This is a critique of comments on
the recent USA Today article by Bjorn Lomborg, mostly from warmists critical of him:
I'm not on FaceBook so I couldn't
comment there so I thought I'd critique them here. The comments of others are in red my writing is in black. Bold highlights in comments are mine.
The first two comments come from
Lynn Goldfarb.
Lynn
Goldfarb · Paris, France
Wow!
Where to begin? Everything about your article is wrong, except for your appeal
for immediate aid for the Phillipines. A recent article in Nature, one...
...Con't.)
Nature, one of the two premier scientific journals in the world, said that
Hayian was the strongest story ever and that MIT researcher had published data
showing that tropical storms will
increase both in intensity and frequency. There is much else wrong with this
article but his is just a sample. get your facts straight and use scientific
peer-reviewed journals for your sources!
Reply · 2 · · November 21 at 8:40am
So "everything" is wrong
with this article, but the one example you give is that tropical storms will
increase...maybe...at some point in the future. Another example of someone who
doesn't get science. The prediction of a climate scientist trumps the actual
observation, which as Bjorn Lomborg points out, is that hurricanes are down in the western Pacific
in recent years, despite global warming.
Typhoons in Western, North Pacific. More here. Global warming makes bad weather better, because it's about temperature differences not magnitudes.
There's plenty of reason to think
that a warmer world will have better weather, because there's less difference between the temperature at the poles and the equator. Here's an example of how global
warming could lead to less tornadoes:
The Midwest Tornadoes Weren't Caused By Global Warming
More here
The fact that a climate scientist had their study of speculation of the effects of global warming published in Nature, and that Nature is one of the two premier scientific journals in the world is like, wow, really impressive to her. It's just another appeal to authority. Who cares if Nature publishes a scary prediction? The fact that it's published in Nature doesn't make it true.
This woman has no conception of
how science is actually done. This statement
puzzles me: "... said that Hayian was the
strongest story ever..." Strongest
story?..oh I get it strongest storm ever, the "y" is meant to be a "m".
Strongest "story" ever would not be very convincing. In fact it was the seventh strongest to hit the Philippines:
It's only the seventh strongest
there since the limited observation period that only goes back a few decades. But I'm
sure this woman feels comfortable believing that in 4.5 billion years of
earth's history, that was the worst storm EVAHHHHHHHHH!!! Whatever, stupid
lady.
Also see:
Eli
Rabett · Top Commenter
Stephan
Gardiner in his book Climate Change the Perfect Moral Storm Nails the full
Lomborg the base of Lomborgianism is the false choice between helping the poor
inhabitants of poor countries or their rich descendants later.
To
Gardiner, this is already swallowing a large bunny foot without sauce, because
there is no guarantee that climate change does not threaten anyone or anything
besides the poor....
I won't bother quoting the rest
of this. I haven't read Lomborg's book so I can't comment, but really, I don't
expect Lomborg argues that climate change will only affect the poor. Lomborg is
a luke warmist who basically argues that it's better to spend the billions on
helping the poor to get richer, to adapt to climate change, rather than spending those billions (trillions) curbing emissions
by an insignificant amount in the first world.
Milton
Rice · Top Commenter
Nah, it's
not about climate change. It's about an angry vengeful god. ;)
A pot shot at people who object to
the AGW theory on religious grounds. I suppose some people do object to AGW on religious
grounds, but that's a side issue. Lomborg is not arguing against linking
Typhoon Haiyan with climate change on religious grounds, so the statement is an
unproductive red herring.
Shelby
Rogers · Top Commenter · University of Utah
What? All
weather disasters are due to global warming! Cold weather and hot weather are
due to climate change. Earth quakes and sunspots are caused by global warming.
Migraines and nymphomania are global warming side effects.
Ahh Refreshing! The one skeptical
comment on there out of about 17.
Kevin
Tucker · Teacher/Coach at Forest Grove High School
I agree
Lynn. What's is hurt by focusing on global warming and curbing practices that
destroy our planet? Only good can come from that effort... Great message this
article sends to future generations Bjorn...
This argument is precisely the
one that Lomborg is expert at. Lomborg and others such as Lord Monckton, say
that money is better spent on improving living standards as the best and most economically
prudent way to deal with climate change.
As CFACT recently said at the
climate conference in Warsaw, "coal is the moral choice". Fossil fuels increase
living standards and therefore people and the economy's ability to deal with
bad weather:
Jan Freed
· Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California
The
author is a well-known denier; he doesn't deny climate change itself (which
would be sheer nonsense). But everything else he writes is 'hey, it ain't so
bad.. just relax, keep burning that oil/coal"
He is
intelligent. What is missing is compassion and integrity.
Reply · 1
·· November 22 at 4:38am
OK, this is a troll wind-up
comment and I'll bite. Compassion and integrity? What about the effects
biofuels have on the price of food in the third world? Higher food prices kills
people in poor countries. Stopping poor people from developing fossil fuels condemns them to burn wood and manure indoors to cook their food, and they die from that pollution. Electricity increases life spans by years or decades.
In rich countries the elderly die from cold because all the subsidies for useless renewable energy schemes. Windmills that kill birds and bats. Action on climate change is barbaric.
In rich countries the elderly die from cold because all the subsidies for useless renewable energy schemes. Windmills that kill birds and bats. Action on climate change is barbaric.
It's the global warming people
who are the cruel anti-human hate mongers. Being against the industrial revolution,
powered largely by fossil fuels, that
has brought so much benefit and long life to so many people, is the amoral
choice in my opinion. The stupidity and ignorance of stupid greenies like this
woman kills people now!
Jenny
Monson-Miller · Law Clerk at Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
If you
pick and choose scientific data, you can "prove" anything. The
majority of smart, informed, and rational people in this world believe that
storms like Haiyan will increase in intensity and frequency as climate change
continues to intensify. Choosing to alleviate poverty in places like the
Philippines without moving to stop climate change will be pretty pointless,
since they'll all be under water before too long. Mitigation and adaptation
measures are sorely needed by the people of the Philippines and by the rest of
us, and those measures are not mutually exclusive from measures to bring people
out of poverty.
Reply ··
Yesterday at 10:36am
Why would an informed person not be informed of the fact that tropical cyclones are not increasing? CO2 has risen by 40% but global warming makes hurricanes less frequent.
Modernising the Philippines would save countless lives every time a typhoon hits. Spend as much as you like curbing carbon dioxide, bad weather will still happen. Humans don't control the climate. She says that mitigation and adaptation are not mutually exclusive from bringing people out of poverty.
Yes it is. Action on climate change that stops poor people from utilising fossil fuels will stop them from getting out of poverty. Thus, mitigation and moderisation are mutually exclusive. First world countries already have adaptation measures due to the wealth of those countries. Moving to useless renewables would weaken the energy supply and wealth of those rich countries, making them less able to respond to bad weather, bad weather which will happen no matter the mitigation of carbon dioxide.
She is a Law Clerk at Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy? I guess ignorance is the criterion to work at such a place.
Peter
Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts University
why does
USA Today give a platform to this lunatic? His arguments are not even worth
reading.
Reply · 1
·· Yesterday at 4:19pm
And here we see the real face of
warmism: control and suppression of free speech. If it's for a good cause,
human rights can be sacrificed. These people have no idea how cruel and insane
they are. What a bunch of callous, cold hearted, ignorant rotten bastards. That's
why I hate these people.
Ian Borsuk · Toronto, Ontario
I wont click and risk giving them any ad
revenue from my visit. But hasn't USA Today always been the worst? That's
always been my understanding of the paper.
Reply ·
· Yesterday at 4:25pm
My God, USA Today has been among
the shrillest of the global warming shills. One single article that's only mildly
luke-warm instead of full-on alarmist and these stupid greenies are up in arms.
Suppression and control. Greenies are a bunch of would-be Hitler, Nazi, control
freaks.
Peter Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts
University
It seems so. I've never really followed it.
But good lord The Hill (a conservative news outlet?) has some really fricking
crazy nutbag commentators.
Reply ·
· Yesterday at 4:27pm
More lame ad hominem attacks, jee
you never hear ad hominem attacks from warmists!!
Albert Engel · University of Maryland,
College Park
It seems to me that not reading any
arguments that one doesn't agree with is not a very way to be scientifically
literate...
Reply ·
· Yesterday at 5:09pm
I know Albert Engel. It's really frustrating the way warmists and their
websites, like the inaptly named SkepticalScience, have such a one sided point
of view. They should look at all sides like skeptics do. Oh wait, you were
talking about skeptics there, oh.
Well that's odd. A warmist so
retarded that they project their own sins onto their enemies. Jee, I've never seen a warmist project their
own failings and limitations onto others. Mostly warmists are sane, rational,
smart people, who are well-grounded, and look at all sides of an argument. LOL.
Peter Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts
University
Here's the problem with Bjorn. For one,
he's an opportunist. He's the go-to guy for misinformation and false
compassion. I've followed him for awhile, actually, and his arguments always
muddy the issue. His goal is not poverty alleviation, its maintaining the
status quo of oil and gas extraction. Has been for awhile. He cloaks it in this
false sincerity, but the guy's a complete tool of the industry, and is paid
well for it. Moreover, one of the major problems we have is giving space to
these people who advocate the status quo and pooh pooh efforts to address
climate change. Make no mistake, this hurricane was about the interaction of
climate change and poverty, but Bjorn's agenda is anything but.
Reply
· 1 · · Yesterday at 7:23pm
The ability of greentard warmists
to twist the truth never ceases to amaze me. How do they all get this stupid?
Do they have to pass a stupidity test before they are allowed in to the global warming
fraternity? Or is it just that smart people think for themselves and therefore
don't buy any old claptrap they hear?
Status quo of gas and oil? I
think Lomborg thinks that it's better for humanity as a whole if poorer nations
are allowed to exploit fossil fuels. The increase in standard of living would outweigh
the alleged detriments of climate change by orders of magnitude. Lomborg is a Professor at a University, not in the pay of big oil.
And again the call to silence
their critics. Hitler control freaks.
The last comment was mostly incoherent
drivel so I give you a few choice highlights:
Jernst
Zondel · Bewunderung Universitat
Ziz is
too much....The Filipinos won world war 2 for America because they stood up in
Bataan it was mainly the Philippine Scouts with MacArthur...
Um, Bataan was a lost battle for
the allies. It's wasn't an easy battle for the Japanese to be sure. Americans
and their allies caused trouble for the Japanese. But the Japanese won, and the
Philippines was Japanese territory for 3 years or so after that battle. How
does that loss win the war for the Americans? Oh silly me I thought this was a logical
person of normal intelligence, not a greentard.
.. You
fail to heed the warnings of Katrina, Sandy, and the new equatorial super
hurricane phenomena like Haiyan which not only portends to risen water levels
at the equator but tell tale magnetic pole shift. God bless America!
Reply · 1
·· 23 hours ago
New super hurricane phenomena? The hurricane activity in the west
Pacific and in the world is down. What the link of those storms to rising sea
levels is, really perplexes me. Sounds like this person has heard a few warmist talking
points, of rising sea levels and rising storms, and then draws their own links
and conclusions that no scientist, even a climate scientist, would agree with.
Tropical cyclones not getting worse. None of the IPCC's predictions have worked out.
Time and again I see warmists making
up stuff that even climate scientists would not admit too. For example on this
thread the green people commenting appear ignorant of the fact that sea level
rise has been steady for 3,000 years, and say that recently there has been an
acceleration, or even that sea level rise is an entirely new phenomenon.
There's no evidence for this acceleration.
In fact there is evidence that sea level rise is decelerating:
In fact there is evidence that sea level rise is decelerating:
No comments:
Post a Comment