Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 11/19/2010 9:03:35 PM PST by seamus
Bjorn Lomborg notes in a November 12 piece in The Wall Street Journal that the momentum for re-ordering the world in a decidedly socialist and wealth-confiscating direction by dramatically reducing carbon emissions to “save us” from “environmental catastrophe” seems to have slowed. And while Lomborg’s voice has been valuable for the non-alarmist side of this debate — his book, and now movie, “Cool It” has garnered worthy attention — many of us “skeptics” still have bones to pick with the amiable Dane.
The WSJ today published a letter of response by Heartland Institute policy advisors J. Scott Armstrong of The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania; Willie Soon, a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics; and Kesten Green, of the International Graduate School of Business & Ehrenberg-Bass Institute for Marketing Science at the University of South Australia.
It’s worth a read:
Bjorn Lomborg (“Can Anything Serious Happen in Cancun?“, op-ed, Nov. 12) claims that government spending on global warming policies is wasted, but he assumes that global warming caused by carbon dioxide is a fact. It is not. We base this statement not on the opinions of 31,000 American scientists who signed a public statement rejecting this warming hypothesis (the “Oregon Petition”), but rather because the forecasts of global warming were derived from faulty procedures. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at somewhatreasonable.com ...
He starts with the wrong premise that AWG is real. But, beyond that he makes some interesting points and asks some valid questions.
Haven’t seen the movie yet. However, I watched him talk on CSPAN.
I find his POV interesting, and one that I can agree with, even if he is wrong about AGW. How so? I think that even IF there was something to CO2 and global warming, the consequences are not as dire as predicted, not even close. I think that although there may be some merit to AGW theory, it is currently run by the High Priests of Hysteria.
I’m not sure what his stance is today.
But in “The Skeptical Environmentalist” his argument is that he accepts (accepted, this is several years back) the IPCC report that indicated a slight rise in global temperature (before it was learned that the IPCC’s findings were based in-part on papers discussing hypothetical conditions). But I don’t think he agreed that it was AGW. I think he was agnostic on that point.
I’ve been throwing Lomborg in the faces of eco-commies for years. They hate him because he used to be a Green Peacer just like the rest of them.
Then he actually studied the data.
He’s a lib. But he understands now that the leftists are just a bunch of ruthless communists and that environmentalism is just another of their tactics for obtaining statist power.
It doesn't much matter to me that Lomborg is a liberal, or even that he advocates redistributing wealth — albeit for different purposes than the socialists who have hooked their wagon to the "green" movement. He doesn't have the power to do that. But he is proving an effective and powerful ally in destroying the justification the global statists have foisted upon the national (and international) consciousness for their schemes.
Destroy that, and the whole thing falls apart. We'll take up the battle on the next avenue the statists choose when necessary. But we gotta keep on the pressure and slay the snarling and greedy beast that stands before us first.
Not sure why you would get flak from Freepers. Bjorn makes some good points and is willing to go to war with the globaloney folks.
I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but he opened up my eyes as well.
I mostly like Lomborg but I don't like this:
http://www.masterresource.org/2010/11/lomborg-250-billion-renewables/
That is one the major faults with liberalism. Everything they argue is argued from a hysterical point of view. I'm a big skeptic about agw, but I'm willing to keep an open mind. However, when someone tries to tell me the end of civilization is arriving because of a one or two degree change in the average temp, I'm calling that person a deranged fanatic.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2626534/posts
Renewables in and of themselves aren’t bad, just inefficient ways of generating energy at this point.
Dumping money into R+D to make them better is one thing. Enforcing mandates to artificially inflate their usage is another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.