Finally an acknowledged intellectual that brings some sanity to the climate change debate. The problem that government policy makers will have with him is that they have some politically unfavorable decisions they can make right now to protect the populace from future environmental problems.

For instance ... should we rebuild New Orleans? Absolutely not! The French engineers in the 1600's told the politicions not to build a major city there.

Should the government (federal, state, etc) pay to relocate the people devastated by Katrina? Absolutely! New Orleans will get hit again. It's not if, it's when. The next time will be more devastating.

I haven't seen anybody discuss traffic control technologies. How many times do cars sit at red lights with no traffic on the other road at the intersection? For me, it's at least twice per day ... in a very small city.

What about poorly timed traffic lights ... you know green at this intersection and red a block away. How much gas is wasted and how much CO2 is emitted by needlessly idling vehicles? Has anybody done a study on how much could be saved by having good traffic control technology?

This is a marvelous piece. I truly appreciate the moderator's decision that "[she'd] rather people read his words rather than [her] interpretation of what he's saying." I certainly hope that anyone who comments here will show Ms. Hannon the courtesy of actually reading the piece before commenting.

In my view, the most striking take-away from this piece is the chart of prioritized opportunities on page 18. These tend to reflect my own sense of national (US) priorities.

I think there is more "bleed" from AGW investment into the other categories than this chart accounts for. My read of the literature during the run-up to the Copenhagen conference is that many of the economic models assumed away a large portion of the costs of AGW impact. For example, a great many wars have been fought over water rights. The economic analyses explicitly exclude the costs of wars that might result from AGW-caused drought. This exclusion is primarily for the sake of computational convenience; we simply don't know how to factor those costs into our economic models in any defensible, objective, and meaningful way.

Having said all that, I think there is a striking dissonance between the priorities of this chart and the spending priorities of the current US government. If AGW was at the bottom of US investment because we were spending all of our tax dollars on, for example, disease prevention (especially HIV/AIDS and malaria), malnutrition, and subsidy and trade reform, then I suspect the polarization of the AGW debate would split less directly across left/right political boundaries.

The sad and undeniable truth, however, is that this chart does not reflect current US government spending priorities. I note, for example, that "eliminating terror" is NOT MENTIONED and is perhaps the largest single item of US spending, especially if we include the "off budget" "emergency appropriation" charades that have funded the bulk of the US war in Iraq.

I hear Lumborg argueing, persuasively, disease, malnutrition, and trade reform are better investments -- dollar for dollar -- than AGW investments.

That, however is most emphatically NOT the choice the right-wing and the deniers are presenting to us. The right-wing and the deniers argue that we should, instead, spend tax dollars on the "war on terror", "immigration reform", "protecting family values", and "faith-based initiatives."

The right wing, in fact, passionately argues against the four top priorities that Lomborg argues for. For example, the US government policy towards control of HIV/AIDS is dominated by adherance to the anti-contraceptive arguments promoted by the Vatican. Specifically, the US will not and does not fund programs that offer condoms. The federally-funded stem-cell research that the right-wing and current administration so fervently opposes directly addresses HIV/AIDS question.

AGW may be a "bad opportunity" in comparison to "control of HIV/AIDS"; I argue that it is a compellingly better opportunity than, for instance "eliminating terror".

This triangulation exemplifies the difficulty of removing "politics" from this issue. When we have limited resources to invest, and we must choose where to place those investments, we must evaluate and prioritize each opportunity. None of these opportunities can be evaluated in isolation.

This prioritization is a political process informed by scientific input.

Lomborg brings up some good points about the exaggeration of climate change's impact upon humans and the huge need for research and development over simply creating carbon caps. Yet his arguments fail to address the huge impact climate change will have upon the environment.

It is easy to look at this issue and simply say that species will continue to shift northward as the planet warms. Yet what is to happen to the countless number of species that inhabit and/or breed on the coastal plain around the arctic sea or on mountaintops around the world? They can only go north or up to a point at which there is no more land and then they die.

Also, we too often only think of animals when the environmental impacts of climate change are discussed. People seem to forget that animals can only survive if the ecosystem of which they are part shifts northward as well. While most species of animals can migrate huge distances in relatively short periods of time, plants can not. It is ridiculous to think that, for example, the ranges of most tree species will migrate hundreds or even thousands of miles over the next few centuries, particularly with the fragmentation of the forests that has happened in the last several hundred years.

What is much more likely to happen with such rapid climatic change is the balance which has existed in ecosystems will be thrown out of wack. For example, huge areas of forest in the Rockies, where temperatures have risen more dramatically in the last fifty years, have been killed by native insects whose populations had been kept in check by cold winters. This scenario will likely repeat itself around the world.

I could go on and on with this subject but my point is that our environment will be by far the greatest loser if we don't act to slow climate change now. Our planet will lose a mindblowing amount of biodiversity over the next century due to our already existing problems of habitat destruction, acid rain, invasive species, etc combined with climate change.

Hi Andy,

I agree with everything you say, except one thing. You are assuming that reducing human carbon dioxide production will significantly influence the Earth's climate. The problems that you mention are caused by things other than human carbon dioxide production.

Yes, we should focus on reducing pollution and saving fragile ecosystems. However, pure carbon dioxide should not be considered a pollutant. It is no more polluting than water vapor. In fact, vater vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. I am a professional physicist, and most physicists consider carbon dioxide to be a minor greenhouse gas (on Earth).

Have you seen the BBC Documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle?"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

This man Lomborg is right on the money.I don't think any money should be spent on global warming, but to keep the populace happy he points out where AWG spending is a waste of money as far as Kyoto goes. Far better to make investments takling real, measurable, problems than throwing it away and hope you make a differece on something that's just a theory.
I'll have to read more about him...

Lomborg affirms a reasonable perspective readily observable. The climate is in a warming cycle and, while human activity producing CO2 may correlate to this cycle, correlation does not necessarily equate to causation. Just as Bush leveraged irrational fear to justify the Iraq war, Gore & Co. are trying to advance a political agenda by appealing to irrational fear of global catastrophe. Their efforts would be better spent working toward solutions to problems that can actually be addressed politically.

Larry, just a few question about your opinion on re-building New Orleans. Where do we re-locate?
Florida, Miss. ? Hurricanes there. Texas? Tornadoes, hurricanes. The far west? Earthquakes, fires. Everyplace is a question of when not if. We have people living in space, Antartica, and the bottom of the ocean. All man can do is to try to minimize the risks.

I live in Fort Collins, Colorado - and it is inaccurate to claim that forests are being destroyed by global warming. Massive damage to the forest ecosystem was done by fire suppression over the last 100 years, followed by a drought from 2000-2004.

Along the front range we are now experiencing an exceptionally cool and wet period which has been going on for most of the past year. We have broken many records for cold, snow and rain since September, 2006.

Global warming hysteria is starting to cause a backlash which unfortunately will lead to long term distrust of science.

The voices of reason and quality science not motivated by political gain. Interesting how Mr. Gore and the Hollywood elite have fallen in to a classic trap. The unfortunate part is how much damage to the growing economies of the world by this cause-de-celebre? Here is a streaming video highlighting a British documentary on the falicy of Gore's award winning science movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831

Leave it to an economist to break things down into difficult to understand statistics (mostly his statistical calculations) and leave the humanity out of the equation. What he suggests regarding depopulation of coastal regions, adaptation, etc is not only practically impossible, but smacks of past fascism and genetic engineering (including Darwinism). Changes in species adaptation takes thousands of years, which is the reason many species are wiped out by environmental cataclisms. Why should we humans survive?

I agree that low carbon energy alternatives and conservation are key elements for future reduction in greenhouse gases. And I am glad that he, perhaps reluctantly, agrees that GW is man-made. But we continue to spend much more on war and weapons of mass destruction than we do on the environment, poverty, starvation and disease. That's where we need to shift resources.

Spewing junk into the air for hundreds of years has serious consequences for the environment which we occupy. It's time we stopped! We need REAL solutions in a multi-faceted approach.

Here in the UK, current media reports on global warming/climate change are running at fever pitch as commentators "spin" the future to an "inevitable" meltdown (with the USA as climate enemy number one).
Paradoxically it seems to me that the best research and debate is coming out of the USA, with Europe having seemingly closed its mind at a governmental level which is truly worrying.
In my view the Kyoto protocols, if they result in slower world economic growth will do massive damage to any attempt to ameliorate future challenges from a changing climate context.
What a breath of fresh air then to read Lomborg's report which does introduce a real focus to the debate.
It is a call to action that circumvents the sterility of the "who is right or who is wrong" scientific argument in favour of effective action that has positive measurable outcomes as opposed to unknowable ones in the "nebulous" world of computer generated possibilities.

Good God! Those who don't have a political agenda or are just critical independant thinkers and not sheep, properly view man-made global warming as a joke.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Listed below are 17,200 of the initial signers

During the past 2 years, more than 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, have signed the Global Warming Petition.

Signers of this petition so far include 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists (select this link for a listing of these individuals) who are especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate.

Signers of this petition also include 5,017 scientists whose fields of specialization in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences (select this link for a listing of these individuals) make them especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life.

Nearly all of the initial 17,100 scientist signers have technical training suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data, and many are trained in related fields. In addition to these 17,100, approximately 2,400 individuals have signed the petition who are trained in fields other than science or whose field of specialization was not specified on their returned petition.

Of the 19,700 signatures that the project has received in total so far, 17,800 have been independently verified and the other 1,900 have not yet been independently verified. Of those signers holding the degree of PhD, 95% have now been independently verified. One name that was sent in by enviro pranksters, Geri Halliwell, PhD, has been eliminated. Several names, such as Perry Mason and Robert Byrd are still on the list even though enviro press reports have ridiculed their identity with the names of famous personalities. They are actual signers. Perry Mason, for example, is a PhD Chemist.

The costs of this petition project have been paid entirely by private donations. No industrial funding or money from sources within the coal, oil, natural gas or related industries has been utilized. The petition's organizers, who include some faculty members and staff of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, do not otherwise receive funds from such sources. The Institute itself has no such funding. Also, no funds of tax-exempt organizations have been used for this project.

The signatures and the text of the petition stand alone and speak for themselves. These scientists have signed this specific document. They are not associated with any particular organization. Their signatures represent a strong statement about this important issue by many of the best scientific minds in the United States.

This project is titled "Petition Project" and uses a mailing address of its own because the organizers desired an independent, individual opinion from each scientist based on the scientific issues involved - without any implied endorsements of individuals, groups, or institutions.

The remainder of the initial signers and all new signers will be added to these lists as data entry is completed.

Our e-mail address, for the purposes of this project, is: info@oism.org

Why was that science illerate buffoon Al Gore given any type of credibility here at a supposly serious scientific site?!

http://www.hernandotoday.com/columnists/MGBAIY6PLZE.html

University should give Al Gore dunce cap, not doctorate degree

By JAMES TAYLOR
Published: Mar 22, 2007

University of Minnesota President Bob Bruininks announced at the university's February Board of Regents meeting that Al Gore is being considered for an honorary doctorate in climatology for his 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." Considering the multitude of misleading and inaccurate assertions Gore delivered in the film, Gore is better fitted for a dunce cap.
A complete list of Gore's false and misleading statements would fill an entire book, but here are some of the highlights:
Gore claims Antarctic ice melt is a "canary in the coal mine" demonstrating dramatic global warming. However, more than 90 percent of Antarctica is getting colder and the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is growing. Gore misleadingly highlights data from the small section of West Antarctica that is the exception to the overall trend. Indeed, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts no net ice loss in Antarctica for at least the next full century.
Gore asserts the Gulf Stream is likely to shut down, plunging the world into a renewed ice age. But New Scientist and Science magazines reported in November 2006 that the Gulf Stream shows no signs of slowing and climate scientists feel a shutdown "is not a realistic scenario for the 21st century."
Gore claims the alpine glacier atop Mt. Kilimanjaro is melting and global warming is to blame. As far back as 2003, however, journals such as Nature, Journal of Geophysical Research, and International Journal of Climatology documented that a decrease in mountaintop precipitation, linked to deforestation at the base of the mountain, was the true cause of the receding glacier. Indeed, temperature readings in the Kilimanjaro region are actually declining rather than increasing.
Gore claims declining rainfall (allegedly caused by global warming) is leading to a dramatic southern expansion of the Sahara Desert. However, the New Scientist reported as recently as 2002 that "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat," with vegetation reclaiming large expanses of barren land across the entire southern edge.
Gore says Himalayan glaciers are rapidly melting, threatening the water supply of hundreds of millions of people. However, just months before Gore filmed his slideshow presentation, Insurance Digest reported Himalayan Mountain glaciers are as large as ever.
Gore warns us the Greenland ice sheet is rapidly disintegrating and threatening a massive rise in sea level. However, Greenland's ice sheet was gaining mass until 2003, and the shrinking observed since amounts to a minuscule fraction of Greenland's existing ice sheet. Indeed, the IPCC estimates sea levels will rise only a foot or so during the entire next century
Asserting that global warming is clearly impacting his hometown of Carthage, Tennessee, Gore said, "Here on this farm, the patterns are changing. ... In the course as defined by this river, it's happening very, very quickly." Yet temperature readings in the nearby communities of Clarksburg, Murfreesboro, and McMinnville show regional temperatures have actually cooled 3 degrees in the past 80 years.
Gore asserts global warming is causing alpine glaciers in Glacier National Park to recede. However, temperature readings in the nearby community of Telluride show temperatures have declined 3 degrees since 1989. Temperature readings in the nearby community of Boulder show temperatures have declined 6 degrees since 1953.
Gore claims a 5-degree rise in temperatures this century is "on the low end of the projections." In fact, a 5-degree rise in temperatures is on the high end of projections offered by the IPCC.
Inaccuracy is the norm rather than the exception in Gore's movie. He would receive no better than an "F" in any serious course on climatology. The question is, given the current crisis in our public schools, does giving a bad scientist an honorary degree really send the right message?

James M. Taylor (taylor@heartland.org) is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute.

My major reasons for doubt about the rate of global warming and the urgent need for action are two.

Any competent computational modeler knows that uncertainties (due to uncertainties in the true values of model parameters) and sensitivities (to variations in initial conditions) exist in ALL computational analyses. Yet I have never seen any hint that such analyses have been conducted. If they have been, the results should be clearly and explicitly stated in every document that reports on global warming.

The very obvious financial interests of the investigators should also be a matter of public record. How much do these investigators earn annually for their research on global warming? If they had decided there was no problem, what kind of a drop in income would they experience?

Lonborg makes some excellent points. It is a shame that selfish interests have politicized what should a strictly scientific inquiry process.

I am also sure the ONLY reason he was allowed to speak there was because he did agree with them that GW was man made. How about a real skeptic that can show that this is not man made? I haven't heard anything about them being allowed to speak.

Cars should be dealt with on a more serious basis. Not only do they pollute the air they also are responsible for killing up to 50,000 Americans a year. But I guess that just acceptable losses Eh? I mean no one wants to give up or handle their cars with any thought do they. We are so infatuated with them it would be like watching less mindless television wouldn't it?

It is amazing to me that a species like ourselves whom continuously pat themselves on the back for being so technically advanced can do no more than find news ways to destroy themselves. How damn smart is that? Wow we can build a smart bomb but are not smart enough to ease the damage and destruction we heap upon ourselves.

I teach middle school language arts to sixth graders. This year, I decided to tackle global warming as a subject for our persuasive papers. I only did this as a result of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. There is a reason that we have skeptical and alarmist-type reactions. It creates a backdrop of balance for the rest of us too busy leading our lives to keep up with it all. It also stimulates discussion and debate. There are many teachers at my school who absolutely do not believe in global warming. Whether or not their disbelief is due to politics, religion, or lack of exposure to consistent, clear information, increasing chatter regarding the topic will no doubtfully gain their reluctant attention and, eventually, a more intelligent position.

One might think that this is an educational process with stages much like grief. The next stage from denial is simply acknowledging global warming. If we as a group realize that we have the power to change the climate of our Earth, then perhaps the next stage will hopefully force people to acknowledge the fact that we share this Earth with others just like ourselves who want the proverbial too-short blanket of natural resources to cover them as well. How will we share this Earth in the next 100 years?

I agree that rebuilding New Orleans as it was is foolishness on a grand scale. Building a large city on a continually subsiding major river delta is a no-win proposition. If private investors want to put their money there, fine. Just don't ask taxpayers to foot the bill. But New Orleans and hurrican Katrina have little or nothing to do with the global warming debate.

The really important issue whether mankind is causing global warming and extreme climate change. My understanding is that we are not. We are being misled by politicians and climate-modeling scientists who stand to gain financially and in matters of power and control over entire populations. I am an Earth Scientist only seeking to establish the truth with nothing to gain by taking this position. Please go here to learn more:
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/

Andy,
The balance you speak of has always been historically temporary. Throughout the lifetime of the earth, according to Paleontologists, there have been many severe extinctions of up to 70% of species in some cases. The earth and the types of animals, plants and landscapes, are always in change, whether we like that change or not.

It was not that long ago that most of North America had a mile thick of ice covering it. No trees, no lakes, no villages and no people under that ice. Look at it now. What a difference. Who'd have thought, eh!

No amount of trying to turn back human induced climate change will affect what the earth will be like in the future. The earth has it's own cataclysmic events and always rebounds with new and different species. We are merely one of the millions of tiny parasitic species on it's skin. We really don't like to admit it, but we are still as much an animal (skin, bones and blood) as a dog or an elephant and are as vulnerable as they are to whatever events transpire on the planet.

12,000 years ago, many species of plants and animals globally, were wiped out in a catastrophic event which left them flash frozen instantly and no one can explain it. Many civilizations also crumbled at that time. They certainly could not stop what happened, and what remained of the surviving Humans lead us to where we are today. The next time, we may not be so lucky and go the way of the woolly mammoth or the american camel.

Andy, you'll probably live to be an old man and tell your great-grand children about what it was like in the early 2,000's and like every past generation, they will wonder how you could ever live so primitively. If they blame you for global warming, just say "geez, we did'nt know, eh!".

Here in the UK we have no choice between our political parties when it comes to the debate on man made climate change, either at the national level or the local.There are no contrarians to vote for.
On your local high street you will find a truck with a big trailer, funded by tax payers, "climate change roadshow" exhorting the populace to change their lifestyles to save the planet.In the local newspaper there are letters from people who have resolved never to fly again for the same reason, people buy dry cured bacon from their local farmers market so as not to cause sea levels to rise... in short Europe has gone mad.I'm not making this up I work on a farmers market and this is happening.
I come from a scientific background (educationally) and it just seems that society is adopting a delusional mindset.
Why is man made climate change so popular?
Is it because it is of our own making?
So we can control it?

Lomborg, A young dashing Dane that champions the cause of humanity while whetted to the anthropogenic median temp rise of 2.6 C. I was astonished that the joint-committee hearing was so poorly represented by Democrats. Just because he's an Al Gore basher!

BTW can somone tell me why increasing co2 coincides with a non-linear rise in temperature ? ( per Dr Lindzen )

Michael,

You must live next door to where you work or you work at home. Some people, myself included, have to TRAVEL to work! I work 45 miles from my house. Sorry, darling, but I won't walk that far and my horse won't do 90 miles a day.

Yvonne,
I can see your point, but I'm still unsure how a statistician, climatologist, or astrophysicist can fit into your templete. Your choice of the word denial assumes that the fact is true, and that whatever a scientist discovers to the contrary is just a construct based on some false consciousness. The world of science is usually too rigorous for most people. Either you can prove your suppositions or you can't. The language of science is Mathamatics; most professionals scientists have an understanding of advanced math that is hard for most of us to comprehend. Just try opening a text on Tensor Analysis, or Principle Component Analysis.

There are a few sciences, climatology being one, that are so complicated that a great deal of subjectivity results on both sides of the argument. Even Meteorology, its cousin, is filled with the jargon of doubt such as "a slight chance" or "a possible risk". Science is exacting, but the science of the atmosphere, like economics cannot possibly be understood with that kind of precision. There are just too many variables.

Your equating AGW skeptics with those suffering grief is an insult to those people who labor in the realm of science, but just so happen to disagree. Thier disagreement is based on hard data, or a lack thereof. These people are not deniers as you label them, but scientists.

You must live next door to where you work or you work at home. Some people, myself included, have to TRAVEL to work! I work 45 miles from my house. Sorry, darling, but I won't walk that far and my horse won't do 90 miles a day.

So sorry, dear, but your decision to take a job 45 minutes from where you live was yours and nobody else's. That means that the consequences of that choice will and should fall on you and nobody else.

Society does not have an obligation to make it affordable or even possible for you to commute 90 miles a day to your job. If you choose take on such a commute, you also choose to take on the economic risks that accompany it.

The risks include the risk that the cost of your commute may skyrocket -- by as much as a factor of ten -- over the next few years. You may not pollute my air with your cigarette smoke or your excessive exhaust. That's why we have laws to restrict your ability to smoke in my space and that's why we force you to maintain emission controls on your vehicles. Similarly, you may not worsen the risks of catastrophe in the lifetime of my children or grandchildren because it's more convenient for you. Your "freedom of expression" ends when your fist hits my nose.

You are a part of a larger community and your membership in that community entails accepting a measure of responsibility for the harmful effects your choices may have on that community.

Brookline Tom

I'm sure glad you are not in Bush's position or you would have already attacked China and India for not towing the line on climate change, killing millions and shutting down all the coal plants so your children won't have to breathe the same smoke that everyone else breathes.

You are also a part of a larger community and your membership entails accepting people for who they are, not who you want them to be. Not everyone wants to be just like you. I have a feeling you may have been the "hall monitor" in school. Do like the happy folks and loosen up a little, go to a bar, make a few friends and tear a strip off the dance floor. You'll thank me in the morning!

So sorry, dear, but your decision to take a job 45 minutes from where you live was yours and nobody else's. That means that the consequences of that choice will and should fall on you and nobody else.

That maybe true, but some people have to put food on their tables to feed their children. There are some areas of the world where it is hard to find a job that pays enough to provide for your family. Would you want your family to starve because you're not willing to go to the next town up to get the job?

As much as we would probably all enjoy getting the hybrid car or whatever the latest green friendly vehicle is...truth is not many people can afford it. So then what do we do? Take our cars away so then our families can starve? If your family starves to death, there won't be any grandkids to have to worry about. I don't know about you, but I refuse to let that happen.

Put it another way, take away the vehicles used in the freight industry. With out truckers moving all the shipping needs the economy would crumble and we would be back to square one with the starving. Trucks, trains, planes, and ships all move valuable resources all around the world. Without them we've got nothing. Our little gardens can only produce so much.

Your "freedom of expression" ends when your fist hits my nose.

And why, Tom, would they want to punch you for voicing your own freedom of expression?

John D writes:
12,000 years ago, many species of plants and animals globally, were wiped out in a catastrophic event which left them flash frozen instantly and no one can explain it. Many civilizations also crumbled at that time. They certainly could not stop what happened, and what remained of the surviving Humans lead us to where we are today. The next time, we may not be so lucky and go the way of the woolly mammoth or the american camel.

He follows this up with:
You are also a part of a larger community and your membership entails accepting people for who they are, not who you want them to be. Not everyone wants to be just like you. I have a feeling you may have been the "hall monitor" in school. Do like the happy folks and loosen up a little, go to a bar, make a few friends and tear a strip off the dance floor. You'll thank me in the morning!

Perhaps John D will offer some cites to confirm this "catastrophic event" alleged to have "flash-frozen" "many species of plants and animals" "12,000 years ago". I ask because I wonder if he is perhaps remembering the pseudo-scientific creationist ravings of Ted Holden, perhaps commingled with those of Immanuel Velikovsky about frozen mammoths.

I was, alas, rather too wrapped-up in my leftist anarchist anti-american atheist communist socialist marxist anti-war political activism in school (during the Viet Nam era) to have any time for being a hall monitor. I rather suspect that the various authorities would have frowned upon my participation in such a role anyway, what with my obvious subversive leanings and all. One could not, in Montgomery County, MD in 1967, agitate in support of Martin Luther King and Ghandi and also be a hall monitor in a public secondary school.

I did, however, manage to spend enough time in science classrooms to learn the basics of the art and its craft. Some of my peers certainly did spend rather less time in such academic pursuits, and rather more time dancing and drinking.

Perhaps John D has, like me, occasionally enjoyed such diversions to sufficient excess to awake the following morning with a rather significant hangover. If so, then he will surely know that such late-night diversions do have their consequences the next day.

Humanity, and especially we in the US, have been enjoying a rather extended binge of carbon consumption. The beginnings of the dreaded -- and inevitable -- hangover are making themselves known. While there are always some "party animals" who believe in the "hair of the dog that bit you", most of us prefer to instead take a few Excedrin, drink a few cups of coffee, and get on with the cleanup.

BT,

Your pontificating is nauseating. Who are you to say what is right or wrong for Americans. If someone is traveling 100 miles a day to provide medical treatment for a son or daughter, is that unexceptable to you? Should that person move next to the hospital?

Just the fact that you are on a computer demonstrates that you are participating in the modern luxuries that Americans can afford. Is it solar powered, are you living off the grid? Do you cook food? Do you use the bathroom? Do you have transportation? Do you fly on airplanes?

I asked YOU once before what YOU are doing to reduce you carbon footprint and you dodged the subject.

Come out from behind your keyboard and give us some details of your life style that gives you the right to bleat constantly about all other occupants of the planet besides you....after all it IS all about YOU isn't it BT??

Wow, talk about "excessive exhaust"....

Dave

BT says:

---"Having said all that, I think there is a striking dissonance between the priorities of this chart and the spending priorities of the current US government. If AGW was at the bottom of US investment because we were spending all of our tax dollars on, for example, disease prevention (especially HIV/AIDS and malaria), malnutrition, and subsidy and trade reform, then I suspect the polarization of the AGW debate would split less directly across left/right political boundaries.

The sad and undeniable truth, however, is that this chart does not reflect current US government spending priorities."

Another demonstration of BT's reckless disregard of the facts.

Here is the TRUTH about the current administration's track record of U.S. aid to Africa as quoted from the Washington Post, (Dec 31, 2006, noted anti-Bush admin rag):

President Bush's legacy is sure to be defined by his wielding of U.S. military power in Afghanistan and Iraq, but there is another, much softer and less-noticed effort by his administration in foreign affairs: a dramatic increase in U.S. aid to Africa.

The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.

"I think the Bush administration deserves pretty high marks in terms of increasing aid to Africa," said Steve Radelet, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development.

Bush has increased direct development and humanitarian aid to Africa to more than $4 billion a year from $1.4 billion in 2001, according to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. And four African nations -- Sudan, Ethiopia, Egypt and Uganda -- rank among the world's top 10 recipients in aid from the United States.

Beyond increasing aid to Africa, Bush has met with nearly three dozen African heads of state during his six years in office. He visited Africa in his first term, and aides say he hopes to make a return visit next year.

Try again Tom....your rabid partisanship to showing.

Dave

I concur, Mr. Lomborg had to concur with the questionable conclusions of the IPCC to even get a chance to speak and then happily demolished the entire AGW position. Simple things that pop out, like his point about alternate forms of energy becoming more affordable as technology increases.

The malaria example is a telling one, since the campaign against DDT resembles the AGW disaster scenarios fairly closely with the end result being that after an impartial scientific study turned up some very questionable research and conclusions and the idea of a ban was refuted by scientists, a lone bureaucrat with ties to the treehuggers imposed the ban while admitting he had never read any of the scientific work. The "inconvenient truth" is that he chose "Silent Spring" over science.

Brookline Tom,

How's the air in your little plastic bubble? Yes it is my choice to travel 45 miles to work to feed my children. Being a single mother in a very financially depressed area, we travel where we can. It's people like you, working in your home on ebay or whatever, that makes it harder for us to survive in this world.

John D.,

Thank you, my thoughts exactly!!!!!

Wow, talk about "excessive exhaust"....

More squeals (or perhaps whining) from the right wing when asked to accept the personal responsibility they so loudly proclaim important for everybody else.

Hate to be a touch off-topic, but after reading through all of the posts here, I am struck by the absolute vitriol of the AGW proponents versus the reality mind set of us skeptics. What is the saying about "he" who doth protest too much?

Rose: Keep plugging away and I am saddened that you have to travel that far for work. It is trying in more ways than just one I'm sure. Please be safe in your travels.

BT: You mention supporting MLK would not be seen kindly when you were in school. Thank you for supporting that worthy and honorable cause. You do realize that the party that seems to be most concerned about AGW, especially the Goracle, were the same ones that were putting down MLK's causes right?

well there's nothing here that can't be corrected by a little totalitarianism. My neighbor who is a manager at convenience store drives 25 miles four days a week in a large Silverado truck. He gas mows his lawn every week whether it needs it or not. He uses a gas leaf blower on a public way. We can do better for air quality...we must.

Holy smoke, Tom. That's quite a load of responsibility you've piled on yourself. I only hope the folks around you can handle it. Those who spent their time dancing and drinking grew up to have fun, raising good families and not living in an uptight and politically correct dream world, jumping from any left-minded cause to another to hang their hat on, just to have like- minded people to talk to, so you can all justify your "I gotta protest so I can be heard" phobias.

They are also the majority and the solid, taxpaying bread-winners of this country who will be fronting most of the cash, as usual, for your so-called foibles. Good luck! Now, let's get back to the intended topic.