Friday
This is especially interesting since it [the IPCC report] fundamentally rejects one of the most harrowing scenes from Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth. In graphic detail, Mr Gore demonstrated how a 20-foot rise in the sea level would inundate much of Florida, Shanghai, and the Netherlands. The IPCC report makes it clear that exaggerations of this magnitude have no basis in science - though clearly they frightened people and perhaps will win Mr Gore an Oscar.
All credit to the Guardian for risking accusations of heresy for publishing such impious sanity.
Weather reports from Mars indicate there is a danger global warming will soon ruin their enjoyment of the winter sports season on the Red Planet.
Apparently those little green men in their SUVs have been causing so much carbon emissions that the polar ice caps are melting.
Meanwhile a congress of Martian scientists all agree that apparent warming on neighbouring planet Earth is localised and entirely caused by the recent increase in solar radiation and nothing to do with the activity of its primitive monkey-descended inhabitants.
Posted by Wolfie at February 9, 2007 11:04 PM
It is instructive how Lomborg is instantly attacked in the Guardian's comments for something he has not said, and called a "denier".
Posted by guy herbert at February 10, 2007 11:37 AM
Are you daring to suggest that the Dutch have got so much taller for no good reason? God will not be mocked.
Posted by dearieme at February 10, 2007 11:41 AM
And then, what are the long necks of swans for? They, at least, will survive rising seal levels! Repent!
Posted by Spruance at February 10, 2007 12:29 PM
How long before GW denial is added to the list of punishable offences in the EU...
Posted by TimC at February 10, 2007 02:04 PM
I admire and applaud Lomborg, but I want also to criticize him.
He basically takes the line of argument: "yes, GW is happening as per the IPCC report, but it's not so urgent, and if we have resources to spend it would be better to spend them on more immediately beneficial goals like fighting AIDS or malaria".
This is a good argument, but a more basic argument needs to be made also: the science behind the IPCC report is shaky and dubious. It claims are far from solid facts.
Posted by Jacob at February 10, 2007 02:33 PM
You can take the environmentalist out of the politician, but the reverse is not true.
Posted by Stanford Matthews at February 10, 2007 04:39 PM
>>This is a good argument, but a more basic argument needs to be made also: the science behind the IPCC report is shaky and dubious. It claims are far from solid facts.
This could well be the case, but i am not expecting to die this year, but just in case ive taken out life insurance.
Theres good reason to reduce our use of fossil fuels regardless of GW Hysteria, giving trillions of petrol-dollars to people who hate us, is just one.
Investing in new tech, building new nuclear reactors, using GM for more intensive farming (thus less land use) would be a good start.
Posted by SEAN MORRIS at February 10, 2007 07:16 PM
"Investing in new tech..."
By all means - go invest in new tech. Nobody is keeping you from doing it. Nobody is preventing new technology.
The greens want to invest MY MONEY in new tech - that is to have government invest tax money. That's unacceptable.
Posted by Jacob at February 10, 2007 09:58 PM
Totally agree, 100%
look who's out in front!(Link)
Posted by SEAN MORRIS at February 11, 2007 01:11 PM
>
As Goebbels (I think) said: "The bigger the lie, the more likely people are to believe it."
Posted by Robert at February 11, 2007 03:05 PM
I'm amazed nobody has mentioned the two words which always get greens frothing at the mouth. They are:
"Jeremy" & "Clarkson"
Posted by Nick M at February 11, 2007 04:28 PM
