This guy is not all that bad. After all he endorses the IPCC.

"It's important to say ? I'm a political scientist. I simply say the best information we have comes from the U.N. climate panel. They're telling us what's happening.

So I am saying it is happening. I'm also saying, for instance, sea levels are going to rise, but what I'm trying to say is let's get away from this sort of ? "Oh, it's a hoax," or "Oh, no, it's a catastrophe." And let's try and find some middle point."

This should be an interesting (dare I hope it) discussion. :)~

There is no basis for calling Lomborg a "global warming skeptic" - he has never (to my knowledge) claimed to doubt the reality of global warming. What he's critical of are the drastic responses to climate change that so many people are trying to push. In particular, he has argued that putting any significant resources into reducing CO2 emissions is counterproductive, because (a) even significant reductions can't stop warming from continuing throughout this century, (b) CO2 emissions will decline naturally as clean alternatives like solar power finally become cost-competitive with fossil fuels in the next couple of decades and (c) the money that might be spent on forced CO2 reduction would be far more usefully spent on other projects. I encourage you to read his books before pigeon-holing him. Personally, I think he has a much more balanced and rational perspective on the whole thing than most people engaged in the global warming debate.

Reply: We did not say he was a denier, but he, like many others are "skeptical" about some of the alarmist views. But you are correct, he does not deny global warming. Maybe I should re-title this.

From the transcript it looks like the interviewer had an agenda and did a lousy job.

I've read some of Lomborg's writing and he makes interesting points about cost and benefit priorities of tackling various environmental problems. AGW was right at the bottom of the list in terms of cost/benefit ratio.

I suspect it will take more than a few decades for solar to be competitive with fossil fuels.
Fossil fuels will probably have to be essentially depleted before that happens which will take a 1000 years or so.

The transition from cheap gas and oil to really expensive gas and oil will happen much sooner and may result in a temporary slowing the CO2.

Global warming could mean more heart problems, doctors warn

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/09/05/europe/EU-MED-Global-Warming-Hearts.php

It would appear that CO2 is already causing brain malfunction. Heart problems can't be far behind.

Lomborg was a sceptic�s poster boy a few years ago and appeared regularly in the worlds media to support the idea that global warming was a myth, his first book could have been written by Patrick.

Nearly a decade ago his views added to the argument that Kyoto should be rejected. Today he has changed his tune, as have MSM and governments around the world when discussing global warming. Governments now say Kyoto should be replaced and improved but are less clear about what is to be the replacement protocol.

His recent work is aimed at spending money to save lives, which he so rightly suggests is cheaper than addressing global warming. After all a sack of rice or a mosquito net was always cheaper than treating one westerner in hospital, but cancer research gets more per capita funding than humanitarian aid. Lomborg makes a living out of pointing out the bleeding obvious by ignoreing the long-term consequences of the inconvenient truth.

We already support humanitarian aid programs to assist development in underdeveloped nations, combat malaria and provide clean water but if populations continue to explode in nations like Bangladesh the victims of AGW will be far greater in number than those currently at risk.

Unfortunately the main aims of any AGW funded project is to discover a new way in which the world can generate increasing amounts of energy while harvesting increasing amounts of foods and fuels from depleting resources for an increasing global population determined to expand the role of business as usual.

Lomborg will stick with the safe bet in the offer of humanitarian aid instead of AGW funds which will give him, job security. The inconvenient reality is that saving more people now will result in far more being at risk in the future while nothing is being done about population increases which is the at the root of the problem.

There could be a global campaign to limit birth rates but the economic impact of ageing populations will severely affect available funds to support the effort.
We could also inhibit industry so that emission levels can drop but the economic impact will severely affect available funds to support the effort.
Finally we can accept that very little can be done to avert the inevitable and enjoy the show.

Andrew;
--I suspect it will take more than a few decades for solar to be competitive with fossil fuels--

It might not take quite that long:

http://www.geek.com/solar-technology-breakthrough-sees-about-4500-watts-per-square-foot/
and also here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/890970.html
I also read about a traditional panel under developemnt in Ontario that is 48% efficient.
that is about 4 times current silicon panels.

Stuff is happening.

Andrew: It wouldn't kill you to actually read what Lomborg has written and engage his arguments. His prediction that solar energy will be cost-competitive with fossil fuels in the next couple of decades is still quite on target, even a couple of years after "The Skeptical Environmentalist" was published. The trend up to now has been maintained despite the scandalously small amount of money our governments have so far thrown at solar power research.

simon: You are wrong if you think that Lomborg has ever claimed that global warming was a myth. As for Kyoto, he still argues that it's ill-conceived and pointless (as it is). The rest of your argument is (predictably) just as ill-informed.

this will be my last post seeing as how i dont get any responses-even though i feal i do make some good points and since im 22- so heres my perspective and a few last points-

a- i remember reading an article on accuweather on how this "global warming" would cause an increase in hurricanes-then i read not to long ago how it would actualy decrease- gee-now im confused

b- even when theres a steady rain going on- the sun is strong enough to go threw the clouds and warm up the temperatures- it may not quite be as warm as it can get-but theres no denying that. Reply: no argument here Donny. Brett

c- as far as severe weather and heavy rainfall/global warming coorelation-there is none-there will be years with above normal rainfall and years below normal-jsut liek this year witha blocking high preessure area this past spring-thats the cause of the drought. Reply: there was that study i posted recently on tropical rainfall. Brett

d- as i put earlier-the sun does go threw clouds-therefore there will always be some heating going on

e- some warmfronts come threw during the overnight hours preceeding a cold front a day or 2 later-during the night-yes the temps can rise due to strong south winds that bring up warm humid air- Reply: that certainly can happen. Brett.

f- my final point- while we should do something to reduce pollution, recycling- and all that other stuff-other then that- we shouldn't worry about something that might not ever occur-i maybe wrong-i maybe right-but life is way to short to continuously worry-

so with that said- i bid y'all farewell-and enjoy life to the fullest.

An interview on Faux News???...GASP!!!...The Right Wing Conspiracy!!!....Brett, how could you post such yellow journalism???....How could you, when Dan Rather is looking for a job!!!......;-D..

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!

"It would appear that CO2 is already causing brain malfunction. Heart problems can't be far behind."

Lol, I read this piece this morning and did my customary eye roll (almost spilled my coffee when I did it though.)

Yesterday I posted…… “Even healthcare is starting to get grants for anything written that ends in, “…with respect to AGW!” …..and then Patrick finds an article that has no relevance to anything remotely resembling medicine, but it does have Global Warming in the title!
Geez! This is so Absurd! This is proof that we are all actors in a Cosmic Woody Allen Movie! What nonsense! Can’t you AGW believes begin to see this is going from the sublime to the ridiculous.

2007 - THE YEAR THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX DIED
Hoaxes have a life of their own and 'global warming' is now coming to an end. Mark 2007 as the year it began to seriously bleed to death.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=1

@Patrick Henry

PH,

I skimmed the link you posted about the death of the AGW hoax. It was interesting. I'm curious. Why do you personally think that AGW theory is incorrect? Is it because you do not believe that the earth has significantly warmed in the last several decades? Is it that you believe the world has warmed, but that it has been caused by simple natural fluctuation in the climate. Do you actually believe that people are being deliberatly mislead as to AGW, or that AGW "supporters" are just mistaken. I'm sorryif you've answered these questions before, but I am fairly new to theses forums.

I agree with this guy on most things. The problem is that a "middle-of-the-road" approach isn't acceptable to most of the denier ilk. Most of them are corporate apologists who have their radio dials tuned onto Rush Limbaugh at this very moment.

Middle-of-the-road approaches work well when you're dealing with rational people. Most AGW deniers, in my experience, do not fit this category.

cmbclean,

Thx for asking.

I can see that some places have warmed significantly. Much of the western US has warmed during the last 40 years. It is likely that some of this warming is due to CO2. We also know that solar activity has been high for the last 50 years. This certainly is contributing to warming.

Another factor in the graphs is poor accounting for UHI and other statistical manipulation by Hansen and others.

My problem with the whole thing is that I don't see any evidence of a crisis, and even if there was - the heavy handed proposals I'm hearing for for dealing with it are both dangerous and useless.

Like Lomborg states, there are lots of serious problems we can and must do something about. Unless the population of humans quits increasing at a rapid rate, targeting GHG emissions seems to be nearly a complete waste of time and an undoubtedly fruitless activity. It is nothing but an excuse to raise taxes and fund the UN as far as I can tell.

As an experiment in futility, try asking your neighbor to give up his car four days a week, and then multiply that reaction by 7 billion.

A little off-topic here, but this different perspective on climate offsets is rather disturbing:
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/printable/3788/

"Middle-of-the-road approaches work well when you're dealing with rational people. Most AGW deniers, in my experience, do not fit this category."

Deja vu?

Nothing is ever accomplished by a reasonable man

George Bernard Shaw

Us deniers are no less rational than you AGW'ers Mark!!!

It is incredibly irrational to believe that we can quadruple the population of the earth and reduce per capita emission of CO2 by 80%. This would require that everyone on the planet stop breathing most of the time, stop eating most of the time, and quit driving cars most of the time.

It is also wildly irrational to believe that places which average -15 to -60C in the summer are going to melt.

"It is incredibly irrational to believe that we can quadruple the population of the earth and reduce per capita emission of CO2 by 80%. This would require that everyone on the planet stop breathing most of the time, stop eating most of the time, and quit driving cars most of the time."

First off, the planet isn't going to quadruple in population. That's something you just made up. Population growth rates continue to decrease; right now it's about 1% per year and continuing to decrease. By 2050 we'll likely be at around 9.3 billion people or so.

Second, the 80 percent reduction number you're throwing around is simply for the United States, not the world. 80 percent may be too high of a goal, but not because of the technology -- indeed, I believe the technology will be there to reduce emissions by 80 percent by 2050. So the big hurdle isn't the technology. It's overcoming the right-wing Libertarian movement who have a vested interest in the preserving the status quo.

The AGW denialist religion is based on this movement. They're very similar to the tobacco sympathizers back in the 1960s.

Patrick,

If people stopped breathing, they would die; the following natural process would consequently emit large amounts of CO2, thus exacerbating the whole problem. On the other hand, we wouldn't have to worry about the population quadrupling. I suppose it's plausible then that the net result would be a decrease in CO2 emissions.

Regarding your other comment, it may not be necessary for ice to melt in places where it only reaches -15 degrees C. Assuming you're referring to Greenland or Antarctica (and the more likely place at the present time would be Greenland), all that is required is for the ice to move somewhere where temperatures reach 0 degrees C or higher.

Presumably, this would occur once coastal sea ice melts, thus eliminating the forces (aside from friction) that impede the downhill flow of glaciers. This would in theory cause glaciers to move faster (and thus melt faster) toward warmer climes where they are free to fracture and melt more rapidly. Assuming the rate of ice loss exceeds the rate of ice accumulation system-wide (system-wide being the key term), the volume of the glacier will decrease without any need for ice to melt in sub-zero temperatures.

Travis,

system-wide being the key term

Absolutely agree.

There is a finite amount of fossil fuels on the planet. They will all get used up over the next couple of hundred years, whether they are burned in China, Russia, India or somewhere else. People in the US and Europe are still going to have to drive to work, breath and eat.

The net contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere is going to be the same over the next 50-200 years, no matter what games politicians play in the meantime.

As far as glacial movement goes, the only things that can move glaciers are-

1. A downward slope of the rock surface below causing gravity sliding.

2. Increased mass of ice in the interior, causing the glacial front to push outwards.

3. Decreased mass of the glacier causing the edges to retreat.

BTW - I noticed yesterday that Osama is worried about global warming too. The platform he outlined is barely distinguishable from that of the Democratic Party. How about an Osama/Obama ticket?

Mark - a "middle-of-the-road" approach is perfectly acceptable to this skeptic, since it means to do virtually nothing!

Do nothing to combat a non-existent problem? Now that makes sense!

Patrick - LOL!

Why is it we never see studies demonstrating the positive benefits of a warmer world? I guess the real $$$ is made by scaring people.

Remember Al Gore isn't qualified to make any of his statements or predictions either, yet everyone listens to him.