Need to know????

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Maybe because Bjorn Lomborg is a "hack" who is laughed at by his peers in the scientific community.

Just guessing though.

Oh I forgot Al Gore is a esteemed scientist himself. He chickened out plain and simple.
Don't let anyone sway you from your cherished beliefs.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Don't let anyone sway you from your cherished beliefs.

Not in a million years.

[Michael Larson]

Bjørn Lomborg Bio

Bjørn Lomborg, born January 6 1965.
M.A. in political science (Cand.scient.pol.) 1991.
Ph.D. at the Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen. 1994.
Assistant professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Aarhus, 1994-1996.
Associate professor same place, 1997-2005.
Director of Denmark's national Environmental Assessment Institute February 2002-July 2004.
Organizer of the Copenhagen Consensus May 2004, prioritizing the best opportunities to the world's big challenges.
Adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School 2005-.
Director for the Copenhagen Consensus Center 2006-.Bjørn Lomborg was named one of the 100 globally most influential people by Time magazine in April 2004. Foreign Policy and Prospect Magazine had him listed as the world’s 14th most influential intellectual in October 2005.

He is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, and author of the best-selling “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, where he challenges our understanding of the environment, and points out how we need to focus our attention on the most important problems first. His first book has been published in the major languages around the world and he is a frequent participant in the current debate, with commentaries in such places as New York Times, Wall St. Journal, Globe & Mail, The Guardian, The Daily and Sunday Telegraph, The Times, The Australian, the Economist. He has also appeared on TV, such places as Politically Incorrect, ABC 60 minutes, CNN, BBC, CNBC, and PBS.

In May 2004 he organized the "Copenhagen Consensus" which brought together some of the world's top economists. Here they prioritized the best opportunities to the world's big challenges, essentially answering the question: If we want to do good, where should we start? In June 2006 he assembled a number of top UN ambassadors, including representatives from China, India and the UN, representing about half the world’s population. They also answered the question, and came out with a similar ranking, the first of its kind for the UN. The conferences and their results have resulted in two books: "Global Crises, Global Solutions" and "How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place"

[Jason1]

Updated IPCC report due in February:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Human-caused global warming is here -- visible in the air, water and melting ice -- and is destined to get much worse in the future, an authoritative global scientific report will warn next week.

"The smoking gun is definitely lying on the table as we speak," said top U.S. climate scientist Jerry Mahlman, who reviewed all 1,600 pages of the first segment of a giant four-part report. "The evidence ... is compelling."

Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate scientist and study co-author, went even further: "This isn't a smoking gun; climate is a batallion of intergalactic smoking missiles."

The first phase of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is being released in Paris next week.

This segment, written by more than 600 scientists and reviewed by another 600 experts and edited by bureaucrats from 154 countries, includes "a significantly expanded discussion of observation on the climate," said co-chair Susan Solomon a senior scientist for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She and other scientists held a telephone briefing on the report Monday.
That report will feature an "explosion of new data" on observations of current global warming, Solomon said.

Solomon and others wouldn't go into specifics about what the report says.
They said that the 12-page summary for policymakers will be edited in secret word-by-word by governments officials for several days next week and released to the public on February 2. The rest of that first report from scientists will come out months later.

The full report will be issued in four phases over the year, as was the case with the last IPCC report, issued in 2001.

Global warming is "happening now, it's very obvious," said Mahlman, a former director of NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Lab. "When you look at the temperature of the Earth, it's pretty much a no-brainer."

Look for an "iconic statement" -- a simple but strong and unequivocal summary -- on how global warming is now occurring, said one of the authors, Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, also in Boulder.

The February report will have "much stronger evidence now of human actions on the change in climate that's taken place," Rajendra K. Pachauri told the AP in November. Pachauri, an Indian climatologist, is the head of the international climate change panel.

An early version of the ever-changing draft report said "observations of coherent warming in the global atmosphere, in the ocean, and in snow and ice now provide stronger joint evidence of warming."

And the early draft adds: "An increasing body of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on other aspects of climate including sea ice, heat waves and other extremes, circulation, storm tracks and precipitation."
The world's global average temperature has risen about 1.2 degrees Fahrenheit from 1901 to 2005. The two warmest years on record for the world were 2005 and 1998. Last year was the hottest year on record for the United States.

The report will draw on already published peer-review science. Some recent scientific studies show that temperatures are the hottest in thousands of years, especially during the last 30 years; ice sheets in Greenland in the past couple years have shown a dramatic melting; and sea levels are rising and doing so at a faster rate in the past decade.

Also, the second part of the international climate panel's report -- to be released in April -- will for the first time feature a blockbuster chapter on how global warming is already changing health, species, engineering and food production, said NASA scientist Cynthia Rosenzweig, author of that chapter.
As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they've already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises.

Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.

In 2001, the panel said the world's average temperature would increase somewhere between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit and the sea level would rise between 4 inches and 35 inches by the year 2100. The 2007 report will likely have a smaller range of numbers for both predictions, Pachauri and other scientists said.

The future is bleak, scientists said.

"We have barely started down this path," said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.

[Michael Larson]

O boy, I can hardly wait jason1. They have been "leaking" snippets for weeks. Why would they do that? Sounds for like a promotional campaign.
We can talk about the IPCC all day but that totally avoids the original purpose of this discussion(or lack there of) which I will state once again for your convenience.

1. If we accept the premise that "global warming" is actually occurring, what can or should be done about it?

2. Again-If we accept the premise that "global warming" is actually occurring, are there any "winners" or only losers if we do nothing?

3. If we endeavor to meet the goals of the Kyoto protocols, what will that mean for our futures and more importantly our children?

4. If we find that the "costs" of mitigating "global warming" (likely well beyond what Kyoto call for) are those $$$$$$$ better spent anywhere else?

There has been little or no discussion on these questions.
Do you want to try again?
If you think the questions are flawed in some way please point that out.
If you think they shouldn't be asked, please tell us why

[Jason1]

Alright, I'm game. Here we go.....

Originally Posted by mlarson

1. If we accept the premise that "global warming" is actually occurring, what can or should be done about it?

First of all we have to agree it is happening, I think I have proved that.

What should be done about it? Anything in our power, even small things that we do everyday that add up to big things, i.e. carpool, trade the SUV in for a fuell efficient car, recycle, vote in a government that is committed to fighting the problem, etc. etc. etc.


2. Again-If we accept the premise that "global warming" is actually occurring, are there any "winners" or only losers if we do nothing?

Again, it is happening, so lets drop that argument.

Are there winners? Sure, some countries will win by having a warmer climate, crops that didn't grow before will flourish, some economies will prosper, but at what cost to us?? Or even better, at what cost to the fine balance of mother nature?

If you are purely an economist then the point is mute, I think of all human kind in my beliefs.



3. If we endeavor to meet the goals of the Kyoto protocols, what will that mean for our futures and more importantly our children?

I would hope a brighter future, isn't that what you want for your children? I sure would like to leave this earth knowing my daughter can enjoy our environment without having fear of it - don't you??


4. If we find that the "costs" of mitigating "global warming" (likely well beyond what Kyoto call for) are those $$$$$$$ better spent anywhere else?

Asinine question.

I would love to have a cure for cancer, or AIDS, or even herpes for all that matters. All these thing effect a "percentage" of our population.

Climate change effects 100% OF US, it is the only thing that effects all of us. Isn't it worth our attention?

There has been little or no discussion on these questions.
Do you want to try again?

Quid pro Quo Micheal,

1. Do you agree climate change is happening?

2. Do you agree man has a part in it?

3. Do you think we should do something about it?

4. What do you think we should do about it?

5. Where do you think our dollars would be better spent?

6. If we don't endevour to meet the goals of the Koyoto protocal, what do you think it means to the future of our children?

7. Do you respect the IPCC report on climate change? Do you agree?

8. What's your favourite colour?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Alright, I'm game. Here we go.....

8. What's your favourite colour?

Blue

That's all for now. I have had a fever exceeding 103F the last couple of days (Wife and kids too) and can hardly think straight. I will return when my head clears.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

I have had a fever exceeding 103F the last couple of days

Likely due to a cold or flu which can be traced back to global warming.

The incubation period for cold and flu germs is much longer due to the higher global temperature.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Likely due to a cold or flu which can be traced back to global warming.

The incubation period for cold and flu germs is much longer due to the higher global temperature.

Do you have a source for that assertion?

Read this and start worrying:Global Warming and Increased Suicide Risk:

And we should trust these scientists! Why?

[Michael Larson]

Ten facts about global warming

THEY don’t want you to know

• Britain is one degree Celsius cooler now than it was at the time of the Domesday book.
• Greenland got its name from the verdant pastures that attracted the Norse settlers under Eric the Red in 986. They carried on their normal way of life (based on cattle, grain, hay and herring) for 300 years until the Little Ice Age, when they were driven off by the encroaching ice and the Inuit took over. The ice and the Inuit are still there.
• Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere there is over a hundred times the concentration of water vapour, which is the dominant greenhouse gas.
• Without the Greenhouse Effect there would be no life on Earth.
• Temperature measurements by satellite, radio sonde balloons and well maintained rural surface stations in the West show no significant warming.
• The only evidence of significant warming comes from mainly non-western stations that are probably ill maintained or those that are contaminated by the Urban Heat Island Effect.
• Computer models of the climate are worthless, as they are based on many assumptions about interactions between climate factors that are still unknown to science. They are generally unstable and chaotic, giving a wide variety of answers depending on the input assumptions.
• The Kyoto agreement would have a devastating effect on the world economy but, since carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, an undetectable effect on the climate.
• The IPCC (the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has been the main engine for promoting the global warming scare. It has become notorious for its corrupt practices of doctoring its reports and executive summaries, after they have been approved by the participating scientists, to conform to its political objectives
• The really big lie about man-made global warming is that almost all scientists accept it. More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (199 which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.

[Michael Larson]

Food for thought.

No one has a remotely good idea about how to make any difference in global warming without enlisting China and India, and without destroying the carbon-based Western economy. The obvious first step, however, is an extremely powerful source of energy that produces not an ounce of carbon dioxide: nuclear.
What about nuclear waste? Well, coal produces toxic pollutants, as does oil. Both produce carbon dioxide that we are told is going to end civilization as we know it. These wastes are widely dispersed and almost impossible to recover once they get thrown into the atmosphere.
Nukes produce waste as well, but it comes out concentrated -- very toxic and lasting nearly forever, but because it is packed into a small manageable volume, it is more controllable. And it doesn't pollute the atmosphere. At all.
There is no free lunch. Producing energy is going to produce waste. You pick your poison and you find a way to manage it. Want to do something about global warming? How many global warming activists are willing to say the word nuclear?



full article

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Do you have a source for that assertion?

Read this and start worrying: Global warming possibly linked to an enhanced risk of suicide:

And we should trust these scientists! Why?

Your link is directed to a Nachi page, I don't think NACHI has anything to do with the suicide rate, but I could be worng.

So all this crap your posting, does that mean you are not going to answer my questions?

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

Your link is directed to a Nachi page, I don't think NACHI has anything to do with the suicide rate, but I could be worng.

So all this crap your posting, does that mean you are not going to answer my questions?

Repaired link(thanks, I don't know what happeded) Global Warming and Increased Suicide Risk


Did you read any of the "crap"?

I will as soon as I feel like it. Please be paitent.
I know how hard that is for you. Like waitng to see if there is really sufficient evidence to destroy western economies for the cause of "global warming" without expecting China and India to follow suit.
Gee, talk about picking winners and loosers. Sounds political not scientific.

[Jason1]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Did you read any of the "crap"?

It's the same useless arguments you nay-sayers always post. Do I really need to show you the errors of your arguments?

I will be waiting with bated breath on the answers to those questions, Micheal.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Jason1

It's the same useless arguments you nay-sayers always post. Do I really need to show you the errors of your arguments?

I will be waiting with bated breath on the answers to those questions, Micheal.

Logical arguments can not be tolerated unless they agree with the party line then, eh?

Back off on the Koolaide.