Comments on: Adding fuel to the Climate Change fire

By: Plenty of fish.

Plenty of fish. — Tue, 20 May 2008 23:46:51 +0000

Arizona game and fish….

Types of fish. Fish tanks. Fish tycoon cheats. Yahoo babel fish. Plenty of fish. Tropical fish….

By: The Poet Omar

The Poet Omar — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:25:58 +0000

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.

By: The Poet Omar

The Poet Omar — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 20:24:17 +0000

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?

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:44:38 +0000

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.

By: The Poet Omar

The Poet Omar — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 15:20:33 +0000

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?

By: Lance

Lance — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 03:40:34 +0000

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.