Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunsettommy
Maybe you are similar to Bjorn Lomborg?
Who believes that GW is real.But the effects of it are not that significant.He wants the money spent on the needy people and infrastructure.Than to spend it "mitigating" CO2 emissions.
He is part of the "Copenhagen Consensus" where they believe that there are many environmental and social things to do that more important than reducing CO2 emissions.
Such as potable water,medical care,feed the poor and so on.Where money spent will produce tangible results.
Try this link:
Copenhagen Consensus
|
I think everyone should read Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and "Cool It". The guy, as you say, accepts the IPCC side of things, but makes a very logical and well thought out case for why concentrating our efforts in other areas would yield far better results. (As in, spending money on "stopping global warming" would be a complete waste of money and resources.)
The one point I never see raised is whether or not warming is bad or good.
Hasn't history clearly shown that we flourish during warming cycles and struggle during cooling cycles? (Roman Warming-good times/Dark Ages-bad times/Medieval Warming-good times/Little Ice Age-bad times/Modern Warming-good times.)
I would think that would be a big point considering that we are fully 150 years into the current warming and have seen the most pronounced improvements
ever in human living conditions during that time. So tell me Al Gore, when exactly is the bad stuff supposed to start happening in connection to warming? ("Any time now....you just watch...any time now....yep...any second...mark my words!")
So it seems that even if we were "responsible" for global warming, we should give ourselves a big high five and see to it that we "prevent" any future cooling. (Which
could be starting now actually.

)
This idea that ice is somehow "good" baffles me.