We’ve recently sparked some interesting discussions on climate change and global warming here at ASHC. I’d like to add a little fuel (biodegradable, earth-friendly fuel, of course) to the fire by recommending this article on Dr. David Orrell’s new book, Apollo’s Arrow. Although I have not yet had the opportunity to read Dr. Orrell’s new work, I find his ideas to be very interesting. While not exactly covering new ground here, Dr. Orrell does certainly add to the theory that environmentalism has become a religion, complete with its own prophets, matyrs, and holy scriptures. As pointed out, Dr. Orrell is not a climate change skeptic in the Bjorn Lomborg or Michael Crichton models; rather, he is a man fully convinced that climate change is occurring, but that our ability to predict or model it is virtually non-existent. He takes issue with Kyoto, the IPCC report, and with the newfound prophets of environmentalism David Suzuki and Al Gore. Apollo’s Arrow is sure to make for interesting reading and is definitely something that dedicated environmentalists and climate change die-hards should take to heart.
-
Archives
- January 2010
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
-
Meta
One quibble. Bjorn Lomborg is not a skeptic, he just feels there are more important ways to spend our resources. He accepts the idea of anthropogenic warming, or at least he did. maybe he has changed that view.
I may be entirely mistaken, Lance. I, perhaps incorrectly, thought that one of his key objections was along the same vein of reasoning as Dr. Orrell’s : climate change modelling is faulty. Am I confusing Lomborg with someone else?
I haven’t read much of his stuff recently, but I think that you are right. His objection was more along the lines of Orrell’s than Crichton’s. he felt the science was less certain than the environmental movements claimed, but I don’t think his claim put him at odds with the IPCC really, and he gives “deniers arguments a serious hearing. Anyway, I just saw him being called a skeptic along the lines of Crichton as being a bit too strong. I mistyped by saying he wasn’t a skeptic, he is, but not in the sense many people are using the term on this issue, which is to mean someone who denies global warming science has any validity.
His real objection was more along the lines of what is the best way to react to climate change. I plan on reading up on him again so I can do a long post next week.
Phew! Thought I didn’t do my homework for a sec. I basically agree with Lomborg’s (and, by extension Orrell’s) position. Climate science is a perfectly valid field of scientific inquiry, but we are badly out of our depths with current scientific knowledge. The IPCC, and other environmental papers, relies far too heavily on questionable climate modelling, especially since we have demonstrated lack of accurate predictive capabilities. As Orrell mentions, we can’t even accurately predict weather conditions 72 hours in advance. How are we to model the sum total of the Earth’s climate history and predict patterns for the next twenty, fifty, one hundred years?
In reconsidering, perhaps I should have been more precise in my definition of Lomborg, instead of using the catchall term, skeptic. Sorry about the confusion.
Pingback: Plenty of fish.