You must be registered to comment and vote on comments.
Plans to save the environment will only savage the global economy.
Here are a couple of interesting links about Lomborg and his work:
And don't worry liberals - he's one of you.
A much better analysis, compiled by real scientists and economists, is offered by the Union of Concerned Scientists, http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/big_picture_solutions/climate-2030-blueprint.html. They show that cuts in emissions realize considerable savings. Not costs, but SAVINGS. Whatever model Bjorn used to claim expenditures of $46T to offset damages of $1.1T is seriously flawed.
the union of concerned scientists wouldn't know science if it bit them in the rear end.
They are 100% political hacks.
Bjorn Lomborg, director of the business funded Copenhagen Consensus Center, is a notorious climate change denier. He completely ignores the devastating environmental and economic effects of climate change to promote corporations which benefit from polluting industries. He fails to mention the economic benefits of developing clean energy alternatives. He is not a scientist and is increasingly being marginalized by the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting the serious threats of global climate change produced by real scientists. This information is readily available on the web and observalbe in the news of more frequent weather related disasters all over the world.
By all means, debate whether climate change policies are critical to the environment, and whether or not we have a moral obligation to do something.
But to argue that environmental restrictions will SAVE us money? Absolutely ridiculous. Do you really take us readers for fools? You are either delusional or intellectually dishonest. I don't really care which you are, but people reading these comments will all know better than to believe such rubbish.
His very simple point, if one actually pays attention, is that the estimated costs outweigh the benefits. It's amusing to read the extreme hyperbole used to denounce him already appearing in these comments. The message from them is clear: dare to question the climate changers and you will be hated and vilified. @solarnow: In response to your "real scientists and economists": look up the "True Scotsman" logical fallacy. @rosenbla: And the head of the IPCC is a former... railway engineer, turned economist. But you're right, Lomborg isn't a "real scientist" (again with the same logical fallacy).
it is a theory. The media and climate change proponents report it as if it is a fact, but it is not. There are plenty of reputable scientists on BOTH sides. A scientific fact is something like 'the earth is round'. That can be proven now by scientific measurement and even observation by astronauts etc. There is NO dispute. Climate change is a theory that has NOT been proven and scientists, politicians and the media should stop reporting on it as 'fact'.
we sat there wide-eyed listening to our teachers predict GLOBAL FREEZING if we didn't change our capitalist polluting ways. It was scary, and probably induced many of my classmates to become "environmentalists." Ironically, the teachers were right - we will have another ice age, someday. But guess what? There's absolutely nothing we can do about it. Today's "global warming," or - as it has morphed - "climate change" hysteria is a case study in agenda driven politics and science. All the hallmarks are there: a purported "crisis;" busybody "experts" exaggerating matters and proposing very punitive and incredibly expensive solutions; and uncertainty about the effectiveness of the proposed "solutions." Even promoters of a climate change crisis largely agree that the proposed "solutions" will not significantly alter temperature fluctuations and all of the purported disastrous effects therefrom. So what is this all about?! I hope I live long enough to see this entire matter exposed for what it is. And I hope by then the chicken little college professors can actually acknowledge the error of their ways, and accept the discredit they so deserve. But, alas, I probably ask too much. Undoubtedly, these busybodies will be occupied with some other new and dire crisis requiring drastic and expensive "solutions."
Why are some folks so against this? Climate change is just a theory? So is Quantum technology and Algorithmic information and plate tectonics. Are you going to argue the cause of earthquakes? The poles are diminishing at an exponential rate (proven), are you going to argue that a planet is habitable if does not have frozen poles? Our already overstretched food supply quota is set to double by 2050, that will be devastating for and unsustainable for our planet. CO2 parts per million in our atmosphere are at this moment is 387 and growing (proven). 350 is the highest sustainable limit(proven), that means that our planet (that we all owe our lives to) is dying because of our will. Changing this will not be easy or cheap but it must be done, it is irresponsible to deny that.
While I was at the U of Minn in the mid 1970's, global cooling was all the rage. The government scientists were developing a plan to explode nuclear bombs around the globe to generate so much polution in the air, the globe would then recover from the cooling effect. It was very well settled in the scientific community in the 1970's that we were entering a period of global cooling.
Your comment is being reviewed for inclusion on the site.
Comments will be reviewed before being published.
The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.
Poll: What's your favorite food to cook on the grill?
425 Portland Av. S.
Minneapolis, MN 55488
© 2013 StarTribune. All rights reserved.
StarTribune.com is powered by Limelight Networks