Why The True Believers Hate Him

Bjorn Lomborg, a man who firmly believes in anthropogenic global warming, is one person that the aggressive true believers hate with a passion. They have tried to smear him and silence him even though he believes, as they do, that man is causing global warming. Why? Because he also believes most of the true believer's dire warnings are bogus. More importantly, he keeps pointing out that the true believer's draconian "solutions" to the problem won't do a darn thing to avert the problem. Today he has an op-ed up over at the Washington Post that should elicit howls of outrage from the sycophants of Al Gore and company. Because he points out what isn't going to work and instead proposes more sensible things that can be accomplished and would actually do some good.

All eyes are on Greenland's melting glaciers as alarm about global warming spreads. This year, delegations of U.S. and European politicians have made pilgrimages to the fastest-moving glacier at Ilulissat, where they declare that they see climate change unfolding before their eyes.

Curiously, something that's rarely mentioned is that temperatures in Greenland were higher in 1941 than they are today. Or that melt rates around Ilulissat were faster in the early part of the past century, according to a new study. And while the delegations first fly into Kangerlussuaq, about 100 miles to the south, they all change planes to go straight to Ilulissat — perhaps because the Kangerlussuaq glacier is inconveniently growing.

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

We have to rediscover the middle ground, where we can have a sensible conversation. We shouldn't ignore climate change or the policies that could attack it. But we should be honest about the shortcomings and costs of those policies, as well as the benefits.

Environmental groups say that the only way to deal with the effects of global warming is to make drastic cuts in carbon emissions — a project that will cost the world trillions (the Kyoto Protocol alone would cost $180 billion annually). The research I've done over the last decade, beginning with my first book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist," has convinced me that this approach is unsound; it means spending an awful lot to achieve very little. Instead, we should be thinking creatively and pragmatically about how we could combat the much larger challenges facing our planet.

Sensible people already know that Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth conveniently skips over the truth in a number of areas. Gore won't even debate any experts about his film and famously refused to a newspaper interview where Lomborg was asked to sit in and ask some questions. Please read the whole thing, Lomborg makes some sensible suggestions. Ones that make sense whether you are still skeptical of man's overall impact on global warming or not. He points out a lot of absurdities in the fanatic's dire predictions and also points out where they are simply not in touch with reality.

Wherever you look, the inescapable conclusion is the same: Reducing carbon emissions is not the best way to help the world. I don't point this out merely to be contrarian. We do need to fix global warming in the long run. But I'm frustrated at our blinkered focus on policies that won't achieve it.

In 1992, wealthy nations promised to cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. Instead, emissions grew by 12 percent. In 1997, they promised to cut emissions to about 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. Yet levels will likely be 25 percent higher than hoped for.

There are a lot of things that Lomborg suggests that would be good for the planet – regardless of global warming. Reducing the use of fossil fuels is a basically good idea . The trick is not to be hoodwinked into feel-good, short-sighted fixes that actually cause more harm to the planet. Yet that is exactly what the true believers are forcing governments into. There has been much howling about Kyoto from the true believers, but the governments that signed on to it have not reduced global emissions. Those have continued to grow. So if man is actually going to have an impact on greenhouse gasses, real, workable solutions must be developed. The ones being pushed right now – by people who stand to make money from them – are not the right answer.

Read the whole thing, his ideas are good for the planet – regardless of whether you are a skeptic or not. They also won't kneecap economies and actually limit the ability to accomplish real positives as the Gore crowds "solutions" would.