Click here for the report from a multinational scientific committee of several thousand scientists, available online in a 146 page pdf file. I have read about half of this so far, and I must recommend it to everyone. If you know of someone who doesn't believe in global warming, I feel it is your responsiblity to slap them across the face with this report. The threats of extinction of most arctic species and severe economic consequences are very real and we only have about 10 years left to deal with them before the "tipping point" is reached. Do yourself and your children a favor and read this report.
Also check out Bill McKibben's reporting on Gristmill.org from the climate change conference at Middlebury College in Vermont. Good Stuff.
4 comments:
Guess I'm one of those "unbelievers" in your version of "global warming."
The total inadquacy of current computer models is just too great to reach any of the conclusions your "study suggestion" suggests. The number of factors that are left out of the models is even greater than the factors included. I suggest you read Lomborg. By the way, I suggest you also please explain the origin of El Nino.
Your wrong in thinking I haven't read Lomborg. I was intrigued by a review of his book "Skeptical Environmentalist" a few years ago in Scientific American. Fact: Lomborg is a statistician and has no training in ecology.
Misleading Math about the Earth
Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
CRITICAL thinking and hard data are cornerstones of all good science. Because environmental sciences are so keenly important to both our biological and economic survival-causes that are often seen to be in conflict-they deserve full scrutiny. With that in mind, the book The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press), by Bjorn Lomborg, a statistician and political scientist at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, should be a welcome audit. And yet it isn't.
As the book's subtitle-Measuring the Real State of the World-indicates, Lomborg's intention was to reanalyze environmental data so that the public might make policy decisions based on the truest understanding of what science has determined. His conclusion, which he writes surprised even him, was that contrary to the gloomy predictions of degradation he calls "the litany," everything is getting better. Not that all is rosy, but the future for the environment is less dire than is supposed. Instead Lomborg accuses a pessimistic and dishonest cabal of environmental groups, institutions and the media of distorting scientists' actual findings. (A copy of the book's first chapter can be found at www.lomborg.org)...continued at Scientific American.com
I always find it fascinating that those in your movement selectively chose which facts to believe. It has become the hallmark of environmentalism. You obviously can't answer my question about El Nino and you won't or more accurately don't know how or why it occurs. Thus you actively ignore answering the question. It is just one of hundreds of issues your movement refuses to address.
You chose to denigrate Mr. Lomborg rather than attempting to rebutt his argument which you are incapable of doing. The "fact" that he has "no" training in ecology is immaterial. I doubt you read Lomborg, rather you read a book review which supported your predisposition.
Those of your ilk cannot stand the light of numbers because most of your so-called science is based on nothing more than your leftist political views.
Two things that cannot be predicted in the short or long term impact on weather is precession and solar fluctuations, yet you doggedly cling to theories that you cannot substantiate.
Forgive me, I always forget that you can accurately predict the future with the numbers you want to ignore from Lomborg while blindly accepting highly questionable computer models. I find your contradiction typical of alleged global warming devotes. Lomborg's numbers lie. You are not a statistician yet you demand that the world believe your numbers. I'm sure you won't let facts contrary to your predisposed conclusions, get in the way. With your amazing ability at prognistication, you ought to head to Las Vegas. Good Luck
You remind me of Ted Danson who in about 1990 warned that the seas would be dead in 10 years, which they are....right?
Please log in so that I can give you credit for your comments. Thanks!
Post a Comment