It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 02:50 AM
link   

...CONTINUED



reply to post by burdman30ott6
 



The real story of global warming is that it is natural. Carl Sagan and others realized we were heading toward the cyclical pre-ice age temperature spike cycle which would last between 30 and 40 years. With equal credit due to political/personal agendas and profit grabbing, many in the science community began to see this as a case of never letting a good crisis go to waste. Ultimately we are now seeing the early stages of how they can somehow ramp down on this while still forcing the changes they wanted, making the money they desired, and then say "Wow, disaster averted... OK folks, we can breathe easy" when ultimately the only thing preventing people from actually breathing beforehand was the smell of bullcrap eminating from the panels and carbon trade firms.


When did Carl Sagan that global warming is a pre-ice age spike in temps?? Also... in your article from 'RedOrbit' up there, you'll find an interesting portion that I'll quote for you:


However, during the 1970s the famous American astronomer Carl Sagan and other scientists began promoting the theory that ‘greenhouse gasses’ such as carbon dioxide, or CO2, produced by human industries could lead to catastrophic global warming.


Also... THE AMOUNT OF MONEY MADE BY DENYING GLOBAL WARMING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN BY ACCEPTING IT. The fossil fuel industry is the WEALTHIEST industry EVER TO EXIST. Addressing global warming means criticizing/minimizing fossil fuels... and that would impact their poor little bottom line (profits) and so they've waged a dirty war on science. It's obvious and about as evil as corporations can get.



The cost & risks of the actions they propose and you are supporting are too high to undertake based on the faulty science and guesstimating they have done. I mean 10 years ago the same jackasses were saying by 2010 we'd see ocean levels rise... instead we've seen them drop (see Iceland and the ridiculous effort to save face by claiming the land rose instead thanks to less ice weight on it.)


First of all, cross out "faulty science" and "guesstimating". Second of all... the costs and risks associated with allowing global warming to continue make conversion to renewables look like f*cking PEANUTS. You don't seem to realize the full scope of what we're facing do you? You think it's just a walk in the park... maybe it's a little hotter than usual. But NO, we're facing serious ecological destruction that could upend the entire planet, and this WILL affect you. Nobody's going to wait for you to regret being a skeptic, action needs to happen NOW. What are you talking about ocean levels have DROPPED? You kidding? How about all those island nations being flooded?
www.skepticalscience.com...
sealevel.colorado.edu...
e360.yale.edu...




posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:06 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Just wanted to say that the 60% fiasco is a typo on my part. I got overly cute and thought I had found a way to drop a degree symbol into my post... instead it came through as a percentage sign.

The rest of it I may comment on tomorrow. Currently I feel like we're bordering on a circuitous argument that is going to go nowhere. Bottom line, you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and neither of us are likely to change the other's opinion.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   
Quoting NoHierarchy “I'd be pulling my hair out and cursing too if I was a scientist with the IPCC... there's a war going on to discredit them and it's almost entirely fought by dirty political/industry tactics that show NO respect for the truth and only serve to create false debate/doubt so that they can remain in business indefinitely.”

Well the saying ‘What goes around comes around’ certainly fits the bill here with respect to the IPCC.

In any case, I disagree entirely with this statement of yours. We want the truth, the plain and simple truth. We want open and honest debate to lead to a globally agreed consensus one way or the other. Hidden hands guiding the science and the policy are not wanted. Can this be achieved in your honest opinion and this is really an honest question that does deserve an honest answer? Do you, hand on heart, really believe that we could ever have this debate without strongarm tactics from one or more committee or institution that has something financial to gain from it, one way or the other?



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
Quoting NoHierarchy “I'd be pulling my hair out and cursing too if I was a scientist with the IPCC... there's a war going on to discredit them and it's almost entirely fought by dirty political/industry tactics that show NO respect for the truth and only serve to create false debate/doubt so that they can remain in business indefinitely.”

Well the saying ‘What goes around comes around’ certainly fits the bill here with respect to the IPCC.

In any case, I disagree entirely with this statement of yours. We want the truth, the plain and simple truth. We want open and honest debate to lead to a globally agreed consensus one way or the other. Hidden hands guiding the science and the policy are not wanted. Can this be achieved in your honest opinion and this is really an honest question that does deserve an honest answer? Do you, hand on heart, really believe that we could ever have this debate without strongarm tactics from one or more committee or institution that has something financial to gain from it, one way or the other?


I think that scientific institutions COULD be served better by being more transparent, yes.

HOWEVER, I can absolutely understand why they'd feel suspicious about revealing data, especially unfinished data-sets and studies that could be unfairly used against them via misinterpretation.

This is a separate debate, however, from the issue of global warming. I trust the scientists and the consensus, and I don't trust many authorities, trust me on that.


From what I've seen, the majority of strong-arm tactics and disinformation has been coming from the denier side. I'm talking about the public figures and think-tanks with financial ties to industry. You cannot have a proper public conversation about global warming when a few industries are muddying it into a debate based on lies that will easily convince people who are unfamiliar with climatology... and that brings us to today, because that's what we've got and due to the urgent nature of the issue I think it's completely despicable of industry/politicians to have caused this false debate amongst the public.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by burdman30ott6
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


Just wanted to say that the 60% fiasco is a typo on my part. I got overly cute and thought I had found a way to drop a degree symbol into my post... instead it came through as a percentage sign.

The rest of it I may comment on tomorrow. Currently I feel like we're bordering on a circuitous argument that is going to go nowhere. Bottom line, you believe what you believe, I believe what I believe and neither of us are likely to change the other's opinion.


Ah well, no problem. Sh*t happens!

And I disagree. I think we can get to the bottom of this together if we're both open to rational logic, facts, and a mutual trust.



posted on Sep, 3 2010 @ 05:18 AM
link   
I agree NoHierarchy but this is going to run and run and at the need of the day I feel that I have to stand by a point I made, as some CO2 it’s an easy option to tax so that’s going to be the policy regardless.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mez353
I agree NoHierarchy but this is going to run and run and at the need of the day I feel that I have to stand by a point I made, as some CO2 it’s an easy option to tax so that’s going to be the policy regardless.


Personally, I think there's been much ado about nothing over the carbon tax thing. Once again, a carbon tax is a serious threat to industry... so of COURSE it's being painted as this evil scheme to enslave us all. However... as you can see here:

en.wikipedia.org...

Carbon taxes can be implemented WITHOUT enslaving people. Amongst those European countries are many who have BETTER standards of living and MORE freedom than most Americans!

I still don't see how carbon taxes will turn into a global slave state, outside of extremely off-base conspiracy theories. However, any such slide into a world of tyranny would be made obvious by OTHER factors and wouldn't likely be caused, catalyzed, or carried out via a carbon tax. It's just another tax... and overall it might do more good than harm, especially when compared to some other taxes.



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Here's an article in "The Week" from September 1, about Lomborg and 5 other prominent climate change skeptics who were mature enough to admit that they were wrong, when faced with the mounting evidence:

6 Climate Change Skeptics Who Changed Their Minds

Having a close relative who regurgitates everything he hears on right-wing talk radio, this whole subject just depresses me to #. I mean, it would be depressing enough in itself, just knowing what we're hurtling nonstop towards, but it's the bull-headed, selfish denial that really kills me. No one wants to take any blame for what they do to future generations, and no one wants to change in ways that are outside of their comfort zone. It makes some of them act like spoiled children who refuse to grow up and take on responsibilities.

Carbon trading, however, is a bull# solution. If only the govt would put money into actual sustainable energy, like solar and wind. They're still stuck on what would appear to be the "somewhat lesser evil."



posted on Sep, 4 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
It makes me wonder. .

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


But BP and Chevron support cap and trade...



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
reply to post by burdenofdreams
 


I'm definitely with you on all of that.



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Carbon trading, however, is a bull# solution. If only the govt would put money into actual sustainable energy, like solar and wind. They're still stuck on what would appear to be the "somewhat lesser evil."

I agree to a certain extent, however how much better is increased taxes and increased electricity prices compared to carbon trading? Wind is good, albeit it's not reliable enough to provide more than 20% of our electricity, and solar is extraordinarily expensive despite huge government mandated incentives like a 60c per kilowatt hour feed-in tariff that is prevalent in many parts of Europe.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Sep, 6 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz

Carbon trading, however, is a bull# solution. If only the govt would put money into actual sustainable energy, like solar and wind. They're still stuck on what would appear to be the "somewhat lesser evil."

I agree to a certain extent, however how much better is increased taxes and increased electricity prices compared to carbon trading? Wind is good, albeit it's not reliable enough to provide more than 20% of our electricity, and solar is extraordinarily expensive despite huge government mandated incentives like a 60c per kilowatt hour feed-in tariff that is prevalent in many parts of Europe.

[edit on 6/9/2010 by C0bzz]


Well we must admit... 20% for wind is quite a large chunk.

Photovoltaics are going through a revolution and will continue to- producing much more efficient, light-weight, durable, cheaper, stronger solar panels. I see no reason why solar can't take us most of the rest of the way. We must also not exclude geothermal, tidal current power, and reducing our consumption of resources and production of waste overall to sustainable levels.



posted on Sep, 7 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


I agree with this post of yours completely. I agree that renewable energy is the key as well as other sustainable practices. But I will never beleive carbon dioxide produced by man is changing the climate. Polutants and toxins we emit cause smog, acid rain and soil degredation amongst other hazards. I am against our current 'burn it till it runs out mentality' but the global warming debacle will leave a stain on science and has caused irrevocable damage to the scientific community. It is based on speculation and streched correlations. It is the perfect trojan horse as it is cloacked with seemingly good intentions but this is merely to get the green community to accept its conclusions. They think a global carbon tax will teach those big corporations a lesson. Do some research, this is a move to maintain oppressive profit from a post industrial society. I have the upmost respect for environmentalists, especially if they practice what they preach (unlike gore) but I have even more respect for environmentalists who can see through this scam.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


With CO2 levels at an all time high and no change in global temperature for about 10 years that is a completely silly statement. If CAGW denialism has all that funding from big oil that must have been one of the most least succesful PR. campaigns in history. All the MSM outlets are telling only one side of the story, the alarmist one.

One would expect that if "Big oil" had any impact through the their funding of AGW denialism they would have had a much greater impact in the way the story is presented in the MSM. The truth however is quite different. It is the grass roots media that is changing the perception of the average Joe, not big media. The tide is turning but not to the favor of the CAGW myth. Any free thinking individual with access to the data has long ago abandoned the belief in catastrophical antropogenic global warming.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


I wil tell you what would happen if all the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere. All plants and algae in the ocean would die. I do not have to tell you that that is a bad thing do I?



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 08:51 PM
link   
reply to post by illumin8ed
 


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

Or it could mean that the if the global mean temperature goes up (for whatever reason) that the CO2 level increases with it. I have no doubt however that the contribution from man made sources has an impact, how this plays into the overall picture is however largely unknown.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NoHierarchy
 


At the end of the day, any action to prevent a hypothetical damage from man made contribution to the CO2 levels of the atmosphere will not change the average temperature of the globe one iota. You cannot by political decree decide on what the average global temperature should be. Most likely the slight increase in temperature will be beneficial to mankind and the animals currently sharing our globe with us. The hyperventilating of the CAGW crowd will of cause only make matters worse.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clavicula
With CO2 levels at an all time high and no change in global temperature for about 10 years that is a completely silly statement.


What is a silly statement? That the atmosphere controls our climate? Or that humans have control over the atmosphere?

What is silly is for you to think CO2 is the only determining factor for global temperatures.

If a person layered multiple blankets on their body and there is no change in their body temperature, with your illogical opinion you could conclude that the blankets have no effect. That is not a very intelligent conclusion because you are totally ignoring other factors that determine the temperature.


Originally posted by Clavicula
If CAGW denialism has all that funding from big oil that must have been one of the most least succesful PR. campaigns in history. All the MSM outlets are telling only one side of the story, the alarmist one.
One would expect that if "Big oil" had any impact through the their funding of AGW denialism they would have had a much greater impact in the way the story is presented in the MSM. The truth however is quite different. It is the grass roots media that is changing the perception of the average Joe, not big media.


The politics about climate change do not effect the science of climate change. Everything you just said is completely irrelevant to the debate about climate change.



Originally posted by Clavicula
The tide is turning but not to the favor of the CAGW myth. Any free thinking individual with access to the data has long ago abandoned the belief in catastrophical antropogenic global warming.


Man's ability to effect global temperatures by changing the atmosphere is NOT a myth. You will never be able to disprove that man has the ability to effect the atmosphere which effects the climate.




edit on 10-9-2010 by illumin8ed because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

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)



whaaaa!!?!? Facts in their proper context?!?

buh buh buh"the emails"...

i do truly tire of their repatition of that totally moronic meme.



posted on Sep, 10 2010 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clavicula
I wil tell you what would happen if all the CO2 was removed from the atmosphere. All plants and algae in the ocean would die. I do not have to tell you that that is a bad thing do I?


I never said anything about removing all the CO2 from the atmosphere... So I don't understand what you are trying to suggest in the quote above.

Without CO2 in the atmosphere, Earth would freeze. We absolutely need CO2 in our atmosphere. However, too much CO2 will kill us all, including the plants.

CO2 will dissolve in water, and react with water to create carbonic acid (a weak acid). This weak acid will create hydrogen ions which produces the characteristic chemical behavior of acids. Acids kill plants and animals. pH levels are very important if you want to sustain life.

Besides the above, CO2 CAN and WILL raise temperatures on Earth. It will also create heat which will create more water vapor, and will increase the greenhouse effect even more.

There is no denying the effects of increasing CO2 on Earth. No matter how hard you try, the science will always prevail.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join