Comments on: Debunking Bjørn Lomborg — Part III, He’s a Real Nowhere Man

By: Mike M.

Mike M. — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:55:52 +0000

Ah, no one quite does hate and invective quite like a “progressive” who’s religion is questioned. You people are mentally ill, working yourselves into apocalyptic frenzy like some mad Christian fundamentalist. Normal people wonder why you WANT man to be responsible for global warming so badly. Will you all have to be hospitalized when temperatures cool off in a few years?

By: John

John — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:31:02 +0000

Mike M.

Cost-benefit is the religion, neoclassical economics the disease.

The enlightnement was the cure. So come on into the 21st Century, and help solve real world problems, instead of denying them.

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:48:35 +0000

Mike:
To believe temperatures will cool off in a few years is equivalent to believing in voodoo or questioning whether we landed on the moon. Even Lomborg acknowledges that humans are causing global warming and that the planet will keep warming for decades if not centuries (depending on how quickly we act reduce greenhouse gas emissions).

By: tidal

tidal — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:07:48 +0000

Mike M.’s been a busy boy lately on the “Lomborg defense circuit”! See: http://economistsview.typepad.com/ economistsview/ 2007/ 09/ if-the-uncertai.html#c82797787

Paradoxically, the title of Lomborg’s book is “Cool It”… Mike might want to take that advice to heart before he blows a gasket…

By: bunty

bunty — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 00:50:49 +0000

I’ve noticed that there seems to be rather golem army of denialists around, who descend on any article in the MSM or blogosphere and start filling the comments up with FUD, ad hominem (and ad baculem) strawmen, and drooling belligerence.

It would be nice to think that it is actually part of some organised effort by oil company funded PR companies (MAKE BIG $ AT HOME POSTING ON COMMENTS ON THE INTERNET!!! CALL 1-800-SPINME NOW!!). But, it probably is just voluntary unpaid freelancers from the vast army of FOX news knuckle draggers; spurred into drooling rage-gasms by their rather pathetic terror–induced by the bogeymen of Science and Intellectualism and Progress.

Fair-do’s to them though. I guess when you don’t have the facts on your side, all you got is bluster. It shows some sort of dogged initiative though. Going down kicking and screaming rather than surrender to the evil forces of Reality.

By: IANVS

IANVS — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:42:43 +0000

Mike M,

You and Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are hardly “normal people”.

By: Ronald Lindeman

Ronald Lindeman — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 09:49:53 +0000

I just recently read Crichton’s “State of Fear” because somebody was talking about it. I didn’t realize how bad it was. Crichton has what I call “Rumsfeldian incompetence.” It’s a philosophy that you only have to be bold and brave and bad things won’t happen as part of it. That the future will be better because the past was not as good as today.

Many people don’t get the idea that we can be worse off than before. They think all is okay if you have the correct political, religious or other belief. What they don’t realize is the world is a physical reality, we can suffer droughts, floods and rising ocean levels.

The whole thing is more a philosophy struggle than a science struggle.

By: shane

shane — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 22:39:26 +0000

Bunty,

Funny — I see a lot of “drooling belligerence” whenever someone challenges the presumptions behind climate change. Anyone who questions the models is labeled a heretic and summarily lambasted with invective rather than facts.

I challenge anyone on this thread to answer this: If carbon emissions are the cause of climate change, then why haven’t we been able to empirically observe increases in the upper levels of the atmosphere? The blanket analogy only works if the data can irrefutably support it — and I mean as much data as you can get, not just the comfortable 50 years that Al Gore uses in the preponderance of his slick presentation.

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 23:39:50 +0000

Who contests the increase in CO2? Never heard that one before.

By: shane

shane — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:17:28 +0000

Joe: Not contesting the increase in CO2 — contesting the correlation between CO2 and climate change. Show me the causal link.

By: shane

shane — Thu, 20 Sep 2007 01:22:48 +0000

Please add the words “in temperature” following the word “increases” in my original reply.

By: Jörg

Jörg — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 19:53:24 +0000

You quote 35.000 deaths for the European heat wave in 2003. This was a figure that was widely used so far. Unfortunately, a close analysis by a group of scientist led by the French “Institut National por la Recherche Medicale” found out recently, that more than 70.000 people died during that heat wave, in excess of “normal mortality”. Look at the press release here.

By: Joe

Joe — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 20:29:21 +0000

Jorg — thank you for that link!

By: WantAClearDebate

WantAClearDebate — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 01:14:47 +0000

I’ve been concerned about global warming ever since I took a class about the state of the world in the late 80’s. As climate change has become an orthodoxy, however, the conversation has become filled with invective and personal attacks that make me distrust the arguments from both sides. The best version of this argument that I have seen is in “Physics for Future Presidents” which excoriates Al Gore’s argument, but nevertheless supports action to stop global warming. It is the only version of the argument that I have seen where a proponent actually acknowledges that climate modelling is a very inexact science, and may be very wrong, but action is nevertheless warranted given our best guesses as of today. A worthwhile read, and a great respite from the indignant name-calling that has become the bulk of this debate. I live in California, where most people I know will dismiss a book which is sceptical about environmental causes before even reading it, and I’m sure there are other parts of the country where the IPCC report is treated similarly. A real pity.