Cool It

Focus on Research and Development Now--Right On The Mark!

Authors@Google: Bjorn Lomborg

"In Cool It, Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply—which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figJ1nrjUSk

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

I went looking to find the thread that this addressed, but after I couldn't find it, I figured it would be better to stick to

ONE THREAD ABOUT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

er...sorry, I meant one thread about global climate change.  Sorry for yelling.

Anywho.

It's great that we are in a situation where we are thinking about what to do to deal with the problem.  I'm glad that we aren't still debating the fact that there IS a problem.

Yay, progress.

What's the worse that can happen?

As usual, reasonable people have reasonable answers.


See this video on MSN Soapbox

Minh wrote:

What's the worse that can happen?

As usual, reasonable people have reasonable answers.


See this video on MSN Soapbox

The action in the left column is the same for both rows, so the economic consequence should be roughly the same. Therefore, the lower left cell should also list global depression.

If you accept that then there is only one cell that doesn't bring economic disaster. And potentially political suicide--you have to convince yourself that climate change is not coming in order to take the easy path, politically speaking.

Minh wrote:

What's the worse that can happen?

As usual, reasonable people have reasonable answers.

See this video on MSN Soapbox

The problem with his argument is that, while I agree with it, it won't convince the hardcore naysayers. They believe that there is a 0% possibility of climate change being true and thus column B (doing nothing) is risk-free from their perspective.

His argument only holds if you assume we don't know whether climate change is real, which of course we don't. But for those who (in my view, mistakingly) believe they know for certain it won't happen the argument has no value. You still need to convince them that there is a chance that they're wrong before they can buy into this argument.

Sven Groot wrote:


You still need to convince them that there is a chance that they're wrong before they can buy into this argument.

Even serious scientists won't say for certain what the end-result of global warming is. The best that they'll do is likely scenarios.

Those who think they know for sure that either global warming isn't happening, or that there isn't anything that could / should be done about it -- those have an agenda.

Minh wrote:



Sven Groot wrote:  You still need to convince them that there is a chance that they're wrong before they can buy into this argument.

Even serious scientists won't say for certain what the end-result of global warming is. The best that they'll do is likely scenarios.

Those who think they know for sure that either global warming isn't happening, or that there isn't anything that could / should be done about it -- those have an agenda.

Nonsense.

It is the left that has the agenda.

They want to use global warming as an excuse for more government taxes and regulation and less liberty for people to spend their money on what they want.

The fact that Al Gore lies about the science and says there is a consensus--when there is not--speaks for itself.

John Stossel - The Global Warming Debate 10-20-07

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FI0U5JOtoo

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://en.sevenload.com/videos/ha4PoKY/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI 

Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8

ScanIAm wrote:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,2190770,00.html

I went looking to find the thread that this addressed, but after I couldn't find it, I figured it would be better to stick to

ONE THREAD ABOUT GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE

er...sorry, I meant one thread about global climate change.  Sorry for yelling.

Anywho.

It's great that we are in a situation where we are thinking about what to do to deal with the problem.  I'm glad that we aren't still debating the fact that there IS a problem.

Yay, progress.

ugh there were very few people against environmentally beneficial actions.

most people who argued against gore were not arguing against the fact that humans can harm the environment, they were arguing against a catastrophic alarmism, that was promoting heavy government programs.

again, this is about politics, and not science, and anyone who thinks its about science (on either side) is missing the point.

brian.shapiro wrote:

ugh there were very few people against environmentally beneficial actions.

most people who argued against gore were not arguing against the fact that humans can harm the environment, they were arguing against a catastrophic alarmism, that was promoting heavy government programs.

again, this is about politics, and not science, and anyone who thinks its about science (on either side) is missing the point.

To be honest, the numbers of those arguing that the Gore camp was taking an "alarmist"/"catastrophist" view were in the minorty when compared to those denying the assumption that global warming is happening.

It's a two-level argument.

Anyway, I don't personally believe Al Gore is politically motivated in his aims, he's got no chance of getting into office again; he's just using his connections and fame to fulfil some kind of personal message. It's no different than if in 10 years' time Dick Cheney started campaigning for something he believed in.

W3bbo wrote:



brian.shapiro wrote: ugh there were very few people against environmentally beneficial actions. most people who argued against gore were not arguing against the fact that humans can harm the environment, they were arguing against a catastrophic alarmism, that was promoting heavy government programs. again, this is about politics, and not science, and anyone who thinks its about science (on either side) is missing the point.

To be honest, the numbers of those arguing that the Gore camp was taking an "alarmist"/"catastrophist" view were in the minorty when compared to those denying the assumption that global warming is happening.

It's a two-level argument.

Anyway, I don't personally believe Al Gore is politically motivated in his aims, he's got no chance of getting into office again; he's just using his connections and fame to fulfil some kind of personal message. It's no different than if in 10 years' time Dick Cheney started campaigning for something he believed in.

Even in skepticism of the science on global warming, there were many levels, and some of it was thoughtful criticism. Some of it was ridiculously stupid and wrong, yes, but some of it was thoughtful enough that a large number of scientists agreed.

This is what happens when you get a political debate. All sorts of people come in to join the argument.

I don't think Al Gore is trying to use this to get into office; I do think that he is being a bit delusional when he talks about himself as a spiritual leader, and his scientific views are mixed up with his political views

brian.shapiro wrote:



W3bbo wrote:  brian.shapiro wrote: ugh there were very few people against environmentally beneficial actions. most people who argued against gore were not arguing against the fact that humans can harm the environment, they were arguing against a catastrophic alarmism, that was promoting heavy government programs. again, this is about politics, and not science, and anyone who thinks its about science (on either side) is missing the point. To be honest, the numbers of those arguing that the Gore camp was taking an "alarmist"/"catastrophist" view were in the minorty when compared to those denying the assumption that global warming is happening. It's a two-level argument. Anyway, I don't personally believe Al Gore is politically motivated in his aims, he's got no chance of getting into office again; he's just using his connections and fame to fulfil some kind of personal message. It's no different than if in 10 years' time Dick Cheney started campaigning for something he believed in.

Even in skepticism of the science on global warming, there were many levels, and some of it was thoughtful criticism. Some of it was ridiculously stupid and wrong, yes, but some of it was thoughtful enough that a large number of scientists agreed.

This is what happens when you get a political debate. All sorts of people come in to join the argument.

I don't think Al Gore is trying to use this to get into office; I do think that he is being a bit delusional when he talks about himself as a spiritual leader, and his scientific views are mixed up with his political views

Maybe.  When I watch him speak in interviews and on the occasional science show, he does come across as kind of smarmy and smug, but he certainly has earned it.  This isn't some cool new hobby he picked up after the 2000 elections were decided, he'd been doing the presentation prior to his vice presidency. 

That said, though, it's like throwing Hillary up for the democratic presidential nomination in 2008:  She just isn't the right person for the job.  Gore annoys too many ignorant people who still see him as a failed presidential hopeful and inventor of the internet.  Right or wrong, he'll have to eventually move out of the spotlight if something useful is going to get done.

Here come the taxes--Cap and Trade--and there goes your job and the economy.

Almost all taxes are past on.

Thanks but no thanks Hillary. 

Hillary Clinton Caught on Planting Question Man She is Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoXQzcT1xr0

A new cap-and-trade program that auctions 100 percent of permits alongside investments to move us on the path towards energy independence;

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/energy/

Cap-and-trade like Soviet-style central planning

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4oBjbe8BIA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAy07bXPF2QInhofe">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAy07bXPF2QInhofe

Talks Economic Impact of "Global Warming Solutions"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_urx3_fuVI


Dick Armey Talks Economics of Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJRN4i6uC-E


The Case against Cap-and-Trade

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/04/case-against-cap-and-trade.html


LOL

WE can’t stop Global Warming… 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNWAZNeVV38

OMG he discovered the left wing conspiracy! dispatch the comrade-assasins to take him down.

Tensor wrote:

OMG he discovered the left wing conspiracy! dispatch the comrade-assasins to take him down.

I'm calling the pirate-ninjas as we speak.