Global Warming Dissenter Bjorn Lomborg (Sort of) Has a Change of Heart

Global Warming Dissenter Bjorn Lomborg (Sort of) Has a Change of Heart

blogs.discovermagazine .com

Has climate skeptics’ favorite Danish statistician, Bjørn Lomborg, changed his stance? In the forthcoming book edited by Lomborg, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, he calls climate change one of the world’s “chief concerns” and suggests investing $100 billion annually on climate change solutions.
The suggestion certainly comes as a surprise...

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.dailytech.com
www.abc.net.au

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Great series debunking GW-denial pseudo-science
Famous Global Warming Skeptic Scientist admits "40 percent" of his funding comes from Big Oil
Major Global Warming Denial Movement Linked Directly to ExxonMobil: PROOF

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]

It seems a couple global warming deniers have recently RECANTED their positions (at least... somewhat) on global warming. You'll see in my link from ABC.net.au that, alongside Bjorn Lomborg, Michael Hanlon (science editor of Daily Mail) has also recently had a change of heart/mind reguarding climate change after visiting a glacier (or lack thereof) in Greenland.

The tides are turning... but still it seems too little too late. Business as usual wants to remain strong and profitable, even in the face of climate catastrophe and mass extinction. We mustn't listen to "their" needs anymore, though. It's time to shove the fossil fuel industry to the side and even bully and neglect it in favor of a better future for humanity and the planet. Of course this will be difficult as the fossil fuel industry is the wealthiest industry ever to exist on the planet... but where there's a mass will there is an undeniable way.

blogs.discovermagazine .com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Climate change is a fact. I'm glad more skeptics are seeing how true the fact is. Here are two facts that can't be denied;

1) The atmosphere controls Earth's climate and weather.

2) Humans can, and are, making changes to the atmosphere.

If humans change the atmosphere, and the atmosphere controls the climate, then humans can change the climate.

It really is that simple.

reply to post by illumin8ed


Indeed!

Here's another simple equation:

1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit

2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

3. Solar irradiance/sunspots have DECREASED over the past few decades

Once again, even simple intellectual math makes humanity's overwhelming contribution to global warming quite obvious.

Mother Nature has a delicate balance.

I think all of those who say that the earth has a way of balancing itself out, need to understand that humanity does not have to be a part of that equation.

It makes me wonder. .

Did the commission checks from BP, Chevron and others dry up?

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

Here is another logical thought...

If CO2 has increased from 280ppm to 390ppm, this shows that Earth's ability to deal with CO2 may not be as good as people think.

If CO2 is building up, this must mean we (and other sources) are creating CO2 faster than the Earth can handle.

reply to post by clay2 baraka

...or maybe the IPCC made a better offer?

There is money at stake on both sides of the issue. To decry one and ignore the other is hypocrisy at its most blatant.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by clay2 baraka

...or maybe the IPCC made a better offer?

There is money at stake on both sides of the issue. To decry one and ignore the other is hypocrisy at its most blatant.

TheRedneck

Prove it.

reply to post by NoHierarchy

Sure thing... as soon as you prove they were being paid to make false claims before. You started the thread after all.

While we're at it, how about proving this line as well:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

It's time to shove the fossil fuel industry to the side and even bully and neglect it in favor of a better future for humanity and the planet. Of course this will be difficult as the fossil fuel industry is the wealthiest industry ever to exist on the planet... but where there's a mass will there is an undeniable way.

I am still waiting for this Utopian mystery power source to replace oil to appear.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by NoHierarchy

Sure thing... as soon as you prove they were being paid to make false claims before. You started the thread after all.

While we're at it, how about proving this line as well:

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

It's time to shove the fossil fuel industry to the side and even bully and neglect it in favor of a better future for humanity and the planet. Of course this will be difficult as the fossil fuel industry is the wealthiest industry ever to exist on the planet... but where there's a mass will there is an undeniable way.

I am still waiting for this Utopian mystery power source to replace oil to appear.

TheRedneck

www.exxonmobil.com...

Where's your proof for IPCC?

[edit on 1-9-2010 by hippomchippo]

You did read the link you posted, right? Right?

Page 3:

Environmental Law Institute*, Washington DC

I looked up the Environmental Law Institute. Here's a nice little snippet from their website:

Polar ice caps are melting, corals in tropical seas are dying, mountain species are being forced to retreat to higher elevations, and low-lying communities are being washed away by storms and floods. Global scientific consensus confirms that we are experiencing climate change, human actions are driving that change, and ecosystems and human society must adapt to these alterations. Although questions remain about the timing, location, and severity of the impacts, legal, institutional, and policy responses to climate change need to be crafted and implemented now.

It would appear that Exxon-Mobil is giving contributions to AGW-friendly companies!

The fact is that all major companies give away millions of dollars each year in gifts to support a vast array of different organizations, some liberal, some conservative, some Republican, some Democratic. A list of all those contributions hardly qualifies as 'proof' of conspiracy. Maybe proof of generosity...

Now, as to my side of the bargain: take a gander at Table 1 in this copy of the IPCC budget. The United States government has given almost 30 million Francs through 2007 to the IPCC, over 2 million Francs in 2007 alone. Wait, isn't the Federal government in bed with the oil companies?

Now scroll on down to Table 3. the IPCC in 2007 spent 447,000 Francs on "outreach"... over a million Francs on "publications"... now exactly what is outreach? Why, it's 'reaching out', of course... what are they reaching out for? Maybe to further their agenda?

Interestingly enough, if the IPCC was able to receive donations from private companies, I have this feeling Exxon-Mobile would be one of the companies to help fund them...

Now, about that non-fossil-fuel energy source... I think you forgot to mention exactly what it was that would supply our energy once the evil oil companies were out of the picture...

TheRedneck

Hmmm...

A previous skeptic (sort of) softening his skepticism on one hand...
reams of data and admissions that the IPCC seriously breached ethics and openly lied and fabricated data to "prove" Anthropogenic global warming on the other...

Wow, this is like going all-in on Texas Hold 'em with a pair of 3s and a 9 high card. The Anthropogenic crowd CAN NOT win this argument anymore. Their holy grail was exposed as a fraud. The IPCC has no credibility anymore, Al Gore has no credibility anymore (aside from his newfound credibility as a harassing horndog), and all but the most vocal climate change nazis have basically shut their mouths about it.

Oh, and based on this:

1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit

2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

I gotta scratch my head. If the Earth would cool by 60 degrees if CO2 was fully eliminated, and (huge assumption) mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 390ppm in the past 100 years, that means that a removal of 390ppm of CO2 would equal a 60 degree F temperature decrease. 6.5ppm per degree... follow me here, that would mean that 100 years ago Earth was 16.92 degrees cooler than it is today!?!?! Seriously? I don't recall my Great grandparents being Eskimos in the South East USA, but maybe I misunderstood the stories I heard from them as a child.

Once again... you deniers are in, well... COMPLETE DENIAL.

Here ya go, cowboy:

www.ucsusa.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.greenpeace.org...

www.pbs.org...

reply to post by TheRedneck

Now, about that non-fossil-fuel energy source... I think you forgot to mention exactly what it was that would supply our energy once the evil oil companies were out of the picture...

Not that I buy into the global warming BS however we don;t need oil and never did. Ethanol could make us energy independent in 2-3 years easy.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
Hmmm...

A previous skeptic (sort of) softening his skepticism on one hand...
reams of data and admissions that the IPCC seriously breached ethics and openly lied and fabricated data to "prove" Anthropogenic global warming on the other...

Wow, this is like going all-in on Texas Hold 'em with a pair of 3s and a 9 high card. The Anthropogenic crowd CAN NOT win this argument anymore. Their holy grail was exposed as a fraud. The IPCC has no credibility anymore, Al Gore has no credibility anymore (aside from his newfound credibility as a harassing horndog), and all but the most vocal climate change nazis have basically shut their mouths about it.

Actually that's complete and utter BS. Do your homework or stop spouting off lies.

There were 3 separate analyses done on the CRU emails (including one by a conservative economist publication)... and they ALL concluded that the emails showed NO misconduct or concealing of data. IN FACT, even if we give credence to denialist cherry-picking conspiracy theories, when the IPCC actually PUBLISHED after these emails, they concealed ZERO DATA- Everything was shown.

The CRU emails proved nothing against the IPCC, and ESPECIALLY not against anthropogenic global warming.


Watch these for the facts:








Same goes for Al Gore and An Inconvenient Truth. In the court case against him it was ruled that Al Gore DID NOT lie, but only exaggerated or didn't give a full picture in less than a handful of instances (remember there were dozens and dozens of instances of truth in his movie). Analyses AFTER the fact have proven that Al Gore didn't lie and that especially his conclusions about global warming, for the most part, reflect that of the respected body of science within climatology.

Please read:

news.nationalgeographic.com...

blog.washingtonpost.com...


So... try again.

Oh, and based on this:

1. CO2 is undeniably a greenhouse gas that, if removed from our atmosphere, would reduce global temperatures by 60 degrees Fahrenheit

2. Within just a century humans have increased Earth's atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280ppm to 390ppm

I gotta scratch my head. If the Earth would cool by 60 degrees if CO2 was fully eliminated, and (huge assumption) mankind has raised CO2 levels from 280ppm to 390ppm in the past 100 years, that means that a removal of 390ppm of CO2 would equal a 60 degree F temperature decrease. 6.5ppm per degree... follow me here, that would mean that 100 years ago Earth was 16.92 degrees cooler than it is today!?!?! Seriously? I don't recall my Great grandparents being Eskimos in the South East USA, but maybe I misunderstood the stories I heard from them as a child.

Scratch your head all you want, the facts are the facts, and I trust the vast wealth of science/scientists over limited anecdotal evidence and goin-with-yur-gut mentality.

The facts:

www.dnr.sc.gov...

Scientists are beginning to document that we may have changed the atmosphere so much that regional and global climate changes will be enhanced. The existence of climate change resulting from the greenhouse effect isn't questioned: the earth would be about 60 degrees cooler and would not be a suitable home for us if it did not exist. First proposed by the French scientist Fourier in 1824, the term refers simply to the capacity of certain gases to allow shortwave solar radiation to reach the earth's surface but then absorb and trap this same energy as the earth radiates it back as longwave energy. This trapped radiation increases the air's temperature. Water vapor is responsible for most of this warming, but carbon dioxide (CO2) also plays an important role in warming the earth's atmosphere.

www.visionlearning.com...

Water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, and SO2 all have an important property: they absorb heat emitted by the earth and thus warm the atmosphere, creating what we call the "greenhouse effect." Without these so-called greenhouse gases, the surface of the earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler - too cold for life to exist as we know it.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov...

In fact, without an atmosphere, the surface of the earth would be about 30 degrees Celsius cooler than it is now!

(Keep in mind for the second two excerpts- 30 degrees Celsius is roughly equal to 60 degrees Fahrenheit)

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Oh please do not tell me you are still trying to use NASA as a source.

Where is that I read, oh yeah here we go-

Researcher: NASA hiding climate data

Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s.

Another small part of that article-

The numbers matter. Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.

Oh well, have you heard about this-

CEI Suing NASA Over Climate Stonewall

This morning in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Competitive Enterprise Institute is filing suit against NASA, calling the erstwhile space agency to account for its nearly three-year stonewall of access to internal documents exposing an abuse of taxpayer funds to advance the global warming agenda.

Or how about New Zealand's escapade into the courts-

New Zealand’s NIWA sued over climate data adjustments

The country’s state-owned weather and atmospheric research body is being taken to court in a challenge over the accuracy of its data used to calculate global warming. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition said it had lodged papers with the High Court asking the court to invalidate the official temperatures record of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa).

So, we have NASA, rehashing numbers to make things look like what, well if you read the 2nd article, come to find out, NASA was being used as a propaganda dissemination site for CRU manipulated data. Hmmm. Amazing idon it?

Then we have another country manipulating data.

Why is it that the governments are all pushing to institute a CO2 credit scam?

Could it be, I mean really could it be all TRUE?

A conspiracy!?

reply to post by burdman30ott6


Not all relationships are linear... It's certainly not the fault of scientists that you fail to understand the science.

In any case, if we want to truly combat climate change we are going to require something that can produce energy cheaper than fossil fuels.

[edit on 2/9/2010 by C0bzz]