Re: *****SPAM***** Re: Global warming -- is it for real?

From: jdac (
Date: Thu Jan 16 2003 - 17:07:31 EST

  • Next message: "An interesting essay for evangelicals"

    I have read Lomborg's book and found it a fascinating and challenging work.
    It is full of useful references to primary sources and excellent
    compilations of a whole range of global data on food, nutrition, air and
    water quality, income, life expectancy, risk, energy, forestry,
    biodiversity, and climate. Inevitably in a work of this scale a few errors
    can creep in, and one can always disagree with the analysis (I find him too
    pessimistic on nuclear power and too optimistic on solar, for instance), but
    this is an invaluable resource for anyone interested in environmental and
    resource issues.

    All his critics so far have missed the whole point of it, which is that over
    the last 50 years, globally and regionally, people are better fed, better
    educated, have better access to good quality water, and live longer. While
    there are areas of genuine environmental concern they have been overstated
    in many cases and are being dealt with. Minimizing CFC emissions and
    improved air and water quality in the industrialised world are cases in
    point. Lomborg says that this should be grounds for hope, because humanity
    has achieved this despite a doubling of the world's population in that
    time. As the world's population growth is slowing it should plateau at
    about double the present level in about 200 years time. If human
    civilization has survived the worse period of population growth with
    improved quality of life and a remarkably intact biosphere, then why should
    it not be able to survive the next 200 years. I can certainly remember
    getting very depressed in the 70's when, to believe the then current crop of
    environmentalists in 2000 there would be no forests left, few if any wild
    animals, the oceans would be largely devoid of marine life, and billions
    would have died of starvation. The realty is quite different, as Lomborg
    rightly points out, comparing the predictions of the 60's and 70's with
    actual events. I think there is need to recognise an element of common
    grace in this.

    The Scientific American articles were especially bad in ignoring the main
    theses. They picked up a few detailed errors (which Lomborg acknowledged
    and has put up on his web site at and then launched into an
    extraordinary ad homenium attack on Lomborg, describing his work as the
    worst sort of pesudoscience and equating it with creationism. The Danish
    Research Agency basically rehashed the SciAm criticisms without addressing
    the issue. The Lomborg critics have resorted to legal action (scientific
    American), physical assault, and verbal abuse, but completely missed the
    main point. The response to Lomborg appears a classic case of the response
    of vested interests when criticized. The greenhouse industry is a well
    funded vested interest.



    John or Carol Burgeson wrote:

    > >>
    > For what it's worth, the Jan. 7 Washington Post reported that the Danish
    > Research Agency (the equivalent of our National Academy of Science) had
    > denounced Lomborg for "scientific dishonesty". >>
    > Yes, that was part of the material on the web site I referenced.
    > John Burgeson
    > (an eclectic web site about science/theology, quantum mechanics,
    > ethics, baseball, humor, cars, philosophy, etc.)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 00:11:42 EST