So I’m going to see Bjørn Lomborg speak. Has anyone read or have an opinion about his works, which include Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist?
I might try to pick one up if I like what I hear. I feel like I’m overwhelmed with GREEN and "global warming" propaganda. Looking for a little perspective and it never hurt to hear what both sides have to say on the issue so I can be informed.
If you really want to see the flip side of the "global warming propoganda" you speak of, I would recommend watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Take everything with a grain of salt.
yea i saw it..... i am. i think that video was probably just as one sided as Al Gore's but it did cause me to resolve to find a few more facts on my own... just wondering if this guy or his books can provide some more insight.
I've heard the Lomborg speak. He doesn't deny climate change, however he argues that there is no proof it's anthropogenic global warming, i.e. because of increased co2 levels from buring fossil fuels. I tend to agree. There are plenty of scientists that do not believe in "global warming." Problem we don't hear them in the MSM is two fold. One, if they don't find scientific proof of global warming then their grants will end and funding dollars will dry up, so there's built in incentive to find global warming. Second, the media only wants to play the stories that have shock value. If they report all is well people won't tune in. Thus we're barraged with global warming news all the time thanks to this. I've said before that I largely think Al Gore is a fraud. He doesn't practice what he preaches and the proof is in the pudding right there. However the greens have elevated him to sainthood and give him a pass on his energy consumption and bogus carbon trading crap. The greenest guy out there was probably the unabomber and see where that got him. I'm all for using fossil fuels sparingly, stopping pollution, etc. But I'm against the scare tactics of the global warming crowd.
And as I've said before. The "greens" unwillingness to negotiate on anything concerning the environment is going to backfire big time. Once energy prices put a big enough hurt on the economy we're going to see full scale plunder of the environment just to secure what little energy there might be found. There is a gas price at which the "global warming" lobby will have lost its voice completely.
"Let's exacerbate the oil crisis to get the public to push for 'drill, drill, drill'!!". Brilliant strategy, imho. Even though there are 64million acres of land owned by big oil that they can drill on, they'd much rather lock in another generation of cheap drilling by getting the public to push to further drilling.
Even thought it'll be at least a decade before any new drilling comes to the public, it is preached as a quick fix.
Big oil had the opportunity to put more drilling online, improve refineries, etc., but they sat idle and sucked up the profits and the tax breaks.
This, imho, is scare tactics.
As for prices, they'll level themselves out. There is no real reason prices are so high. Demand is up, but nothing that unusual. The nat gas/oil/commodity bubble will pass, as they all do.
I hope this is enough to encourage alternative energy practices and development and not scare people into allowing for careless drilling.
I feel like this is FOX news. The next thread is going to be about how stems cell research is not worth pursuing. After that it's how gangbangers from LA could be connected to al qaeda. Finally it's about a fist pound being connected to terrorists. I love how Republicans make science and fact political issues to be debated.
There is proof of increased co2 levels from buring fossil fuels. You cannot argue against facts unless either you are legitimitly crazy or have a non-truth agenda. So it is either time to get back on your antipsychotic drugs or it is time to try to figure out how to sell books to people who do not want to deal in a fact based reality. You cannot deal with crazy people so lets move onto something else.
"While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publishers, Cambridge University Press, were apparently surprised by the pressure brought against them not to publish The Skeptical Environmentalist. The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite existing pre-publication peer review), that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent publication of any book described as "essentially a political tract" in the future."
"Cambridge University Press felt it necessary to issue a formal, written statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market.""
"Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of publishing proposals for books which offered an opposing argument to Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than academic.
The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contains, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, claiming that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the magazine."
Architectonicita - im not trying to say this guy is right or not but that website that you gave also has errors on Al gores video.
one of the glaring ones brought up again and again is
"According to Gore´s opponents, his presentation imparts the conception to his audience that the observed increases in temperature are the result of increasing CO2. Gore conceals the important detail that the CO2 signals mostly lag nearly 1,000 years behind the temperature signals. This detail points to the conception that the relationship is rather the other way around: increasing CO2 is the result of increasing temperature. However, both conceptions are too simplistic."
of course there is bombast on all sides but regardless of the arguments being made by a minority of scientists (hint check their funding) the point is there is no doubt that climate change is happening. forget the sunspot theory or cycles of the planet, it does not fit in with the majority of accepted science.
the issue is the planet is changing, we are a major reason for it. what are we going to do about it?
I Agree that we should take drastic measures to curb many of the enviromental problems that we currently face, but i for one do not want to be coherced into action by means of scare tactics and i worry that this method will create greater backlash towards these efforts in the future.
We are in a profession that has gained credibility and esteem though our ability to ride the growing global warming wave to more profitable projects, more unique designs and better materials. The need for a design professional is increased when there is demand for the customization needed to truly create sustainable "earth friendly" or "green" buildings. i dont expect many people on this forum to be willing to question these issues. after all why look a gift horse in the mouth.
I guess what I'm saying is some of the alarmist views of human caused global warming are perhaps false stories or exaggerations much like those incorporated to many modern religions. They serve only to scare and force people to behave in ways that are beneficial to them and society. is it ok to use propaganda and scar tactics to influence people to live a better life? This is part of why I find it hard to align my views on many of the greater religions. This however doesn't stop me from living my life to the best of my ability, as a kind, gentle person at peace with my neighbors and at peace with myself and my existence in this life and the next.
I hope that we do not soon see global wars and crusades in the name of GREEN. I suppose that many could argue that the Iraq war and many of the problems in the Middle East including Iran's desire for nuclear power are involved with these issues. but we at least need to realize that these types of claims will have a profound effect on limiting third world economic advancment and we owe it to ourselves and our society to take a closer personal inspection of the arguments.
Breaking news - There is no such thing as Al Gore. He doesn't exist- He's a computer model made by "greenies" to spread propoganda.
Please explain what the backlash to warning people about our effect on climate change. I am trying to think of one but I am really interested in hearing a crazy rant right now. Especially the part about the crusade in name of Green. L Ron's got a rival coming up.
well i would say that the backlash is exactly this, people are questioning the merits of global warming due to a few possible exagerations. what would the harm be if global warming did exist and we are going to have negitive effects but they are not directly caused by burning fossil fuels?
cause you couldnt get people to act?
well then make up some story that will scare them into beliving its thier fault so they do something usefull with thier lives...... like the bible.
wouldnt we be better off focusing on the future and devloping ways to adapt and curb the problem?
Architectonic.... im not trying to be confrontational i just think we need to reavluate the information. i think we actually agree. but im not sure what i think because all of this science seems to be un-pure
You're acting like scientists only make up problems and that none of the federal funded money goes to anyrthing important. This train of thought is extemely wierd. I was thinking about the folks at Cal Tech who sit in their labs trying to PR global warming all day so they can get paid. That's definitly what they are in it for. It's your attack on the science which is the funniest part of your argument.
The two topics you are talking about are comepletly different. Being overloaded with the "green" architectural ideas is way different than saying scientists make up data to cause panic.
I would argue that the act of calling the science of global warming untrue or unpure goes beyond confrotational and falls under the just plain Republican crazy. That's the point I am making and I hope you do agree we are saying the same thing.
What... I never said scientists only make up problems, and that no money goes towards anything important. What I’m saying is there is a fundamental problem with the information that people are willing to except as truth without any research on their own part. All I wanted to do with this thread is ask these questions and perhaps allow some of the very bright people around here to engage in a conversation open to the possibilities of refuting the status quo.
YOU obviously take offense to this... but I’m not sure why you....
"Feel like this is FOX news. The next thread is going to be about how stems cell research is not worth pursuing. After that it's how gangbangers from LA could be connected to al Qaeda. Finally it's about a fist pound being connected to terrorists. I love how Republicans make science and fact political issues to be debated."
"I would argue that the act of calling the science of global warming untrue or un-pure goes beyond confrontational and falls under the just plain Republican crazy."
I just want to have a conversation. But comments like that are what perpetuate the problem I’m talking about.
It’s OK to question things..... It doesn’t make you a republican. Stop with the name calling.
It's is definitly OK to question things but you are definitly making a very Republican argument that is exagerates non-truths. I think you need to be aware of that. To calim any other ways is just not true. I take offense to people who claim a statement is a question and I take offense to people downgrading our effect on the environment. It makes no sense to me at all
Architectonicita...you make no fucking sense at all.
"..making a very Republican argument that is exagerates (sic) non-truths."
Seriously - learn english, or ask someone to proofread your comments before clicking the 'submit' button...you have all the time in the world to do so.
I think this world needs more people who are willing to step back and take a look at things from a larger perspective then their immediate surroundings and understand that the information they are spoon fed through our media skews our view of reality.
Architectonicita-
Why should you take such offense? I’m not sure why you feel the need to call me a republican, but I don’t really care. You act as if it’s this great insult. Score one for you! I think you need to take a step back and stop being so defensive. There’s nothing wrong with questioning science. science, just like any other belief system, is based on a certain amount of faith and if your not willing to question that faith or at least explore it further then you will never come to a position that is your and that you can stand firmly upon. This questioning or, statement and defense, is my may of figuring out how to align my beliefs’. Nothing is off the table, perhaps I may even become a republican though no one has ever called me that before. Your ignorance astounds me and I have no doubt that you will soon be leading the crusades in the name of earth against the big bad polluters in china and India. Good luck to you. I hope it works out.
frankly, i'd rather my taxes go towards solar/wind energy than as $30 billion gifts/subsidies for oil companies already reaping record profits. and if that means i'm getting taxed more to make the air a little cleaner for kids, so be it.
not sure making this a democrat/republican thing helps the argument. it's clear, however, that this administration's answer to any science it finds inconvenient is to say "it's not proven". of course it's not fucking proven, no one can tell the future! the scientists are looking at a scenario by studying melting glaciers, strange weather patterns, holes in the ozone, burning of fossil fuels etc., etc.: then of course they have to make some assumptions as to what is happening and will happen.
NO ONE really knows if these changes are some small natural upswing in temperature or the sign of things to come, but why accuse them of "panic mongering" and "exaggerations". wouldn't you rather be warned ahead of time and make the changes now then wait till it's too late? ever hear of "a slow train coming"? you can move off the tracks early on, then it picks up speed and you try to move off the tracks but it's too late.
the real problem is that this debate is NOT based on pure science and cold examination of trends, but is corrupted by political ideology, at least at certain levels (and one HUGE problem with the fixes proposed is that it bucks at the profits of large existing entities...no one likes massive change).
and, kanu, you started the thread by saying you are overwhelmed by the global warming "propaganda", which is nothing if not loaded language to discredit someone or something. scientists are usually too caught up in their own work to engage in much propaganda (unless they sell out): it's how the information is used for pushing ideologies or political agendas that turns it into propaganda.
Jul 16, 08 7:19 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Skeptical Environmentalist?
So I’m going to see Bjørn Lomborg speak. Has anyone read or have an opinion about his works, which include Cool It and The Skeptical Environmentalist?
I might try to pick one up if I like what I hear. I feel like I’m overwhelmed with GREEN and "global warming" propaganda. Looking for a little perspective and it never hurt to hear what both sides have to say on the issue so I can be informed.
If you really want to see the flip side of the "global warming propoganda" you speak of, I would recommend watching "The Great Global Warming Swindle." Take everything with a grain of salt.
yea i saw it..... i am. i think that video was probably just as one sided as Al Gore's but it did cause me to resolve to find a few more facts on my own... just wondering if this guy or his books can provide some more insight.
The 'climate change' is a con, designed to take away our rights (not that we have many left) and to tax us more.
Say no to carbon credits.
Turn off the TV.
I've heard the Lomborg speak. He doesn't deny climate change, however he argues that there is no proof it's anthropogenic global warming, i.e. because of increased co2 levels from buring fossil fuels. I tend to agree. There are plenty of scientists that do not believe in "global warming." Problem we don't hear them in the MSM is two fold. One, if they don't find scientific proof of global warming then their grants will end and funding dollars will dry up, so there's built in incentive to find global warming. Second, the media only wants to play the stories that have shock value. If they report all is well people won't tune in. Thus we're barraged with global warming news all the time thanks to this. I've said before that I largely think Al Gore is a fraud. He doesn't practice what he preaches and the proof is in the pudding right there. However the greens have elevated him to sainthood and give him a pass on his energy consumption and bogus carbon trading crap. The greenest guy out there was probably the unabomber and see where that got him. I'm all for using fossil fuels sparingly, stopping pollution, etc. But I'm against the scare tactics of the global warming crowd.
And as I've said before. The "greens" unwillingness to negotiate on anything concerning the environment is going to backfire big time. Once energy prices put a big enough hurt on the economy we're going to see full scale plunder of the environment just to secure what little energy there might be found. There is a gas price at which the "global warming" lobby will have lost its voice completely.
welcome to the 70's
Are you serious?
That scenario sounds like a catastrophe to me.
"Let's exacerbate the oil crisis to get the public to push for 'drill, drill, drill'!!". Brilliant strategy, imho. Even though there are 64million acres of land owned by big oil that they can drill on, they'd much rather lock in another generation of cheap drilling by getting the public to push to further drilling.
Even thought it'll be at least a decade before any new drilling comes to the public, it is preached as a quick fix.
Big oil had the opportunity to put more drilling online, improve refineries, etc., but they sat idle and sucked up the profits and the tax breaks.
This, imho, is scare tactics.
As for prices, they'll level themselves out. There is no real reason prices are so high. Demand is up, but nothing that unusual. The nat gas/oil/commodity bubble will pass, as they all do.
I hope this is enough to encourage alternative energy practices and development and not scare people into allowing for careless drilling.
I feel like this is FOX news. The next thread is going to be about how stems cell research is not worth pursuing. After that it's how gangbangers from LA could be connected to al qaeda. Finally it's about a fist pound being connected to terrorists. I love how Republicans make science and fact political issues to be debated.
There is proof of increased co2 levels from buring fossil fuels. You cannot argue against facts unless either you are legitimitly crazy or have a non-truth agenda. So it is either time to get back on your antipsychotic drugs or it is time to try to figure out how to sell books to people who do not want to deal in a fact based reality. You cannot deal with crazy people so lets move onto something else.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
Agreed.
I do believe the percentage of scientists that agree on global warming is in the 90+% range.
^ but the percentage that is willing to attribute global warming to C02 is much smaller
interesting info on the book....
"While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publishers, Cambridge University Press, were apparently surprised by the pressure brought against them not to publish The Skeptical Environmentalist. The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite existing pre-publication peer review), that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent publication of any book described as "essentially a political tract" in the future."
"Cambridge University Press felt it necessary to issue a formal, written statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market.""
"Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of publishing proposals for books which offered an opposing argument to Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than academic.
The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contains, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, claiming that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the magazine."
Architectonicita - im not trying to say this guy is right or not but that website that you gave also has errors on Al gores video.
one of the glaring ones brought up again and again is
"According to Gore´s opponents, his presentation imparts the conception to his audience that the observed increases in temperature are the result of increasing CO2. Gore conceals the important detail that the CO2 signals mostly lag nearly 1,000 years behind the temperature signals. This detail points to the conception that the relationship is rather the other way around: increasing CO2 is the result of increasing temperature. However, both conceptions are too simplistic."
SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THIS.........
of course there is bombast on all sides but regardless of the arguments being made by a minority of scientists (hint check their funding) the point is there is no doubt that climate change is happening. forget the sunspot theory or cycles of the planet, it does not fit in with the majority of accepted science.
the issue is the planet is changing, we are a major reason for it. what are we going to do about it?
I Agree that we should take drastic measures to curb many of the enviromental problems that we currently face, but i for one do not want to be coherced into action by means of scare tactics and i worry that this method will create greater backlash towards these efforts in the future.
We are in a profession that has gained credibility and esteem though our ability to ride the growing global warming wave to more profitable projects, more unique designs and better materials. The need for a design professional is increased when there is demand for the customization needed to truly create sustainable "earth friendly" or "green" buildings. i dont expect many people on this forum to be willing to question these issues. after all why look a gift horse in the mouth.
I guess what I'm saying is some of the alarmist views of human caused global warming are perhaps false stories or exaggerations much like those incorporated to many modern religions. They serve only to scare and force people to behave in ways that are beneficial to them and society. is it ok to use propaganda and scar tactics to influence people to live a better life? This is part of why I find it hard to align my views on many of the greater religions. This however doesn't stop me from living my life to the best of my ability, as a kind, gentle person at peace with my neighbors and at peace with myself and my existence in this life and the next.
I hope that we do not soon see global wars and crusades in the name of GREEN. I suppose that many could argue that the Iraq war and many of the problems in the Middle East including Iran's desire for nuclear power are involved with these issues. but we at least need to realize that these types of claims will have a profound effect on limiting third world economic advancment and we owe it to ourselves and our society to take a closer personal inspection of the arguments.
ha.
funniest thing i've heard all day.
Breaking news - There is no such thing as Al Gore. He doesn't exist- He's a computer model made by "greenies" to spread propoganda.
Please explain what the backlash to warning people about our effect on climate change. I am trying to think of one but I am really interested in hearing a crazy rant right now. Especially the part about the crusade in name of Green. L Ron's got a rival coming up.
well i would say that the backlash is exactly this, people are questioning the merits of global warming due to a few possible exagerations. what would the harm be if global warming did exist and we are going to have negitive effects but they are not directly caused by burning fossil fuels?
cause you couldnt get people to act?
well then make up some story that will scare them into beliving its thier fault so they do something usefull with thier lives...... like the bible.
wouldnt we be better off focusing on the future and devloping ways to adapt and curb the problem?
Architectonic.... im not trying to be confrontational i just think we need to reavluate the information. i think we actually agree. but im not sure what i think because all of this science seems to be un-pure
plus im on green overload and a little pissed off about how every product and service is now "green"
You're acting like scientists only make up problems and that none of the federal funded money goes to anyrthing important. This train of thought is extemely wierd. I was thinking about the folks at Cal Tech who sit in their labs trying to PR global warming all day so they can get paid. That's definitly what they are in it for. It's your attack on the science which is the funniest part of your argument.
The two topics you are talking about are comepletly different. Being overloaded with the "green" architectural ideas is way different than saying scientists make up data to cause panic.
I would argue that the act of calling the science of global warming untrue or unpure goes beyond confrotational and falls under the just plain Republican crazy. That's the point I am making and I hope you do agree we are saying the same thing.
What... I never said scientists only make up problems, and that no money goes towards anything important. What I’m saying is there is a fundamental problem with the information that people are willing to except as truth without any research on their own part. All I wanted to do with this thread is ask these questions and perhaps allow some of the very bright people around here to engage in a conversation open to the possibilities of refuting the status quo.
YOU obviously take offense to this... but I’m not sure why you....
"Feel like this is FOX news. The next thread is going to be about how stems cell research is not worth pursuing. After that it's how gangbangers from LA could be connected to al Qaeda. Finally it's about a fist pound being connected to terrorists. I love how Republicans make science and fact political issues to be debated."
"I would argue that the act of calling the science of global warming untrue or un-pure goes beyond confrontational and falls under the just plain Republican crazy."
I just want to have a conversation. But comments like that are what perpetuate the problem I’m talking about.
It’s OK to question things..... It doesn’t make you a republican. Stop with the name calling.
It's is definitly OK to question things but you are definitly making a very Republican argument that is exagerates non-truths. I think you need to be aware of that. To calim any other ways is just not true. I take offense to people who claim a statement is a question and I take offense to people downgrading our effect on the environment. It makes no sense to me at all
Architectonicita...you make no fucking sense at all.
"..making a very Republican argument that is exagerates (sic) non-truths."
Seriously - learn english, or ask someone to proofread your comments before clicking the 'submit' button...you have all the time in the world to do so.
see a preview of his position in this 20 min talk from TED conference three years ago -- might bring a bit of reality to this rant.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html
Spruce thank you for that video!
I think this world needs more people who are willing to step back and take a look at things from a larger perspective then their immediate surroundings and understand that the information they are spoon fed through our media skews our view of reality.
Architectonicita-
Why should you take such offense? I’m not sure why you feel the need to call me a republican, but I don’t really care. You act as if it’s this great insult. Score one for you! I think you need to take a step back and stop being so defensive. There’s nothing wrong with questioning science. science, just like any other belief system, is based on a certain amount of faith and if your not willing to question that faith or at least explore it further then you will never come to a position that is your and that you can stand firmly upon. This questioning or, statement and defense, is my may of figuring out how to align my beliefs’. Nothing is off the table, perhaps I may even become a republican though no one has ever called me that before. Your ignorance astounds me and I have no doubt that you will soon be leading the crusades in the name of earth against the big bad polluters in china and India. Good luck to you. I hope it works out.
fire marshall: There is nothing for me to look at...(dah! Building is framed and insulated...)
frankly, i'd rather my taxes go towards solar/wind energy than as $30 billion gifts/subsidies for oil companies already reaping record profits. and if that means i'm getting taxed more to make the air a little cleaner for kids, so be it.
not sure making this a democrat/republican thing helps the argument. it's clear, however, that this administration's answer to any science it finds inconvenient is to say "it's not proven". of course it's not fucking proven, no one can tell the future! the scientists are looking at a scenario by studying melting glaciers, strange weather patterns, holes in the ozone, burning of fossil fuels etc., etc.: then of course they have to make some assumptions as to what is happening and will happen.
NO ONE really knows if these changes are some small natural upswing in temperature or the sign of things to come, but why accuse them of "panic mongering" and "exaggerations". wouldn't you rather be warned ahead of time and make the changes now then wait till it's too late? ever hear of "a slow train coming"? you can move off the tracks early on, then it picks up speed and you try to move off the tracks but it's too late.
the real problem is that this debate is NOT based on pure science and cold examination of trends, but is corrupted by political ideology, at least at certain levels (and one HUGE problem with the fixes proposed is that it bucks at the profits of large existing entities...no one likes massive change).
and, kanu, you started the thread by saying you are overwhelmed by the global warming "propaganda", which is nothing if not loaded language to discredit someone or something. scientists are usually too caught up in their own work to engage in much propaganda (unless they sell out): it's how the information is used for pushing ideologies or political agendas that turns it into propaganda.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.