Pseudo scientific hysteria is the
wrong answer to climate change
by
Bjorn Lomborg
Original Article
Posted By: StormCnter,
8/3/2019 2:31:07 PM
A year ahead of the US presidential election, exaggeration about global warming is greater than ever. While some politicians continue (incorrectly) to insist it’s made up, far more insist (also incorrectly) that we face an imminent climate crisis threatening civilization.
During this week’s Democratic debates, Pete Buttigieg called 2030 a “point of no return,” Beto O’Rourke warned we don’t have “more than 10 years to get this right” and Andrew Yang claimed climate change has already moved beyond a tipping point: “We are 10 years too late,” he said.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Plex 8/3/2019 2:38:42 PM (No. 141814)
As temperatures continue to fall as the sun goes into one of its extended quiet periods (much longer that the 11 year cycle) it will be interesting to see how the warmists respond. Of course it could be that this prediction is also wrong.
7 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
DVC 8/3/2019 2:44:34 PM (No. 141815)
I agree, OP, but don't get too wrapped up about the sifting garbage from the ocean. The myth of these great garbage piles in the middle of the Pacific and other oceans are just that. If you look closer into these claims, they fall entirely apart, just EcoHype nonsense. The "concentrated trash" areas have some small pieces of plastic floating, but nothing like the almost manmade garbage islands that they want you to envision. A few grams of plastic per cubit meter is what they mean.
Do humans dump too much trash into the oceans? Well, of course. But it is mostly from Asia where huge rivers are still used as the place to dump everything, and it all washes into the sea.
The USA has almost entirely stopped pollution on a large scale, but India, China and a lot of other places which are still poor, and do not have any ethics about polluting are still dumping massive quantities of pollution into air, water and on land. China is one of the worst, by far. The air in China his horrible in many places, and the water the same, and industrial pollution is unabated in most instances.
And NONE of this has anything to do with the climate on a long time scale. But you really can make a mess out of a river or a lake by dumping huge, industrial quantities of pollutants.
And carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant, it is a normal product of breathing of all animals, and is taken in by all green plants. Not a pollutant any more than oxygen is a pollutant.
12 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Maggie2u 8/3/2019 3:32:13 PM (No. 141834)
Well, I'm going to ask this for the 10,000th time. What is the correct temperature for the Earth and when did it occur?
8 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bad-hair 8/3/2019 3:46:54 PM (No. 141843)
Ditto #3 My question comes in 3 parts.
1 Is the earth warming, cooling or what, and to what degree ?
2. Are you certain that humans are causing it ?
3. How does me giving my hard earned money to the government FIX IT ?
I agree with Lomborg. I have no problem with "green" energy. Just improve it until you can sell it cheaper tha what I'm using now and without tax subsidies.
4 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
saguni 8/3/2019 4:00:13 PM (No. 141855)
I would like to know the name of any "scientist" who supports man-made global warming...NO, I want to know the name and the exact type of "science" his degree is in...just sitting here reading the insane ramblings of man-made global warming extremists, I wonder if there is even ONE who studied climate, meteorology, oceanography, or astronomy who supports the extremists.
Why is Mars experiencing the same warming trend as the Earth, without carbon based fuels?
How much effect do sunspots have on our climate?? Can it be quantified?? Should we try to "remedy" this??
What about volcanoes?? Mount St. Helens put out as much pollution as the entire US has since the industrial revolution.
How about warming/cooling cycles in the deep Atlantic (hurricanes) or Pacific (typhoons) effect on number/severity of storms?
As vast as the US is, we account for less than 5% of the surface of the world...how can we be the only ones to "fix" this??
Why do the extremists want "zero carbon emissions" when all plant life requires carbon dioxide to survive??
3 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 8/3/2019 4:20:28 PM (No. 141867)
"the only way to overcome these exorbitant costs with voters is by scaring people silly."
Except the Alarmists have been continually wrong, have been caught out fudging data and lying, and their own reports say that even if we do what they want, the impact would be so inconsequential as to make no difference.
Instead of scaring us silly, they are making themselves look silly.
"Instead of scaring voters, we should innovate down the price of the green energy"
This is magical thinking. The authors make the ABSOLUTELY WRONG assumption that huge improvements are possible that will make sun and solar enormously more efficient. There are physical limits as to how much energy can be pulled out of sunlight and wind and we are nearing those limits. Certainly some improvements are still possible but there is going to be NO massive gains in cost or efficiency. It simply is NOT possible.
Plus what do you do when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Store energy in batteries? The cost of building batteries is enormous plus they use rare materials that would require massive amounts of mining to retrieve. Plus, the storage capacity of such batteries is very limited. We have a strategic reserve of months of oil. If we made a MASSIVE effort to create batteries, far more than feasible, we might have a couple days of reserve. It's absurd. The truth of the situation is that fossil fuels are the most efficient ways to store energy by a massive margin. There is NO technological equivalent in "green" energy science. Nothing anywhere close.
Alarmists try to compare the problem to landing someone on the moon. In a paper by Mark P. Mills he describes it like this, "transforming
the energy economy is not like putting a few people on the moon a few times. It is like putting all of humanity on the moon—permanently."
Think about the impossible scope of that and let's get real.
The scare is vastly exaggerated and possibly completely wrong and the proposed solutions are scientific fraud and impossible to implement.
The people that push this are seeking power, control, and money. We should deny them anything.
4 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Ming 8/3/2019 4:29:17 PM (No. 141871)
Lomborg is the true definition of a scientist, he never allows emotion to cloud his scientific judgement.
2 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Phantomll 8/3/2019 4:31:18 PM (No. 141872)
What #3 said. If you want to drive a libtard crazy, ask him/her "what's the ideal temperature of the earth." Good luck receiving an answer.
5 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
coyote 8/3/2019 4:36:56 PM (No. 141881)
We have 10 years to get it right, as similar voices said 60 years ago (or more).
4 people like this.
Before you decide anything, watch this video on Svensmark's Cloud theory. Now there may be a commercial ad before the video ignore it; it has nothing to do with the actual documentary. This is an important development in understanding what is happening here on earth. And pass it on if you agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ
0 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 8/3/2019 5:56:19 PM (No. 141936)
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. Pestilences and diseases. These are but the beginning of the labor pains. Watch out that no one deceives you. If you didn't already know it, MAN didn't make the Earth and man cannot break it.
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
JackBurton 8/4/2019 12:30:28 PM (No. 142463)
One problem with the article. It never mentions nuclear power. We can have uranium fission plants, develop thorium plants, and have them working 24/7... when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow (at the right speed.) Uranium fuel can be put in a breeder reactor, brought back up to useful levels and be used over and over for 350 years or so. Sustainable. Thorium is a scrap by-product of rare-earths mining. We currently throw it away.
Either way, talk like this is the result of people believing that carbon dioxide, alone, is a problem and that the 2-3% produced annually by humans (vs the 97-98% produced naturally) is THE problem
Well. that's just special.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "StormCnter"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Why can't we simply concentrate on clean water, clean air, wildlife protection, technology to sift garbage from the oceans and such things as we have some control over without bankrupting this nation for no clear benefit to anyone but Al Gore.