PDA

View Full Version : Environment Lomgorg pulls a Rosanne Rosannadanna on Climate change


oldandslow
09-01-2010, 03:29 PM
I'll be damned. Never thought I would see the day. Or did he just want to make his bucks selling books to the anti-environmental folks and then go retire somewhere in the mountains?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti...

Noted anti-global-warming scientist reverses course

With scientific data piling up showing that the world has reached its hottest-ever point in recorded history, global-warming skeptics are facing a high-profile defection from their ranks. Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on "a challenge humanity must confront."

orange
09-01-2010, 04:37 PM
Reason: and yeah, i know i spelled his name wrong in the post title

http://www.allfunpix.com/humor/pics2/coolyoda.jpg

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 04:39 PM
Wonder who threatened or drugged him?

FD
09-01-2010, 05:09 PM
This is shocking. He is one of the best known and most persuasive anti-Climate Change voices in the world. I guess in the long run the mountains of evidence piling up will have to convert everyone.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 05:18 PM
This is shocking. He is one of the best known and most persuasive anti-Climate Change voices in the world. I guess in the long run the mountains of evidence piling up will have to convert everyone.

So where are these "mountains of evidence "the article claims? Nothing specific is listed —at ALL. It's the typical generality most environmental news reports are filled with.
This guy experiences one hot summer, after one of the coldest winters and suddenly changes his mind? That's not science. That's called being affected by hot weather.
He's a former member of Greenpeace. LOL.Plus the article states" Lomborg's former foes in the environmental movement are so far unimpressed by news of his conversion. Calling him a 'shrewd self-promoter.'" I'll just betcha' he was offered some lucrative dough or position.

Still, the fact remains there are 31,000 American scientists that disagree that GW is some made made crises.

orange
09-01-2010, 05:24 PM
Nothing specific is listed —at ALL.

Nothing specific is listed - because he has a book coming out, of course.

FD
09-01-2010, 05:56 PM
For those of you who don't know of it, his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is a very, very good and important work. Its primarily devoted to showing how the environmentalist movement employs manipulated statistics and occasionally outright lies in pushing their causes. He is a statistician and the book is extremely well researched and sourced.

I agreed with almost all of it, with the exception of the his section on climate change, now it appears he has come around to disagreeing with that part as well.

oldandslow
09-01-2010, 06:16 PM
Still, the fact remains there are 31,000 American scientists that disagree that GW is some made made crises.

...and many more who say just the opposite.

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 06:52 PM
...and many more who say just the opposite.

Actually, that's not true. I counted them up on the IPCC panel and it's handful compared to those that don't. It's mostly GW activists that say it's true. I also have noted each news report using the "scientists" day line when they've actually quoted an GW activist. I quoted my source above and here. What yours?

oldandslow
09-01-2010, 07:16 PM
Here is a survey of Earch Scientists done by University of Chicago

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

82% of those folks believe climate change is caused by humans...


and more than 90% of the climatologists...

Petroleum folks and geologists were lower...bet we can guess why.

Where is your link by the way?

BucEyedPea
09-01-2010, 07:32 PM
Here is a survey of Earch Scientists done by University of Chicago

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php

82% of those folks believe climate change is caused by humans...


and more than 90% of the climatologists...

Petroleum folks and geologists were lower...bet we can guess why.

Where is your link by the way?
That's only 3,146. My source has more granted they're of various scientists but it doesn't take knowledge in advanced or difficult science to know this material. But there were climatologists on it...so it's not unanimous.

Your source didn't mention the meteorologists, but it did go out of it's way to diss them as only studying short term weather. A meteoro logists course of study is much more demanding and difficult, than a climatologists who can count rings on a tree.

This survey was only sent to govt and academia scientists, and we know how biased those groups are. They lean left and are anti-capitalist. So they have a vested interest it destroying it.

I named both my sources....if you google them you'll find a link. But I've already posted those links here many times.

Brainiac
09-01-2010, 11:03 PM
Did any of you global warming enthusiasts even bother to read the article posted on Yahoo? Lomborg has always believed that global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course

How is this "reversing his course"?

Answer: It's not.

It's simply a biased article with a very misleading headline written by a blogger on the Yahoo News Blog.

wazu
09-01-2010, 11:20 PM
Did any of you global warming enthusiasts even bother to read the article posted on Yahoo? Lomborg has always believed that global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100831/sc_yblog_upshot/noted-anti-global-warming-scientist-reverses-course

How is this "reversing his course"?

Answer: It's not.

It's simply a biased article with a very misleading headline written by a blogger on the Yahoo News Blog.

Good call.

Lomborg's essential argument was: Yes, global warming is real and human behavior is the main reason for it, but the world has far more important things to worry about.

Oh, how times have changed.

In a book to be published this year, Lomborg calls global warming "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and calls for the world's governments to invest tens of billions of dollars annually to fight climate change.

orange
09-01-2010, 11:23 PM
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on "a challenge humanity must confront."


How is this "reversing his course"?

Answer: It's not.


The right-wing Telegraph:
Climate 'sceptic' Bjørn Lomborg now believes global warming is one of world's greatest threats
One of the world’s most prominent climate change sceptics has called for a $100bn fund to fight the effects of global warning, after rethinking his views on the severity of the threat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7972383/Climate-sceptic-Bjorn-Lomborg-now-believes-global-warming-is-one-of-worlds-greatest-threats.html

The left-wing Guardian:
Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change
Exclusive 'Sceptical environmentalist' and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turn

The concensus seems to be that you're wrong.

Want to bet against his citations on denial sites dropping way off?

orange
09-01-2010, 11:25 PM
Good call.

Bad call. Sorry. oldandslow was right the first time.

Amusing that the denialists line now is that Lomborg never mattered.

Taco John
09-01-2010, 11:49 PM
This issue doesn't matter. Name even one person in November who is being elected due to their position on this issue. It's nothing but message board and left wing fundraising fodder. When righties want to raise easy money, they bring up abortion. When lefties want to raise easy money, they bring up global warming. Neither of them do anything about either issue once they get into congress because the bottom line is that nobody in America really cares about doing anything about global warming.

Brainiac
09-02-2010, 06:09 AM
Bad call. Sorry. oldandslow was right the first time.

Amusing that the denialists line now is that Lomborg never mattered.

Is your reading comprehension really this bad? That is not what I said at all. I said Lomborg has ALWAYS believed that global warming exists and that man is the cause. Disprove what I said, not the straw man that you put up in its place.

Nothing you posted contradicts or disproves the fact that he has ALWAYS believed that.

oldandslow
09-02-2010, 08:13 AM
Bad call. Sorry. oldandslow was right the first time.

Amusing that the denialists line now is that Lomborg never mattered.

Exactly, orange. According to BUP, anyone involved in peer reviewed climate research at a university is, by definition, biased.

But, of course, all right wing Austrian economists are completely objective concerning climate change.

But BUP, to her credit, does make arguements. While I don't agree, and many times find them fallacious, she at least tries.

Many of the deniers simply put their head in the sand and say it ain't so.

BucEyedPea
09-02-2010, 08:25 AM
Exactly, orange. According to BUP, anyone involved in peer reviewed climate research at a university is, by definition, biased.
The link didn't say anything about peer reviewed research—it said WHO was surveyed. It omits reporting what meteorologists thought on the grounds that their discipline doesn't apply when it applies more and is a more rigorous scientific area of study. That's a standard of peer review? Sound more like activist reporting by a journalist.

It's an established fact that academia and govt workers rely on funds from taxpayers for their work. Not all of academia but to a degree. That makes them just as much a vested interest as your side claim's the oil industry is.

Peer Review is not without it's flaws either. In fact I've read articles stating it needs an overhaul. To rely only on "peer review" is an attempt to shut down the debate by appealing to authority alone. What would happen to an original thinker who breaks with the pack, who is vilified at first only to be accepted as correct later much to the world's detriment. Men like Dr. Semmelweis for instance. It does happen.

But, of course, all right wing Austrian economists are completely objective concerning climate change.
Austrian economics is not right wing. It just states economic laws which will play out no matter what we try to impose over them. Many on the right are not Austrians but merely Keynesians with a tax-cut on top.

I don't even know what Austrians say as a group about GW since it's NOT economics. I do know what they say about the solutions being recommended—command and control by govt on us all. I also do know they write articles on how the free-market can be engaged to fix environmental problems.

But BUP, to her credit, does make arguements. While I don't agree, and many times find them fallacious, she at least tries.

Many of the deniers simply put their head in the sand and say it ain't so.
I am not BUP. I am BEP. It's not a matter of head in the sand, it's just known by the right that this whole GW originally stems from socialists at the UN. Socialists who are creating a crisis to take advantage of by creating a global negative externality requiring heavy aka socialist controls on our system. That's where your side is in denial. Then again, your side is in denial that they are even socialists.

mlyonsd
09-02-2010, 09:01 AM
Many of the deniers simply put their head in the sand and say it ain't so.

I don't doubt the world is warming. I'm pretty sure that's been the case since the last ice age.

I have no problem with the green movement if everyone on the planet turns their sails the same direction. I do have a problem with us going it alone though.

Especially if an idiotic cap and trade ponzi scheme is used. All that will do is destroy what economy we have left and make someone new brokers to be named later rich.

What the democrats have proposed is beyond idiotic. Economic suicide.

orange
09-02-2010, 02:02 PM
Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on "a challenge humanity must confront."

That is not what I said at all. I said Lomborg has ALWAYS believed that global warming exists and that man is the cause.

So what?




How is this "reversing his course"?

Answer: It's not.


Is your reading comprehension really this bad?

Mine is fine. Let's test yours - according the article, the blurb posted in the OP repeated here, or the other two articles I linked - HOW has Lomborg "reversed his course?"

ROFL

tiptap
09-02-2010, 11:42 PM
All I got to say is that we are coming out of a solar minimum. Temperatures should drop.
Prolonged Sunspot Absence was related to the Little Ice Age. And that we see the periodic pause or small dip in the upward trend in global temperatures related to this is in evidence temperature data over the last 100 years. But the temperatures average world wide did not drop enough to get the WORLD temperature even close to the average temperature over the last 100 years much less a dip to below average. And it is this statistical movement of the climatic temperatures and the real evidence of decreased mass of polar ice that drives the notion that Global Warming is more immediate problem.

The notion that the sun and then re emitting of heat by Greenhouse gases are the fundamental two scientific explanations for 99.9 percent of the temperatures on earth is the conservative view for at least 75 years. So of course Lomgorg didn't offer radical ideas to account for temperatures. He stayed with the conservative scientific view. But he has changed his mind about the rate of temperature change caused by rise in Greenhouse Gases. That is a difference in the immediacy and the scale of the problem.

Brainiac
09-05-2010, 07:49 AM
There is a hell of a difference between "REVERSING HIS COURSE" and saying that he decided that there is a difference in the immediacy and the scale of the problem.

To say he reversed his course is deceptive and misleading. Of course, being deceptive and misleading is what the Cap and Trade proponents are all about these days, so it's not a surprise.

tiptap
09-05-2010, 07:56 PM
There is a hell of a difference between "REVERSING HIS COURSE" and saying that he decided that there is a difference in the immediacy and the scale of the problem.

To say he reversed his course is deceptive and misleading. Of course, being deceptive and misleading is what the Cap and Trade proponents are all about these days, so it's not a surprise.

For a braniac you have missed that a change in scale is a change in course on the imaginary axis. That the connection between change in scale is exponential and therefore a true change in direction. That is the math. So belittle it as much as you like but the mathematical fact is that it is a change in directions. I will admit that within the typical language use it is a misaligned claim but not an erroneous one.

Brainiac
09-06-2010, 02:16 AM
Well, there is one guy who hasn't reversed his course on this ...

http://a.imageshack.us/img85/1923/agwfordummies2.jpg

googlegoogle
09-06-2010, 03:46 AM
oh no. we're all gonna die!

crops are failing everywhere!

huge hurricanes are killing everyone!

Oh the humanity!

morphius
09-10-2010, 10:54 AM
The right-wing Telegraph:Climate 'sceptic' Bjørn Lomborg now believes global warming is one of world's greatest threats
One of the world’s most prominent climate change sceptics has called for a $100bn fund to fight the effects of global warning, after rethinking his views on the severity of the threat.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/7972383/Climate-sceptic-Bjorn-Lomborg-now-believes-global-warming-is-one-of-worlds-greatest-threats.htmlThe left-wing Guardian:Bjørn Lomborg: $100bn a year needed to fight climate change
Exclusive 'Sceptical environmentalist' and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-u-turnThe concensus seems to be that you're wrong.

Want to bet against his citations on denial sites dropping way off?
From his own website (you are the one that is wrong):

Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?

A: No. In Cool It he writes: "global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century" (p8).
Q: But he used to deny it, didn't he?

A: No. In both his first Danish book in 1998 and the English version of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Bjorn Lomborg stressed that man-made global warming exists. The introduction to the section on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist clearly states, "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming" (p259).

http://www.lomborg.com/faq/

orange
09-10-2010, 12:05 PM
From his own website (you are the one that is wrong)

From the ORIGINAL POST above:

Bjorn Lomborg, author of the influential tract "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has reversed course on the urgency of global warming, and is now calling for action on "a challenge humanity must confront."

Where am I wrong? Did I or the OP or anyone else in this thread EVER say Lomborg denied the existence of Global Warming?