Bjorn Lomborg Advances a Step or Two

[George.]

The Six Steps, you will remember, are:

1. Global warming isn't real.
2. If it is, it is not man-made.
3. If it is, it isn't serious.
4. If it is, there is nothing we can do about it.
5. If there is, we can't afford it.
6. If we can, change the subject and stall for time.

Bjorn Lomborg used to be stuck between Steps 1 and 2. He appears to have advanced to some place around Step 4, although he still relapses into Step 3.

I bet within a year he is talking about Al Gore's personal life... :D


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100501676.html

[George.]

He starts out by confessing that he was dead wrong, back when he argued at Step Two level:



I point this out not to challenge the reality of global warming or the fact that it's caused in large part by humans, but because the discussion about climate change has turned into a nasty dustup, with one side arguing that we're headed for catastrophe and the other maintaining that it's all a hoax. I say that neither is right. It's wrong to deny the obvious: The Earth is warming, and we're causing it. But that's not the whole story, and predictions of impending disaster just don't stack up.


Then it's on to some Step Three...



A one-foot rise in sea level isn't a catastrophe, though it will pose a problem, particularly for small island nations.

... and some Step Five:



But let's remember that very little land was lost when sea levels rose last century. It costs relatively little to protect the land from rising tides: We can drain wetlands, build levees and divert waterways. As nations become richer and land becomes a scarcer commodity, this process makes ever more sense: Like our parents and grandparents, our generation will ensure that the water doesn't claim valuable land.


Yeah. Let's finish what our grandparents started and drain the world's remaining mangrove forests and coastal wetlands. Rising sea level will drown the existing ones, and our levees and drainage canals will keep them from moving up the shore. There is no downside - who needs clear coastal waters, fisheries, coral reefs, and storm protection anyway?

And this guy labels himself the "Skeptical Environmentalist"? :rolleyes:

[George.]

He's willing to push hunters overboard to save his foundering ship. What do you say to this argument, Brian W?



Of course, it's not just humans we care about. Environmentalists point out that magnificent creatures such as polar bears will be decimated by global warming as their icy habitat melts. Kyoto (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kyoto?tid=informline) would save just one bear a year. Yet every year, hunters kill 300 to 500 polar bears, according to the World Conservation Union. Outlawing this slaughter would be cheap and easy -- and much more effective than a worldwide pact on carbon emissions.

[Phillip Allen]

Oh George...them evil hunters...

[George.]

Evil hunters? On the contrary. Species become endangered because we wreck their habitat, and then the fat cats who make the big money from oil or soybeans or whatever blame the hunters.

Which is not to say that therefore endangered species should be allowed to be hunted to extinction, of course.

[paladin]

would it be a bad thing to hunt lawyers to extinction......or insurance company scam artists.....or....or.....:mad:

[George.]

Alas, neither of those is endangered.