asking Al Gore to run in 2008!
Pragmatic response
Posted December 13th, 2007 by davercoolit
How can we continue to perpetuate a crisis mentality using flawed predictions, like the flooding of NYC and Miami, warming caused droughts, heat related deaths, increased desease, etc. when we know that the truth is that the realistic solutions to these problems are much easier and cheaper than Kyoto, etc.?
Even if Cool it from B Lomborg is flawed with errors, it does point out serious problems with I. T. It is foolish to think New York would be allowed to be flooded byt a few feet of water, or even 20 feet givien the time it will take and the value of raising sea walls. Warming will increase percipitation not reduce it. Malaria is controlled best with nets, spraying, and economic development, not reducing CO2.
Anyway, we do need to fight global warming and CO2 increase but how much, when and at what cost. We do need to ask what is the cost of a ton of carbon, and how much to pay to reduce it now versus later after more R&D with better methods.
If we just repeat the slogans of politicians we are dupes, and we risk missing the real good that can be done for the world now and in the next 100 years.
-DR
Be part of the Draft Gore '08 campaign!
You just repeated the slogans of Lomborg
Gore is not a politican anymore. Or if he is so is Lomborg.
What he says about malaria is a strawman as noone said that by reducing CO2 we could somehow eliminate it. It's not an either or question.
Lomborg in fact doesn't know when the GIS or WAIS would break up and slip into the sea. Noone knows that today. It could be within centuries or just 100 years. If you want to build seawalls to protect Bangladesh go ahead. It won't happen. We couldn't even build leeves in New Orleans which could protect the city from a category 3 hurricane. But we could build walls to protect the East Coast you say. Ridiculous.
Just as people in the Netherlands whether they are concerned about sea level rise. And it's not that they don't have seawalls already.
"Warming will increase percipitation not reduce it."
And how is that a good thing?
AGW causes both more rain and more droughts. If Lomborg doesn't understand how that works he should go back to school.
He is the same asshole he was when he wrote the Sceptical Environmentalist and you are
lazy or ignorant if you think he is reasonable.
Visit this site:
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
I like Lomborgs slogans better...
I find personal attacks to be ineffective arguments (abusive language more so).
I think some poeple do attribute increased desease to GW but would have to get back to you on who. You have not addressed the main point about this which is that as we put more resources toward reducing CO2 we have less to otherwise improve the life of earths inhabitants.
About sea levels, yes the cost of the rise depends greatly or the amount and the time frame. With 1 to 3 feet in 100 years, the cost is not so high, is it? (In Bangladesh they probably would not build walls but just relocate some buildings.) But, yes if you are worried about the 20 foot rise, cost would be quit high. Do you think this is very likely? This is at the crux of my critisism, Lomborg may be way off, but where is the alternative cost benifit analysis? Really, I would like to see one if you can direct me to it.
About rain and draught, again I could use enlightenment. While more rain could cause flooding or change local weather patterns which might lead to draught, we are very clever adaptable animals, us humans, and I would think that more rain could be used properly to grow more food crops. But, yes, where do I look to find the more rain - less food theory? And do you believe it?
OK, the Big Easy, is not a good example of global climate change but more so a bad example of local government. That was a disaster waiting to happen for 40 or more years, or so my friend from there tells me. I saw it during a small storm maybe 10 years ago at couldn't believe that poeple lived next to those levies and walls. Yikes.
On a constructive note, because I do want to be helpfull not just critical. Can't we turn the global awareness toward things we know will be good, like wind and solar energy, less fossil fuel, etc. I am sure many think that the GW crisiss strategy does this, but I fear that a focus on problems which are potentially unsolveble will distract from the best directions.
But, you just blew steam ... what is the strategy? What kind of CO2 decreases will save us from your disaster sceario (or what scenario do you espouse?) and which models support this? Or is your argument really just that GW is so bad we must fo whatever we can (which is usually more than most are prepared to do)?
Thanks...please make me less ignorant.
BTW: I will look ar your site.. but have you read Lomborgs longer rebuttal to the Scientific American?