Poll: Global Warming?

[England my lionheart]

And I hate to say this but often you can tell some of Fox's followers here at RF based on some of their "alternative facts" that they blindly have swallowed and then parroted.

They certainly stand out,I’m not sure they are even aware of what a fact is.

 

[Ponder This]

Why are you citing a political scientist on matters of climate change?

Bjorn Lomborg is obviously influential on the topic of climate change.

 

[shunyadragon]

Bjorn Lomborg is obviously influential on the topic of climate change.

I believe this is an overstatement of Bjorn Lomorg's influence. Science itself as a whole is the most influential by the evidence.

An example of whether this year's weather reflects Global Warming: The temperatures worldwide, and drought conditions are indicating that this may be the hottest year on record, and record droughts resulting in record forest fires. This follows the trend, of climate, that the top ten in history of the hottest and driest years on record are in the past 20 years, and the rest of the annual records in the past twenty years are well above average.

California is experiencing a continuous record-breaking drought for 22 years.

 

[Ponder This]

I believe this is an overstatement of Bjorn Lomorg's influence. Science itself as a whole is the most influential by the evidence.

Recognition and awards

• The Global Leaders of Tomorrow (Class 2002) - World Economic Forum (2002)[62]
• The Stars of Europe (category: Agenda Setters) - BusinessWeek (17 June 2002): "No matter what they think of his views, nobody denies that Bjorn Lomborg has shaken the environmental movement to its core."[63]
• The 2004 Time 100 (in Scientists & Thinkers) - Time (26 April 2004): "Our list of the most influential people in the world today: He just might be the Martin Luther of the environmental movement."[64]
• Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (#14) Foreign Policy and Prospect(2005)[65]
• Top 100 Public Intellectuals Poll (#41) Foreign Policy and Prospect (2008)[66]
• 50 people who could save the planet - The Guardian (5 January 2008)[67]
• Glocal Hero Award - Transatlantyk - Poznań International Film and Music Festival (2011)[68]
• FP Top 100 Global Thinkers - Foreign Policy (2012): "For taking the black and white out of climate politics"[69]

Publications

• Lomborg, Bjørn, "Nucleus and Shield: Evolution of Social Structure in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma", American Sociological Review, 1996.
• Lomborg, Bjørn, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Cambridge University Press, 2001. ISBN 0521010683
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), Global Crises, Global Solutions, Copenhagen Consensus, Cambridge University Press, 2004
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, Cambridge University Press, 2006. ISBN 978-0-521-68571-9
• Lomborg, Bjørn (ed.), Solutions for the World's Biggest Problems - Costs and Benefits, Cambridge University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0-521-71597-3, offers an "overview of twenty-three of the world's biggest problems relating to the environment, governance, economics, and health and population. Leading economists provide a short survey of the state-of-the-art analysis and sketch out some policy solutions for which they provide cost-benefit ratios."
• Lomborg, Bjørn, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, 2007, argues against taking immediate and "drastic" action to curb greenhouse gases while simultaneously stating that "Global warming is happening. It's a serious and important problem". He argues that "the cost and benefits of the proposed measures against global warming. ... is the worst way to spend our money. Climate change is a 100-year problem — we should not try to fix it in 10 years."
• Lomborg, Bjørn, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Comparing Costs and Benefits, Cambridge University Press, November 2010, ISBN 978-0-521-76342-4.[76][77]
• Lomborg, Bjørn, The Nobel Laureates Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016–2030, Copenhagen Consensus Center, April 2015. ISBN 978-1940003115
• Lomborg, Bjørn (editor), Prioritizing Development: A Cost Benefit Analysis of the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals Cambridge University Press 2018 ISBN 1108415458
• Lomborg, Bjørn (2020). False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet. Basic Books. ISBN 9781541647480.

 

[shunyadragon]

Recognition and awards.

]

Recognition and rewards do not represent the research and discoveries of thousands of scientists that determined the reality of Global Warming. Bjorn Lomborg did not do any research that determined the reality of Global Warming, and he is not a scientist in Climate specialties that made this determination. He is a popular author that proposed ways to respond to the Global Warming crisis.

He is more of an advocate of the ways to respond to Global Warming. From a scientist's perspective, like myself, he is controversial, though I agree with some of his recommendations.

Publications

There are thousands of publications by thousands of scientists that determined the reality of Global Warming.

 

[Truth in love]

There has recently been an enormous heatwave where I live, which got me thinking...

Is there such a thing as global warming?

And if so, is it due to humans?

I don't know any of the facts and if I did I wouldn't know how to interpret them

Question: What should I believe, if I want to be right?

I have made a poll, but if you vote in it please explain how you voted!

And if you can, please cite an authoritative source or sources

0 human involvement might be a bit of a stretch, but when we look at the past temp records the extremes are well within the norms of times well before we started using fossil fuels etc.

 

[shunyadragon]

You seem to have misread what I wrote. I wrote that the economy was merely manmade, not that the concept of anthropogenic climate change was. Please read things more carefully.

The Republican Party platform states,
“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy's success. We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.

The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday's tools to control a future they do not comprehend.”

This is a useless flowery idealistic statement and does not reflect the recent legislative and policies pf the Republican Party. Nothing in the above addresses 'Global Warning, Useless insults of the Democratic Party does not help. The policies of the Trump administration is clear and specific as evidence that the above is only 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors carnival act.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Bjorn Lomborg is obviously influential on the topic of climate change.

Despite his complete lack of expertise on the subject matter.
We should be citing scientific studies and works, not some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Recognition and awards


Publications

He hasn't published any peer reviewed work on climate change or environmental policy.
He has a Master's degree in political science.

Shall I cite a world renowned engineer for the best information on brain surgery?

 

[Ponder This]

]

Recognition and rewards do not represent the research and discoveries of thousands of scientists that determined the reality of Global Warming. Bjorn Lomborg did not do any research that determined the reality of Global Warming, and he is not a scientist in Climate specialties that made this determination. He is a popular author that proposed ways to respond to the Global Warming crisis.

He is more of an advocate of the ways to respond to Global Warming. From a scientist's perspective, like myself, he is controversial, though I agree with some of his recommendations.




There are thousands of publications by thousands of scientists that determined the reality of Global Warming.

You appear to be confirming that Bjorn is in agreement with climate science and that you don't have to be a climate scientist to believe that the climate is changing or that the globe is warming.

Despite his complete lack of expertise on the subject matter.
We should be citing scientific studies and works, not some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Bjorn Lomborg does cost-benefit analysis which is his expertise. Your assertion that Bjorn Lomborg doesn't cite scientific studies and works is faulty. He cites the work of climate scientists.

He hasn't published any peer reviewed work on climate change or environmental policy.
He has a Master's degree in political science.

Shall I cite a world renowned engineer for the best information on brain surgery?

A terrible analogy. There's no reason political scientists can't work with climate scientists. You're creating a false dichotomy.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You appear to be confirming that Bjorn is in agreement with climate science and that you don't have to be a climate scientist to believe that the climate is changing or that the globe is warming.



Bjorn Lomborg does cost-benefit analysis which is his expertise. Your assertion that Bjorn Lomborg doesn't cite scientific studies and works is faulty. He cites the work of climate scientists.



A terrible analogy. There's no reason political scientists can't work with climate scientists. You're creating a false dichotomy.

No. What I said was, "We should be citing scientific studies and works, not some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about."

As in when we're talking about the evidence for climate change, instead of citing some controversial internet dude who doesn't have any credentials in climatology and hasn't published any peer-reviewed works on the subject, we should be citing scientific journals because that's where the evidence is. Please notice how you didn't address this at all and instead tried to change what I said.

 

[shunyadragon]

You appear to be confirming that Bjorn is in agreement with climate science and that you don't have to be a climate scientist to believe that the climate is changing or that the globe is warming.

I realize that. I just prefer primary science sources are the most important.

Bjorn Lomborg does cost-benefit analysis which is his expertise. Your assertion that Bjorn Lomborg doesn't cite scientific studies and works is faulty. He cites the work of climate scientists.

I did not say he did not use scientific sources. I simply believe that primary scientific sources over time are the most reliable and most important

A terrible analogy. There's no reason political scientists can't work with climate scientists. You're creating a false dichotomy.

Po[itical scientist is an oxymoron like Military Intelligence.

 

[Ponder This]

No. What I said was, "We should be citing scientific studies and works, not some dude who doesn't know what he's talking about."

As in when we're talking about the evidence for climate change, instead of citing some controversial internet dude who doesn't have any credentials in climatology and hasn't published any peer-reviewed works on the subject, we should be citing scientific journals because that's where the evidence is. Please notice how you didn't address this at all and instead tried to change what I said.

You are free to cite whatever sources you want to cite - no one's stopping you. There are thousands of such studies and works for you to choose from. Go for it! If you prefer to know what rocket scientists think, you can cite NASA.

Your claim that Bjorn Lomborg doesn't know what he's talking about is spurious.
Bjorn Lomborg is not "some internet dude". His career is analysis of global welfare and creating policies that work and he has specifically worked on the climate issue. You, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, are "some internet dude". You realize that, right?

 

[exchemist]

You are free to cite whatever sources you want to cite - no one's stopping you. There are thousands of such studies and works for you to choose from. Go for it! If you prefer to know what rocket scientists think, you can cite NASA.

Your claim that Bjorn Lomborg doesn't know what he's talking about is spurious.
Bjorn Lomborg is not "some internet dude". His career is analysis of global welfare and creating policies that work and he has specifically worked on the climate issue. You, on the other hand, as far as I can tell, are "some internet dude". You realize that, right?

Lomborg is not, however, a natural scientist, still less a climatologist. His training was in political science, and he has subsequently worked in statistics and economics, apparently.

Lomborg does not deny the reality of climate change, but thinks it is a less important issue than others facing the world. Almost nobody working in climate science agrees. There are always contrarians in any debate and he just seems to be one.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

You seem to have misread what I wrote. I wrote that the economy was merely manmade, not that the concept of anthropogenic climate change was. Please read things more carefully.

The Republican Party platform states,
“Conservation is inherent in conservatism. As the pioneer of environmentalism a century ago, the Republican Party reaffirms the moral obligation to be good stewards of the God-given natural beauty and resources of our country. We believe that people are the most valuable resources and that human health and safety are the proper measurements of a policy's success. We assert that private ownership has been the best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while some of the worst instances of degradation have occurred under government control. Poverty, not wealth, is the gravest threat to the environment, while steady economic growth brings the technological advances which make environmental progress possible.

The environment is too important to be left to radical environmentalists. They are using yesterday's tools to control a future they do not comprehend.”

LMAO!!!!! Them trying to claim they were the ones where were pro-environment is the same trying to say that today's Dems are the ones where big into racial discrimination.
As they say actions speak louder than words and Nixon has been the last pro-environment Republican president, just as Teddy Roosevelt was among the last actual Progressive presidents America had.

 

[Shaul]

This is a useless flowery idealistic statement and does not reflect the recent legislative and policies pf the Republican Party. Nothing in the above addresses 'Global Warning, Useless insults of the Democratic Party does not help. The policies of the Trump administration is clear and specific as evidence that the above is only 'Blue Smoke and Mirrors carnival act.

This is hardly surprising coming from you. You hold a deep unwavering hatred of Republicans. That doesn’t make you right, just closed minded.

 

[Shaul]

LMAO!!!!! Them trying to claim they were the ones where were pro-environment is the same trying to say that today's Dems are the ones where big into racial discrimination.
As they say actions speak louder than words and Nixon has been the last pro-environment Republican president, just as Teddy Roosevelt was among the last actual Progressive presidents America had.

Is that why President Ford enacted the first automobile fuel economy standards? Or why Reagan declared more Federal wilderness lands than any other President? Or why George Herbert Walker Bush signed amendments to the Clean Air Act that ended acid rain?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Is that why President Ford enacted the first automobile fuel economy standards?

Is this why is known for letting the environment taking a backseat to the economy?

Or why Reagan declared more Federal wilderness lands than any other President?

Reagan wasn't good for the environment. In fact, his administration worked to gut the EPA, the very same agency that Nixon created.

Or why George Herbert Walker Bush signed amendments to the Clean Air Act that ended acid rain?

Acid rain is still around and it was the efforts of many, and it was an act of Congress in '63 that created the Clean Air Act.

 

[shunyadragon]

This is hardly surprising coming from you. You hold a deep unwavering hatred of Republicans. That doesn’t make you right, just closed minded.

Again 'No mention of Global Warming.' The voting record and the extreme right rhetoric are more real.

 

[shunyadragon]

Is that why President Ford enacted the first automobile fuel economy standards? Or why Reagan declared more Federal wilderness lands than any other President? Or why George Herbert Walker Bush signed amendments to the Clean Air Act that ended acid rain?

Again, again and again . . .

You failed to respond in the past to the overwhelming facts that the Republican Party of the past, ie the Ford Administration. worked with Democrats cooperatively to achieve these goals, and NOT just the Republican Administration. This is true of Medicare. The contemporary Republicans and Republican Congress do not work cooperatively with the Democrats in going to the courts to make Medicare unconstitutional. By the way, rejecting that human-caused Global Warming exists.

This is also compounded by the fact that you misrepresent the Reagan Administration in the above as cited.