I don't think there's another Bjorn Lomborg, at least I hope not. Ed Weick
----- Original Message ----- From: "Karen Watters Cole" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Keith Hudson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:35 AM Subject: RE: [Futurework] Committing suicide > Isn't the author below, Bjorn Lomborg, the same whose book, the Skeptical > Environmentalist, debunking the global warming theory/hysteria has since > then been refuted? - KWC > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Keith Hudson > Sent: Sunday, August 10, 2003 11:36 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [Futurework] Committing suicide > > As I sit typing this -- even at 6.00am in the morning -- the sweltering > heat is building up even now and my fingers are sweating. Yesterday, > England recorded the highest temperature for 130 years -- ever since > records began, in fact. We are certainly going through an extremely warm > period, and it's a good precautionary principle that we should throw a lot > more scientific investigation at the phenomenon just in case it's the > beginning of something worse. To that end, two new environmental satellites > have been launched in the last year, and the Americans are proposing a > world-wide monitoring system -- something, strangely, we don't yet have. > Most temperature measurements have only been taken in the civilised parts > of the world, which is about one third of the total land mass, never mind > the seas, and some large areas of the world are, in fact, becoming cooler. > > However, what we don't need right now is hysteria, and this is what some > people in politics and the media are trying to encourage. What sparked it > off was an unfortunate conjunction of two events about 15 years ago. > Firstly, In Engand, we happened to have a prime minister, Margaret > Thatcher, who was scientifically trained and was thus the first prime > minister in over a century who was capable of communicating with scientists > in a sensible way instead of regarding them as nerds who should be kept in > the anteroom at all times. Quite rightly, she was impressed with the > arguments of a minority of scientists who thought that something serious > might be happening, and she called, very effectively, for more > investigation. > > Secondly, and most unfortunately, this was seen as a heaven-sent > opportunity by the bureaucrats of the European Commission to increase their > visibility and power. They have been able to persuade other senior career > civil servants in European countries, together with politicians who have a > vested career interest in a larger, more powerful European Commission, that > some sort of regulatory regime must be instituted as soon as possible. > Thus, the Kyoto Protocol was launched > > Fortunately, the two countries (America and Russia) which, between them, > have a majority of the most highly experienced climatologists and > oceanographers in the world in their universities and research institutes, > have resisted the immediate introduction of enormously expensive world-wide > taxation which will do more to impoverish the poor of the world than if the > worst scenario that's contemplated turns out to be true. Besides, even the > most punitive punishment of carbon dioxide emissions would only delay a > rise in sea level by a few years -- if it were carried out, and if the > worst happens. > > A rise in global temperatures would have all sorts of economic consequences > and by all means we should throw as much scientific investigation at the > problem as is possible. But the present hysteria is an extreme example of > the sort of politically correct view that has overtaken much of Europe in > the last half-century -- that, somehow, man is above the natural order of > things, and that we are rational enough to be able to plan our way through > any sort of situation in order to arrive at a sort of welfare nirvana in > which we are able to evade the normal evolutionary processes that affect > all other species. > > But, in physiological terms, we are no different from any other animal. Our > DNA is almost identical to that of many other mammalian species. Whether we > like it or not, we are still subject to external selective forces which > bear down on matters of sexual partnership, fertility and survival. What > the European Commission ought to be considering is that we don't need > global warming in order to bring about the demise of man. We are already > doing it much more effectively -- and quickly, too. It is in those > countries such as Russia and in Central Europe which have experienced the > most highly regulated economies in the recent past, and in those western > countries such as Germany, France, Italy and England which are presently > increasingly their regulatory control, where family size is dropping > precipitately with between one and two replacement children only per pair > of adults. Within three or four generations, the indigenous population of > central and western Europe will have decreased to only a small fraction of > its present size. Two and three generations further on, and European > populations will have gone forever. > > Leave global warming to the scientists for the time being. There's > controversy in their ranks at the moment, usually between the second-grade > scientists, but as more data comes to hand a consensus will emerge. > Meanwhile, the European Commission ought to be considering a much more > serious problem: why are their populations committing suicide? The EC ought > to be stimulating biological research into the matter instead of busying > themselves devising more regulations -- such as, recently, insisting on > visiting Russian trapeze artists wearing crash helmets when they perform in > Europe. > > KH > > <<<< > LET'S TAKE A LONG, COOL LOOK AT THE DANGERS OF GLOBAL WARNING > The current heat wave is not necessarily a symptom of worse to come > > Bjorn Lomborg > > This time last year, the rains were so heavy in central Europe, northern > Italy and southern France that not merely crops, but whole buildings, > indeed whole streets, were washed away. The Danube and Po rivers overflowed > and flooded many of the cities on their banks, causing irreperable damage > to historic buildings, and destroying much of the year's agriculture. > > This year, those same regions are experiencing drought. The Po is nowso low > that in some regions it is possible to walk across it London, Milan and a > number of cities in Switzerland and France have experienced their hottest > days since records began. Forest fires are devastating Provence and other > regions of southern Europe. The shortage of water is becoming > acute.Unsurprisingly, newspapers and television are packed with stories of > climatic doom and disaster. The media's message is simple: the climate is > changing, for the worse, and-it is all our fault. And it is not just > newspapers in search of a summer story that claim this: so too do > politicians and scientists. Only last week for example, the prominent > researcher Sir John Houghton compared extreme weather with weapons of mass > destruction and called for political action. > > As one sits sweltering in an apparently unprecedented heatwave, that > analysis seems completely persuasive. We are boiling, and it is all down to > global warming. Something must be done. In this area, however, what seems > obvious is not necessarily true. Climate change is notoriously difficult to > identify, never mind accurately to explain. And one hot summer in Europe > doesn't mean that the word's climate has permanently changed for the worse. > > Perhaps surprisingly, the UN Climate Panel cannot find anything significant > to suggest that weather has become more extreme over the past 100 years. > Global warming is a certainly a statistically-proven phenomenon -- but its > only well-attested effect is to produce slightly more rain. Alarmists such > as Sir John Houghton readily cite the World Meteorological Organisation > (WMO) to the effect that global warming has now shown itself to produce > extreme weather such as the present heatwave. Unfortunately for Sir John, > this much-cited newsflash from the WMO was only a press release. It was not > based on any research. When questioned on that point, the WMO acknowledged > that its results suggesting that there was more extreme weather could be a > statistical artifact: they could be explained merely by -- as the WMO put > it -- "improved monitoring and reporting". > > It is not something that the doom-mongers want to hear. It does not fit in > with the claim that global warming is becoming a "weapon of mass > destruction". But it is simply not correct to claim that global warming is > the primary explanation of the kind of heatwave we are now experiencing. > The statistics show that global warming has not, in fact, increased the > number of exceptionally hot periods. It has only decreased the number of > exceptionally cold ones. The US, northern and central Europe, China, > Australia, and New Zealand have all experienced fewer frost days, whereas > only Australia and New Zealand have seen their maximum temperatures > increase. For the US, there is no trend in the maximum temperatures -- and > in China they have actually been declining. > > Having misidentified the primary cause of the heatwave as global warming, > we then tend to make another mistake: we assume that as the weather gets > warmer, we will get hotter and more people eventually will die in > heatwaves. But, in fact, a global temperature increase does not mean that > everything just becomes warmer; it will generally raise minimum > temperatures much more than maximum temperatures. In both hemispheres and > for all seasons, night temperatures have increased much more than day > temperatures. Likewise, most warming has taken place in the winter rather > than the summer. Finally, three quarters of the warming has taken place > over the very cold areas of Siberia and Canada. All of these phenomena are > -- within limits -- atually quite good for both agriculture and people. > > The idea of comparing this with weapons of mass destruction is, to put it > mildly, isleading. Yes, more people will die from heatwaves -- but what is > forgotten is that many more people will not die from cold spells. In the > US, it is estimated that twice as many people die from cold as from heat, > and in the UK it is estimated that about 9,000 fewer people would die each > winter with global warming. But don't expect headlines in the next mild > winter reading "9,000 not dead". > > It is a typical example of the way that we ignore the fact that climate > change has beneficial effects as well as damaging ones, allowing ourselves > to be scared witless by every rise in temperature. All the same, you may > say, isn't it true that the effects of the weather extremes we do > experience are getting more serious? Yes it is -- but the explanation for > this is simply that there are more people in the world, they are wealthier, > and many more prefer to live in dties and coastal areas. Accordingly, > extreme weather will affect more people than before and because people are > more affluent, more absolute wealth is likely to be lost. > > Florida is an example of this development When Florida was hit by a > hurricane in September 1926 the economic loss was, in present day dollars, > $100 million. In 1992 a very similar hurricane cost the economy $38 > billion. Clearly it was a bigger disaster, but not due to developments in > extreme weather. The explanation comes from economic growth and > urbanisation. We are becoming more vulnerable to extreme weather -- but > this is only very weakly related to climate change. It is therefore tenuous > to blame the damage currently unfolding on global warming. And it does not > help to argue -- as Sir John does -- that the wise political solution is a > massive collective action against global wanning. > > Although global warming has had little effect on extreme weather in the > past, it might have a greater effect in the future -- although we have > little idea how much, except that as we get richer, it will cost us more to > repair the damage. Still, shouldn't we, for the sake of our children, or > our children's children, start to tackle the greenhouse effect -- the > heating up of the atmosphere caused by the increase in carbon dioxide > emissions? Well -- no, actually. If the goal is to reduce our vulnerability > to extreme weather, limiting carbon emissions is certainly not the most > cost-effective way. In the Kyoto Protocol, industrialised countries have > agreed to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent by 2010. This will be > very expensive and will only have a negligible effect Estimates from all > macro-economic models show a global cost of $150 billion-$350 billion every > year. At the same time, the effect on extreme weather will be marginal: the > climate models show that Kyoto will merely postpone the temperature rise by > six years from 2100 to 2106. > > The major problems of global warming will occur in the Third World. Yet > these countries have many other and much more serious problems to contend > with. For the cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol in the single year of > 2010, we could permanently satisfy the world's greatest need: we could > provide clean drinking water and sanitation for everybody. It would surely > be better to deal with those most pressing problems first. > > Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and a > professor at the University of Aarhus, Denmark. > > Sunday Times 11 August 2003 > >>>> > > > Keith Hudson, 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath, England > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework > > > _______________________________________________ > Futurework mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
