Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Environmentalists Are Wrong
The New York Times ^ | 08/26/2002 | BJORN LOMBORG

Posted on 08/25/2002 9:10:35 PM PDT by Pokey78

COPENHAGEN
With the opening today of the United Nations World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, we will be hearing a great deal about both concepts: sustainability and development. Traditionally, the developed nations of the West have shown greater concern for environmental sustainability, while the third world countries have a stronger desire for economic development. At big environmental gatherings, it is usually the priorities of the first world that carry the day.

The challenge in Johannesburg will be whether we are ready to put development ahead of sustainability. If the United States leads the way, the world may finally find the courage to do so.

Why does the developed world worry so much about sustainability? Because we constantly hear a litany of how the environment is in poor shape. Natural resources are running out. Population is growing, leaving less and less to eat. Species are becoming extinct in vast numbers. Forests are disappearing. The planet's air and water are getting ever more polluted. Human activity is, in short, defiling the earth — and as it does so, humanity may end up killing itself.

There is, however, one problem: this litany is not supported by the evidence. Energy and other natural resources have become more abundant, not less so. More food is now produced per capita than at any time in the world's history. Fewer people are starving. Species are, it is true, becoming extinct. But only about 0.7 percent of them are expected to disappear in the next 50 years, not the 20 percent to 50 percent that some have predicted. Most forms of environmental pollution look as though they have either been exaggerated or are transient — associated with the early phases of industrialization. They are best cured not by restricting economic growth but by accelerating it.

That we in the West are so prone to believe the litany despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary results in an excessive focus on sustainability. Nowhere is this more pronounced than in the discussion on global warming.

There is no doubt that pumping out carbon dioxide from fossil fuels has increased the global temperature. Yet too much of the debate is fixated on reducing emissions without regard to cost. With its agreement to the 1997 Kyoto climate treaty, Europe has set itself the goal of cutting its carbon emissions to 1990 levels by 2012. This is more than 30 percent below what they would have been in 2012.

Even with renewable sources of energy taking over, the United Nations Climate Panel still estimates a temperature increase of four degrees to five degrees fahrenheit by the year 2100. Such a rise is projected to have less impact in the industrialized world than in the developing world, which tends to be in warmer regions and has an infrastructure less able to withstand the inevitable problems.

Despite our intuition that we need to do something drastic about global warming, economic analyses show that it will be far more expensive to cut carbon dioxide emissions radically than to pay the costs of adapting to the increased temperatures. Moreover, all current models show that the Kyoto Protocol will have surprisingly little impact on the climate: temperature levels projected for 2100 will be postponed for all of six years.

Yet the cost of the Kyoto Protocol will be $150 billion to $350 billion annually (compared to $50 billion in global annual development aid). With global warming disproportionately affecting third world countries, we have to ask if Kyoto is the best way to help them. The answer is no. For the cost of Kyoto for just one year we could solve the world's biggest problem: we could provide every person in the world with clean water. This alone would save two million lives each year and prevent 500 million from severe disease. In fact, for the same amount Kyoto would have cost just the United States every year, the United Nations estimates that we could provide every person in the world with access to basic health, education, family planning and water and sanitation services. Isn't this a better way of serving the world?

The focus should be on development, not sustainability. Development is not simply valuable in itself, but in the long run it will lead the third world to become more concerned about the environment. Only when people are rich enough to feed themselves do they begin to think about the effect of their actions on the world around them and on future generations. With its focus on sustainability, the developed world ends up prioritizing the future at the expense of the present. This is backward. In contrast, a focus on development helps people today while creating the foundation for an even better tomorrow.

The United States has a unique opportunity in Johannesburg to call attention to development. Many Europeans chastised the the Bush administration for not caring enough about sustainability, especially in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol. They are probably correct that the United States decision was made on the basis of economic self-interest rather than out of some principled belief in world development.. But in Johannesburg the administration can recast its decision as an attempt to focus on the most important and fundamental issues on the global agenda: clean drinking water, better sanitation and health care and the fight against poverty.

Such move would regain for the United States the moral high ground. When United States rejected the Kyoto treaty last year, Europeans talked endlessly about how it was left to them to "save the world." But if the United States is willing to commit the resources to ensure development, it could emerge as the savior.

Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Denmark and author of ‘‘The Skeptical Environmentalist.’’


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: environment; sustainability
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2002 9:10:35 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Europe and the rest of the world are blaming the US for failing the world's poor and destroying the environment. Tensions are emerging between those who want our money (Britain and most of the world) and the US even before the latest Earth Summit (which is meant to blame the USA for everything, as well as, take as much money from us as possible) in Johannesburg. See August 26th London Times.

Hmmm, now how many colonies did the USA have around the world? How many people did we enslave in Africa, Asia, and the rest of the world? Didn't the British Empire empirically control 1/3 of the world, what about France, Holland, Germany, Spain etc… Yet the world is blaming the USA because the world is poor.

Let those wonderful nations that put these people in poverty, used their cheap labor, and stole their minerals pay for the mess they created.

THE USA IS NOT TO BLAME. Perhaps Europe should look themselves in the mirror for most of the problems of the world. The third world is also to blame for their problems. They often created their mess through their corrupted leaders. The USA has no share in the blame, and we should refuse to accept any guilt. Perhaps the rest of the world should learn to fix their problems, instead of using the USA, Christians, Jews or Israel as whipping boys to blame all their own failings on.

Two last questions. Couldn't the poor in the world have been helped by giving all the money it cost to create this conference to them? Wouldn't the environment be better off with out the waste of fossil fuels it took to get to this conference? If these people don't care enough to send their money to the poor and help the environment, why should we?

2 posted on 08/25/2002 9:20:31 PM PDT by GaryMontana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
They were never right.

Organizations like "Ducks Unlimited" proved that nearly 40 years ago without the help of long-haired maggot- infested, flea-ridden stink-assed Anarchists who are funded by other lunatics...

In the coming months and years more and more suits will be brought against these Eco-Liars asking for documented proof, proof they will never be able to provide and the monies provided them will begin to dry up...
3 posted on 08/25/2002 9:31:55 PM PDT by Vidalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Another conference displaying the obvious to those who don't get it yet here in the USA:

Get the US out of the UN!
And get the UN out of the US!!

4 posted on 08/25/2002 9:37:12 PM PDT by 11B3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I agree with him except for his assertion that it is demonstrated that man's emission of carbon dioxide has caused warming. This is not proven by any empirical evidence, only by models. I don't believe man has anything to do with global warming, if it is indeed happening.
5 posted on 08/25/2002 9:39:10 PM PDT by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Anyone who doubts that the Socialists are using environmentalism as a stalking horse for enforced global redistribution of wealth need only glance at this "summit" to have their doubts dispelled.

This whole confab is almost indistinguishable in its rhetoric from the "Millions for Reparations" hate fest last week. It's all "You owe us!" just in different languages.

Sounds like the opening ceremony was a real wingding, though. All they needed was Bubba and his bongos and it would have been just like old times. Too bad.
6 posted on 08/25/2002 9:47:44 PM PDT by rogue yam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn
You should check out his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He discusses these models in detail.
7 posted on 08/25/2002 9:53:37 PM PDT by missileboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Psst: The earth is fine.

Your IQ, however, is not.

9 posted on 08/25/2002 10:15:45 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Brilliant. I think he has been on the Dennis Prager show before.
10 posted on 08/25/2002 10:17:21 PM PDT by doug from upland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Those who don't mind or can't afford to clean up thier own filth will suffer the consequences.

World population stabilizes when people are happy and have a self realized future. Only capitalizm can give them that.

11 posted on 08/25/2002 10:33:17 PM PDT by steelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese; Pokey78; LibTeeth
TO: Party Headquarters

Pokey and other capitalists (of the white, upper class persuasion) are exploiting the proletariat that produce their TV's and bananas. Comrade Bagelsn'cheese is an advocate for the non-white, lower class and the "disenfranchised". Though I was previously unaware that there was a Bolshevik satellite operating in Tel Aviv, I'm encouraged to learn there are comrades in arms fighting for the workers of the world in that region of the globe. Perhaps comrade Arafat should get in touch with him soon so we can further our totalitarian, collectivist agenda by continuing to use the environment as a smokescreen for class division and wealth redistribution to other comrades. Advise someone from party headquarters to contact him soon.

Signed

Boris

12 posted on 08/25/2002 10:33:57 PM PDT by missileboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
New member... Say's he's from tel aviv...

yea Right

13 posted on 08/25/2002 10:35:08 PM PDT by steelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I'm surprised the New York Times allowed such politically incorrect comments to be published! Someone on the newspaper must have assumed Bjorn Lomberg is the run of the mill radical "sustainable habit" Green. Rest assured they won't be making that mistake again. Lomberg is a true breath of fresh air in the overheated hothouse of environmental assumptions which basically tend to promote bigger government and push the realization of an idealized environmental state over human needs. Lomberg points out the conference in Johannesburg misses the big picture which is that a lot of environmental damage in the developing world is due to the fact people have to survive first and think about nature later. The buzzword of "sustainability" would simply doom millions to an inferior and wretched existence just so affluent Western greens can feel good about themselves. If there was genuine concern for the environment, we'd junk Kyoto and all the totems of the modern environmental movement and get the Third World into the 21st century as quickly as possible. Perhaps the U.S can help to lead the world to a new environmental ethic that gives every human being an opportunity to have a rich and fulfilling life and which balances environmental protection while making sure people's wants and needs are satisfied. Which is precisely the environmental policy we need today.
14 posted on 08/25/2002 10:35:46 PM PDT by goldstategop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: missileboy
Read Richard Pipes book "property and Freedom" it tells the truth that you must first own yourself and the things you aquire to be a free man.

Including your thoughts!

15 posted on 08/25/2002 10:44:25 PM PDT by steelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
>>Only a real chump or moron would actually believe that this planet is in great shape and if we keep destroying all vegetation and allow the population to move forward unhindered, that mother earth will not care. <<

So you believe all the propoganda about humans destroying all the vegetation? You better wake up, it is not happening.

Did you know that in the developed world, the human population is NOT growing. What can we do here in the US to reduce the population increases in other third world countries? The only thing we can do is export capitalism, which is another word for human freedom.
16 posted on 08/25/2002 10:46:06 PM PDT by LloydofDSS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
You're spout'in preprogrammed diatribe. The sky is not falling. Read the "sceptical enviromental" if you're not to afraid of some other "VALID"points of view. (which is real diversity) cityboy, You don't know squat about nature other than the enviromental McCarthyism thats been put into your brain. I know what you're gonna say before you do. Are you are real person? or a useful idiot as the communists called them?! (now "good ole cuntry comforts gonna defend himself. Watch out!!)

hooya here comes more "original thought"
17 posted on 08/25/2002 10:48:38 PM PDT by kennyboy509
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LloydofDSS
He set it up as a straw man that could easily be blown down.

Just more thoughtless drivel.

GIVE ME SCIENCE>>>GIVE ME THOUGHT

18 posted on 08/25/2002 10:49:10 PM PDT by steelie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Upon which universe and/or planet are you living? We have more trees in the U.S. right now than we did 75 years ago. Please do not think man is powerful enough to destroy the planet--because he cannot. Of course he can make small dents in it, but those are typically localized; for example, smog in L.A. But if you have ever flown from, say, Seattle to Atlanta, you will see a lot of empty space filled with farms and trees. We are not even close to killing this planet...not even close. Do not always believe what you read or hear from the mainstream media. After all, their bread and butter is controversy, and they will do just about anything to create ir and/or foster it.
19 posted on 08/25/2002 10:53:18 PM PDT by DennisR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Latin countries to have low work standards and low wages to enjoy our cheap TV's and fresh bananas - they are third world because we want them to be - we give out food aid because we would rather them be dependent.

I'll remember this rant the next time I go to Walmart!(Probably be tomorrow!) :-)

20 posted on 08/25/2002 10:58:17 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
In all seriousness,(not really a word), I must correct your apparently brainwashed mentality.

The U.S. was at one time in dire straights environmentally. We turned that around along time ago beginning with the Great lakes cleanup and it has continued to this day. Sure, we neglect something here or there, but put it right as soon as the problem comes to light.

Some, not all, of the environmentalist people do a yeomans job of monitoring situations and keeping us informed. What hurts the cause more than anything is the wacko who really is not a true environmentalist, but a ego driven wierdo who hates technology and and kind of progress. They want to bring us back to the dark ages and will kill to do it.

These folks have multiple agendas with most of them having nothing to do with the environment. Save the deer, save the spotted owl, save the sucker fish save the gnarly toad licker!!!!!On and on it goes and they are so in your face it makes you want to do 10-20 just to get rid of them!!!!

I hope you are not one of those, are you?

21 posted on 08/25/2002 11:12:47 PM PDT by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Asian, and Latin countries to have low work standards and low wages to enjoy our cheap TV's and fresh bananas - they are third world because we want them to be

If we are going to play the blame game, lets put the blame where it belongs, squarley on their corrupt totalatarian governments,

22 posted on 08/25/2002 11:20:56 PM PDT by c-b 1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: GaryMontana
Europe and the rest of the world are blaming the US for failing the world's poor

What, by giving them jobs and billions of dollars more in aid than any other country. Tell these ingrates to take a hike. The U.S. is Great!

23 posted on 08/25/2002 11:23:30 PM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Hey buddy, come to rural Iowa sometime. They is so much damn wildlife the roads are littered with carcasses. Try growing a garden. We have had so much rain the last three years that there is no more groundwater deficit, older trees are able to heal themselves with rapid growth and the dead grass in unmowed pastures is rotting and allowing the new stuff to grow all year. Everything is an emerald green.

As far as that goes, if I recall when the Israelis took over there the place was a worthless desert. Now it's a quite beautiful I understand, and they have a modern lifestyle too. Seems to me that they aren't trashing things there and managing to balance the two.

24 posted on 08/26/2002 12:30:26 AM PDT by Free Vulcan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
no one can deny that we are killing this planet.

Please provide factual basis for this claim.

25 posted on 08/26/2002 2:57:54 AM PDT by Thebaddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Welcome to FR. Obvious you are trolling since you offer no facts only flames.
26 posted on 08/26/2002 3:12:26 AM PDT by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
I know it cramps your white upper class style to recycle your trash. Yeah, it cramps my white upper class style when I watch the trash man pick up my recycle bin from the curb and dump it in with the rest of the garbage. Of course, he's a "brother" so by definition he isn't doing anything wrong.

Our way of keeping a brother down. This is really the agenda in your entire post isn't it? Keep up the race war. As another poster so rightly points out, the environmentalist movement is really the modern vehicle for the Stalinist movement. The communist trash are real good at setting races against one another for their own advancement. Ultimately, they don't care about you, your brothers, the environment, snail darters, or some third world nation. Labor on comrade.

27 posted on 08/26/2002 3:30:29 AM PDT by RushLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
This is a fine article by a clear and rational thinker. Third world countries ARE far more destructive of the environment than more developed countries, for precisely the reasons stated here. Witness the envirionmental hazards that were revealed when the excesses of East Germany and parts of the of the former Soviet Union collapsed, and opened up.

The Kyoto Treaty is a fraud, nine ways from Sunday. Only leftists and enviro-nazis take it seriously. Of course, such types will constitute a solid majority at Johannesburg.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "Memo to CBS about Bill Clinton."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

28 posted on 08/26/2002 5:02:48 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
...no one can deny that we are killing this planet. Only a real chump or moron would actually believe

Ok Ok, so only a chump or moron Or Christian would deny this!
The Lord God Almighty, Creator of Heaven AND Earth says that "you (mankind) cannot move the foundations of the earth."

It is some men's arrogance that believes we that we can destroy the earth.

The Ozone hole reduced as the solar storms abated, the warming and cooling of the earth will continue in cycles, (even eviro-weenies are not predicting the kinds of temperatures the earth had during the dinosaurs).
I liked one climatologists comments about this: "The earth has been warming since the last ice age and will continue to warm until it begins moving into another ice age".
As to extinction - most scientist say that 90% of the species were extinct before man showed up on the planet.

When I hear the ridiculous statement from the 'weenies' "let it go back to it natural state" I get crazy. Natural state at what period in time?! and natural for what?! We were given the instructions to "Tend", that means work it, plant it, weed it, prune it, water it, fertilize it, in short make the garden conform to our needs. The wackos are the ones that would shrug off their God given responsibilities.

To blame the USA is absurd!, we feed more of the world's population than any other nation on earth. Nearly all of Africa has a 12 month growing cycle- yet they continually mis-manage and endure famines, they do not control their water resources- so have difficultly during droughts- Muslims are notorious for neglecting to turn nutrients back into the soil, and their lack of 'gardening' means a continually expanding desert. When they had control of Israel, they took a land that was filled with olive trees and fruit and turned it into desert. During the 1950's the Newpaper headlines were of the new Israeli state's work in Gaza and the 'blooming of the desert'.

The enviro's should spend more time with the under-developed nations teaching them how to plan ahead; like dig wells and reserviors, of how to turn debrie back into the earth, so the earth can be more fertile.

Sorry, go off the point,
1. The earth gets hotter
2. The earth gets cooler
3. These cycles will continue until God says, "Stop".

29 posted on 08/26/2002 5:14:33 AM PDT by LinnieBeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
"WE" are not "keeping the brothers down." The brothers are keeping the brothers down. In fact, as Zimbabwe demonstrates, the brothers are quite capable of taking the second most prosperous country in Africa, and reducing it from a massive exporter of food, to a vicious, starving relic of a nation.

Compare the prosperity of Singapore, which has a dense population and almost zero natural resources, to even South Africa, which has low density population and huge natural resources. Which one is healthy, wealthy and productive? Which one is slipping day by day closer to barbarism?

Most nations in Africa have delibrately chosen, since independence, the wrong kinds of government and the wrong kinds of economic markets. Those bad choices have led directly to the results which you decry. This is not a white-black thing. The USSR collapsed because of exactly the same bad decisions. Other than China, Africa is the promary place in the world where Marxism still survives -- and unlike China, Africa's idea of dictatorship is steal everything that isn't nailed down, and kill everyone who disagrees with you. Even China, which is no model of either peace or prosperity, has realized that such policies are fatal to a nation.

No one except Africans can save Africans from the stupidity of their current governmental decisions.

Congressman Billybob

Click for latest column: "Memo to CBS about Bill Clinton."

Click for latest book: "to Restore Trust in America"

30 posted on 08/26/2002 5:14:43 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LloydofDSS
What can we do here in the US to reduce the population increases in other third world countries? The only thing we can do is export capitalism, which is another word for human freedom.

Disease, politics and war have ravished the third world, but runaway overpopulation threatens many countries.

Our food donations have saved millions from starvation.

How to reduce the population?

When I was a kid I had an ant farm.

When I stopped feeding them, they died.

31 posted on 08/26/2002 5:34:26 AM PDT by CROSSHIGHWAYMAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
no one can deny that we are killing this planet.

I deny we are killing the planet.

And my opinion is worth at least as much as yours.

Have you read Lomborg's book?
Have you heard of the dozens of artiles criticizing in detail the assumptions in existing climate models and their present inability to "predict" recent past climate?

psssst! that's the basis on which all these predictions of doom and gloom are based.

Do you know the definition of "science"?
Third or fourth grade stuff, if I remember correctly.

32 posted on 08/26/2002 5:41:28 AM PDT by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Another hit and run poster.

It looks like some fellow FReepers have already ripped your little diatribe to shreds, so I'm not even going to get started.

I had a blast watching a segment on "Real TV" a few nights ago where the greenpeace idiots were getting blown off of their little dingys with water from firehoses being used by Russian crewmen on a cargo ship. Just my little dig, OK? Have a nice day.

33 posted on 08/26/2002 6:09:22 AM PDT by Looking4Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The last paragraph of this article is the most important.

"Such a move would regain for the US the moral highground.......But if the the US is willing to commit the resources to ensure development, it could emerge as a savior."

A lot of conservatives and many, many freepers will loudly complain should Bush follow Lomborg's advice on this. Although it would be cheaper than Kyoto, this "committing the resources" will be a sizable increase in foreign aid.

Recall the increase in foreign aid that came about when Bush made his UN speech in Monterrey, Mexico that was used to slap down the the notion of a UN tax. There were many BushBash threads here regarding that increase in foreign aid.

Also recall that Bush followed the advice of NASA scientist Hansen on taking the moral high ground in regard US emissions of pollutants. Although this path left CO2 as voluntary, it set strict limits on CO, methane, CFC, soot particles, NOx, VOCs, etc. Many were displeased with this.

It is a no-win situation for Bush. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

34 posted on 08/26/2002 6:13:41 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Check your facts befroe you shhot from the lip.

The watermelon enviros continue to use the chimera of environmental degredation as a means to the larger agenda - collective economics and policy over individual property rights and initiative.

The facts are difficult thing. The environment in the developed world is better now than any time in the last 150 years. It continues to improve. Prices for life's basics are lower.

You can be green and believe in private property. I am and I do.
35 posted on 08/26/2002 7:13:51 AM PDT by G L Tirebiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn
I agree with him except for his assertion that it is demonstrated that man's emission of carbon dioxide has caused warming. This is not proven by any empirical evidence, only by models
 
Everybody tries to poke little holes in the greenhouse models by arguing about the effect of clouds, or dust particles, or whatever, but they miss a hole big enough to drive a truck through.
 
CO2 is only a small component of the overall greenhouse effect, the main "greenhouse gas" is water, by a factor of many times. The assumption is that the added greenhouse gases will cause more and more water to boil off, in an exponential run-away.
 
Hello. No wonder you have a model that predicts the end of the world, because you have chosen a model that presumes that the carbon dioxide/water cycle is unstable to begin with. If this is so, why are we still here?

36 posted on 08/26/2002 8:27:55 AM PDT by dinasour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #37 Removed by Moderator

Comment #38 Removed by Moderator

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
The earth is fine? Amazing. I forget that most people that left feedback think the U.S. constitutes most of the planet. Not like I am going to stop your ignorance from taking place.

Yes, the earth is fine. It was here before you, and it will survive even you.

I have no idea what "most people that left feedback" means. If you are going to bother typing your thoughts to an American-based forum, you might consider learning English.

Oh, and ignorance does not "take place." Yours, in fact, metastasizes.

39 posted on 08/26/2002 7:36:45 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

Comment #41 Removed by Moderator

Comment #42 Removed by Moderator

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Thanks Bagels_and_Cheese, I was following this thread this morning and lost track of it.

Now you have made many statements today, can you cite scientific data to validate your opinions?

43 posted on 08/26/2002 7:55:53 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

Comment #45 Removed by Moderator

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
For years, I was a very strong advocate for the position that you hold. I personally produced films documenting the disgusting polution around Atlanta.

One day, I woke up and realized that everything I was doing was a lie! Oh sure, I could film a waterfall foaming with soap suds (Phosphate polution was the "in" thing at the time), but 5 feet away, there was a thriving community of minnows.

The harder I worked to document this horrible polution, the more I realized that we were lying to the public.

Think I am joking? Here is your personal challenge:

1) Post images around your own personal home which depict examples of polution.

2) Show us an image 180 degrees away from this source of polution.

I already know the answer - that 180 degree image will show a thriving community of life.

46 posted on 08/26/2002 8:04:28 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
people be destroyin da planet

Not.

47 posted on 08/26/2002 8:07:29 PM PDT by M. Thatcher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: Bagels_and_Cheese
Hey, I am old enought to remember when police officers carried bottles of Oxyzen in Los Angeles, because of the polution.

When I was fighting for the environment, we had a serious problem.

With your logic, all of our efforts since 1960 have been in vain. And if our efforts have not improved the environment, why are we still wasting our money on these programs?

I worked hard to help our environment over these years. I tend to get rather upset when people like you tell me that everything I did was useless!

49 posted on 08/26/2002 8:14:31 PM PDT by Hunble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Did h*!! freeze over?? I thought I saw that this article was in the NY Times.
50 posted on 08/26/2002 8:18:25 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson