-
Extremists Dominate Public Science Debates
February 17, 2011 | 28 comments
-
Opposition to GM Organisms Hard to Justify
January 31, 2011 | 12 comments
-
Environmentalists Block Scientific Progress
December 18, 2010 | 2 comments
-
Are Organic and Green Products a Scam?
December 10, 2010 | 34 comments
-
Stephen Hawking Should Stick to Physics
November 6, 2010 | 87 comments
The Spectacle Blog
The global warming debate is dominated by two extremes. Those on the Left insist climate change mandates a dubious cap-and-trade policy, while those on the Right insist climate science is a fraud or a United Nations-sponsored conspiracy. Put simply, the Left rejects practicality, and the Right rejects reality. Bjorn Lomborg’s movie attempts to spark a reasonable conversation about an important topic badly in need of sanity.
Sanity, however, is not easy to find. Early in the film, Mr. Lomborg discusses how some of his critics attempted to destroy his career. These vicious personal attacks culminated in a Danish government investigation of Mr. Lomborg’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, after which he was ultimately cleared of scientific dishonesty or wrongdoing. Fortunately, the opposition Mr. Lomborg has faced has not stopped him from advancing his worthy ideas.
Mr. Lomborg’s thesis is straightforward: Global warming is real and humanity needs to do something about it. However, scare tactics and exaggerations, typified by Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth, are both unscientific and unproductive. Memorably, Mr. Gore trumpeted the improbable claims that humanity only had 10 years to save the planet, and if we failed, the oceans would rise by 20 feet. Essentially, the annihilation of Earth was a foregone conclusion unless there was an immediate international agreement to adopt a multi-billion dollar cap-and-trade scheme.
Thankfully, Mr. Lomborg walks us back from the ledge. He points out that even if the Kyoto Protocol had been fully adopted and implemented, it would only decrease global temperature by 0.008 degree Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Similarly, current European Union climate policy will cost $250 billion of GDP annually, yet it will likely decrease global temperature by a mere 0.1 degree Fahrenheit. Isn’t there a better use for all that money? Mr. Lomborg says yes.
Instead of wasting all that money on politically-correct ideas that do not work, the money should be invested in practical solutions that do. For example, if global warming increases the incidence of malaria, the sensible solution is to provide medicine and vaccines. If global warming threatens polar bears, the best solution is to stop shooting them. (Yes, people still hunt polar bears.) If sea levels rise by the current UN estimate of approximately one foot, the rational plan is to construct flood control systems, such as the one used by the Netherlands.
Besides being outrageously expensive, policies intended to curb pollution may also end up curbing economic growth and development. Climate change activists who ignore this are overlooking a simple fact of human existence: Poor people want to improve their lot in life. Citizens of developing countries, such as India and China, are not interested in saving the planet. On the contrary, they are interested in technological advancement. (This, of course, requires more electricity, and the easiest way to get that is by burning fossil fuels.)
The stark contrast between the mentalities of the developed and developing world was poignantly portrayed in two classroom scenes: Schoolchildren in Europe were concerned about global warming, while schoolchildren in Africa were concerned about malnutrition and disease. While European children envisioned nightmares of a burning planet, African children dreamed of owning a television. The futility, and perhaps even cruelty, of imposing carbon caps on a world preoccupied with escaping poverty was crystal clear.
The ultimate solution to climate change, Mr. Lomborg believes, is not increasing the cost of fossil fuels (through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes) but by making alternative energy desirably cheap. He believes this can be done through investing in green energy research using the money the world would save by not implementing economy-killing climate laws. In addition to solar and wind power, Mr. Lomborg supports research into algae biofuel, geoengineering, and nuclear reactors powered by waste.
While Mr. Lomborg neither addresses his solutions in great detail nor discusses the likelihood of global water shortages, he has made an admirable attempt to inject reason, practicality, and decency into a bitterly divisive issue. If the United States and international community hope to make progress on combating climate change, it would be best if there were fewer people like Al Gore and more people like Bjorn Lomborg.
Alex B. Berezow, Ph.D., is the Editor of RealClearScience.
View all comments (34) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Alex B. Berezow
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/11/19/bjorn-lomborgs-cool-it-is-a-br
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Sarah Palin’s Rack
- Razing Reagan
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Bob K.| 11.19.10 @ 8:06AM
Dr. Berezow,
I think that perhaps the first sentence of your third paragraph should be more accurately: "Global warming is real and humanity needs to react to it." Rather than "do something about it."
The big arguments seem to be about whether or not it is man made and whether or not we can change it by changing our behaviors and not whether or not it will happen.
Bob K.| 11.19.10 @ 8:14AM
And I forgot to add that I think it is an excellent and thought provoking article and I agree with it completely.
Alex Berezow | 11.19.10 @ 3:58PM
Thank you.
Instead of responding individually to multiple comments below, I'll just point out a few things here:
1) We could entirely throw out the global warming argument, and we would still conclude that green energy is the way forward. Why? Because oil and coal will become increasingly difficult to extract as their supply decreases. Second, we currently purchase a lot of oil from countries who don't like us very much, so it's a national security concern. Third, the U.S. could do what it does best: Innovate and then sell our stuff all over the world. Green energy investment is a win-win scenario for this country.
2) To those who say that humans are too insignificant to harm the Earth: Why are so many rivers polluted beyond potability? How did urban air quality get so bad that it has been linked to lung cancer? Why are animals such as tigers and rhinos heading toward extinction? Why are bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant? Evidence that humanity could act as a better steward of our planet is everywhere.
3) The question about man-made global warming is not IF humans are contributing, but to what EXTENT? Are we 100% of the problem or 1% of the problem? I think that is a legitimate area of debate. However, denying that humans have any role whatsoever in affecting our atmosphere is simply a denial of scientific evidence.
There's a lengthy piece in Scientific American from November 2009 that responds to people who are skeptical of climate change.
http://www.scientificamerican......n-nonsense
The bottom line is this: We all can (and should) agree that green energy is a great idea. If liberals want to embrace it because of global warming and conservatives want to embrace it because of national security, then fine. We can all agree on a common solution, even if we don't necessarily agree on all the problems. The solution is still the same.
4TimesAYear| 11.20.10 @ 4:36AM
BTW, energy independence is a myth as well.
Cincy| 11.20.10 @ 5:38AM
"I think that is a legitimate area of debate. However, denying that humans have any role whatsoever in affecting our atmosphere is simply a denial of scientific evidence."
What evidence? The piece of propaganda you linked to at Scientific American is merely a list of the conventional AGW wisdom that 1) as we are adding CO2 to the atmosphere, "physics" tell us the temperatures must rise (simple-minded application of physical laws do not describe the behavior of complex, chaotic systems); 2) many scientists believe it, therefore it must be true (I guess this means that 500 years ago, the sun orbited the Earth -- most scientists belived that at the time).
In order to have "legitimate debate" one needs facts. I asked you below to list the observational evidence that humans are causing (or even contributing to) global warming. Saying that we simply MUST be a contributor to it is not an observation, but a "feeling."
One piece of observational evidence. I'm still waiting.
Alex Berezow | 11.20.10 @ 9:32AM
Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it "propaganda."
You asked for "observational evidence." That, of course, is a mischievous term. There are a lot of things that we know exist for which we don't have direct observational evidence. How? Because we can see the effects, even though we can't always see the cause.
We know black holes exist, even though we can't see them directly. (We can see what they do, such as warp light and exert gravitational influence on nearby objects.) We know evolution occurs, even though we can't physically watch a species evolve. (We can see the effect through antibiotic-resistant bacteria, a fossil record, genetic evidence, etc.) We knew viruses existed before we could see them in microscopes. (We saw the diseases they transmitted.) This list could go on and on. In the absence of direct observational evidence, science has to rely on indirect evidence. And science has gotten pretty good at that.
To answer your question directly, yes, there is limited, direct observational evidence that man is contributing to atmospheric CO2 levels. The current level of atmospheric CO2 is about 390 ppm (direct observation). That is higher than the previous 800,000 years, and some scientists think higher than the past 20 million years (indirect observation). So, if humans aren't putting it there, then who is?
Temperature, of course, goes up and down and doesn't perfectly match CO2 levels. That's because there are all sorts of reasons why the earth warms, not just CO2. But CO2 definitely is one of the causes. And CO2 doesn't just come from humans. There are a bunch of natural sources of CO2, as well. However, it appears that humans are adding more to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and cutting down tropical rain forests. You can read more about that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....e_in_Earth's_atmosphere
I realize that may not be a good enough answer for you. But, the whole "global warming" debate is irrelevant, in my opinion. Even if global warming didn't exist, there are many good reasons to invest in green energy. And as Bjorn Lomborg points out, you can do this without cap-and-trade or carbon taxes.
Alex Berezow | 11.20.10 @ 9:33AM
Okay, that link I sent is being weird. If interested in reading it, go to "Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere" in Wikipedia.
Cincy| 11.20.10 @ 5:52PM
"The current level of atmospheric CO2 is about 390 ppm (direct observation). That is higher than the previous 800,000 years, and some scientists think higher than the past 20 million years (indirect observation). So, if humans aren't putting it there, then who is?"
I asked for a single piece of observational evidence that humans were causing global warming. You respond with the observation that CO2 has increased in the last million years. But you have not provided evidence that humans have are responsible. Instead, you ask "if not us, then who?" That is for you to tell us -- you're the one claiming that this rise in CO2 is "unnatural." All I'm asking for is for you to prove it.
As for evolution, there is observational evidence for it -- the fossil record demonstrates that species increase in diversity and complexity with time. The debate is about the mechanism of evolution. Darwin thought it was natural selection, but that's an explanation of the MECHANISM of evolution and on much softer ground than the fact that evolution is happening.
This is analogous to global climate change. Climate DOES change -- constantly, as I said in my first post. The issue is what causes it. I asked you for direct evidence that it is caused by humans. You still have not provided any.
"Even if global warming didn't exist, there are many good reasons to invest in green energy. "
The only reasons are economic ones and such rationale fails. "Green energy" costs more, produces less, and fails every market test. It always has to be subsidized by government and imposed on people rather than selected as a free choice. The reason petroleum continues to be popular is that it is a high-density storage media and relatively cheap. And contrary to your alarmist notions, we are NOT running out of petroleum -- there is probably more oil left to be discovered than has been extracted from the Earth in the last 150 years. And technology allows us to recover more and more difficult to retrieve reserves with time.
"Green energy" only sounds good in academic seminars and Al Gore lectures. It's what authoritarians want. Let the free market decide which form of energy is most attractive.
Alex Berezow | 11.20.10 @ 7:21PM
"Green energy costs more, produces less, and fails every market test. It always has to be subsidized by government and imposed on people rather than selected as a free choice."
"Let the free market decide which form of energy is most attractive."
You realize that fossil fuels receive over $300 billion in subsidies worldwide every year, right? Is that the free market force you're talking about?
http://www.economist.com/blogs....._subsidies
Cincy| 11.21.10 @ 5:24AM
"You realize that fossil fuels receive over $300 billion in subsidies worldwide every year, right? Is that the free market force you're talking about?"
No, I'm talking about the United States of America, which has a modern industrial economy with the largest GDP in the world, all built on the use of petroleum and the freedom provided by a capitalist, free-market system that built that wealth. That is, until the environmental loons complete their assignment to destroy it.
I also note that you still haven't addressed my original request for a single piece of observational evidence that demonstrates that humans cause global warming. But I do note that you repeat your lame "Well, we must be doing SOMETHING..." argument down the thread. I guess that's all you have.
Alex Berezow | 11.21.10 @ 7:13AM
Between 2002 and 2008, the United States government handed out $72 billion in fossil fuel subsidies. That is definitely not a "free market" situation.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....cation=rss
Again, there isn't a lot of direct evidence that man is contributing to atmospheric CO2. Because there isn't a "second Earth" on which we can conduct atmospheric experiments, we're forced to rely on indirect or circumstantial evidence. If that's not good enough for you, then there's nothing I can say that will convince you.
Additionally, as I've said now multiple times, I think the EXTENT of our contribution is debatable. It very well may be that humans have a negligible impact on global warming and/or CO2 levels. I'm very much open to that idea. And when it comes to policy, I disagree with cap-and-trade and with a carbon tax. We actually probably agree on more than we disagree.
Let me ask you this: What evidence would you need to see to convince you that man is contributing to atmospheric CO2 levels? What sort of data or experiment might persuade you?
Cincy| 11.21.10 @ 1:29PM
I do not accept your $70 B subsidy number. In the link you post, this is "...according to a study by the Environmental Law Institute." There's an unbiased source for you. Some company is "allowed" to keep a fraction of their profit or gets a tax break for spending money on exploration and it's called a "subsidy" by a left-wing pressure group.
As to the evidence question, the issue is NOT whether humans contribute to atmospheric CO2 levels -- the issue is "are human additions of CO2 responsible, in whole or part, for increasing average global temperatures?" I contend that there is no observation extant or possible that can establish that proposition. Climate change occurs constantly throughout geological history. It has occurred in the past and is occurring now. It is a highly complex system that we have never understood and is probably at least partly driven by factors that we haven't even identified, let alone understood. Because it exhibits chaotic behavior, I suspect that it will never be fully understood.
My point is that your original statement that the right "denies reality" by rejecting AGW is incorrect. It is incumbent upon the advocates of AGW to prove their case, not merely label those that disagree with them as "deniers" or troglodytes. If I advocate a new scientific idea, the onus is on me to prove my case, not to challenge the world to prove me wrong.
The past several years have been embarrassing for science -- a bunch of politically motivated clowns have hijacked the scientific process to sell a left-wing, socialist agenda, designed to fundamentally alter our lifestyle and economic system. A half-baked, unproven assertion has been declared "scientific truth" by an unelected community of "experts" who, in fact, have not the slightest idea about what drives the Earth's climate, which factors are most important, how they interact with each other, and what to do about it, as if we could do anything whatsoever.
Cincy| 11.19.10 @ 8:24AM
Climate is constantly changing and does so on a variety of timescales and and with varying intensities -- the origin(s) of which are not at all understood. As you apparently believe in the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, perhaps you can enlighten the readers of this blog as to a single piece of observational evidence that supports this concept.
I am not interested in "consensus" of any given community of scientists or the indications and results of computer modeling. What observational evidence indicates that humanity causes global warming?
Bob K.| 11.19.10 @ 9:33AM
I don't see anything in Dr. Berezow's review of Lomborg's movie and of Lomborg"s thesis that indicates that he (Dr. Berezow) believes in "human-caused global warming."
Cincy| 11.19.10 @ 10:05AM
From the piece above:
"The global warming debate is dominated by two extremes. ....those on the Right insist climate science is a fraud or a United Nations-sponsored conspiracy. .....the Right rejects reality. "
"Lomborg..... points out that even if the Kyoto Protocol had been fully adopted and implemented, it would only decrease global temperature by 0.008 degree Fahrenheit by the year 2100"
"The ultimate solution to climate change, Mr. Lomborg believes, is not increasing the cost of fossil fuels (through cap-and-trade or carbon taxes) but by making alternative energy desirably cheap. "
What other conclusion can one draw from the piece from these three quotes? The first implies that (some on) the right are rejecting "reality" (the topic is anthropogenic global warming). The second implies that we COULD do something to stop or slow global warming (meaning that human influence is causing it). The third statement implies that cap and trade could have an effect, just a minimal and non-optimum one.
I submit that the entire premise of this piece is false. There is no evidence for AGW yet it is presumed that "alternatives" to Kyoto are good investments. But Kyoto assumes the premise (AGW) that no one has yet proven.
4TimesAYear| 11.20.10 @ 4:34AM
Um, as long as they think we can do something to stop it, they must believe we caused it.
Eric Cartman| 11.19.10 @ 9:17AM
Humanities contribution to "climate change" gases (CO2, Methane, etc), amounts to little more than an ant fart in whirlwind. Mankind could cease to exist - the ecofreak wet dream - and these gases would continue to rise (and fall). That said, Lomborg is correct about how to deal with the inevitable weather event disasters that will happen as a result of - wait for it - weather! Put money into growth and technology - we'll have a better planet all around. But in case I'm wrong, we should burn down Algore's mansion and make him live in a cave, the little sex poodle.
Eric Cartman| 11.19.10 @ 10:03AM
"Humanities"??? Wow! I have to put down the Four Loko and go to bed. Let's try this: Humanity's. Hmmm? All the keys work. Has to be the Four Lokos.
sarah| 11.19.10 @ 10:22AM
I am not interested in "consensus" of any given community of scientists or the indications and results of computer modeling.African American Women committed to combating the stereotype of the "Angry Black Woman".
wholesale wigs
human hair wigs wholesale
Ken (Old Texican)| 11.19.10 @ 10:41AM
Eric,
Heh, good one. Try zooming your screen when commenting. ...makes it easier to proof-read your posts.
Mr. Berezow,
I refuse to compromise with lies. Your entire article is based upon a false premise. Mr. Bjorn's film and thesis is based upon a false premise.
That is termed "building a house of cards".
If the earth is warming...good.
Maybe we can help stave off the next ice age.
I read an authoritative history book that in Europe during the "little ice age" that farmers burned entire forests to allow their crops to mature.
Now we often use fossil-fuel "smudge-pots".
Get a life.
Eric Cartman| 11.19.10 @ 11:17AM
Thank, Ken. LOL It's what you get when your browsing the course catalog while typing.
owyheewine| 11.19.10 @ 10:56AM
The author's PhD must have been earned without the benefit of learning anything about thermodynamics. The statement about opponents of the global warming fantasy as being lacking in understanding of reality, gives him away.
The whole fantasy is based on computer models of the climate, which show ever increasing temperatures no matter what level of CO2 in assumed. The exposure of the fraud practiced by the atmospheric science whores should convince the non scientific majority, but those who have taken time to understand the basic heat balance of the earth knew the fix was on long before the fraud was exposed.
Robert R| 11.19.10 @ 11:19AM
Considering that the earth and all the creatures on it have endured warming periods much more pronounced than with which we seem to be faced with no consequences other than prolonged growing seasons and shortened winters, I don't understand the urgency to "do something"
polistra | 11.19.10 @ 12:28PM
"Besides being outrageously expensive, policies intended to curb pollution may also end up curbing economic growth and development. "
Well, not really ... at least within reasonable limits. Clean water and clean air keep people alive and healthy, which encourages growth and productivity.
But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with carbon dioxide, which is NOT A POLLUTANT.
Jeff Perren | 11.19.10 @ 1:00PM
"Mr. Lomborg's thesis is straightforward: Global warming is real and humanity needs to do something about it."
That thesis has been radically undermined in the past two years.
Moreover, the idea that "we" should do anything about it - beyond leaving individuals free to adapt to any changes that occur - is the fatal flaw in Dr. Lomberg's argument.
He may sound more reasonable than many, but he is still committed to collectivism and statism, and still touts a highly dubious hypothesis to justify them.
Purple Lips| 11.19.10 @ 1:37PM
Lomberg has had both of his feet firmly planted in both camps for so long that he should make Brooks, Frum, and Noonan blush. The "Thoughtfull Right" loves him because he's wonkish, and doesn't sound like Glenn Beck or Palin; the Left hates him because he's famous and refuses to toe the line. He might believe in AGW, but beyond that he is a heretic.
In the end, Lomberg will join the Alarmists for no better reason than that is ultimately where the money is.
MikeD| 11.19.10 @ 2:18PM
Believing that humanity has a serious impact on the climatic cycles of the Earth is the ultimate act of narcissism. We're just not that big a deal. Every conclusion about 'so called' (Hey, it works for lefties, I thought I'd try the tactic!) Global Warming depends on computer models that involve so many variables that the complexity makes them impossible to predict anything with accuracy. Plus, the 'scientific data' (so called!) used to construct the models, or to interpret the models, has been so fraudulently massaged that it is laughable. Let's simplify.
All energy on Earth comes from two sources: The Sun and the Earth. The sun provides the lion's share through direct sunlight, photosynthesis, hydroelectricity, etc. Virtually every source of energy can ultimately be traced back to the sun. The second, minor source is the Earth, via geothermal energy from decaying radioactive elements in the core and volcanic vents that heat ground water. If you doubt the premise, try following every energy source back to where it began. Like wind; which is simply air heated by the sun, which then rises and moves laterally after displacing other air. Petroleum is just plants that derived their energy from photosynthesis long ago. Hydro is just water falling after being raised by the heat of the sun, or, in some cases, by the Earth. Try to find an exception.
Next, remember the neat little laws of physics; especially that little bit about: "Matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed, it can just change form. Again, follow the chain.
Whether people are here or not, those cycles have been working for billions of years and will continue to do so long after we're gone. Mt. Pinatubo blasted more 'greenhouse gas and particulates' into the air in the early 90's in two weeks than all human activity did in 100 years. The basis of all the attempts at punishing the mean, evil energy producers and consumers is based on two other things: Power and money. The 'Cap and Trade crap is just a method to make favored people and groups wealthy at the expense of people and groups that the favored people don't like. It has nothing to do with science, it is all power and money, seasoned by the Liberal's need to punish somebody, ANYBODY, they don't agree with. It usually isn't enough to 'demonize' them, they want them destroyed. And THAT, pure and simple, is what drives Obama's every waking moment.
Of course he, and the other stupid, vindictive Liberals forget about the trail of death and destruction they have been leaving behind them since fools first began listening to them in the 60's. Like the 100 MILLION victims of malaria in the 'Third World' who were killed by Rachal Carson and her faulty pseudo-science in her book "Silent Spring" which resulted in the banning of DDT; much to the joy of billions of mosquitos in the tropics. But Ms. Carson would most likely 'brush them off' as necessary casualties in the war to save the 'snail darter' and other insignificant life forms.
I can already feel the wind from frothing fury coming from Liberals after reading my heresy discounting the importance of snail darters in the larger web of life. Unfortunately for Liberals and other self deluded, their tactics are no longer hidden by the swarms of dust raised by the media. It is quite clear that they really want us to die off because that would leave them in charge. However, once one is caught falsifying data, they cannot ever be trusted again.
My daughter has been a supporter of Algore until he spent $8 million on a beachfront house. She began to wonder how he could build in a place that would soon be under hundreds, thousands, millions (pick one) of feet of water when all the glaciers melt. Oh no! What's an ignorant liberal to do? How about trying the truth...
Alex Berezow | 11.19.10 @ 4:15PM
MikeD,
You cover a lot of topics, and I agree with a couple of them. (Al Gore being a hypocrite and Rachel Carson being tragically misguided are two points with which I agree.)
However, you completely misunderstand the Conservation of Mass and Energy. This law of physics has to do with the idea that in chemical reactions (or anywhere else), atoms can't disappear or be created, and neither can energy. For example, if two hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms enter a reaction, they very well better come out at the other end. Same applies for input and output of energy.
But, this has no bearing on how warm the planet can get or whether or not the planet can be destroyed. In 4 billion years (give or take a few million!), the sun will begin to die (like all stars do), and the earth will be consumed and destroyed. But, according to your interpretation of the Conservation of Mass and Energy, this is not possible. Surely, you see the flaw in your interpretation of the theory?
owyheewine| 11.19.10 @ 5:21PM
PhD in French Art History? You, sir are the one who does not understand the laws of Physics. The sun will run out of hydrogen and the nuclear fusion will cease. In the process the gravity that holds the sun together will be decreased enough to allow fantastically hot plasma to escape and expand. In the process the sun will expand past the orbit of earth, and the entire planet will be vaporized, no matter will be destroyed. The laws will hold even for that future event. The one significant corollary to the laws is Einstein's relativity equation, which of course is the explaination for all of the energy in the universe.
Alex Berezow | 11.19.10 @ 7:58PM
When I said the earth would be 'destroyed,' I didn't mean the actual particles making up the earth would no longer exist. You were reading that way too literally. I simply meant earth would no longer be here. The atoms and molecules that make up our planet, of course, will still exist, but obviously not in the way we recognize them today.
Those who use the Conservation Law to argue against global warming are misapplying the law.
Ph.D. in microbiology. Undergraduate minor in chemistry. I think I understand the Conservation of Mass and Energy. Thanks.
4TimesAYear| 11.20.10 @ 4:27AM
"if global warming increases the incidence of malaria, the sensible solution is to provide medicine and vaccines"
No, we should bring back DDT, the most effective solution to the malaria problem.
By the way, there is evidence that oil is abiotic - not a fossil fuel at all. We also have an abundance of natural gas and it's my guess that's abiotic as well (there's the "doorway to hell" that's been burning ever since 1971 -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGHxVW1NbrQ)
The problem is Lomborg still wants to waste money on a "solution" to "climate change" when there's not one single iota of evidence to show that we are responsible for it or that we can do thing one about it. The alarmists/warmists are going by their models and totally ignoring the historical facts that 1. it's been warmer before, 2. CO2 levels have been higher, and 3. CO2 levels follow warming, not the other way around. I'm also tired of their manipulation of the statistics and fraudulent research; the latest:
http://johnosullivan.livejournal.com/26669.html
Alex Berezow | 11.20.10 @ 9:40AM
Selective use of DDT should probably be a part of the malaria solution. However, malaria is curable with medication, so it absolutely should be a part of the solution.
You're right that the Earth has been warmer before. The Eocene warming period, which occurred around 50 million years ago, exhibited really, really warm temperatures. We're talking the poles may have been as warm as the modern-day Pacific Northwest. Not a single climate model can explain why this happened.
However, that doesn't mean CO2 isn't doing anything. It probably is, and we're probably partially to blame. The question is extent. To what extent are we the problem, and is there anything we can do about it? The answer might very well be "no," but it certainly can't hurt to decrease our CO2 output (as long as we don't kill our economy in the process). And investing in green energy is a good idea, anyway. If we can do that without cap-and-trade or carbon taxes (and Bjorn Lomborg says we can), then, what's the problem? It's simply an investment in basic research.
Alex Berezow | 11.20.10 @ 9:43AM
Oh, I forgot to mention that there's an explanation for why CO2 levels follow temperature:
http://www.newscientist.com/ar.....rming.html
And, CO2 levels haven't been this high (390 ppm and rising) for 800,000 years, and quite possibly 20 million years.