even cover this guy?

All evidence is cherry picked. The problem with global warming is there is zero guarantee that reducing human emissions will in fact change anything.

It's quite possible that no matter what humans do "the Amazon heats up and dries out too much, much of it could burn down, flipping to savannah, and releasing tens of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Similarly, as the permafrost in the Arctic melts, a huge pulse of methane may be released."

Most "environmentalist" cherry pick in ignoring this fact, and they gloss over that the Earth has been far hotter than it is now, and that's before humans existed.

The Earth is warming up, that's a fact, this could have disastrous affects, and we can't pretend that we can afford to do nothing.

But we cannot also ignore the costs of what actions we take, and the political costs involved. Americans are not going to reduce their driving by 50% to solve a problem beyond their life span, especially when that sacrifice cannot be guaranteed to actually solve the problem.

The real question isn't whether the Earth is getting hotter, it's whether money and energy are better spent trying to reduce human impact, or to prepare for a future hotter Earth.

Read the history of Science and tell me, since when does

consensus matter? weren't the great breakthroughs made

by lone mavericks, stubbornly persisting against the mainstream, often enduring ridicule? Lomberg deserves to be heard, if

you think otherwise you certainly don't stand for freedom

of speech. Opposition is only undesirable if your position

is weak and indefensible.

Look, the taxes to run the country need to come from somewhere. They might as well come from a tax on CO2, rather than a tax on hundred of different transactions an individual might make over the course of a year. These transactions generate taxable events and result in much hair pulling before April 15th. By taxing C02, we harness the creativity of people trying to avoid taxes - just like now - and reduce the number of tax paying entities to a handful of energy companies.

Sounds like a big win all around. And it would reduce our C02 output quite quickly.

Xanthro take off your tin foil hat and examine the evidence; it's obviously blocking your view. No, scientific evidence is not arrived at by cherry picking the parts one fancies to be true. It's not science when you try to manipulate the evidence so it can fit in with one's right-wing ideology, the way Bush cooked the facts to support his illegal invasion of Iraq.

I think a big part of Lomborg's argument is that it doesn't make sense to base all our actions on worst case scenarios. Sure, they might happen but then again they might not. If all our decisions are driven by worst case scenarios then we end up squandering a lot of our resources on threats that never materialize. We may be right a few times but it is far from obvious to me that the gains in being right a couple times will exceed all the losses and inefficiency from being wrong far more often because we are planning for unlikely events.

He seemed very clear that global warming is happening and that it is driven by human activity. In my opinion, the debate he wants to have is: "Assuming we have a budget for making the world a better place where should we spend it?" I think this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion to have.

His position is that global warming is perhaps not the single most urgent issue facing us right now. He is clearly against ignoring global warming but feels that there are other challenges that if we overcame them now we would likely put ourselves in a much better position to do something about global warming in the future. I'm not sure I agree but I'm certainly willing to listen.

I use two analogies when discussing this issue, depending on whom I'm talking to. To conservatives I know, I say this: how likely is an all-out thermonuclear war? Not very, they say. So, I reply, would you junk all your strategic missiles and decommission the subs armed with Trident ICBM's--wouldn't that save billions in taxpayer money? Not worth it, they reply, because you need to guarantee your safety. The same, of course, is true of global climate change. Yes, it will cost alot, but pouring tons of carbon into the atmosphere is damn likely to make things worse. Just in case, it would be better to help insure against a disaster by doing something now (same as nuclear deterrence doesn't preclude a nuclear exchange, but it lessens the likelihood significantly).

My other argument is homeowners insurance. Most people's houses do not go up in flames, but it doesn't hurt to be prepared for that possibility and spend something now to be safe later. We may not avoid nuclear war; we may not prevent our house from catching fire. But is that any excuse for doing nothing about both concerns?

We aren't arguing a theory -- we're arguing over whether it's necessary for our government to pass legislation that requires industrial sites to reduce their toxic emissions.

Industrial pollution causes cancer, birth defects and acid rain

Who cares about climate change?

The neocons and Lomborg are trying to insist that since climate change isn't a "big deal" then it's perfectly fine for these industrial sites to pump out as much cancer-causing emissions as they want.

They desperation we're seeing from businesses and pro-business Republicans to "prove" climate change is non-existent or so mild as to be easily ignored --- isn't because they care about the science. It's because they fear the increased pollution regulations that will result if a direct connection to pollution and climate change is made.

Birth defects?

Cancer?

Tumors?

Acid rain?

So far Big Business has waged a PR campaign to make us overlook all that. Climate change could be the one problem they can't fix with a slick 30 second commercial -- which would mean they'd be forced (finally!) to increase pollution controls.

And they have made it quite clear they will do anything to prevent that.