Re: Global warming -- is it for real?

From: jdac (
Date: Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:47:02 EST

  • Next message: John Burgeson: "RE: Unleashing the Storm"

    The irony is that the chapter on global warming is just one chapter on many. The
    critics has focused on this chapter with the obvious belief that if they can discredit
    part they can discredit the whole.

    Interestingly, as one who has actually read the book several times, their criticism has
    still missed the main thrust of the greenhouse chapter. Lomborg does not deny
    greenhouse, but questions what should be done about it. These questions I believe are
    quite valid has be highlights the fact that scientifically the middle greenhouse
    predictions are the most likely but the predictions of the consequences are based on
    the most unlikely upper extreme. Lomborg criticizes some of the proposed economic
    consequences as being naive, deliberately ignoring some comparatively low cost
    amelioration members in favour of more expensive options (shifting entire cities
    because of sea level rises of a metre or less when existing dike systems could be
    raised and extended for a fraction of the cost). He also considers the unpleasant
    issue that some of the more extreme greenhouse reduction measures may cost more than
    doing nothing. Finally Lomborg also points out that while global warming is a reality,
    there is a known component of natural climate change to this, including solar
    variability, and that no manner of human action is going to be able to effect this.
    Greenhouse activists ignore this natural aspect.


    Glenn Morton wrote:

    > Thes week New Scientist has a comment and analysis by Fred Pearce, entitled,
    > "Call off the Witch-Hunt, New Scienctist Jan 18, 2003, p. 23 Pearce had
    > inteviewed Lomberg when the book came out. The piece ends with this
    > "Lomborg struck me as an eager and honest researcher working ouside his
    > field and out of his depth. But science is an adversarial a process as the
    > law. Without repeated challenge, even flwed or naive ones, evidence and
    > theories go stale. Science needs its dissidents and mavericks, and should
    > be wary of resorting to these draconian Star Chamber tactics to silence
    > them.
    > "Lomborg is by no means a towering intellect or authority, But 'undermining
    > publich understanding' and 'perverting the scientific message' are nasty
    > catch-all charges that should have no place in a sicentific court. The
    > conviction by this Danis panel is unfair and bad for science. It is also bad
    > for the environmentalists who have so applauded it. Lomborg will now be
    > characgerised as the victim of a green witch-hunt. I fear that his accusers
    > have been guilty of just that."
    > glenn
    > see
    > for lots of creation/evolution information
    > anthropology/geology/paleontology/theology\
    > personal stories of struggle

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Jan 19 2003 - 16:44:34 EST