It is incredible to see and hear how the denialist lobbyists about the obvious climate changes have succeeded in convincing so many people over there Jim. I am shocked to see how gullible people are, but it must be that it is inconvenient to make changes for many people how are so selfish and selfcentered.

Increasing the use of sustainable energy sources (Solar Power, Wind Energy, Wave Energy and Thermal Ground energy has become huge over here. We have made some of the worlds best wind mills the last 30 years and it has become big business. Recycling is also mandatory here for almost everything. And cars with a high mileage per gallon are taxed less than cars with lower mileage per gallon, to force people to choose cars that use less gas.

And Jim it is not just about politics. Yes I do see that 99 percent of the denialists are conservative republicans in America. Here both right wing and left wing politicians support the use and reliance of sustainable energy sources. Our nation and people are committed and not divided on this issue.

Yes the War in Iraq has come with a horrible price in young soldiers life and has been horrible expensive financially too. The war against Taliban in Afghanistan and the war to remove Saddam Hussein from Iraq has been necessary. But the troops should have been pulled out already 18 months ago and Iraq should have solved their own problems. Winning the war is one thing, but it seems the peace and stability is lost... . I think America had been better served by pulling your troops out a long time ago and yes begun relying less on gas and some of the suggestions made in the movie ... The Price of young soldiers lives has become too steep now IMO.

I understand your disappointment about the American youth Jim... they obviously care more about shopping malls, Ipods, Fashion and computer games than giving a Rats ... A## about anything that really matters. One would think that at least some girls would like.. (to use teenage girls favorite word) like showed up to see Leonardo Di Caprio? But I suppose the subject is like too heavy when you also have Like nails and shoes to think about?

I just watched Cnn 60 min and they told that the wildfires have become a huge problem and that climate change was a major contributing factor to the increasing numbers of wildfires (the bush is drier from drought) and that a 40 thousand acres fires 10-20 years ago was considered huge but that today wildfires more than 80 thousand acres big was just another day at the office ... Millions of people fleeing fires ...the destruction of New Orleans. And nobody seems to care ...but still waste their time arguing whether we see global warming ...its a travesty and a tragedy Jim. Here the movie theater would have been full of high schools kids Jim if that gives you any hope....

Too busy watching watching You Tube I guess!

Hot topics is the place for this.
Not fair to post where we can't debate.

Cupshaped,

Just wanted to say how much how I enjoy your well thought out commentaries. I think they're simply extraordinary in their depth and breadth and just so... insightful.

I hope you don't mind me sharing the Danish National Space Center's position on the matter.

Is that OK?

The scientific perspective is an endeavour to understand the full complex system of the various sources of climate change and their mutual interactions.

What are the natural causes to climate change?

Changes in the Sun contribute to climate change. Solar activity has been exceptionally high in the 20th century compared to the last 400 years and possibly compared to the past 8,000 years. When solar activity is high, the flux of galactic cosmic rays is reduced due to increased magnetic shielding by the Sun. The cosmic rays may influence Earths climate through formation of low lying clouds...

And again... thanks so much for your views on the subject--they really help me to understand the complexity of the situation in a way that I never could before.

Have a great day!

Danish Space Center Study

MichaelAT

Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at the Danish Space Research Institute (DSRI), a part of the Danish National Space Center, previously headed the sunclimate group at DSRI. He also held post doctoral positions in physics at three other organizations: University of California, Berkeley, Nordic Institute for Theoretical Physics, and the Niels Bohr Institute.

Are those good schools? I know when I drive down to San Francisco that I see some kind of sign that says "Lawrence Livermore." I think they have something to do with all that Berkeley stuff.

And that Niels Bohr Institute--is that in the same league as Le Cordon Bleu? I just say that because I know all about how good Le Cordon Bleu is and if it's at least that good--well then I'd know they were truly reputable.

Anyway, sorry for rambling.

I'm just hoping someone will clear up these details up for me.

MichaelAT

Michael AT

If you cherry pick the facts you can come up with any conclusion you want.

Where is the rebuttal to Svensmark? I'm sure there is one. The Danes seem to have ignored his advice so maybe he's known to be half cocked. There are plenty of those despite their academic credentials.

Just checking the sidebars on UPI's site it's clear on what side they're on.

Just wondered if you worked for Chevron? I mean you're from N. CA so just maybe. I've I'd have stayed in my old job I would be working for them as they acquired my former employer, Unocal. Yes an evil oil company!

You work very hard at denying. Maybe cosmic rays have something to do with CC. What percent 10, 50? Whatever it is human activity is making it worse besides we have had other bad effects on our world so it just makes sense to change what we can.

You are obviously a clever person why not use that ability for something useful?

This thread started by a guy who is contemplating heating a greenhouse just so he can grow tea roses in his climate.

Does anyone ever think the reason why many of us don't listen to Al Gore, or L. DiCaprio, is that they lecture us while zooming around in their private jets and living in their huge mansion(s)?

Let's not start this again.

Look at it a different way. Pretend global warming is not caused by man. Still, the burning of fossil fuels pollutes and this resource will run out in our grandchildren's lives.

So why doesn't the government of our country seriously promote the development of alternative energy sources?

MAT: I think you need to understand that here in Denmark people are NOT fired, have their fundings cut or have their research results and scientific findings edited and distorted by the administration in office, so they suit their political agendas.

Svensmark may as physicist have produced some interesting research but his theories have been widely rebutted:

Cosmoclimatology - tired old arguments in new clothes:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/cosmoclimatology-tired-old-arguments-in-new-clothes/langswitch_lang/sw#more-412

Clouding the issue of climate

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/30103

Temperature rises 'not caused by sun':

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/05/climatechange.climatechange#article_continue

Sun and global warming: A cosmic connection?:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092655.stm

It is one thing to be skeptical, but only looking for the denialist arguments and ignoring the overwhelming consensus and the observations by scientists, tells me that some people wants to live in denial ... It is soooo convenient.

And yes Harry (MAT and Veilchen for that matter) ... what harm would America suffer by increasing the use of sustainable and alternative energy sources and really put an effort into developing cleaner technologies? Why do you think American Cars don´t sell anymore ... Could it be that the mileage is so low that 99.9 percent of consumers in the rest of the world find them totally unacceptable?

And please read this article too:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Where there is a demand,it will be met,Harry.

Well I said I wasn't gonna respond to this subject but Jim made a brilliant statement. "If you cherry pick the facts you can come up with any conclusion you want". That's exactly what you're doing Jim. Problem is that you seem to be ignoring some of the facts. Ok I'm outta here again!

Veilchen, Turner vs Cupshaped

On the one hand comments that are completely superficial as opposed to reasoned response. A lot of anger out there which clouds the mind as is so typical of our political climate, smear if you can and avoid talking about the subject involved.

Case in point. Leonardo paid for the production of this movie instead of making another of his films for which he earns mega millions. Now how many of our 400+ billionaires have done the same. You can bet they fly all the time in private jets. Wheras Leonardo quit doing that because of multi negative comments from the press. They are on his case because he is not one of them (a billionaire). He has made movies that are not to there liking, so they smear him.

And they don't live in hovels. But nobody mentions that!

Well, there you have it in a nutshell folks.

Cupshaped states all of Denmark is in agreement.

Obviously he doesn't even know what the scientific information coming out of his own country says.

Then he proceeds to minimize the work of Svensmark who the Danes, for some mysterious reason, have chosen to run one their most scientifically advanced institutions.

Tell me Cupshaped--do you have a doctorate in Physics?

Are you on the faculty at Berkeley?

Are you on the faculty at the Niehls Bohr Institute?

MichaelAT

Something fishy over there.
8am est USA is what over there? lol

Cupshaped did some excellent research in rebutting Svensmark's or what ever his name is.

To sumarize, the argument that the sun or cosmic rays have anything to do with global warming is nothing more than an old argument dressed up in new clothes.

One of CS's references was very long and replete with charts and graphs. Michael you should check them out.

Evidently Svensmark is a noted contrarian, he may be distinguised but that doesn't make him right.

Does it really matter if it is climate change or global warming? Does it matter what political party one belongs to? What are YOU doing to make a difference. Do you have CFLs in all your light fixtures? Do you buy energy efficient appliances? Do you set your AC on 78 in the summer? Have you moved in to a smaller more energy efficient home? Do you have a clothesline in your back yard and do you use it? Do you purchase cars based on MPGs? Do you recycle? When building a new home do you incorporate any alternative energy sources? Do you leave spray cans on the shelves at the store and buy only pump sprays? Do you leave paper towels on the shelf at the store and use only cloth towels? Ever wonder what would happen to our energy supply if millions of people incorporated even a few of these things into their lives? Does it start with the government? We are the government.
And fyi, the devastation of Katrina would never have happened if our wetlands had not been allowed to be eaten away at the rate of miles and miles for the past 30 years by administrations on both sides of the aisle. The huge buffer against hurricanes is no more.

Jim,

Buick is the #1 selling car in China--the world's largest market--just so you know.

Toyota is now behind Ford in product quality. Ford is now #1 in product quality--just so you know.

Toyota has 200--two hundred--North American retirees to support but is entering the "curve" that North American manufacturers entered long ago and are now exiting with respect to retirees.

Toyota's retirement expenses in North America and Japan are expected to soar as a result and drastically level the playing field.

Simultaneously, they're expected to undergo precisely the same type of competitive assault from Korea that they themselves posed to American manufacturers--just so you know.

So much for your expertise on the matter of global markets; somehow, it seems remarkably similar to your knowledge of global warming.

Moving right along--Cupshaped mentions that "people don't get fired in Denmark."

No, they get subjected to public humiliation and "show trials" by "environmentalists."

In particular, take the case of Bjorn Lomborg, an active environmentalist who disagreed with the notion of anthropogenic global warming and wrote a successful book refuting it.

He was put on trial by his peers and "convicted" by a group called Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.

Fortunately, the body that oversees that group reversed the decision, to the consternation of those who wanted to see Lomborg's opinions suppressed because they viewed them as a threat.

And Jim, the world still isn't as warm as it was just a thousand short years ago. Incidentally, that period of warming coincided with an age of relative prosperity all over the world.

And finally Jim, you know perfectly well that I don't work for an oil company although I freely confess to thinking that some of their multi-dimensional modeling systems are the niftiest things ever.

As an aside, the raw data from just one seismic exploration exceeds all the data available on the Internet. Did you know that Jim?

Analyzing and interpreting those shock waves requires tremendous computing power.

As a result, the little podunk university in my old hometown had the first Master's Degree program in computer science in the world.

And your old employer, Unocal, paid for a lot of that program.

Imagine that :)

MichaelAT

So MAT do you have a doctorate degree in climatology? Well no need to answer that ..the answer is obvious!

You also obviously did not read any of the links that I provided that questioned whether Svensmark theories (And they are just that theories) ... not supported by other physicists or climatologist). A lab experiment can not duplicate the real climate, and many observations contradict his theories as false.

As for my dear personal friend Bjorn Lomborg, who I have been friends with since he studied at Aarhus University (the city I live in and the University I graduated from MD) (see his CV in the link you provided) and who later rose to fame and became very controversial by publishing the book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and latest book "Cool it" about how we should deal with the consequences of global warming.

You seems to have missed several points about his work and the controversy regarding his work:

-Yes Lomborg was tried by his peers (Economists and statisticians) not climatologists ...nor environmentalists as YOU CLAIM. But yes he was vindicated and even became appointed to run Denmark's new Environmental Assessment Institute by the government. MY POINT IS that had he lived in America, the Administration had censored him, cut his funding like the current BUSH administration do to those who dare to tell Americans the facts we know today. Same methods as Saddam used by the way ... Only he killed those with a divergent opinion. The White House has distorted several climatologists works ....it is a scandal. So before you are busy accusing about something being rotten In the state of Denmark, look a bit closer to home.

Lomborg states 2 things which you seems to have missed completely since you obviously never have read his new book cool it:

1) Global warming is happening
2) Global warming is anthropogenic

So I really wonder why you: MAT FALSELY claims he is not saying that, it really shows how deep in denial you are. Try actually reading something MAT ...Instead of just passing on biased hear say from denialists you can scrape up from searching the web. Perhaps buy Lomborgs book and some reading glasses, if that is what prevents you from being able to read.

The debate about climate change and global warming has divided America. Basically democrats are not in denial about global warming and do not spend their entire life and being and every breath denying and complaining that Americans do not need to change a thing like The Republicans do on this issue. It is so pathetic...

Wednesday march 21. this year Bjorn testified before The American Congress along with Al Gore about what measures America must do to .... COOL IT. The democrats boooed at Lomborg but applauded Gore as a prophet. The Republicans booed at Gore and applauded Lomborg as a prophet. It is sickening that the political CLIMATE in America is this way, no one cares for facts or the real issues (but spends weeks debating Hillary's Cackling and Larry Craig's lewd restroom conduct). I really Love many things about America, it´s people and the magnificent nature, but many things is sickening me too, none more than the filthy political climate of a primitive 2 party system, who just bicker instead of finding solutions.

Wow, that was great CS.

MAT is really weird in his thinking.

Yes Republicans are really evil, talk about the axis of evil. Imagine rubber stamping everything Bush wants. And then blaming the Dems.

Yes we are really sick. I've been telling my wife for probably as long as we have been married, some 40 years, about the imminent collapse of our system. It now seems assured either from the enormous debt from our current wars, or ignoring the threat of climate change. A combination of a complicit media, a fetish for money and an infantile population.

MAT picked the wrong person to argue with. Do I hear silence? Nah, I doubt it!

You know, I'm finding it impossible to follow the above posts--can't remember who's for and who's against what. I wouldn't mind being educated on the topic, but these discussions are confusing.

Take just one example: This Lomberg fellow (Skeptical Environmentalist; Cool It)--if he argues human-caused global warming, why does Michael believe otherwise? And if U.S. Democrats are generally sympathetic to the human-caused global warming theory, why would they boo Lomberg?

Oh well, probably none of my business anyway.

Kate

I forgot to mention that my younger daughter, a co-director and writer for the 11th hour, is here for Thanksgiving. I mentioned my thread on CC on the Rose site and the response.

She was astounded at the extent of denial in the response.

Her first comment was that scientists, rarely agree on anything, so why are over 1000 scientists in agreement on CC? Business men and politicians on the other hand make a living making points to promote their agenda. They have the stage in this debate and clearly have won. We will all suffer.

Yes Jim we agree and are almost on the same page when it comes to this issue. It is however too big a generalization to say that all republicans are evil. But some of them are part of the problem, because they do not want to be part of the solutions regarding this issue. And isn´t the movie The 11th Hour about solutions?

As for my friend Bjørn Lomborg. I certainly do not agree with him on everything, but he is not denying that global warming is taking place and that emission of greenhouse gases is causing the climate to change more rapidly. Boy we have had some heated discussions at some dinner parties, but it is OK to agree to disagree and still be friends and respect each other. It is possible when we still are able to find common ground. And the common ground is that anthropogenic global warming is happening.

Kate:

The huge disagreement about this issue is about how we are going to respond to the problems global warming are causing.
Some think we don´t have to do anything, and that it is a waste of money to use lots of resources trying to prevent the inevitable. The worst cases are the denialists who say that the climate change is natural and is not man-made.

Others think that we have to react drastically NOW and spend lots of resources to try to prevent that Global Warming increases and try to slow down the process as much as we can by relying more on sustainable energy sources and less on fossil fuels. Some are radical environmentalists who are quite elitists and have not come up with very realistically
solutions, solutions that has to be enforced on the less educated, inferior polluting classes of people.

What really makes Bjorn Lomborg a controversial figure in this debate is that he reminds us:

-that in some areas of the World global warming will actually be a blessing! That global warming is not entirely negative. Lomborg uses a lot of statistics Fx. Yes more people will die from heatstrokes ... but less people will freeze to death. Actually more people will be prevented from dying of cold weather because of global warming than the numbers of people who will die from heatstrokes.

Lomborg raises a number of worldwide political, ethical and environmental problems that are just as important and perhaps needs to be addressed just as much or more than the doom and gloom climatologists and will serve human kind just as much or even more.

This makes him so highly controversial ... the doom and gloom people hates him and the denialists loves him, because they think they do not have to make any changes at all.

It is such a complex issue ... and the solutions are very complex. It is not as simple as black and white or republican or democrats. Idiots or intellectuals.

Lomborg has been criticized by his happy go lucky attitude and that he minimizes the the effects of global warming too much, because he also focuses on the positive sides of global warming. Some claims that Al Gore in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth" exaggerates the negative effects of global warming. And it will cause tremendously problems, with flooding, hurricanes, droughts, and hunger disasters and even wars in some parts of the World. (The reason why he an IPCC got the Nobel Peace Price ... because if we do something to try to prevent severe global warming there will be less wars).

So Kate it is really the solutions that causes the huge disagreement ..... (Some are however still discussing what people did 30-20 years ago ... if we will experience global warming at all ... that debate is pretty much useless ... but might be interesting for those who have spent the last 30 years in a coma.

Here are some reviews of Lomborgs book "Cool it -The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming":

1)In COOL IT; Dr Lomborg, again, hits the nail on the head. One of the few scientists in the world who is willing to buck the popular and political trend, Dr Lomborg looks at a lot of data and then draws a scientific conclusion. It is amazing how many of those who disagree with Dr Lomborg are trying to stifle his and other's similar comments. Where is the debate? His research and abundant footnotes allow anyone to look up and analyze the data for themselves. (When did we lose the ability to debate - respectfully - both sides of an issue?) Dr Lomborg has abundant research on his side and is simply summarizing that data in an objective fashion. He suggests that there are other more pressing needs on the planet that - if attended to - could save millions of lives rather than chasing the illusive dream of global warming with limited payoff. 5-stars for an important book that deserves to be heard in the debate over global warming.

2)All Bjørn is saying is that we're doing a heck of a job ignoring our current catastrophes. Anyone remember the Katrina victims? Anyone remember that AIDS hasn't been cured yet? You might want to just sit back, take a breath, and get your priorities in a row.

Before you go and save some lives from the year 2100, you might want to look around and save a few here in 2007. This is like people from 1907 trying to help us with breast cancer. No one knew what a gene was in 1907! I'm sure that the people of 2100 will have both the technology and the smarts to come up with something better than anything we could do.

But change IS happening. The ball is rolling. Things are becoming different. We are on a much better trajectory now than we were ten years ago, as far as cutting pollution is concerned. Nothing we do additionally is going to have much effect, so let's get our priorities straight and save our current victims, our homeless, our hungry, our crappy healthcare system. This is what Bjørn is saying.

The way the environmentalists are attacking Mr. Lomborg is appalling. "Methinks thou dost protest too much." The way they attack his character is like a dog protecting his bone. In this case the bone is a company that sells carbon offsets to the gullible, illiterate fans of eco-celebrities. Do you think Sheryl Crow is sitting at home reading the IPCC report? No, she's playing her guitar. She gets her global warming news from the same place that you do...Access Hollywood.

I'm sure that every negative reviewer here has not even read the book. This is obvious because your arguments for global warming being real are his same arguments! He's not saying it's not happening, he's saying that it's not as horrible as people are being led to believe and that we may have a few years to nip it in the bud, but not by throwing money at various environmental firms. We need to find the companies that are going to get the job done right, and right now it is not Joe Bob's Carbon Offset Emporium at PO Box 119, Santa Barbara, California.

There are too many fishy environmental companies popping up all over the place, so be wary of where your carbon offsets are going. Better yet, let the free marketplace get the technology up to speed while you send your money to AIDS research and building new homes. That's where you can really do some good.

And as far as Michael Crichton is concerned, he might be a novelist, but he's also a brilliant intellect that knows how to read scientific journals. The only thing he doesn't have is an agenda. Crichton is not covered in oil money. He's not trying to sell you anything but novels. Al Gore co-owns a carbon offset firm and an environmental consultancy firm. This is like a cat salesman trying to convince you that you've got a rat infestation. The environmentalists fear that this is their last big chance to have all of their wishes come true, so they're fighting hard to keep you scared. Don't be afraid. Everything will be okay. The only rats that you have are the ones at your door trying to sell you cats.

3) There are two great things that Lomborg does:

First, he looks at all of the issues in the Global milieu and argues that a single minded focus on Global Warming is detrimental to maximizing the overall welfare of humans on earth. He points out in great detail, that the value of fighting AIDS/HIV and Malaria and improving access to safe water greatly exceeds implementing the Kyoto accord, which will have a minimal impact on Global Warming. His book is intelligent, insightful and dead bang on.

Second, he actually points out that good things will happen from Global Warming (GASP!). Think about it, when have you heard someone do that? At the height of our paranoia as humans, we equate any change with all bad. Such is the case with most people concerning Global Warming. But is this rational? Of course not, change can bring good and bad. The question is what is the result on balance?

As examples, deaths due to weather will decrease overall. Heat related deaths will increase, but cold related deaths will decrease and cold related deaths account for about 80% of weather related deaths. Overall availability of quality water will increase because precipitation levels will increase. Antarctica will actually get larger (i.e.; have a deeper, higher ice field), not shrink as implied by Al Gore in his movie. But this is only a partial list, there will, indeed, be many benefits from Global Warming which dramatically change the equation from "This-could-be-the-end-of-the-earth" type rhetoric to "This is one of many serious problems that needs to be balanced against the other problems of Earth."

So thank you Mr. Lomborg. A rational mind is finally writing, speaking and talking about Global Warming.

4) Since this review is neither sycophantic nor a hatchet job, I should add the disclaimer that I am neither a Christian conservative nor a green liberal. I am in favor of reason and science, and opposed to faith in all forms--including the environmentalist movement.

It's interesting that every reviewer thus far gives this book either the highest or lowest possible rating. This fact points to the book's most serious flaw. Global warming has become a purely political, partisan issue, and while Lomborg is clearly trying to play "moderate," he's fooling neither his conservative admirers nor his liberal detractors.

More broadly, this illustrates the principle that science and government don't mix. This is the brilliant formula that gave the world Lysenkoism. So while we certainly can't take the IPCC data--or more precisely, the media's interpretations of it--at face value (even though Lomborg's own case that man-made global warming exists rests entirely on this), neither can we trust any popular media on the subject either way--Lomborg included. But he certainly seems more reasonable than the scaremongers.

Those who are truly concerned with this issue are going to have to do some real work to dig up the actual science and critically analyze it themselves, and the greatest virtue of Lomborg's book is that it points out the kinds of questions that need to be asked, which is sadly something that very few people are doing.

5) The book was not what I expected. I kind of thought, based on the controversy it had generated, that it would be a global warming denial book espousing the glories of capitalism and a desire to turn North America into the new Sahara. Well it is nothing of the sort. The book, whether you agree with the science or not, never argues that global warming is happening nor even that it results to varying degrees from human produced co2. What is argued is that there has become a political, and even hysterical component that has insinuated itself so in the discussion that it has overwhelmed all other argument. Any attempt at debate is met with howls that those bringing up objections are evil incarnate and should be fired, imprisoned, etc. It is an interesting debate technique, and nice work if you can get it, but I'm not sure it's an accepted debating format.

For all the balance the book brings, it probably won't warm hearts on either side. The need for redistribution of wealth is a recurring theme, and his arguments against Kyoto, etc, are more that they are an inefficient means to accomplish this goal, not that they are idealogically mistaken. Much of his analysis also relies heavily on the projection that the next 100 years will produce great wealth across the board. This strikes me as speculative, but then again what about the whole issue is not?

The book is extremely well documented, footnotes comprising almost as much volume as the treatise itself. And treatise might be the word, much is repeated and reiterated, and it has the feel of a lengthy article that was expanded to meet book-length requirements. It doesn't suffer too badly in spite of this, as the author writes pretty well and so much of the material is so outside media template information that it probably requires several presentations of the same facts.

All in all it struck me as balanced, well written, and very logical. One of his major points, that debate has been stifled unfairly, makes one reluctant to criticize for fear of proving his point, but be that as it may it seems a salient observation. It is a quick read, and I'd certainly recommend it as a work that cuts against the grain.

6) True believers won't like this book, but anyone who is willing to listen with an open mind and consider multiple points of view will find this book to be a breath of fresh air in the climate change / global warming clash. Bjorn Lomborg is a liberal, a vegetarian, an economist and a passionate environmentalist. Certainly, he is far left of me. He also is convinced that global warming is real, that mankind does have a role in creating it and making it worse, and that we do need to change the way we live in order to improve conditions for all life on the planet. So, why do I like him and find this book very much worth reading?

Because he is sensible in the arguments he makes. Rather than beating the drum of gloom and doom, he looks at the evidence, looks at what we can realistically do, and what it is we can do that will have the most effect. He also pokes holes in the overheated bag-of-wind arguments of the drowning polar bears (more die from hunting), the 20 foot sea rise (it is rising, but no more in the coming century than in the last), and the benefits of Kyoto (basically an attempted $16 trillion tax on the United States that would, after a century, delay global warming by a few years). And he nicely points out that the devastation in New Orleans was NOT because of global warming or because of the hurricane itself, but because of poorly maintained levees and destroyed wetlands that would have provided some protection. He is also right in pointing out that there has been NO increase in the violence of the storms. The critics will point to the vastly increased costs of the storms. But those costs have their roots in the fact that more people are living in these risky areas (partly because of increased wealth and partly because of government subsidies to those experiencing losses in these areas) and are building more costly structures in areas that people mostly avoided in the past.

His emphasis on what we can do that will have the most positive effect for the money spent is terrific. For example, changing the kinds of building materials we use, the amount of concrete and asphalt versus the opening of green space in our cities all make good sense, as does the helping of people in the developing world with micronutrients and controlling malaria. The list of items that experts and politicians recognize as the most pressing issues and the most useful for the money spent (see pages 44 and 162) is most instructive regarding reality versus hype.

Frankly, I think Lomborg calls himself the skeptical environmentalist because it sounds better than the sensible environmentalist. However, he really is sensible and worth listening to whether you end up agreeing with his prescriptions or not.

They have the stage in this debate and clearly have won. (business people)

Good!

Of course, this daughter of yours--- she's in business too isn't she?

The business of making movies.

Right?

Making a lot of money is she?

Advancing her career?

Getting some name recognition?

Pandering to people's emotions and fears?

Emulating Michael Moore?

Ah yes, the very apotheosis of human intellectual endeavor--pandering to fear.

Remarkable.

I'm sure you must be very proud of her.

MichaelAT

Michael: I am both surprised and disappointed about your low blows and envious sarcasm. I thought you were better than that.

Empowering others and enjoying their successes is such a good trait.

Have you ever heard of "janteloven"? I was not aware that this small town Scandinavian mentality was represented in No Cal!!!:

1. Thou shalt not presume that thou *art* anyone [important].

2. Thou shalt not presume that thou art as good as *us*.

3. Thou shalt not presume that thou art any wiser than *us*.

4. Thou shalt never indulge in the conceit of imagining that thou art better than *us*.

5. Thou shalt not presume that thou art more knowledgeable than *us*.

6. Thou shalt not presume that thou art more than *us* [in any way]

7. Thou shalt not presume that that *thou* art going to amount to anything.

8. Thou art not entitled to laugh at *us*.

9. Thou shalt never imagine that anyone cares about *thee*.

10. Thou shalt not suppose that thou can teach *us* anything.

What a small world we live in!

cupshaped_roses--thank you for that long explanation. At least I understand now why I couldn't figure out which "camp" to place Lomberg's ideas in when posters refer to them.

michaelalreadytaken--Hasn't anyone ever told you you shouldn't attack people's children? Very poor form, and accomplishes nothing positive. Besides, where is it written that someone can't make a movie about something he/she sincerely believes in? Really, that uncalled-for- attack was a real low blow.

Kate

What a mean bunch you are!
Why do you argue CC when not one of you can change it?
Move onto something else PLEASE.

Carla

We are ALL at the center of our universe so we are ALL driven by our own self interest even if its a feel-good or self castration.Neither Michael or Niels are out of line considering what their remarks ensue.
Let em go,group think does not a think tank make.
Good minds,maybe the same? Either could pull it off.lol

Let me respectfully disagree about just "moving on." While I dislike the nastiness that this topic brings out in some people, I still believe it is an important issue and one that I would like to learn more about. I know where I generally stand on the topic, but I do not have the data and studies I can cite, nor am I likely to go read them. I learn a lot about the various positions on these contentious threads--just don't need to be reminded that humans can be irritating at times. I already know that.

As far as I'm concerned, please--more reasoned discussion.

Kate

Dear Cupshaped. I rarely post on this forum anymore due to past unpleasantness but I wanted to thank you for the time and trouble you took to give us your comprehensive reply.
I thought you deserved better than the uncalled for and spiteful attack on someones daughter that was the next posters only response.
seas rising? ask the populations of the smaller pacific nations who are Australias neighbours.

I have recently taken up reading the New York Times and what has struck me is the absense of information on global warming that Americans receive.....our own news papers are full of comprehensive reports . It seems the media downplays even important documents like the recent UN report on GW....which pants a gloomy picture indeed.

Kyoto Protocol inefficient? well it is the best we have and it is in force until 2012. Of course we need better.

on Saturday nov 24 Australia will go to the polls to elect a new Goverment and if predictions are corect we will have a new party in power......THE FIRST ACTION OF THAT NEW GOVERNMENT will be to ratify the KP....we are a small country and do not have much influence worldwide so why is this significant? well it will leave America as the ONLY WESTERN DEVELOPED NATION not to have ratified the KP.
something to ponder .

benefits to GW? well of course we will be able to buy lettuces from Greenland.!

regards to you , Cupshaped

It is a very important topic that is affecting all of us and as long participant in the discussion bring forth good well founded arguments, that some might disagree on, it is worth it.
I am a believer in the sense that I do believe humankind can do something to slow down the global warming. We can limit our emissions of CO2, by depending less on fossil fuels and more on sustainable, environmentally friendly energy sources as much as we can. It will take many decades ...perhaps 50-100 years before we see the results of these efforts. But we have to do it. Like the title of Jim´s daughters movie "The 11th Hour" we have been very slow to react and it is almost too late, but we can act according to the knowledge we have thus far.

Different political perspectives must be put aside and a joint effort by every human and nation on this planet must work together on this. Yes there are also other big global problems that needs to be solved. It is my hope that we will work together and put national and political differences aside and make a determined effort to solves these problems.

And yes Youngquinn it really is totally beyond the rest of the world that America soon is going to be totally isolated, and is the only so-called developed nation that has not ratified the KP.
But It will not be long, everything points in the direction that America will have a new administration, lead by the Democrats ( After an election campaign that is probably going to be the worst charade of smearing each other the world has yet to see ) As if all the counting last time was not embarrassing enough for the so-called leading democracy in the World.

And yes I have also noticed that the press in America is very silent ... I really wonder how free the press is. Boycotting those who beg to differ with the political establishment are commonplace ... Perhaps the newspapers in US fear that people will boycott them if the really write what is going on.

It may be my relatively optimistic world view that makes me hope that we will find solutions how to deal with the climate change we are witnessing. Just like Bjørn Lomborg I hope the actions we will take is carefully considered, but like most I am afraid we are running out of time.

I can only try to give my perspective and share the knowledge I posses. I am willing to listen to reasoned and documented arguments about what solutions and steps we need to take to try to prevent further global warming and how we deal with the climate changes we have to endure.

Like I said earlier it is a complex issue and Americans are probably the most divided people, when it comes to debating this issue. The rest of the world pretty much had the discussion 15-10 years ago, they are having now. I am so happy for important movies like "An inconvenient Truth" and The 11th Hour. I do not totally agree Al Gores POWs brought forth in that movie. There are some flaws and errors and it may not become as bad as some of the scenarios in that movie. So we need to do something ... after careful consideration, but we need to think fast. And we need to be wiling to create a world and a planet that can give all humans a good life. We have the resources but lack the willingness, I feel that is worth promoting and fighting for.

So thank you Kate And Youngquinn for thinking it is an important issue and for encouraging a reasoned debate.

Niels

I'm frankly amused that Kate perceived that as an attack.

I view it as a simple reality.

Furthermore, her father is the one that made her a topic of conversation--for the fourth or fifth time between various posts on this forum and the others--in direct contravention of this forum's rules--so why don't you talk to him about it...

And have a great day--I am.

MichaelAT

Heard of Hot Topics?

Far too scary over there for me !! OK Joe I'll shut up and be good ! (LOL)

It would be great if our country could take a Lomberg approach to CC. We however are conditioned to a wolf at the door threat particularly if he or she is a terrorist. Add to that our more and more polarized positions on most subjects. The R's are bad the D's are good. All of them, no exceptions.

But it is necessary to really shock people to get their attention. Visuals of volcanoes erupting, wild fires, parched earth, the dregs of waste piled high something that is replete in the movie. A calm discussion would put people to sleep. That is how are society has evolved. How can we possibly go at things calmly when it is necessary to shout from the roof tops to be heard over the general din of commercialism?

In the end it will happen just because there is no alternative. So I suppose worrying about it will only increase the stress. But just in case believing in CC might help your own life, go for it!

Wow, as "BAD" as I am, I do all the things I stated in my previous post. GW does, AG doesn't. Why does it have to be about politics? Why can't we as individuals make a difference? No voice is as loud as our wallets. Doesn't matter if I believe in global warming or climate change, our planet is is trouble and "we" are contributing to it. "We" are the ones that can fix it. "We" can leave a better place for our kids and grandkids, and "we" can teach them to do even better.

Thank you Jim for introducing this subject. Thank you Niels for your information, it certainly has helped me to understand CC that much better.

Jim you should be very proud of your daughters, they are doing a world of good I am sure.

I think we all need to start in our own back yards dealing with CC, become the change we want to see, etc.

Thanks for the discussion, I have thouroughly enjoyed reading your information Niels, I am saving this post for future reference.

Valerie

mrskjun and Valerie: You are absolutely right. The solutions start with ourselves and by changing our behavior and the way we consume, heat our houses, drive our cars (If excellent public transportations is not available) and produce our electricity. Each one of us are personable responsible for being part of the solution instead of being part of the problem.

I sure hope I can tell my grandchildren that I did something and was part of finding solutions instead of just letting it end up in heated debates about politics. We need to start with ourselves and our families and friends.

interesting read:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/12/11/arctic.melt.ap/index.html

Olya

Both sides have good arguments. The only thing I feel for certain is that pollution and waste are terrible things. If we can get rid of pollution and reduce waste it's good for everyone. Some of this relates to the climate change arguments. If the arguments in favor of warming are correct, it will be almost impossible to fix the longer we delay. I would rather error on the side of safety. I worry most about animals because they are the true innocents in this situation.