Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (111607)	5/21/2009 4:37:31 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 541759

I'll search more later. Gotta run to town. Start here... For instance, Lomborg can't get enough of the IPCC for sea level rise (pp. 60-61): In its 2007 report, the UN estimates that sea levels will rise about a foot over the rest of the century ... sea-level increase by 2050 will be about 5 inches. Thanks to this modest sea-level rise, and the possibility that developing countries will have the money in the future to protect their land with levees, he concludes, "a rich Bangladesh will lose only 0.000034 percent of its present dry-land area" (p. 48). No worries, mate! Message 23884408

To: Alastair McIntosh who wrote (111607)	5/23/2009 12:39:01 PM
From: Wharf Rat	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541759

The evolution of Lomborg... "The greenhouse effect is extremely doubtful" [Danish: Drivhuseffekten er yderst tvivlsom]. Bjørn Lomborg in his `break-through´ article, "The true state of the planet", Politiken, Denmark, 12th Jan. 1998. "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming . . " - 2001, TSE p. 259 lomborg-errors.dk == Lomborg´s chapter on global warming is, to a large extent, based on a review of the 2001 reports from the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, his review is biased. Lomborg systematically picks every little piece of information which may serve to downplay the importance of manmade effects on the world´s climate, whereas all information that points in the opposite direction is either neglected or heavily criticized. Also the economic discussions are extremely biased, and, furthermore, confusing and inconsistent. The text is marred by frequent attacks on the experts, i.e. attempts to undermine the reader´s trust in their expertise and their ability to make balanced judgments. Lomborg, who is a non-expert in this field, and whose ideas have not been subject to any relevant peer review, thus presents himself as having a better understanding of the field than the thousands of international experts whose meticulous works are subjected to three or four rounds of peer reviews before they are published. The only positive thing that can be said about this chapter is that it must have taken a lot of work to produce it - so much that one may wonder if Lomborg has really produced it on his own. Although there may be a few paragraphs here and there that are not very biased, the overall impression of the chapter is that it is altogether deliberately misleading. Anyone wanting information on the subject would have no reason to read Lomborg instead of the original IPCC reports lomborg-errors.dk == Climate change can wait. World health can't With $50bn, we could make the planet a better place but money spent on global warming would be wasted Bjorn Lomborg The Observer, Sunday 2 July 2006 guardian.co.uk Questioning Global-Warming Focus in 'Cool It' Listen Now add to playlist Morning Edition, September 10, 2007 · Bjorn Lomborg calls himself a "skeptical environmentalist." Critics say he is an anti-environmentalist. In his new book, Cool It, he argues that global warming is not so important that tens of billions of dollars should be spent trying to prevent it. Lomborg discusses the issue with Steve Inskeep. npr.org The Copenhagen agreement should instead call for every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development. That would increase the amount of such spending 15-fold to $30 billion, yet the total cost would be only a sixth of the estimated $180 billion worth of lost growth that would result from the Kyoto restrictions. nytimes.com