Bjorn Lomborg on Stern Review
A very good review of the Stern Review by Bjorn Lomborg. Now before people call Professor Lomborg a “denier” (a term I despise), I should point out Lomberg says “climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions”.
How-ever he finds Stern has:
* The review is one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change.
* Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best.
* The most well-recognized climate economist in the world is probably Yale University’s William Nordhaus, whose “approach is perhaps closest in spirit to ours,” according to the Stern review. Mr. Nordhaus finds that the social cost of CO2 is $2.50 per ton. Mr. Stern, however, uses a figure of $85 per ton.
* Mr. Stern tells us that the cost of U.K. flooding will quadruple to 0.4% from 0.1% of GDP due to climate change. However, we are not told that these alarming figures only hold true if one assumes that the U.K. will take no additional measures–essentially doing absolutely nothing and allowing itself to get flooded, perhaps time and again. In contrast, the U.K. government’s own assumptions take into account a modest increase in flood prevention, finding that the cost will actually decline sharply to 0.04% of U.K. GDP, in spite of climate change.
* According to the background numbers in Mr. Stern’s own report, climate change will cost us 0% now and 3% of GDP in 2100, a much more informative number than the 20% now and forever.
* In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern’s attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.
* Faced with such alarmist suggestions, spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure–$75 billion–the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world’s major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?
November 5th, 2006 at 7:21 pm
Yeah, well, some of us are still to be convinced that any climate change is anthropogenic and not simply due to some natural phenomenon like a cycle in the Earth’s orbit.
November 5th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I posted a great critique by Nigel Lawson of the Stern report on my blog. The link to his lecture is here:
http://www.cps.org.uk/latestlectures/?
November 5th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
Don’t mean noth’in…Hulun already took the fly and sometime soon NZ will be effectively paying the Russian gangster state self induced errr…”carbon reparations”.
It’s as hilarious as it is tragic.
A deeper concern is the second rate intellectual talent running this country.
November 5th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Gaz, you’re onto something there, except you’re not thinking big enough.
It is my opinion that we’ll be laughed at by generations to come as the idiots that allowed ourselves to be goaded into this wild goose chase.
Of course, in principle, doing things that are less destructive and more sustainable are Good.
It’s just a pity the politics of it all turns it into a tool for economic influence and control.
But then – what’s new?
November 5th, 2006 at 8:52 pm
That’s ok gaz, why not just come right out and say that you do NOT want to be convinced? After all if you were you might feel some responsibility to do something about it.
AGW is only indirectly an economic problem. More than a few people have sagely observed that it is deeply wrong for the profound ecological and social consequences of AGW to be reduced to a discussion about money.
It is bad enough that the still maturing science of climate change is still gathering it’s own new data, making new discoveries and publishing new interpretations, without then attempting to invalidate the scientific debate because there is even hugely more uncertainty about the economic argument. The scientific “fear and uncertainty” card has been played for years as an excuse to do nothing about AGW; to now play it over the economic aspect is a pitifully transparent ploy from the Wall Street Journal.
Industrial capitalism’s dirty secret is that it’s ascendancy over the last few centuries has been less to do with the purported magical efficiencies of the “free market”, than the fact that the entire global economy as we know it has been erected upon a one-time only exploitation of ancient reserves of fossil fuels. Of course the establishment wants us to carry on pretending that it can be “business as usual” regardless of the consequences to the planet.
Still it is worth quoting Lomborg’s last para:
They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning.
Well if as you say all these urgent problems could be solved for a few measly hundred billions, then I say, get on with it. (After all we have spent more creating a total cluster fuck in Iraq.) Or is Lomborg using the blatant failure of the global community to have even done this much over the last few decades, as justification for doing even less about AGW?
And Fred, I take that you are one of those Nobel Prize winning, but reticent, “first-rate intellects” who think they should be running the country?
November 5th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
Economic union with Aust. would fix so many things……
November 5th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
How can anyone take the Stern report seriously.Commissioned by a Govt that has lost its way(what was the third way anyway but spin!) and is using this report as a diversonary tactic.The postive is that it is cheaper than starting a war which was the time honoured way to divert the public`s gaze.
November 5th, 2006 at 9:15 pm
Alas, an emotionally fraught night is in prospect for Red.
Sadders looks like he’s for the noose.
Oh, the humanity of it.
Maybe Hulun will run a condolence motion through parliament,
just to demonstrate the way the superior NZ brain works
November 5th, 2006 at 9:30 pm
Fred,
Only a total idiot drinks and blogs at the same time.
November 5th, 2006 at 10:21 pm
Tsk, is that the thanks we get for trying to alert you to some potential personal emotional trauma, Red… pal?
Perhaps it’s grief counselling for one little lefty tomorrow.
Sadders looks like an ex-parrot but like you I won’t believe it until the autopsy.
Chin,chin.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
The wheels are falling off for the natural climate cycle deniers.
Their inventory so far consists of-
A debunked “hockey stick” model
A discredited film put out by a failed U.S. politician
And now an economics report coming out of the U.K. that has been dismissed by fellow economists as “alarmist and incompetent”.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:30 pm
battler,
And you remain as uninformed as ever on the topic. I dare say you have never actually read a scientific journal article in all your life. You couldn’t could you? So why the hell do you imagine that you are qualified to dismiss the work of the thousands of educated, intelligent, competent and genuine researchers who actually know something about climate science?
Is is because you can look out the window and tell the difference between sunshine and rain? Sorry buster but the only discrediting going on here is what you are doing to your own credibility; and your flat-out inability to accept that you are wrong because you do not want to take on board the consequences that flow from being wrong on a matter that is so vital to our entire collective future.
Nope all that seems to concern you is that you maintain the delusions of your own personal convenience and comfort as long as possible. The fact is that the much of the world has really had a bit of a “light bulb” moment in the last few weeks regarding AGW; your claim that that the “wheels are falling off” is directly contradicted by reality…as usual.
All truth goes through four stages:
1. It is ignored
2. It is ridiculed.
3. It is smeared and bitterly opposed.
4. It is universally accepted as perfectly obvious.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:34 pm
Never before in the history of left wing bullshit (and I’ve listened to a lot) have I ever heard such crap as comparing anyone who questions climate change to “holocuast deniers”. You wealth distruibutors in green clothing have set back environmentalism by decades. Wankers extraorinaire!
November 5th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
RedRag
It was once universally accepted as perfectly obvious that the world was flat.
We’ve all been through “Next Ice Age Coming Soon”, “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Bird Flu”
“AGW” as you so fondly refer to it is just the next in a line of trumped up theories and ’scientific’ fads to extract cash from the long suffering taxpayers of the world.
Enjoy the myth while it lasts.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Except that climate change threatens all the development related things he talks about.
Just to take some of the most blatant examples:
The impact of climate change on Africa is likely to very severe, the ending of the Himalayan glacier melt is extremely concerning (essentially ending the most reliable source of water for 2 billion people), rising sea levels will destroy some of the most productive farming land in the world and displace hundreds of millions. Rising temperatures are likely to increase some disease risks. The world’s rich will be more able to avoid these, but the poor have no resources to avoid these impacts, caused overwhelmingly by the world’s rich.
And this isn’t scaremongering. Pick up any issue of the journals Nature or Science and you’ll see a wealth of supporting evidence for these conclusions.
Bjorn Lomborg isn’t taken seriously by a lot of scientists or development specialists, because he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He’s very good at dealing with numbers, but when it comes to seeing that there are ecosystem services that are being destroyed that cannot be replaced by humans, he appears as blind as a bat.
November 5th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
George, the Bull of truth will sooner or later charge through the RedRag you and your comrade are waving in the wind.
Enjoy your fantasy rags while they last. If your comrades have their way you soon won’t be able to buy them because the paper they are printed on is killing too many trees and the transport to get them to you is burning too much oil and emitting too much CO2.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:12 am
Battler,
Ive directly debunked these before:
We’ve all been through “Next Ice Age Coming Soon”, “Population Bomb”, “Y2K”, “Bird Flu”
1. The Next Ice Age was a scientific hypothesis that was only ever proposed by a small group who quickly backed away from it when it failed to stand up to peer review.
2. The Population Bomb remains a challenge. It is a question of balancing growth in numbers with our ability to use resources more efficiently. The balance has been relatively easy to maintain while low-cost oil production was plentiful. Oil production WILL peak sometime in the next 20 yrs for certain, but population growth is projected to peak at about 10b around 2100. It is not at all clear how we will meet that gap at all.
Last year the world consumed 11m more tonnes of wheat that it grew.
We grew 10% of our food using “fossil water” that is non-renewable.
3. Y2k. The media inflated the genuine issue. The very real problem that existed with UNIX based machines that dealt with money (and was fixed by throwing huge sums of money at it) was transferred by a technically illiterate press to ALL computer applications such as real time automation in the infrastructure industries. This was always wrong for a range of solid, indisputable, technical reasons, but the media was not in a position to make, nor convey the distinction. In that case the media fucked up, not the the informed group of specialists who were simply not listened to.
This is not the case with climate change…this time it IS the experts telling us this is so. The science papers are all in remarkable consensus; the debate lingers on only on right wing blog sites and popular media rags such as the Wall Street Journal.
4. Bird Flu?
So none of the epidemics of the past ever happened then? 1918 was a myth? And none can ever happen in the future? Quick call WHO, I’m SURE they will be greatly relieved.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Exactly redrag. Yet again intelligent input!
Another good example is:
hands up all who think that the dinosaurs died out because they got hit by a meteor!
In fact there is enormous scientific debate about this. Mteors make good movies so are widely accepted, while the competitive exclusion principle in ecology is ho-hum.
Think about it:
geoscientists – believe meteors killed dinosaurs
bioscientists – believe mammals or the transition from gymnosperms to angiosperms killed dino’s.
Hollywood – meteors = $$$$$
geoscientists – global warming
bioscientists – not so sure about the causes or effects
Hollywood – hurricanes = $$$$$
It all depends on you frame of reference!
Much has to do with the rate that knowledge is generated – it is generated so fast not even scientist can kept up.
Hands up who think sharks don’t get cancer! NOT TRUE – sharks do get cancer – see Cancer Research 2004 or 2005 for a summary. The story was invented by a doctor who wanted to support his son’s herbal remedies business, and has helped put many sharks on the endangered species lists. Even scientist were sucked in – the NIH has spent what probably amounts to billions on clinical trials of shark cartilage – money down the drain for real cancer research.
SO REAL cancer research has been slowed down because the public got into mass hysteria because they thought shark cartilage could cure it. Even our own government has wasted money on shark cartilage research!!!!!!
The list is endless
- all protein diets for weight loss
- all carb diets for weight loss
- all fat diets for weight loss
- only aerobic exercise can burn fat
- only anaerobic exercise can burn fat
All these are pseudoscientific feeding troughs which selected political elite have their snouts firmly planted in.
They even suck scientist in, chew them up and spit them out without so much as a big fat redundancy payment.
Bird flu is another farce – its cost the country millions in “contingency plans” Do you know what a contingency plan is? Its an expensive weekend away for bureaucrats while the secretary writes a glossy brochure!!!
Prevention costs – unless it is really worth it (eg ciggys) it is a bottomless bureaucrats pocket into which we hard working NZers pour money!!
Hypocratic oath for doctors:
First do no harm
Hypocratic oath for ecologists:
If you don’t know what your doing don’t fuck with it.
Wake up. There are environmental issues – many and varied, not just climate change. Even for climate change it is time to “let all voices be heard” (Nature 2005).
New Zealand leads many nations in showing the way – good and bad. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than this weekend where
The NZ government (through transit NZ) took out a half page advertisement asking for toll support to bring the completion of the Western Ring Route in Auckland forward
in the global warming section of the Herald!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about hypocracy!!! Talk about bad advice!!! Talk about lack of political common sense!! I’d say there will be some nervous public servants come monday morning eh????
If they were serious they would have asked the logical question: can we as NZers please join together and shelve the ring road and look at environmentally friendly alternatives to the fossil fuelled motor car!!! Did they do that – HELL NO!
Wake the hell up. These people want you to produce more CO2 and then use the world’s valuable energy sources “capturing” it and burying it under the ground. Bury CO2?
Doesn’t that make you smell a politician???? they are wealth redistributing robin hoods in green costumes. but they are redistributing your kids wealth that they haven’t even earned yet!
The environment is very precious – if you don’t understand it please don’t fuck with it!!!!!
November 6th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Battler: I also note that Stern was former VP and chief economist at the World Bank. Say what you like about me, but he’s not a commie…
November 6th, 2006 at 12:32 am
Redrag I thought you were an objective lefty based on some of your comments on other topics.
Exactly battler; Yet again intelligent input!
Another good example is:
Hands up all who think that the dinosaurs died out because they got hit by a meteor!
In fact there is enormous scientific debate about this. Mteors make good movies so are widely accepted, while the competitive exclusion principle in ecology is ho-hum.
Think about it:
geoscientists – believe meteors killed dinosaurs
bioscientists – believe mammals or the transition from gymnosperms to angiosperms killed dino’s.
Hollywood – meteors = $$$$$
geoscientists – global warming
bioscientists – not so sure about the causes or effects
Hollywood – hurricanes = $$$$$
It all depends on you frame of reference!
Much has to do with the rate that knowledge is generated – it is generated so fast not even scientist can kept up.
Hands up who think sharks don’t get cancer! NOT TRUE – sharks do get cancer – see Cancer Research 2004 or 2005 for a summary. The story was invented by a doctor who wanted to support his son’s herbal remedies business, and has helped put many sharks on the endangered species lists. Even scientist were sucked in – the NIH has spent what probably amounts to billions on clinical trials of shark cartilage – money down the drain for real cancer research.
SO REAL cancer research has been slowed down because the public got into mass hysteria because they thought shark cartilage could cure it. Even our own government has wasted money on shark cartilage research!!!!!!
The list is endless
- all protein diets for weight loss
- all carb diets for weight loss
- all fat diets for weight loss
- only aerobic exercise can burn fat
- only anaerobic exercise can burn fat
All these are pseudoscientific feeding troughs which selected political elite have their snouts firmly planted in.
They even suck scientist in, chew them up and spit them out without so much as a big fat redundancy payment.
Bird flu is another farce – its cost the country millions in “contingency plans” Do you know what a contingency plan is? Its an expensive weekend away for bureaucrats while the secretary writes a glossy brochure!!!
Prevention costs – unless it is really worth it (eg ciggys) it is a bottomless bureaucrats pocket into which we hard working NZers pour money!!
Hypocratic oath for doctors:
First do no harm
Hypocratic oath for ecologists:
If you don’t know what your doing don’t fuck with it.
Wake up. There are environmental issues – many and varied, not just climate change. Even for climate change it is time to “let all voices be heard” (Nature 2005).
New Zealand leads many nations in showing the way – good and bad. Nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than this weekend where
The NZ government (through transit NZ) took out a half page advertisement asking for toll support to bring the completion of the Western Ring Route in Auckland forward
in the global warming section of the Herald!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about hypocracy!!! Talk about bad advice!!! Talk about lack of political common sense!! I’d say there will be some nervous public servants come monday morning eh????
If they were serious they would have asked the logical question: can we as NZers please join together and shelve the ring road and look at environmentally friendly alternatives to the fossil fuelled motor car!!! Did they do that – HELL NO!
Wake the hell up. These people want you to produce more CO2 and then use the world’s valuable energy sources “capturing” it and burying it under the ground. Bury CO2?
Doesn’t that make you smell a politician???? they are wealth redistributing robin hoods in green costumes. but they are redistributing your kids wealth that they haven’t even earned yet!
The environment is very precious – if you don’t understand it please don’t fuck with it!!!!!
Egos aside. Bad choices have been made over the last 30 years. Now its time to admit we were wrong and make good choices for OUR country.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:57 am
Keith: The Lawson speech is filled with disproven arguments, and puts up so many strawmen it’s hard to know where to begin
Urban heat islands, solar variation, invoking global cooling, water vapour, medieval warm period, MBH ‘Hockey stick’, greenland icemelt, attribution of hurricanes…
He hasn’t read any of the recent summary scientific papers, and like Lomborg he makes so many assumptions it’s very difficult to address what he says (since so many of these assumptions rest on each other)
I’d reccomend that people actually read the entire Stern review (not that I’ve had time yet to do so).
I’m actually sick to death of arguing this bullshit. Why are the right so wedded to the idea that the market can do no wrong?
November 6th, 2006 at 1:00 am
On the other hand it explains why so many people who comment on places like here are confused. If you listen to out and out liars like Lawson, then you’re bound to be skeptical about climate change.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:07 am
Why do the left call anyone with even a minor contrary opinion “no better than holocaust deniers”.
Wouldn’t it be fascinating to find out how many climate change missionaries also agree with speeding up completion of the Western Ring route in Auckland?
I smell fairweather socialists at work.
November 6th, 2006 at 5:58 am
“Keith: The Lawson speech is filled with disproven arguments”
No, it isn’t. Lawson points out the disproven arguments in the Stern report.
And since you haven’t read the Stern report George, how can you possibly evaluate Lawson’s rebuttal?
Is this the standard of argument those who support the conclusions of the Stern report are relying on? If so, you’ll have to do better than that.
Oh wait! no you won’t–emotion beats science every time, eh?
November 6th, 2006 at 6:49 am
George -solar variation is not a strawman argument,it is a scientific fact.This is one of the themes for international heliophsyical year in 2007.This involves some 1100 heliophysical institutes from 166 countries.
At present we have solar minima the most intense inverse in 3 soalr cycles.This will produce a reduction of around 1c in this years T.
The fast reduction is SH sst is even greater.
With the upcoming Grand minimum in Solar output you should be preparing for colder temperatures as Russia has been preparing for the last 2 years.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Lefties will believe the whole global warming/climate change scam because they’re desperate to believe in something, anything. Secular idiots in search of a substitute for religion.
And what better than climate change? They can bash big business, the eeevil oil industry et al and as a bonus, they get increased taxes and government control of our lives.
It’s a marriage made in heaven. (Or in front of a civil celebrant in their case.)
November 6th, 2006 at 7:59 am
The problem with the climate change debate is that as long as the issues have been hijacked by left wing wack-jobs and hooked up to all their usual bandwagons ( tax the shit out of the productive nations and give the loot to third world dictators , etc etc), the intelligent right tends to keep silent, allowing the left wing wackjobs to dominate the debate even more, and the vicious cycle continues.
Climate change is real, at some point the right needs to step in and shout down the loons with some practical solutions.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:03 am
Because China, that wonderful haven of Capitalism, is leading the way showing how we should preserve our environment?
As alluded to above, part of the issue here is that people are determined to make ecological view points stick in the traditional left / right political divide. Once the “left” can see that it is possible to be “right wing” or Libertarian and still care what is going on with the environment; then we might be on the path to some solutions.
The vice-versa already exists: we know that social redistributionists frequently care nothing about environmental impacts.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:31 am
Further evidence of scientific consensus from the letter from 60 scientists to the Canadian govt.
“Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.”
The list of signees is worth including cos it sure looks lighweight…….
Sincerely,
Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa
Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards
Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.
Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant
Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology
Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa
Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta
Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.
Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria
Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax
Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta
Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.
Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary
Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.
Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.
Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists
Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review
Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand
Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia
Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.
Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville
Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.
Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)
Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland
Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment
Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change
Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey
Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway
Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand
Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001,’ Wellington, N.Z.
Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut
Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service
Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society
Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University
Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland
Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden
Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.
Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.
Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health
Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist
Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
© National Post 2006
November 6th, 2006 at 10:33 am
Porcupine: Never before in the history of left wing bullshit (and I’ve listened to a lot) have I ever heard such crap as comparing anyone who questions climate change to “holocuast deniers”.
Why do the left call anyone with even a minor contrary opinion “no better than holocaust deniers”.
Twice with the quotes, but look as I might, I can’t see where someone said this. Porcupine, can you show me just where this comparison is being made?
November 6th, 2006 at 10:43 am
oh, oh, I’ve got a list too…
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
but, lightweight, I suppose. Not really worth considering their conclusions?
November 6th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Hemi, its on “more left turkey talk” or something – No Right Turn.
http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2006/10/clark-on-climate-change.html
November 6th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Hemi, I am a concerned environmentalist. There are many environmental issues of which climate change is one. I do not outright refute climate change but realise there are two sides to the story. I am particularly concerned about the loony toon proposed solutions
there are major problems with this list, and
* you need to understand the structure and depth of scientific debate that goes on amongst scientists
* all are outright government departments or quangos
* all represent scientists but do not speak for all scientists all the time
* many scientist have biases
* geoscientists are over-represented in the discussions
* they often put out complicated documents that detail both sides of the story but this information is channelled through
- > bureaucrats – > politicians – > media – . Hollywood, like Chinese whispers
I could go on ad infinitum. There’s too much info out there much of it with a politico-economic bias. You can get a handle on what is going on by the ludcrosity of some of the solutions – they always involve the transfer of large sums of money, energy or power.
- carbon trading without considering all other elements of the ecological cycles (= gnomes trying to create another stock market)
- using energy to bury carbon dioxide (!)
With the environment – if you don’t understand it don’t f** with it.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:33 am
Fred you really are pushing your luck, how dare you question the wisdom of the political elite.
My God man if people like Dear Leader and her band of misguided noddys say we have climate change then we have climate change and no doubt it is probably evil persons like yourself that are the problem.
You obviously have to much time on your hands I would suggest a enviromental tax to keep troublesome people like yourself busy.
November 6th, 2006 at 11:39 am
Fred, right on. Still it wont be long before someone starts trying to tell you they are all in the pay of some oil company….
BTW, wasnt Lomberg one of the founders of Greenpeace?
November 6th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Whilst we are all running around shouting “the sky is falling, the sky is falling”, we are missing the real tragedy: what is happening to our oceans.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
Imagine a world in which there are no more fish left in the sea. On current trends that day is only just over 40 years away.
So whilst we argue over something that may or may not affect us, we ignore our very real plundering of the commons. And one that is very easy to take personal action on: just stop eating food that comes from the sea, now!
And yes: saving the sea requires personal sacrifice. Gabbing on about the climate change doesn’t really, does it?
November 6th, 2006 at 11:58 am
“Imagine a world in which there are no more fish left in the sea. On current trends that day is only just over 40 years away.”
So what do you suggest? Tell 2 billion people that rely on fish that they can’t eat it any more? Get them to eat fartless cow meat? Grow gene-engineered super lentils? All that plundering of the ocean, and I am against it by the way, isn’t done for the hell of it. People all around the world, and especially in Asia, want to eat fish.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Hemi, its on “more left turkey talk” or something – No Right Turn.
So when several large scientific institutions publish material stating that Climate Change is a reality, you can dismiss it with this argument: “all represent scientists but do not speak for all scientists all the time”.
But you then say that one lefty speaks for all lefties by stating “Why do the left call anyone with even a minor contrary opinion “no better than holocaust deniers”.
Isn’t that a bit contradictory? Why not just say “I/S says…”?
November 6th, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Hemi….nice to see the left has now dropped the claim there is scientific consensus.
Now go and tell Al Gore.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
nice to see the left has now dropped the claim there is scientific consensus.
When did this happen?
November 6th, 2006 at 12:15 pm
Good point. I guess those 2 billion people are just going to have to eat all the fish. What happens when they run out of fish in the next few decades then makes global warming’s consequences look fairly tame, doesn’t it?
Oh, wait – I want to drive a Ferrari. By your closing logic I can just go and do it, without worrying about the consequences. Way to go!
November 6th, 2006 at 12:16 pm
That’s some short term memory problem Hemi.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
indeed, but again, when did “the left” drop the claim there is scientific consensus?
November 6th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Silly me, assumed that 60 aces in their fields of relevant science must change the left’s claim of consensus in science.
But they’re the left and denial in support of dogma is their business.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
…assumed that 60 aces in their fields of relevant science must change the left’s claim of consensus in science.
Well, no. Consensus has been reached, and the 60 scientist listed above are a group that opposes that consensus. Whether they can change the consenus view remains to be seen.
Or do you really believe that every single scientist in the world has to agree with Climate Change theory before accepting it as reality?
November 6th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
If you want a giggle or two try googling any random name from “Freds” list of scientists.
i.e
Fred mentions that Dr. Richard S. Courtney is a “climate and atmospheric science consultant,” he however fails to mention “is a Technical Editor for CoalTrans International (journal of the international coal trading industry or that In the early 1990s Courtney was a Senior Material Scientist of the National Coal Board.
As for his doctorate
“Richard S Courtney has a degree from the Open University but tells everyone that he has a degree from Cambridge but when challenged can not remember which college when further challenged he becomes flustered”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_S._Courtney
Google any one you like, it is a fun game for all the family!
November 6th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
Hemi,
I do, genuinely, not mean to criticise objective people with left wing views. I have asked on a few left blogs if they would distance themselves from their extremist loonies but got no reply.
A major issue for all parties in this country is to control or oust their extremists – but they cant do it, they need their votes; so they have to appease them by mooting cow fart taxes and passing laws legalising your friendly neighbourhood brothel (great one the hard working women of this country BTW). Nowhere was this more crystal clear than in the antinuclear antibody’s government where they had to throw the left the nuke bone to get this country’s economy into the 20th century.
The left comes in for more flack because they are currently in power. I fully expect the tables to turn when the right gets power and shafts us shitless too.
The answer is for the normal people in the country to down weapons and stop fighting some antiquated boss vs worker struggle that was over at least 50 years ago. And to join together and insist on SENSIBLE POLICIES and to HOLD THEIR GOVERNMENTS ACCOUNTABLE for their loony fringes. We must stop fighting archaic partisan wars which have no relevance in the modern world that divide us and allow us to be conquered by the bludgers and extremists at both ends of the political spectrum.
November 6th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
The Telegraph has weighed in nicely on this:
Climate chaos? Don’t believe it
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
November 6th, 2006 at 12:58 pm
Climate chaos? Don’t believe it
You’d believe a rich Tory ex-journalist over, say, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
Well, let’s hope he’s more right about this than he was his ‘Eternity Puzzle’ (which lasted all of 18 months).
November 6th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
I do agree that the prospect of massive fisheries depletion is very scary. I don’t eat fish (for this reason), but I have the option of other protein sources. What the billions of poor for whom fish is a primary source of nutrition are going to do is beyond me.
The usual cynics on the right will disparage any attempt to regulate things internationally, but what solutions do I see you offering?
Maksimovich: The sun has influence certainly, but does not account for more than a fraction of the change in temperature change (and will account for less as greenhouse gas impacts continue to increase). See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/attribution-of-20th-century-climate-change-to-cosub2sub/(Hansen et al. graph) for a summary.
Like some of the other commenters here, I do think that intergenerational theft occurs when we destroy what can’t be replaced. Conventional economics simply discounts it to zero, and assumes replacements can be found. Life isn’t that simple (unfortunately)
November 6th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Excellent site thanks sonic. I like to debunk the message rather than the messenger but I have suggested they add Stern’s name.
This site has lots of good stuff on it for debunking the latest mass hysteria/MSM feeding frenzy, like my old favourite shark cartilage for cancer along with mediums, psychics, astrology, royal jelly,…
They are objective with a bit of a left lean, but I can live with that.
Skeptics societies in most countries also have good stuff on their sites for debunking loonies. No doubt we’ll see more on their sites about fart taxes and using valuable energy to bury carbon dioxide deep underground once the rational middle ground prevails, as it always does eventually.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:24 pm
My solution: Stop eating sea foods, create strongly enforced marine reserves and no-catch zones, and immediately ban bottom trawling (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3719590.stm).
We here in New Zealand are already starting down this track, which is good. But without a decent navy/air force I have no idea how we are going to enforce any fishing bans…
November 6th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
George, I think I would be voted a right wing, tory, reactionary, MCP, blah blah…. on this site and I absolutely one hundred percent agree with you.
Our fisheries are being raped and no one is doing anything serious to stop it. All it would take is short term pain for long term gain.
There are major environmental issues facing NZ that are being swept under the carpet and that’s why I’m so sceptical of the GW/CC feeding trough/smoke screen, call it what you will.
eg
- urban sprawl – using up all the good farmland and coastland we rely on for primary production, leisure and tourism – in all parties “too hard to do bin” because they would have to take on the construction industry.
- and its associated issue – the emerging fact that many of these subdivisions going back 50 years or more are on unstable land that never should have been built on in the first place!
- marine benthic protected areas jack off forced on us by the government/iwi/fishing industry complex – that only protects the areas from bottom trawling that you cant bottom trawl anyway.
November 6th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
…once the rational middle ground prevails, as it always does eventually.
You mean, when we reach a consensus?
November 6th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
When these boys start writing these sorts of things,who do you believe?
http://www.climate.org/PDF/clim_change_scenario.pdf
November 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
As long as that concensus doesn’t involve redistributing our wealth to our up and coming competitors, so our children and grandchilren have to pay the price, yes.
I can’t see much new in this GW stuff its just the “reshaping the international order/club of rome type stuff round 30 yrs ago – wealth redistributors playing the green card.
November 6th, 2006 at 3:15 pm
I have a theory the left go rabid over this sort of thing because they think AGW could be the destruction of the Capitalist system. And that really gets some of them most excited considering the left has failed miserably everywhere in this quest.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
“I have a theory the left go rabid over this sort of thing because they think AGW could be the destruction of the Capitalist system. And that really gets some of them most excited considering the left has failed miserably everywhere in this quest”
And there’s the money shot, right there. Well done David. AGW is their great shining hope to smash capitalism – or at least remould it in their own ’social democrat’ image.
November 6th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Martin;
Fish farms are being established all the time now in Asia. Not fast enough probably but its part of the answer. I think some have tried to get consent here but have struggled. We have sea pens for salmon which shows it can work. It was a shame that the Kingfish farm up north went bust but well done to the fishing groups and Doc(?) which bought the 100,000 fingerlings and released them into the sea. yum. Kingfish steaks.
As a country we should do more of it but getting consent even for something simple as Mussels is problematic. For us to reduce our emmissions a huge number of compromises are going to have to be made. Dare I say the Resource Consent process has to change and “for the common good” is going to become more relevant. The test of all the rhetoric here will be whether people accept this and allow another river valley to go for a dam or nuclear power to be put in Otahuhu.
Owen,I agree with you about rail. Its inefficient energy wise and a highway of electric hybrids is far better but it is puzzling why the left keep supporting rail. I though basic physics meant weight needs energy to move it.Any ideas?
November 6th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Sorry George The site you refer to does not have any heliophysicists.The sun of course forms 98% of the worlds energy budget this is the heuristic reality.
The heliophysical coupling(earth_sun)has been a well studied phenomena in all its manisfestations of dissipative process’s.
The theory of course is made up of a number of astrophysical laws,the most important being Petrovs and the Kolmogorov laws.As this is the theme of the international heliophysical year with a substantial number of joint academies papers having being presented including most of the WCRP soalr physicists(the wcrp sets the research for the IPCC) you will see a lot of explaining to do by certain climate( experts)
As we have seen this year as predicted the intense solar minima has already reduced temperatures by around 1c and SST by 1.5c.
Explain that.
November 6th, 2006 at 7:05 pm
“I agree with you about rail. Its inefficient energy wise and a highway of electric hybrids is far better but it is puzzling why the left keep supporting rail. I though basic physics meant weight needs energy to move it.Any ideas?”
In terms of rail-
1. I agree it is not the answer to our inner city transport problems in the main centres.
2. In terms of weight/energy, I would guess that if say a train can carry 500 passengers at a time and you divide the total weight and the total energy requirements across all the passengers it may work out less PER PASSANGER than if all of those people were driving their own cars carrying 1 person with 4 empty seats like most people do on Auckland’s motorways.
3. Rail could be put to use in many ways that it is not presently. Considering that we have a good main trunk rail network, the number of trucks on our roads doing line haul is absurd.
Also it can be used for hubbing containerised freight in and out of ports for import/export, reducing the amount of prime waterfront land required for container storage, and reducing truck congestion on the waterfronts. This could become efficient if containers could be discharged from vessels straight onto rail wagons for movement to an inland hub so that you are still only looking at one container movement at the wharf to discharge a container.
It is also a useful tool considering the consolidation going on with shipping lines. Port of Tauranga are already receiving vessels which discharge cargo bound for Tauranga, Auckland, Wellington and Lyttelton in one port call, and then railing the containers to the final destinations.
In terms of roading-
I have quite some time ago now on another thread on this blog outlined a case for removing petrol tax, removing subsidies on public transport and tolling the roads.
With tolling in place to keep the motorways moving at optimum, buses become competetive without subsidy, and the effeciency of our road network increases massively.
The north shore busway is an absolute waste of money at $300,000,000. All it does is pour hundreds of millions more of taxpayer/ratepayer money into subsidy, and the motorways are only going to clog up more and more with or without the busway, because we aren’t pricing use of the motorway network at it’s full value to the end user.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:08 pm
RedTag said…
[battler, And you remain as uninformed as ever on the topic.I dare say you have never actually read a scientific journal article in all your life.]
And I assume you have? If you have done so (reading scientific journals), then what paper or papers in climate modelling that you have read? Can you quote some of them. I am trying to establish you if just blindly adopted the verdict of the consensus scientists or you have read some papers and made up your mind.
I have read the Hockey-Stick paper of Prof. Mann and there are many holes in the modeling techniques used in that publication. You can get the picture if someone is modeling something by adopting either wrong techniques, inefficient preparations of data, or just wrong formulations of hypothesis to start with. If someone starts with a wrong formulations , then of course he/she would arrived at a wrong conclusions.
November 6th, 2006 at 10:24 pm
My brother in-law summed this whole debate up beautifully the other day.”Evironmentalism is the new religion in this post modern world and like all religions you have an ”end times” senario to beleive in.”So us sinfull humans must be punished for our love of the fossil fuel and motorway and overseas travel.And the penance we must pay is carbon tax.And we all await a fiery future with global warming for our sins!
November 6th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
RedTag, here is the reference to the ‘Hockey-Stick’ paper by Mann, et al. Their methods have been widely criticized, but see if you can spot the weaknesses in their analysis method from their publications? I will just have to inform you that not all climate scientists have the same understanding of mathematical modeling, which means that it is irrelevant to quote such and such as confirming the warming is solely due to man’s actitivities are well established and not due to natural variability. This simply means that some climate scientists cannot even follow the concepts and models described in the Mann’s paper, because it involves high level mathematical algebra.
“Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries”
http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/mann1998.pdf
November 6th, 2006 at 11:10 pm
Tester.
November 7th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
Towaka,
You’re right, environmental activism is a religion to some. But to others it is just rational thinking. It is simply not in our interests to severely disrupt an environment that our comfort, economies and lives are deeply entwined with, in complex ways that we sometimes have a poor understanding of. ‘End-times’ scenario’s are often the very realistic consequences of not changing our behaviour to acknowledge this.
When waste products are produced which have obvious consequences on short-time scales we have no problem with taxing their production. The end-time scenario for not constructing sewage systems is us being buried in excrement. We’ve realised this and nowadays people pay taxes that maintain and build sewage systems.
We find it more challenging to deal with medium-scale consequences. In much of the developed world industrial pollution must now be made inert before being released into the environment. The end-times scenario for us is death and deformity by poison. Industry pays to neutralise these toxins, and now most people agree this is good. They value long-term health over short-term economic benefit. I think this is a good thing too – does that make me a fanatic? But in many cases this had to be fought hard for, and it is still not the case in parts of the developing world – market forces just don’t work without a cost being put on pollutants.
A medium-long-term issue, in Australia, is salinity. This is a serious and expensive environmental problem over much of the land. A result of land clearance and inappropriate agricultural practices. Once upon a time it wasn’t known that salinity would be a problem in Australia. Then there was some evidence of it in the 1890s, but it wasn’t until 1925 that it was generally accepted in science. Despite this there are some that still don’t acknowledge that it is the serious problem that it is. Would you consider the people that first observed this to be driven by religious beliefs?
(http://www.abc.net.au/learn/silentflood/faqs.htm)
A tax on land clearing and bad practices might have made a difference. Without them, the market didn’t save us.
But global warming is tougher then this – it’s long term. Some people still argue that there isn’t any evidence for it (though not Lomborg) and that it isn’t worth doing anything about it (Lomberg). A problem with global warming is that the science allows for effects that may not be blindingly obvious at this time, and which may be difficult to do anything about by the time they become obvious (a bit like salinity). So people like your brother can jump up and down claiming that global warming ‘alarmists’ are just religious nuts. But given the complexity of the issue, it is people, perhaps like your brother, who display religious fanaticism. Their irrational belief that they are saved, through an unwavering faith in market-forces/natural-variation/superman is perhaps interfering with rational decision making. Given that market forces don’t seem to work when the resource being damaged is
a) free,
b) damaged slowly
it seems to me that a carbon tax might be a very sensible precaution right now. Perhaps also an opportunity to prove that there really is intelligent life on earth, that we can learn from past mistakes, and that we’re not ruled by our religious beliefs.
November 7th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
I need some help. I can’t look in the mirror and say “carbon neutrality” and keep a straight face. Any suggestions?
November 7th, 2006 at 10:06 pm
Neil
I think I agree on most of your points and you would have to be a moron not to be a good steward of resources and the environment but this sensible course of action was not what I was referring to.
There was a scientific conferance in the U.S. earlier this year when a noble prize winner made the statement that ”the best thing that could happen to the planet would be if the ebola virus mutated and killed half of the worlds population”.He received a standing ovation.
It is this attitude that places the environment above humans that I was referring to.Also I think the green movement does not give credit for how far we have come.The amount of toxins etc that was in put into the environment during the industrial revolution but due to a variety of reasons this has been sorted.Compare Victorian London with the present.
As for global warming it is an interesting theory but the way it gets pushed as a fact in the most alarming terms just makes me a cynic.I am much more concerned with what is going on with the GM industry.Now if a terminater gene mutated and affected the worlds food now that is a ”dooms day” scenario.But this whole industry plows along with hardly a mention.I voted for the greens just on this issue so I am not unaware or unconcerned of these issues.
May 13th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
jzfdusp cflwvdnhr aihnm izum hcujlm ebnjgvf sjcxn
May 16th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Dear Customers!
START SAVING YOUR TIME AND MONEY!
Order your medication in 3 easy steps:
1. Search our alphabetical index of medications to view great prices and detailed drug information.
2. To place an order, find your medication and click “Buy now”
3. Click on “Checkout” to complete your order!
ADVANTAGES OF SHOPPING WITH US:
1. Convenience – open round the clock, unlike your regular drug store to meet all your medicinal needs;
2. Security – any personal information and purchases you make remains private;
3. Quality – we sell only genuine drugs;
4. Easy Usage – easy ordering process, with clear and easy to understand instructions;
5. Guaranteed Lowest Prices on the Internet – no comments, check prices now!
Our online pharmacy is the perfect resource for people to get their drugs without any hassles or awkwardness. We work hard to make sure you save money every time you shop with us. At our online store, you pay less and get more.
To make sure we keep offering you great values, we regularly check prices on our top-selling items at chain drugstores. In addition, we scour the Internet to find bargains offered by other companies – and usually match or beat their promotional offers.
Shop now! [url=http://pharma37.com]pharma37.com[/url]
June 2nd, 2007 at 9:00 pm
New google surprise!
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
http://www.yahdex.ru test [url=www.yahdex.ru]test[/url]
Click adsense and win new car speakers !