And for all the global warming skeptics out there, Lomborg has a message in the FT: “the basic scientific questions [on climate change] have been answered pretty unequivocally,' and he now says of fighting global warming, “It’s incredibly important. We need a global deal on the climate.”
Mind you, he's still pushing crazy geoengineering solutions which (other than my carbopult idea), likely won't work.
So, is AGW denialism partly a conspiracy to delay action on the problem until expensive, technologically-complicated geo-engineering solutions will be inevitable? Is this why so many of the deniers are engineers?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnybody who knows anything about Bjorn Lomborg knows that he has ALWAYS asserted both a faith in AGW and a need to address it.
ReplyDeleteBut, like Roger Pielke, Lomborg questions the sensibility of the more draconian proposals to allegedly "address" the issue.
Both Lomborg and Pielke are, of course, mistaken in their faith that there is either a need to reduce CO2 emissions or any benefit to be achieved by doing so.
Click here for the facts.
SBVOR,
ReplyDeleteLomborg has never before argued that a global climate deal was needed immediately. And I don't know what you can call any of the geoengineering schemes currently on the table as anything less than Draconian.
Also, post anymore messages with links and I will delete them until you earn them.
"post anymore messages with links and I will delete them"
ReplyDeleteTypical Liberal Fascist...
Today's Liberal Fascism (the absolute antithesis of Classical Liberalism), like all other forms of totalitarianism, can ONLY survive in an absolute intellectual vacuum.
You just proved it.
Enjoy your secular bubble. I won't bother visiting your fascist site again -- much less offering fully substantiated comments which you find so threatening to your religious creed.
Typical Liberal Fascist...
ReplyDeleteIf you knew how accommodating BCL has been over the years to trolls and nutbars such as yourself, you'd understand that *that* warning is very atypical.
I'm surprised by it myself, frankly. And I *am* a liberal fascist.
Good for Bjorn.
ReplyDeleteBut, who cares? He doesn't correct his prior work when errors are pointed out. He doesn't ensure his work is backed by the best evidence available in the first place. He doesn't explain why the processes and questions that lead to his copenhagen consensus strategies are worthwhile from a scientific point of view: they certainly are not motivated by prior work in the economics of climate change, and have had zero influence subsequently.
Please read Lomborg and Playing the Long game, and see if:
ReplyDeletea) That model encompasses his current words.
b) Anything has really changed.
Lomborg might say *anything* at all, as long as the end result is not to cause CO2 restrictions or anything else that Julian Simon would have disliked.