Global warming: a heretic's view

From the Scientific American rebuttal:

The cost projections Lomborg uses represent one set of estimates, but far more favorable ones exist, too. Given that the additional antiwarming steps that might be taken aren’t yet known—and so their net costs are impossible to state—it is premature to dismiss them as “phenomenally more expensive.”

So, tell us what those steps are, then, and how much they will cost

What would you think of this sales pitch: You really know you need a car, and the car salesperson comes up and says "We're not going to tell you how much this is until you sign on the dotted line and agree to pay us whatever we ask."

This appears to be what the Scientific American editor wants, and only a complete idiot would agree to it.

D

The environmental movement is the home of communists now that the Soviet Union has been defeated.

I call environmentalists "Watermelons." Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

MODEL BUILDING:
Climate models are filled with assumptions, bad data, tweaks, simplifications, etc.
These parameters can be "tweaked" to force the model to show any desired result.

Projections of climate change are based on models and assumptions which
"are not only unknown, but unknowable within ranges relevant for policy-making"

Models fail to adequately handle clouds, water vapour, aerosols, precipitation,
ocean currents, solar effects, complex weather patterns, etc.

Model simulation of surface temperature appears to be little more than fortuitous
curve-fitting rather than a demonstration of human influence on global climate.

Temperature rise projections this century are "unknown and unknowable".

"Climate models [are] projections, story lines, [more aptly termed] fairy tales."
-- Hartwig Volz, geophysicist, RWE Research Laboratory, Germany

"Global warming projections [are] completely unrealistic...assuming extreme scenarios
of population growth and fossil fuel consumption"
-- S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, Environmental Policy Project

"The balance of evidence suggests that there has been no appreciable warming since 1940.
This would indicate that the human effects on climate must be quite small."
-- S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist, University of Virginia, Environmental Policy Project

PREDICTING THE PAST:
Climate models, which serve as the basis for long-term climate predictions,
have clearly failed when tested against observed climate data.

Models fail to reproduce the known difference in trends between the
lower troposphere and surface temperatures over the past 20 years.
They don't show the actual amount of temperature change at the Earth's surface
Models can't predict the recent past, let alone the long-term future.

Antarctica has been cooling since 1966, directly contradicting model results
that suggest that warming will be more pronounced in the Earth's polar regions.
-- Nature magazine

the Antarctic ice sheet is expanding rather than shrinking,
contrary to what global-warming enthusiasts would have us believe.
-- Science magazine

I have been given to believe that Mt. Pinatubo and Mt. Rainier have recently put out more greenhouse gasses and more particulates than 300 hundred years of industrialization.

How can these science boffins factor this into their elaborate models of global warming? How do they explain el Niño, which may occur because of activity at volcanic undersea vents.

These 'science' lefties, who are all in the Al Gore camp, are obscuring the hunt for real answers to a real question. i.e. What exactly does human activity have to do with Global Warming? Something? Nothing? A little bit here and there? After all, the Earth warmed and cooled many times before we were here. It even warmed and cooled several times while we were here, but not industrialized.

Nah, my bubble is made of obsidian. But in the realm of science, yes, provable truth is what makes things work...but some of those truths might not be things that should be known--say, the quick method of cooking up sarin gas, for instance.

And then you say truth is more hurtful then lies

Please quote me more carefully. I said "on a case basis" and "there are times when..."

The Ultimate Resource II: People, Materials, and Environment, by Julian Simon

The Hoodwinking of a Nation

Julian Simon's Long Bets with Paul Ehrlich, the wacko Malthusian enviralmentalist, were truly inspired. If you aren't familiar with that story, there's a good summary here, courtesy of Wired magazine.

You are correct in that I should have quoted you more carefully. I apologize.

I should probably refine my statement as well, In the field of non-military scientific research truth should be paramount. (In the field of military scientific research they should keep their mouths shut)

Glad to know your bubble remains un-popped. That can be quite painful.

Have a nice weekend!

a.cricket

Whenever you come across the name Steven Schneider, who Scientific American's John Rennie refers to as being targeted by Bjorn Lomborg because of his earlier predictions of impending global cooling, remember the following quote:

To capture the public imagination,we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest.
-- Stanford climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider, NCAR, in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989