fudged, sorry hockeyed, their numbers??
Who s this Bjorn Lomborg? Why hasn't he kept up with the scientific community regarding this issue?
Umm Bjorn, didn't you know that the ENTIRE AGW computer model was invalidated in August?
its awful arrogant to think man can control natural changes in the climate.first and formost humans arent an alien species therefore anything man does is natural.mother earth has her own plan and does not consult lowly creatures.like the dinos before us when earth is through with humans she will dispose of us also.
Hey, he did say "Like it or not…" He forgot that there are people who DO like the fact that it's getting warmer. Every study that I've seen on the effects of global cooling show that global warming is paradise by comparison.
You're still not addressing a key KEY point.
"Green tech" in general trades CO2 emissions for H2O. Anyone even remotely in tune with the actual science can tell you that water vapor contributes MUCH more, exponentially more, to global warming than CO2. So in essence, "green" tech may actually ACCELERATE (!!) global warming (if it exists). The entire premise behind global warming is wealth transfer from nations and to benefit some robber barons, namely Soros and Gore.
There is a substantial amount of data, and many scientists backing it, that tells us global warming is not happening.
One of the topics at the next Bildeberg meeting for the conspiracists amongst us is global cooling. Seriously.
Huh? What does the bible have to do with global climate change?
Mr. 666– you just proved his post correct. When was the last time you cracked open a Bible?
I think they're going to have to see reality the hard way. We're getting into hard times. We know how to make it without handouts, let's see what they do when they sit around waiting for the check to come, and it don't.
Who's up for another dinosaur burger on the grill. Sorry, Frank Caveman had the last steak and we can't find anymore dinosaurs.
Maybe we should just all wear hats! AGW=BS
What temperature is the earth "supposed" to be?
Seriously. Can anyone answer that most BASIC question? If not, why are we supposed to completely alter alter all human life on the planet as we know it? We KNOW for an absolute FACT that the earth was several degrees warmer in the past now with abundant life. We also know it was much cooler. So if the earth's tempertature is so fluctuant, who is it that determines what the temperature is supposed to be?
If we decide on an ideal temperature, can we adjust the climate enough to achieve it? Absolutely NOT!
As it stand snow this is insanity. When you plug historical numbers into their climate models, they are off as much as THREE HUNDRED PERCENT! Think about that! I'm a physician, and my expetced error rate is practically 0.0001% or face litigation.
This is a sham as it stands right now. The most basic questions aren't even being ASKED, yet they're willing to commit trillions to achieve an undefined end.
I would have to say I agree. But mostly because I think R & D is a good thing for just about every body. Very few bad things can come out of R & D. Every thing we look around and see today from the wrist watches we wear the cars we drive comes out of R & D. So working on R & D is a good thing. Many good things would come out of it including new industries we haven't even considered.
The problem with your R & D plan is, the digital revolution didn't come from government. You seem to be suggesting the GOVERNMENT mandate the R & D.
That will never work because everything the Government does to make a situation better…makes it worse.
The best thing would be for the government to get out of the way. Get rid of regulations that make it insanely expensive to get new technology online.
No, I don't know specifically how this would help, I only know it will.
Absolutely agree!
The treatment of CO2 as a pollutant is like treating water as poison.
It's necessary for life for crying out loud in the night!!
Overall, though, I do agree with certain points in the article. If clean energy can be made economically viable, both sides of the debate get what they want – without having to force anyone. For example – the 2 vehicles that I own for my family are Hybrid cars. I am the most adamant opponent of Al Gore and his Global Warming Chicken Little chicanery, though. So why on earth do I own 2 Hybrid cars? Simple: They are cheaper to run. I spend hundreds of dollars less to fuel them. Granted, the price of these cars is a little higher – so in the long run I'm probably breaking even, but I don't feel the pain as much when gas goes to $4/gallon.
Sorry Bjorn, you are wrong. Greenhouse gasses produced by man for the last 200 years doesn't even come close to the amount of greenhouse gasses released by one good sized forest fire (or volcanic eruption for that matter). From the trapped water in the plants burned going into the atmosphere (Water vapor in the first 100 feet of atmosphere accounts for over 90% of the energy trapped by the atmosphere) to the byproducts of combustion… anthropomorphic CO2 is statistically insignificant approaching ZERO. Also, since you "climate change" guys like to talk about "feedback loops" why don't you talk about the natural "feedbak loop" that REDUCES atmospheric CO2 and the global warming it causes? You know…. how green plants FLOURISH in higher CO2 atmospheres causing better crop yields (resulting in more food for the starving masses) and since there is increased plant growth there is more CO2 consumed in the photosynthetic process. And yes, I am a scientist.
Going back some 500 million years, you observe atomospheric CO2 levels at the 7500 ppm. We still had intermittent ice ages, and warming. Today CO2 is 385 ppm.
This fact is hard to explain by alarmists.
"Like it or not, the data is abundantly clear that man-made greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising. Yes, the “Climate-gate” emails and the disclosure of funny business at the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change exposed some deeply disturbing academic chicanery and prejudice at some supposedly prestigious institutions. However, these revelations did nothing to undermine the fundamental scientific basis of global warming."
3 sentences. Only one correct.
In fact, there's an enormous amount of debate about the correlation between so-called greenhouse gases and the rising of global temperatures. Saying that the data is "abundantly clear" is a blatant falsehood.
As for the third sentence, there is no fundamental scientific basis of global warming. The e-mails and other frauds make that abundantly clear. The fact that you can put random data into Mann's algorithm and get out a hockey stick, makes the whole thing a farce. The code that was released with the e-mails proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the use of tree ring data can not produce anything like reliable results.
All of the "adjustments" to the data are highly suspect. Some seem completely artificial, and plenty more seem based much more on opinion than fact.
The only thing the global warming believers have going for them is the existence of urban heat islands, but of course they draw exactly the wrong conclusions from them. The existence and expansion of urban heat islands definitely makes the idea of AGW possible, especially as our population grows. What should be studied is how much impact urban heat has and where and how (and if) it is dissipated.
"However, these revelations did nothing to undermine the fundamental scientific basis of global warming."
Actually, yeah, they kinda DID. Once you admit the process has been corrupted it's no good to just arbitrarily draw a line and say "the effect of the corruption ends here".
If the scientific community wants to regain trust they need to come clean on a bunch of things. For starters they can explain what faulty assumptions led them to believe the climactic danger was global COOLING a generation ago. Without that, what reason does anyone have to believe the scientific community won't reverse itself again in another 20 years?
There is still too much "because I am a scientist and therefore smarter than you so you must trust me" sort of attitude going on right now. That's the point at which science and religion blur, and nothing good can come from that.
This whole thing just needs to start from scratch. It's the only hope for escaping the taint of corruption. Accept no premises from the past 20 years of "study". Maybe then we can get to the truth of the matter.
I'm with Steve and a few others here.. Bjorn.. This line alone that is pointed out
"Like it or not, the data is abundantly clear that man-made greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising."
This basically makes your argument useless… What data makes it abunduntly clear? Are temperatures going up? Sure.. somtimes… and sometimes they're going down.
Again, In the last 5 years alone.. we've heard about "Global Warming", "Global Cooling", then "Global Warming", then "Global Cooling" again… so they cheated and called it _all_ climate change.
The climate changes? Who woulda thunk it? If the warming/cooling advocates can't even agree on what's "wrong".. Don't expect the average american to participate in any "solutions".. since nobody admits the actual "problem"
I do not agree with his premise of global warming. I do think that a viewing of Mr. Lomborg speaking about priorities is VERY instructive and can help us see a framework of discussion that can be used to help us, and our neighbors face the difficult choices that will have to be made as we back away from Big Government. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs&feature=r…” target=”_blank”>www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs&feature=r….
Lomborg is one of the most controversial figures in the Global Warming debate. Those on the right call him an extremist because he believes in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and those on the left call him a denier because he suggests that it's not as big a problem as they claim, and thus, the private sector can solve it without massive government intervention.
Personally, I'm still trying to figure out what to make of him—I haven't had the chance to read any of his books.
Oh no the phantom thumber/nose picker is haunting us today, oh what will we do?
There has always been one part of our population that knows how to survive and one part that can only survive from the generosity of others. The people who can survive are generally located in our rural communities while the ones who are dependent have seem to gather in to convenient location for all to see.
Hank W song about a country has a lot of truth in it and is one of my favorite songs.
Make sure the cows don't fart? *ba-da-bing*
Sorry man…you have arrived about 2 years too late to fleece anyone over this made-up garbage. You may have to find a different "sky is falling tragedy" to make money with…
Volvos and Beamers weren't big enough, they had Hummers and Expeditions. Didn't you see Jurassic Park? /sarc off
)
It used to be called "Global Warming" but they had to change the name to "Climate Change" due to the data not matching up to the hype. To me, Climate Change means spring, summer, fall, and winter. Hello?
Sorry Bjorn, but there's no way I'm going to see this movie… for the same reason I didn't see Al Gore's movie. It's all spin and based on incorrect assumptions.
well, they changed the name first to climate change, but they do not call it global warming anymore. well, climate change is bad, as you see, here in the midwest, we are now starting our annual global cooling event, and sometime in march or april, we start our annual global warming event. these climate changes were once called winter and summer, but now since global climate change is the name, what do we call these annual events formerly known as winter and summer?
A line based on "Get out of the way" would make a great slogan for 2012 methinks…
I'm tired of people claiming "They passed a small business bill to give them tax credits! They're pro-business!"
No…that's just them getting more in the way of business. Don't give us tax credits for taking specific actions, just cut the tax rate and get the hell out of our way! Duh!
Thank you FC!
"greenhouse gases have been building up in the atmosphere for decades if not centuries, with the result that global temperatures are rising"
Great example of "putting the cart before the horse".
As the planet's temperature rises (as it has numerous times before man had ANY significant gaseous contributions to the atmosphere), co2 levels rise. The co2 levels follow the temperature rise.
Anything that comes out of Sundance has George Soros funding involved.
End of the story.
Agreed. I live in Utah. It is mostly desert here and above 5000 ft in elevation.
To put a couple degrees of weather change in perspective (whatever the cause), you can sit on the side of a mountain here and dig up trilobites and fish skeletons that used to be at the bottom of an inland sea.
Change is normal.
If this movie has a scene that depicts the truth of warming and cooling cycles, before man even walked the Earth – I'll say it is at least intellectually honest – if not it is just another attempt to convince me that if I worship the Earth God I will somehow find meaning in life – I will only say it is another attempt to force me to give up my Corvette. I'm not giving up my Corvette, my Big Mac, or my Scotch and Soda, my Sam Adams, My .45, or my Children, in short my life in suburban America that is absolutely dependent on Farming and Energy production.
Look. If garbage had value, they would not call it garbage. And someone, similar to me, would build a massive sorting facility and figure out a way to cost effectively sort the good bits from the bad. This is being done on a relatively small scale now. Recycling the way we do it now is at best a push at worst a waste of resources. As time goes on, and our resources become more in demand, and price rises, garbage will in fact, be worth it's weight in gold, then your garbage company will pay you to pick it up!
The worst polluters on this earth are countries were the free market does not exist and dictatorial rule is the norm. If you really want a "clean" earth – develop it quickly. Haiti is a prime example, had they constructed there buildings with steel rebar they would have something primitive called shelter. (I do not mean to make light of their suffering – I use sarcasm to mask my anger at the wider world that drowns them in there own good deeds.)
Nail on the head Ultra_C
Here's a presentation where a Lord Monckton lecture at Bethel Univeristy is debunked point by point by an Engineering Professor who attended:
http://www.stthomas.edu/engineering/jpabraham/
He goes though Monckton's entire presentation and whenever Monckton makes a claim he checks Moncktons own references to see if they really support his claim. His conclusion? Every single reference is misinterpreted, distorted or falsified.
I disagree
I think you mean anthropogenic global warming. Sorry, it's my inner pedant doing the talking…
Personaly I would prefer a little warming with my next Ice Age. All kidding aside the dynamics of man made global warning is at best academic and at its worst theological. Neither argument requires changes of life style or Truck loads of cash as a response. Neither argument takes into account the elasticity and self correction that the planatary eco-system has routinely demonstrated. Our money would be better spent determining the total mass change of a pin with and without angelic production of the nutcracker taking place on the head. I am truly sorry that so many young scientists were trained inan inconsequential discipline, but such seems the case
then you think gore would gladly debate him if it is that so called clear
That's why you don't get paid to think.
The idea that we could cool down the planet is so asinine and preposterous only an ignoramus could believe it. The same people that manipulate data to reach the conclusion they want have the audacity to call that science? it's called fraud.
The earth has gone through at least half a dozen ice ages, it is a natural cycle. North America used to be covered in a sheet of ice. How did it melt? Neanderthals offroading with their SUV's? And it is far better for humanity to have warming than cooling.
Cool down the planet??? Are you crazy?
Climatologists really need to call a few Archeologists and Paleontologists to chat once in awhile. They need to get it through their thick skulls that global cooling has brought death to the human race on the grandest of scales. In periods of global warming, the human race has thrived: more food, easier winters, etc. In periods of global cooling, winters are longer, crops more likely to fail, and the amount of land that can support life goes DOWN, not up.
I don't believe a global warming trend. Furthermore, I don't believe that man even *has* the capability to cause global warming. But if we did, it would be the best thing for us.
Mr. Lomborg,
Assuming for the sake of argument that you're so "smart," or that driving Hybrid cars and using curly-cue light bulbs were "good things": you and anyone who might buy your destructive false premise and/or bother worrying about your little movie are still faced with this uncomfortable fact:
"To mitigate just 1°C (2°F) of warming, one must forego the emission of 2 trillion tons of CO2. The world emits just 30 billion tons a year. So the analyst, as a thought-experiment, would shut down the entire world economy, emitting no CO2 at all. Even then, and even on the incorrect assumption that the UN’s exaggerated projections of the effect of CO2 on temperature are correct, it would take 67 years to mitigate 1°C warming."
Do the math… http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/abaldwin/2010/1...
Your 'trailer' is self-reverential. Never a good sign, in my view…
There you go bringing up one little word that he "forgot"
Additionally, what he doesn't point out is that there is no way in hell that the petroleum industry would ever let alternatives really take off. The $ involved are too big.
Can you imagine if the base story line from "The Saint" remake were to happen? (The cold fusion one, not the crappy James Bond knock-off plot) Hell, for all we know those two guys that said they discovered cold fusion a few years back, only to be discredited, probably did find it, only to have it be conveniently pooh-poohed and forgotten. (okay, putting my foil hat away now.)
Let the free market decide if "green energy" is cheaper and more efficient.
Global warming is a religion.
Winter and summer must be controlled and/or eliminated! (sarc)
Good points. Folks forget that in the Carboniferous Period CO2 levels were something like 3 times what they are today and it produced lush growth, lots of plants giving off O2 and huge animals ( aka dinosaurs). Turns out CO2 is really good for plants. It also turns out global cooling is much much worse than any global warming.
Thank you Bjorn for an interesting article.
Unfortunately, it is much too reasonable for the deniers on this site to get anything out of. In order for them to appreciate and article about climate change it must unequivocally state that Global Warming is the greatest criminal fraud of the last 100 years perpetrated by Al Gore and his legion of communist scientists in order to make huge profits from the research grant cartels. Anything less than that and any other point you try to make on the subject will be lost.
There is tremendous debate to fact that warming even exists, and no debate to the fact that it has cooled significantly over the last 10+ years.
Current atmospheric C02 is approx 385 ppm and avg global temp is 53 F. Looking over the past 500million years, there is a C02 max of 7500 ppm and global max temp of 72 F. You could argue that the planet is currently carbon starved.
Where is the abundant scientific evidence that the planet is warming and this warming is manmade?
Actually, as conspiracy theories go, I'd have to say that this one might actually have legs. It is certainly plausible and possible, if not probable.
The sun will rise but maybe I can't see it. My weather man can't get the climate prediction correct for three days from now…500 years from now…JOKE!
Look, Bjorn, I've been around when the bad thing was "Global Cooling"…and that was a mere forty years ago…not even a picosecond in the immensity of time of the existence of the Earth…
You want to bike 80 miles to work, drive a Prius, put solar and windmills on your house, and recycle everything even to your own body wastes, spend every penny you and your believers have on research into this, knock yourself out…go completely Ed Begley if you want…
If you mention one more time that my government has to pay one more thin dime for this garbage, I will fight you with everything I have…got it…?
We're done…
This guy is the leading spokesperson for Global Warming deniers world-wide. He is best noted for "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
It's difficult to get scientists from "both sides" to work together when one side of the argument is hopelessy wrong. It's hard to find reputable scientists to argue that global warming is a hoax.
What these scientists ignore is the fact that one massive disbursement of volcanic dust in the atmosphere can undo all of their hard work at the expense of American jobs and manufacturing (which is what green energy solutions do, by the way, just ask Spain and Denmark). All it takes is a temper tantrum from the lord of the underworld (not Michelle) and a massive cooling trend begins.
The Skeptical Environmentalist is right, but he is also not. Global warming isn't "happening" it has already "happened" for the most part. Like putting a window shade on one window of a three window room, CO2 cannot raise temperatures very much. Just like you can't darken the room by completely covering that one window.
CO2 has a real, but limited, effect on warming. About 1-2 degrees and it's effect is "logarithmic", meaning that if you add 100% more CO2 to the atmosphere, it will have a real effect, but if you add 200% the additional effect will be smaller and smaller.
This means we've raised the Earth's temperatures 1 or 2 degrees, but we won't die of heat exhaustion due to CO2. Additional CO2 from now on will have a small effect on temperatures. http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/carbon.htm
Don't believe the alarmists, be level-headed. However, there are real threats to be concerned with. (Methane could "shade the second window")
"It's called the sun, it's hot and it's putting out more radiant energy than in the past. "
Indeed. It doesn't take a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
Yes the article is legit. I suspect that Andrew Breibart has been trying to recruit the author Bjorn Lomborg for some time. He is the author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and has been outspoken in his attacks on people who support Global Warming.
RE: didn't you know that the ENTIRE AGW computer model was invalidated in August?
References please.
Reference: The suns warming over the last 150 years that IS NOT factored into their computer model. See Max Plank Institute.
The volcanic eruption thing is a myth. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 30 billion tons annually—more than 130 times as much as volcanoes produce.
Forest fires produce even less.
Great post, asking the most obvious question.
The fact is the geologic record is full of evidence showing that global temperature varies dramatically over short periods. Tremendous year to year warming exists even during ice ages (ice core evidence).
The planet is currently in what is called an "ice-house" phase. This happens when plate tectonics arranges the continents from pole to pole.
The fact is we're in a very stable temperate inter-glacial period that we are at the end of. In the next 500 to 5000 years we will be in another ice age.
You must be logged in to post a comment.