Environmental Policies Ineffective on Curbing Global Warming?

[captwasabi]

'The Skeptical Environmentalist' author Bjorn Lomborg argues global warming exists, but policies to improve the environment won't make a significant impact."

This is dead wrong. How it should read is below"

'The Skeptical Environmentalist' author Bjorn Lomborg argues global warming exists, but policies to improve the environment won't make a positive significant impact and will, in fact, provide severe and significant negative impacts for many 1st World Nations industries."

:-)

[Modnar357]

AGW is a total hoax. Period. It is a money fraud, policy fraud, and scientific fraud. Green industries stand to make the most off of it, politicians gain more power over it, and scientists get more grants to reach a predetermined conclusion from the politicians that believe in their junk science. It is a totally incestuous relationship that bodes ill for everybody. Everybody needs to support those industries that are not green and the politicians that say this is fraud.

[drkstrong]

So does everybody now agree with Lomborg that AGW is real? Well, that's progress at least.

The problem is that we have been trying nothing of 18 years. One or another country, usually the US, blocks any real reform. We need to stop building coal fired plants and start replacing the existing ones with a combination of solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, and geothermal.

Then we can tell the oil shieks to fight amoung themselves.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong You say "The problem is that we have been trying nothing of 18 years", but you also say Lomborg is okay. Well, Lomborg says we shall do nothing, so you're not logical. In fact we shall always know what we're doing based on proof. In fact a large part of the atmosphere physicists says the warming from CO2 is between 0.5 and 1.5 C. Check e g the very detailed study by Hans von Storch & Dennis Bray. The 3 to 4.5 C temp. increase scenario are from computer moddelers.

[drkstrong]

@magnusea Where did I say he was OK? His argument is that it is a problem but there are other things we should have a s higher priority. So agrees that it is happening (good) but that its not important (bad).

The Bray & Von Storch survey was cotaminated by the paswords to the survey being leaked to denialist websites. Other more tightly controlled surveys put the figure of "agree/dont know/disargree" to something like 97%/2%/1%. I saw a hand vote at an AMS meeting where 97% was clearly low.

[magnusea]

@drkstrong You say "progress at least" on BJ accepting AGW = recognition. BJ has always accepted AGW. To accep problems AND prioritize is just sane! Do you refuse to prioritize? Good luck!

You're wrong about von Storch/Bray. The accusation is proved wrong, and the study is authentic. One study mentioning 97 % is Doran/Zimmermann. It asks 2 questions: Has it warmed since 19th century, and may CO2 causes warming. I answer YES on both q, and so do most AGW skeptics. This proves 97 % is rubbish.

[drkstrong]

@magnusea I replied earlier but the message disappeared - here goes again.

I said do the skeptic now accept his opinion on that as they seem to be using his conclusions in their political campaigns.

No my priority is GW - nothing else has the same high probablility of disaster with the same broad impact over vast areas of the globe.

[drkstrong]

@drkstrong There are 3 B/vS surveys. An early one (96) when the issues were very much being discussed & there was no concensus.

The 2nd in 2003 which had the high turn out and low acceptance of AGW but was polluted by the leaking of the passwords

The 2008 survey found 93% of climatologists agreed with AGW as a threat (67% strongly), 6% though it possible, & the rest did not know. NB 0 dissenters. This was a carefully controlled voting process unlike 2003 & in line with others (eg 97%)