Saturday, July 08, 2006

Sea-Level Rise Vulnerability

Sea-Level implications Contrast this from scientists with that of the return of Bjorn Lomborg the conservative darling. They love it when a lefty defects. Unfortunately, Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist is up to his old tricks yet again, claiming in an interview with Kimberly Strassel of the WSJ that global warming is last on the list of things we can fix with money. What does he cite? 1 to 2 feet of predicted sea level rise by 2100.(see IPCC report) In the context of Al Gore's "25 feet of rise" in the worst case scenario naturally. Hopelessly overblown he says. Well, should the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt it would be more than that. Up to 68 meters in fact, which is a serious problem. 10 years is much to soon to fix this he says so to hell with trying. Let's go for AIDs, malaria and the like instead. Like we can't handle both or all five?What BS.

Of course Lomborg is not a scientist, which is why he makes the sloppy characterizations he does. His book was a wingnut thesis, and spoke in broad overgeneralization fallacies exposed and trashed in Scientific American conerning his FACTS. His context was so skewed as to be irrelevant. Numbers of trees versus size and age of trees for example. The only people who believe him are those who know little and have a cross to bear: that of a head in the sand and money in the pocket from selling product affecting change. This is a deniers canard.

This from the same guy, a "political scientist" mind you who said we have more trees now than ever. Except for the fact that most of them aren't old growth fire resistant diverse stands, but mono culture tree farms of toothpicks that burn nicely in global warming fueled fire storms. But hey, what's one or two feet between friends? No worries mate, even if he is Danish.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

The Environmental Webring
The Environmental Webring
[ Join Now | Ring Hub | Random | << Prev | Next >> ]