Bjorn Lomborg & The Copenhagen Consensus: What's the best way to live with global warming?

[felpaluche]

Thanks for providing us the way.

[manco82]

The AGWists want to bankrupt Western societies out of spite.

[33noa33]

Make mighty power of nature an ally

TO IMPROVE CLIMATE OF CONTINENT

In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,

huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.

Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.

Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,

desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.

see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING

[dduff442]

Howard Friel devoted an entire book to Lomborg's heavy-handed sophistry -- it's called The Lomborg Deception. Newsweek analysed the claims in the book and verified each allegation examined.

Kare Fog summed it up nicely when he said he'd no information proving Lomborg worked for the fossil fuel industry "but he always acts as if he does". Don't take my word for it -- whatever your politics, examine his record for yourself and you'll avoid getting suckered by a charlatan.

[dduff442]

Lomborg is notorious for distortion and outright lies. He hand-picks the people who arrive at his 'consensus' and designs the scenarios to be examined in such a way as to ensure greenhouse gas emissions reduction is made to look uneconomical.

After a spat with Gary Yohe of Wesleyan Uni, Lomborg was forced to acknowledge that the "failure" of his emission reduction plans "could be traced to faulty design" -- Lomborg's design, specifically chosen to fail.

[BiomimicryArch]

Bjorn Lomborg is a master of rhetorical and statistical trickery. Those of you that are interested in a critique of his analysis might want to look at the rebuttal I delivered when I opposed him at a major construction industry conference in the UK. You can see my talk on Youtube in three parts (24 mins in total) by writing 'pawlyn' into the search field.

[Visfen]

@BiomimicryArch How do you in any way level any critique towards him? You really don't. I don't think you understand his points.

[Cleopas82]

I think after the admission of those providing climate data that their numbers where doctored to show misleading data, it is hard now for any reasonably thinking person to buy into AGW. Has the world warmed? Maybe. Has it cooled? Possibly. Does it always change? Absolutely. I am not about to put my freedoms on the line for failed data. I also am not willing to suffer the third world with over imposed "fixes" that will likely do nothing but hurt the ones we were trying to help in the end.

[videlsd]

@Cleopas82 There's a difference between the world always changing, and the world changing and killing us as a result. You're right, the earth will be just fine. Now, will we?

[zbigniewzapora]

This guy is a classical example of controlled opposition. Nobody in their right mind believes AGW crap.

[musicman216]

@zbigniewzapora However there are few guys like this guy. Usually they're all about 'manbearpig' and 'dayaftertomorrow' terror and yelling.

In fact... listening to this guy... he should definitely replace al gore.

[HarpoSpoke]

Bjorn Lomborg should replace Al Gore as the leader of the global warming movement. He makes more sense than most in this debate and wouldn't be seen as the joke Gore is.

[Zakdayak]

THIS is a great edition to ReasonTv

[VultureCreations]

when there was more nature in the past, we didn´t have climate problems, so start planting trees!!! fertilise deserts with animal droppings from farms in Europe and bring all the plastic and other waste to active vulcano´s...it would help a lot.

[malinafagan]

Bjorn

I've read all your books and you make a lot of sense. However, I think you need to take a closer look at the skeptics side of this issue. You must be familiar with Lord Monckton. He is very precise and eloquent in his debunking of AGW. You're a smart guy and I'm sure if you took a close look at his and other skeptics work that you would come to the conclusion that the entire theory of AGW is based on flawed and fraudulent data. There is no other explanation.

[busbee85]

this guy is crazy, Global warming is a fraud. CLIMATEGATE!!!!!! This treaty is a fraud. Wake up people NO NEW TAXES NO NEW GOVERNMENT

[Nick300wm]

Given the history of the award of Nobel peace prizes, I'm not sure that punting panel members as 'Nobel Laureates' is much of an endorsement!

[MsZathras]

Have great respect for Bjorn Lomborg and find this very interesting.

I'm not so sure we have advanced to the state, scientifically, where we should take a chance and try the 'marine cloud whitening'.

We have a bit of a history with unintended consequences .. look at species that were introduced for various reasons.

Glad they came out against Carbon Tax. I think this is a HUGE scam!

[jonlanghoff]

Nice and rare with a guy from Denmark without a thick danish accent when speaking english.

[ClimateAware]

Humanity needs a change of heart.

Check out youtube eco-video The Book of New Creation!

[blackhawk651]

johammbass--Studying Applied Physics and Instrumentation does not mean you have an education. In fact, your profanity -laden rant is proof you don't. Stay in school until you figure that out. In the meantime, leave thinking to the adults.

[johammbass]

Idiots, the amount of carbon that we put into air is a drop in a bucket. There is NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that we are causing the global warming. The climate is always changing and we can do nothing about it. All you fuckheads are worried about is your research grants and additional taxes. I study Applied Physics and Instrumentation and there are very few systems that are more complicated than the world climate. Go and suck a dick with your carbon emission story, it is not gonna change dick.

[onesy1]

"dragon ponger" its idiots like you who keep the world from changing. Look at the evidence, there is no doubt that climate change is going to mean disasters and tragedies on an enormous scale within the next hundred years.

[Nightversionn]

Wake up people. If we don't act on this we won't have any options left.

[Raycheetah]

Reason FAIL. ='[.]'=

[St37One]

we seriously do not know what the climate would be like today if it were not for humans.

we seriously do not know what the ideal climate would be like.

There is no sacred climate balance, and there is no natural climate balance.

This video is a waste of time.

[ChrisSketch]

Trying to be as unbiased as possible:

1. NATURAL greenhouse affect isn't really disputed.

2. overall CO2 increase has been confirmed by polar core samples.

3. Every major science academy that has issued a statement on the climate, thinks change (man-made or not) is happening. None have dissenting statements.

Not taking a political stance. Just stating what the official science community is saying. Without a way to test everything personally, I feel I have to take the actual scientists' word.

[magnusea]

ChrisSketch: "NATURAL greenhouse affect isn't really disputed"

No one I know dispute it. Direct effect if nothing wasn't to react on temperature increase from doubling of CO2 is +1 C (+2 F). It may either be reduced by total negative feedback or reinforced by total positive feedback. Measurements I've seen suggests total negative feedback, e g Paltridge 2009, Lindzen 2009, Miskolczi and Spencer. Negative feedback's a normal reaction of complex natural systems.

[magnusea]

ChrisSketch (2/2). Science academies' statements are politics. Members have nothing to say. Statements are themselves politics. An AGW climatologist speaking good about science and politics:

v=XuxDkXwhtSo

"None have dissenting statements"

Dissenting from consensus? Sounds like oppression. Consensus isnt proof. I understand the "listen to" argument, but I prove scientists are split. E.g. 3 out of 5 of Japan's best atmosphere "actual scientists" says IPCC are wrong:

Tinyurl(DOT)com/nvrn3s

[cavepilot]

I've done some very compelling research of my own. I just moved to Vermont back in January, after living in Mexico my entire life. When I got here the place was covered with snow. Now the snow is completely gone!!!

Clear and undeniable evidence of global warming. I'd never seen snow in real life and now I'm afraid I never will again because of climate change. They really need to do something about this.

[Thorbie]

Not seeing snow in Vermont is not a very good reason to stop climate change.

[cavepilot]

Huh? You didn't see Al Gores movie? He showed pictures of glaciers once covered with ice and snow and now it's all gone. The same thing happened in Vermont. I even heard from a friend that it's occurring all over the continent. As I type, the only place to find snow in North America is high high in the mountains and far north in Canada.

Clear evidence of climate change. They really need to do something about this.

[magnusea]

cavepilot: "Huh? ...Al Gores movie? ...pictures of glaciers once covered with ice and snow and now it's all gone."

:) Gore said Kilemanjaro cap melted because of warm temp. It cooled. Less precipitation the reason. Everything change, always. One season observation isn't interresting. That at one spot even less interresting. You're wrong about snow I think. Hint: Las Vegas. Temperature hasn't rised in 10 years. IPCC's H2O reinforcement disproved peer reviewed and in several ways = no big AGW.

[magnusea]

Also, can you explain why most of the Greenland-, canadian- and other glaciers melted mostly in the 19th century, when there was no SUVs? One of many examples I have:

heliogenic.blogspot(DOT)com/20­09/07/ilulissat-panic.html

[magnusea]

If the glacier URL didn't work, test this.

Replace (DOT) with .

Large melting Greenland glacier since the 18th century:

tinyurl(DOT)com/lzm424

Large melting Canadian glacier since the 18th century:

tinyurl(DOT)com/m3y6kj

[cavepilot]

Oh, nevermind. Someone explained it to me. Apparently the present lack of snow in Vermont can be explained by a natural phenomenon know as the 4 seasons. It was explained to me is as follows

Snowfall is typical in the 3 months of the year know as Winter and is usually nonexistent in the 3 months of the year know as Summer.

This phenomenon might also explain why there was so little snow and ice in Al Gore's pictures.

[Thorbie]

I don't think you understand my comment. All I said was you missing snow in Vermont is a bullshit reason to reduce green house gases. Just like saying I'm going to miss the cool look that cigarettes give certain people due to the anti-smoking laws. Regardless of whether you're on the right side of things or not, that reason for the policy would be retarded.

[cavepilot]

You still havent realized my 3 previous posts were complete nonsensical BS?

[cavepilot]

Lack of snow in Vermont in the middle of summer is on par with a lot of the evidence presented to support climate change.

Seriously though, they really should look at Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) levels too, not just CO2. The DHMO levels in my area are off the charts.

Each year, DHMO is a known causative component in many thousands of deaths and is a major contributor to millions upon millions of dollars in damage to property and the environment.

[Scoforever]

Water?

[dragonponger]

Are you kidding me with this? This last winter and summer have been the coolest I can remember. Here in Utah the year before last we had snow on the ground the entire winter which isn't usually the case.

[nmckeown101]

Reason TV, is that you?

[jonwlowe]

talk to scientist first before you talk with economist.

[sonscope]

No Mr Lomborg, The scientific consensus is NOT telling us it is man made. The environmental movement indoctrination is telling us that and anyone who disagrees with them is either a denier or a heretic. Secondly, even if it was telling us that which it is NOT, consensus has never in the history of science been the determining factor in deciding whether something is true or not. Not long ago 31,000 US scientists (real ones) signed a document stating that Man made climate change is bogus.

[LeCramp]

That 31000 scientist petetion is signed by non-climatologists. So it kinda renders their openions into the subject moot, however real the scientists may be.

I don't know about you, but I don't really think a medical doctors scientific openion on anything but medecine is more valid than yours or mine.

[magnusea]

LeCramp: "I don't really think a medical doctors scientific openion on anything but medecine is more valid than yours or mine."

I'm sure you take lots of time to complain a petition by Gore an Hollywood stars.

I think Dr.-graduated in natural science may share their opinion in this scientifically border crossing topic. Media reports what ordinary ppl think. Btw half the worlds climate scientists don't think man is mostly responsible for climate change. Peered study:

tinyurl(DOT)com/4w6aun

[LeCramp]

Ah, the art of jumping to conclusions. You got to admire such skill.

I simply addressed the petition you used as an argument. It's an invalid argument.

Sure, some may find it interresting to know what a medical doctor feels about a subject. But if you expect me to take his openion as a basis on what consensus is in a completely different scientific subject, then you and I have very different standards.

And to answer one of your odd points, no - I feel the Al Gore movie is a joke.

[LeCramp]

It wasn't magnusea who used the petition as an argument. I apologize for the typo. It was sonscope.

[magnusea]

LeCramp: "I apologize for the? typo. It was sonscope."

That's okay. I don't think the argument 31000 with experience in scientific research is invalid, although I prefer prof Bray and prof von Storchs large study which shows that almost every second climate scientist don't think humans are mostly responsible for climate change.

[LeCramp]

Well, they may have great research insight into their respecitve fields and be very good at what they do. But that doesn't mean they have a clue about what climatologists do. Insight into research is not insight into every field of science.

And I frankly find it embarresing and very unscientific to claim otherwise.

And yes, Bray and Storch's study is a hell of a lot more scientific than that petition. Although that study has also been cast into doubt. It was even rejected by Science.

[magnusea]

LeCramp: "take his openion as a basis on what consensus is? in a completely different scientific subject".

There is nothing in science which is true because of consensus. You seem to think that one accept something as real because of consensus. That's anti-science! If experts in science tell me what consensus isit's irrelevant non-science crap (probably for political reasons) because science has no yet an answer.

Almost every second scientists don't think humans are mostly to blame.

[LeCramp]

No, that is not what I think. And that is not what I wrote at all. Read it again.

Sonscope was the one using the consensus argument, not me.

But no, consensus isn't unscientific. Only when that consensus turns to dogma and unwilligness to change views as new evidence comes to light.

Consensus is a quite powerful statement, as it shows that there is enough evidence that most researchers in that field agrees. Does it mean its 100% true? No not at all.

But nowhere did I write that until now :)

[magnusea]

So every second climate scientist don't believe in the IPCC climate change hypothesis (that man is mostly responsible for climate change).

Would you really trust this medical doctor:

farm4.static.flickr(DOT)com/

3393/3426288875_328d3a53ba_o.g­if

[BrainDeadRepublican]

More CO2 is released per year from the burning of forest to clear land to farm on than all of the cars in the world combined.

[mctarmac10]

ReasonTV; what happened?

[jsruss1961]

"What's the best way to live with global warming?" Buy a good air-conditioned then make sure the warming is truly man made and not a natural weather cycle. The planet just came off a natural 11 years warming cycle due to the behavior of sunspots.

[smttysmth02gt]

I'm rather disappointed to see a story like this coming from ReasonTV. ReasonTV, you should stick to factual information instead of myths that force propaganda and misinformation.

[TokDiYel]

ReasonTV Supports the Global Warming Alarmists? Or is this another spoof video?

[AKlover]

Global warming is the just another fake excuse to bilk taxpayers and manipulate and/or control behavior.

Why does Reason aire this bullshit? Seems counter to to your mission/purpose.

[alreyesc]

what about REDD carbon credits? enforcing trade laws where forest will remain in the hands of nationals or coops with multinationals at least...all new tech is great, but if its a better source of income timber or a couple of cows, deforestation will continue. It price of CO2 services its determined by market it will be a great income for communities, international practices can help to deter the abuses. I mean great to have all this R&D, but someone invented the tree long time ago

[alreyesc]

REDD or similar

[interstate317]

#3 stratospheric Aerosol Insertion Research. Love it.

[victor190779]

My wife studied with Lomborg at the U. You people need to understand, that he studied Political Sciences and that his curriculum included as much natural sciences as medicine is a part of any language department.

This emperor definitely has no clothes.

[nickd4818]

and what background does Al Gore have to speak about global warming?

[kriswager]

Al Gore actually studied under Roger Revelle, so he has at least a grounding in the subject.

Also, Gore is reporting the consensus view among scientists.

[exweez]

isn't science about facts?if so ,consensus and a dollar are both worth a cup of coffee

[kriswager]

Science is indeed about facts, and about knowledge. When there is a consensus among the scientists in a field, then it's worth something

Consensus is sometimes wrong, and will be overturned through the scientific process - this is not what the AGW deniers are trying to do - they are arguing through the media and public opinion, not through the proper channels (peer-reviewed papers etc.)

[magnusea]

kriswager: "Al? Gore ... under Roger Revelle"

Did Gore completed it? Revelle said we shall not put too large money to stop warming before we know more. Lomborg is a renowned economist and pol scientist in the environmental field.

Most environment economist says Stern is a disaster. Politicians accidently love Stern. They think they must?

[magnusea]

Victor190779. Do you think that science forces us to put 5 percent of GDP annually on saving the world from climate change? Lord Stern suggests that. The authors of Stern's references are prominent environment economists (Stern isn't) who says Stern exaggerates their numbers several times etc.

[magnusea]

Victor190779. Political Science is the correct field when it comes to political decisions. The climatologist Mike Hulme here late 2007 describes the difference between science and politics. Youtube URL with:

v=XuxDkXwhtSo

If science *is* politics we have a Lysenko era. Maybe we have some sort of such an era, but no suggested politics is science. It cant be. Its obviously some kind of bandwagon which has always been there in environmentalism.

[victor190779]

Magnus - sure political science is the correct field....when it comes to political decisions. However, Lomborg is NOT qualified to be the judge on complex natural science issues.

Or medicine. Other graduates from his institute have managed to move into leading positions in the hospital sector. One of their first steps was to privatize the cleaning services.

Guess what happened: Hospital-borne MRSA has exploded.

We have way too many bean counters refereeing science results.

[victor190779]

And - that said: Some years ago, Lomborg reached the conclusion, that the money was more wisely spent combating AIDS.

Talk about a hidden agenda: The guy is gay. (Dont konw if he is out or not)

I have absolutely nothing about gays and lesbians, have always supported gay marriage and despise homophobes- but here Lomborg truly put self-interest first.

[LeCramp]

What Lomborg said a couple of years ago, was about general global concerns, and where money was best spent in that context. It had nothing to do specificly with climate.

Now he is only talking climate, so ofcourse AIDS is not mentioned.

You seem to be mixing up two different topics. And yes, he is openly gay. I however fail to see any relevance of even mentioning that.

[kriswager]

Lomborg is still pushing the idea that money is better spend on other issues.

[LeCramp]

When not talking specificly about climate, which he is in this video.

And I think the video tht is referred to is this one:

/watch?v=aQlgMSoo5FM

[victor190779]

You know what: When someone without a background in natural science, suggests, that governments should spend the moolah on finding a cure for AIDS instead of the environment - then it matters if the guy is gay or not.

It is akin to a midget demanding a safe growth medicine - pretending his problem is the "biggest" in the world.

[LeCramp]

Why? Because HIV is such a big problem for gays in the western world?

That's a biased and totally unfounded statement.

There are tens of millions infected in africa. It's a huge strain on their few resources. Maybev- just maybe - the economists (because unlike you apparently think, it is not Lomborg that alone came up with this) actually tought that this is money well spent.

Or are all the economists gay too?

You can disagree with their conclusion. Fine. But what you say is downright dumb.

[magnusea]

kriswager: "Lomborg is still pushing the idea that money is better spend on? other issues."

So? 15 millions dead/year from starvation. 2 millions dead/year in malaria. 2 millions or more(?) dead/year from AIDS.

Not one man (excluding alarmist maniacs murder others or themself for the sake of environment) is killed from climate change. IPCC says AGW will not cause catastrophes before 2050.

What do you say? Shall we save non existing killed by AGW instead of peoples really killed?

[magnusea]

victor190779: "Lomborg reached the conclusion, that the money was more wisely spent combating AIDS.

Talk about a hidden agenda: The guy is gay."

...and you obviously seems to be hardcore fascist.

[victor190779]

"..and you obviously seems to be hardcore fascist.".

Yuo that is why I have the name I have here ;-)

Hint: Dont use Goodwins law that early in the morning.

[magnusea]

victor190779: "Yuo that is why I have the name I have here ;-)"

Have no idea what it stands for.

"Hint: Dont use Goodwins law that early in the morning."

Earth isn't flat, and Goodwins law about mention Hitler. I didn't. You're wrong when you express anything, and only a fascist say it's okay to skip saving millions of ppl dying from AIDS because homosexual ppl are saved. And of course it's also wrong. Millions dying from AIDS in Africa are heterosexuals.

victor190779 = Plain stupid *ssh*l?

[magnusea]

Of course Lomborg -- a renowned economist and pol scientist in the environmental field -- can and shall read IPCC reports and involved in the discussion environmental economists and others has on the topic. Lomborg doesn't draw conclusoins about climate but refer to IPCC.

On the other hand scientists ARE NOT right persons to comment on politics. When politics = science we have a Soviet/Lysenko regime (we almost have it now I think). Good thoughts by an AGW climotologist:

watch?v=XuxDkXwhtSo

[magnusea]

victor190779: "sure political science is the correct field....when it comes to political decisions. However, Lomborg is NOT qualified to..."

You agree we can't have top scientists as political decision makers (Lysenko/Soviet). Your solution? Why should a renowned environmental economist be silenced? Who are able to speak then? What's the solution to difference between politics and science?

Other comments irrelevant socialism. You support SD? 1995 most SD-politicians were nazi. Many still is.

[Vodka2389]

Regardless of whether it's real/man caused, the real damage will come from those policies that are designed to stop global warming.

[ChrisSketch]

Every time I try to do some research on climate change I come up with the same list of things:

1. Either it IS happening, or its not. I'm really not sure, and I seem to be the only person left who is still unsure.

2. There some people who are positive its real, and there are other people who are sure its not. No one really sounds crazy.

3. Both camps have charts with numbers on them. They seem to be real numbers.

4. Everyone on either side thinks that the people on the other side are crazy.

[ChrisSketch]

After I hit number 4 on my list, I need to go lie down until my head stops hurting.

[LeCramp]

I'd say listen to the scientists actually researching this, and forget about the ones (like most in these comments) who are trying to just sound smart.

Here is a good start, from a smart person:

/view_play_list?p=A4F0994AFB05­7BB8

[droogie76]

A bunch of psychopaths are running the show. Strange days we're living in...

[pg19192002]

Consider this; Solar activity has been nearly non-existent for over a two month period this summer - similar to summer 2008. Get ready for more cool weather worldwide. Global warming, my achin' ass! Cap/Trade would be a monumental waste of money - yours & mine.

[AnonOrange]

Can someone explain this "marine cloud whitening research". This is the first time I hear about this.

[DescentToCocytus]

Even if man made global warming is real, it is in no way a problem. Grid parity (look it up on Wikipedia) is coming FAST. It will be here by 2015-2020, and at that time it will be the greediest capitalists who switch to solar energy first so they can increase their profit margins. There is no crisis looming, all we have to do is wait.

Drill this term into your heads and shout it from the rooftops:

Grid Parity

Grid Parity

Grid Parity

[TenseAlcyoneus]

That dude is over 40!

[Elasaltaculos]

Well, at least they did conclude that "Cap and Trade" is expensive and should not be undertaken.

Has it ever occurred to the climate change fearmongers that meddling with the environment may actually harm us rather than help us? Just like central banks try to use monetary policy to "fix" the economy and creates bubbles, perhaps these global warming panels will create real disasters by trying to "fix" the climate.

Either way, I don't want my tax dollars to go to this bullshit.

[Elasaltaculos]

Make green energy cheap? you know what makes green energy cheap? the free market, not a government policy.

And since they failed to predict "global cooling" and now "global warming" is proving wrong again, since the globe is cooling. So now we must beware of "climate change".

[RatkoUSA]

Looks like ReasonTV is a religous channel.  Anthropogenic climate change is 100% hoax.

"Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight." Benjamin Franklin

[sajfen]

If you choose to ignore all scientific research yes.

[DoomHippie]

#1 Green Energy is the one that's ignored.

The waste is not put into our air or water...

You can re-use 95% of the waste...

The remaining waste can be put back into the ground...

It has proven completely safe, except in the hands of Communist Countries...

It is hundreds of times more energy-efficient then Wind or Solar...

Nuclear is by far the best Green Energy!

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie Well, it's safe except in Communist countries and, also, it turns out, earthquake prone ones.

[DoomHippie]

@TheMessianicManic

Lol, dude. Think for a second. The plants were hit by a 9.0 Earthquake, and have not yet melted down. Even if they do meltdown, that does not mean that they cannot be contained.

If a 9.0 Earthquake can /almost/ cause a huge failure, I'd say that's pretty safe.

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie Oh, yes, I forgot, no danger has been posed to anyone whatsoever. Those hazmat suits the guys cleaning it up are wearing are just 'cause it's chilly outside.

[DoomHippie]

@TheMessianicManic

Look. I'm guessing you don't even understand the difference betwixt a "meltdown" and a "leak". Can you even provide the definition of a meltdown without googling it?

[TheMessianicManic]

@DoomHippie I didn't even use any of those words, so I'm not claiming it was either. All I'm saying is that people are currently being exposed to unhealthy amounts of radiation.

[haypenny]

Ah, C'mon - I gotta hear this bullshit from Reason TV? Skeptical Environmentalist my ass. He's a political partisan for cryin' out loud - it's good that he's against carbon tax, etc., but he's hardly skeptical about climate crisis a la Al Gore.

[XCritonX]

Bjorn Lomborgs academic career includes no aspect of science. He is a political hack working for a university promoting socialist collectivist ideas and welfare economics.

He spent a year as an undergrad at the University of Georgia, earned a master's in political science at the University of Aarhus in 1991, and a Ph.D. in political science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994. He has no training in climatology, meteorology, or the physical sciences.

Please dont post the longer version.

[XCritonX]

ReasonTV is drinking the cool-aid. So sad, so sad.

First you assume that the earth is getting warmer (vs the fact that the last 5 years have been getting colder).

Then you assume it is man made (vs the fact that global warming on Mars is progressing at the same rate as earth).

Then you assume that the Copenhagen Consensus Center is not a socialists/communists tool of radical environmentalists with anti freedom ideas.

When you assume you make and ass out of yourself.

Please return to reason!

[christmanpunch]

Another alternative would be to just do exactly what we're doing now, have done in the past, and to lessen the global warming related policies that have already been enacted. Global warming simply isn't a serious threat now and won't be unless conditions dramatically change. Concentrate on more important matters like growing our economies, giving people good jobs, increasing our standard of living and doing important things with our well earned money.

[Kris246zl]

What the f***? Is this a joke? I thout Reason TV knew better. Man-made global warming is bullshit.

[samuils]

Man Made global warming = BULLSHIT, quit this BS already, and there is no smart way to deal with it. Pollution sure, deal with that, high orice of fuel, sure deal with that. Technology is out there , no need for Govt to regulate the crap out of us.

[Skyler827]

I think we do need to acknowledge two things: Climate change is real, and it's not going to kill us. The earth is always warming or cooling slightly, and we have caused a slight rise in the earths temperature. I don't think this is hard to accept. And I agree with reason TV: it's a minor, long term problem that is most effectively solved sooner rather than later, and I think that the marine cloud whitening is a great way to solve the issue for less, as opposed to a socialist tax approach.

[Yarcofin]

I agree the world actually appears to be cooling for the past 5 years or so, that's why they changed from "Global warming" to "Climate change", now it doesn't matter what happens... blame climate change!

I also agree that carbon tax is useless, it's just shifting stuff around, not really reducing anything.

Frankly I think some of the things they want to do... sulfur aerosols, seeding the ocean with iron, etc is some scary stuff that could potentially make things much worse.

[christmanpunch]

Exactly. They literally want to terraform the Earth even before we have any kind of grasp of how our extremely complex climate works. Zealots are dangerous.

[Alvin691]

Small particulates of salt form clouds? What are they smoking in Copenhagen?

[contrarianbastard]

The particulate forms a nucleus around which vapor condenses, forming clouds. High school science ftw.

[fomastephanovitch]

High School science?

Surely not American high school science..?

[sniper6081]

It's been getting colder though over the past few years. How does he explain that?

[christmanpunch]

A wizard did it.

[thomaserossi]

Man made Global Warming is a huge lie.

I'm all for pollution reduction but saying that humans are destroying the balance of the universe (as Al Gore did) is indicative of the Postmodern self-loathing anti-Capitalism, anti-Western, and anti-White attitude. We need to look no further than Van Jones an avowed racist and communist.

The Green movement is an anti-human movement which failed to inspire so they turned to an anti-Western movement to team up with assorted Leftist iconoclasts.

[PartVIII]

you provided no proof global warming is a lie.

CO2 and temperature do have a direct relationship, fact.

[sniper6081]

No, they have a correlation. Correlation does not mean causation.

[Moragauth]

And anyway the contribution of CO2 is logarithmic in nature...

[Alvin691]

Co2 is a trailing indicator of temperature. Don't twist the facts around PartVIII

AWG is a lie.

[MooseOfReason]

They do have a relationship. Temperature increase came before a rise in CO2. That's proven by the chart Al Gore used, but he made it seem like the opposite.

[h8uall66]

Oh good, I love it when a bunch of amateur climate scientists "debate" the issue of global warming, as if they knew the first thing about it.