Cool It: The Anti-Scarefest Documentary of the Year
You can’t say An Inconvenient Truth wasn’t a monumental film. It did exactly what it was supposed to do — it terrified vast numbers of people into favoring irrational behavior. It is correct to compare the Al Gore eco-alarmism film with the most notorious propaganda movies ever made.
But … somewhere along the line, as Al Gore stood chuckling offstage like the Joker, expecting to profit hugely through his greentech venture-capital investments as panic ruled public life, some kind of rationality inexplicably prevailed. As in The Dark Knight ferry scene, neither side blew up the other. By the time West Virginia’s new Senator-elect Joe Manchin made the formidable case that the only way to deal with cap-and-trade regulation was to shoot it (and this was a Democrat talking), calm had already carried the day. The United States, it is now firmly established, will deal with global warming in a non-hysterical way. The Joker is looking uncharacteristically glum these days.
The spokesman for the new approach is Bjorn Lomborg, a blond, bike-loving, affable Danish academic and author whose op-eds frequently appear in the Wall Street Journal and whose pleasingly chill vibe provides the mood and the title for the exciting new global warming documentary Cool It. So sensible are Lomborg’s ideas for cooling the planet without destroying our economic competitiveness that even the Los Angeles Times dubbed it “enlightening,brain-nourishing stuff.”
It simply is not possible to decarbonize Western economies anytime soon, and cap-and-tax plans would have such a ridiculously small effect on global climate patterns, at such massive cost, that Lomborg, in his charming way, treats them as the childish ideas they are. (In one especially memorable scene, British kids are interviewed about the prospects for the planet: seemingly all of them have been coached to believe that a flame-broiled apocalypse is imminent. Another comic interlude, featuring bubble-headed celebrities delivering climate-science verdicts from red carpets, captures actors telling us we should all switch our light bulbs because “every little bit helps.” No it doesn’t, replies Lomborg. Such actions are meaningless against the size of the climate issues.)
Oh no, not common sense, anything but that!!!. Common sense is so rare these days that some people find it scary propaganda. Like Orwell wrote, “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.
Unfortunately that involves taking 1 step forward and two steps backwards as is the case with America today, a far cry from the progress that essentially ended in the U.S. in the late 1960′s. While America has made strides in social progress, in my opinion we have lost more than we have gained. This is why so many Americans are nostalgic for the days without polio vaccines and with segregation because in their eyes, it’s simply a matter of choosing your poison and the lesser of evils. Despite hyped claims of crime being down all across the USA, the brutal nature of crime today compared to the 1950s is a sad joke. Generational perception, propaganda and slippery slopes cannot hide the fact that in the end the only solution to global warming is to control the world’s population growth. All else is smoke and mirrors. The U.N. should set this as their highest priority but instead they seek to feed the unfeedable, thereby guaranteeing an even greater disaster down the road as all the clean air in the world won’t stop Egypt from fighting a war to protect the flow of the Nile or Syria and Israel for the Golan Heights. There would be little problem with water control with fewer people.
While I agree that there are merits to encouraging population reductions, I see this as strictly a short- to medium-term solution. Conflicts over property and resources have consumed a great deal of human energy – and taken many lives prematurely – since times when the human population on this earth was much MUCH smaller than anything we could reasonably achieve today. For instance, back when Columbus was making his voyages, there had already been many centuries of conflicts between different groups all over the world, yet the populations of the largest Spanish cities at the time was only 30 or 40 thousand people. It’s completely unrealistic to imagine that we could squeeze our current populations to such levels without a massive war or plague or mass exterminations of people.
Therefore, our long-term solution needs to be to find more resources and more places for people to live. While there are still things that can be done on Earth, there is literally a universe full of resources and planets out in space. We are still in the early stages of learning how to travel and live in space but some of our sharpest minds are already working on the designs for space craft that can take us to near and distant worlds. Other specialists are working out technology that would let us live on other planets. Still others are working on terraforming, the process by which a world that would be unsuitable for human life, like Jupiter, can be made habitable.
The exploration of Space is the REAL long-term answer to the problems we are having here on Earth.
See my reply at #1 Jarmo.
Just a spoonful of sugar helps the Green Energy scam go down! There is so much to discredit AGW caused by CO2 now that this is just a ruse to keep those government grants flowing on a never ending fraud of the tax payer! These Ecologist and scientist so called have been riding this gravy train and Damn it! Can you imagine they don’t want to get off! Their party is over but watch out for the buggers in the EPA to pull the next stunt! Oh! And by the way the the records have been showing a global COOLING trend!
Just a minor correction. Bjorn Lomborg is not a Swedish academic, he is Danish..
The real problem with Bjorn’s entire schtick is that he has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the demonstrable falsehood that man is causing the elevation in world temperatures. That rise is indisputable, of course, but to claim industrial causation, the AGW proponents have to ignore other pertinent facts. Like the fact that the worlds temperature has been higher before the dawn of the industrial revolution. Oops!
That fact alone puts the AGW storyline to rest.
Still, Bjorn’s documentary may have a salutory effect of toning down the headlong rush to “do something” that we are all to often confronted with under the Administrative State.
Actually, the case isn’t “demonstrable” either way because we can’t turn back time and try it another way to see what happens.
That the earth was warmer in the past doesn’t mean we aren’t warming it up now. Right now, we have better climate data than ever, but it is still not enough to say we absolutely know what is going on. Climate records from the past provide us with far less information, so how can anyone possibly say they absolutely know what was happening then?
Lomborg is a scientist and has a good reputation as a skeptic. He is known for challenging enviro-nuts. I’ll wait to see his argument before I decide, but he is someone worth listening to and considering.
The fact that over the past few years the average temperature has fallen seems to.
Lomborg is a scientist and has a good reputation as a skeptic.
Sorry, he’s an economist.
His ‘Skeptical Environmentalist” merely takes at face value the IPCC ‘projections’ of CO2 quantities and increased temperatures, and clearly points out better uses of our economic powers than desperate measures to replace petroleum fuels.
His position caused such a panicked reaction at ‘Scientific American’ that the magazine blatantly junked the scientific method in order to fill pages of three issues with vicious pseudo-authoritarian attacks against him – illuminating clearly the cultist, rather than the scientific, position of its editorial staff.
It’s called accepting the premise. One can shoot down all sorts of idiocies that way.
I find it better to state that AGW hypothesis has NOT been shown to be true as of yet, rather than say it has been proven false. The current AGW models that are based on the AGW hypothesis don’t seem to be predictive (either forward or backward), but that doesn’t necessarily prove the hypothesis wrong.
It may well be the case that some warming is caused by CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) production. It may not. Reasonable people can agree that the fundamental physics lead one to believe that some amount of warming could be due to human-generated CO2. To me, the real issue is how much warming.
Unfortunately we cannot answer that question because the data for the last 20 years has been intentionally contaminated (sensor positioning, removing sensors, dishonest normalization of data, etc.). As a result of this scientific misconduct, it will require at least another 20 years or so to collect the data in an open and verifiable way before honest researchers can openly compare the results to the predictions based upon the different AGW hypothesis. So estimate it will take another 30 years at least to prove or disprove AGW, let alone determine how much warming is due to AGW and how much is due to natural climate variation.
In the meantime, it is insane to allow politicians to muck around with economies and industrial processes because of a baseless belief in AGW.
…. The real problem with Bjorn’s entire schtick is that he has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the fascist fraud and consequential mass hysteria that man is causing the elevation in world temperatures….
You got it!
…. The real problem with Bjorn’s entire schtick is that he has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the fascist fraud and consequential mass hysteria that man is causing the elevation in world temperatures….
You got it!
kudos to him
Gee, I’m one of those “deniers” who the Leftists would like to silence by ANY means. But I admit, this Bjorn Lomborg guy could actually have me re-thinking my opinion. He sounds like someone- unlike AlGore – who can think and reason, rather than just seek a way to control people’s lives.
Three million years of hominid evolution has been driven by violent climate change. Earth has had as many as 20 ice ages in the last three million years all driven by the current location of the continents that prevent warm water reaching the poles.
The industrial revolution will drive the CO2 from 260ppm to 400ppm by 2100. This will have no effect compared to the vast amounts of water vapor in the air that has a huge IR spectra making it a “green house gas”.
If an extra 140ppm of CO2 prevents the next ice-age that would be a godsend. The next ice age will drop the oceans 100-150 meters and many countries like Canada, England and Sweden will be under kilometer thick ice sheets. That is what civilization faces when this interglacial ends.
Unfortunately, attempting to “be reasonable” about global warming is not the correct solution.
If global warming were real in the first place, the top climate scientists in the world would not have needed to manufacture evidence and engage in conspiracies to try and prove it existed.
So, what good is this movie?
As a ring of gold in a swine’s snout? /Proverbs 11:22/
So the film accepts the basic claim that anthropogenic global warming is real, and it’s a problem? Pass.
Only one problem, there is no more global warming now than there has been for the last several million years. Lomborg as nice and rational as he sounds is like a liberal Republican, that is he might was well be a Democrat which is exactly what they do with some regularity.
You see “”Global warming is “real and it’s an important problem,” he judges” is nonsense. Once you say that you have entered into lala land. Useful maybe as another shoe to throw into the Climate Change juggernaut but hardly the truth to be disseminated.
Reminds me of the Republicans who now they have won an election and look to win more are suddenly for earmarks instead of against them.
Maybe NASA climate scientist Roy Spencer’s book: “The Great Global Warming Blunder” would be a good place to start.
“There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble: the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake.”
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/the_green_bubble_is_about_to_b.html
He’s nothing more than a guy trying to capitalize on what Gore and others were not able to do and feel that, just like he himself explains that you can’t scare people into changing or making new laws/regulation but instead should try to get those same people into believing the same BS but doing so by using old tactic’s, nothing to see here move along SOS different face !!!!
I read this book YEARS ago and it opened my eyes to the socialist movement. It also set the tone for my skepticism of the AGW movement. I was working in a science career myself at the time and this book re focused my attention on the dutiful representation of raw data and proper analysis.
He outed the entire movement toward “green” for me before it was a religion.
The Glabal Warming scare (and that’s just what it is, a “scare”) was created so that socialist governments and their supporters, like Obama and Gore, could take even more money away from people. But this time, instead of the money going to the government, you see, it was being done to “save the earth.” The money was still going to the government, but you were doing it for the earth. The government will take the money from you to fund their growing social-welfare programs and it will not do a thing for the environment. Tell me, if implemented, where was all this money from Cap and Trade going to go? It sure wasn’t going to help the environment. All it would do would be to provide another source of income for a government addicted to spending and unable to control its budget.
I remember when I was a kid in the 1970s, I used to read articles in Newsweek Magazine that we were going to enter a new Ice Age because we had some unusually cold winters. Now we’re going to either burn up or drown because of Global Warming. Morons.
I’ll make you a deal, all of you far-left chicken littles out there who really believe in this stuff. The day you get China and India to adobt a more stringent version of the Cap and Trade bill that is now dying in Congress, that’s the day I’ll start listening to you. Until then, get lost.
Problem with the charming Mr. Lomberg is that he still doesn’t get it. There is no Global Warming! Global Warming is simply a massive left-wing political fraud dressed up in scientific jargon – no more, no less. This concocted “crisis” is not real, so why pretend that it is? Sea levels are not rising. Temperatures are not heating up – quite the contrary. Man cannot affect world climate, so why pretend that we can?
De-emphasizing the Warmist fraud’s fundamental dishonesty is fine and necessary, but let’s pound the truth home. It’s all a slop bucket of lies. Don’t waste our time and money. The people of the world have better things to do than pursue Al Gore’s kook fantasy.
Here is a link to a paper showing global temperatures related to solar activity. High correlation.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html
The data correlates till 1990 then after that (not in your paper) they diverge. Temp shoots higher and solar activity drops off greatly, which tells that after 1990, something else besides solar is driving higher temps.
Actually, the temperatures do NOT shoot higher. There has been no appreciable warming since the 1990′s. Oddly enough, that correlates very closely to the drop in solar activity.
“This is why so many Americans are nostalgic for the days without polio vaccines and with segregation because in their eyes, it’s simply a matter of choosing your poison and the lesser of evils.”
That’s ludicrous. I’m sure there are some who are even nostalgic for black and white TV.
“…the only solution to global warming is to control the world’s population growth.”
There have been times in the past when temperatures have been either equal to today or warmer. Until there is unquestionable proof that any warming is man made, then let’s not get carried away with crazy ideas. Even the Royal Society of Britain has changed its position recently and stated that the science is not “settled”. There is no “consensus”.
Eugenics (forced sterilization of certain people) was once supported by the National Academy of Sciences, American Medical Association and National Research Council. Is that how we should control the population? And by the way, the National Academy of Science policy to combat man made global warming. I guess they’ve never been wrong.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present
and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of scientific/technological elite.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1961, Military/Industrial Complex Speech
This is a reply to #1 James May
1. Man certainly could effect the climate. A massive detonation of nuclear weapons would almost certainly cause climatic perturbations. However that doesn’t mean we currently effecting the climate in a significant way.
2. The real problem, as I see it, with AGW is that it is all based on computer models. These models are constructed using either known facts (carbon dioxide is indeed a green house gas) and assumptions. The problem really has to do with complexity. We really don’t know how all the various components of the atmosphere and climate interact with each other. Quite simply, there are too many variables (and I don’t care how big your supercomputer is). This theory of AGW is not subject to hypothesis testing and experimentation – the hallmark of the scientific method. You simply cannot construct a parallel earth with everything exactly the same except the levels of carbon dioxide and then vary the levels to see what happens. I’d like to point out that economics suffers from the same problem. Hence the laughable claims that TARP and the other boondoggles saved us from another Great Depression.
3. Having read Lomberg’s books, I think he remains open to the question of whether AGW exists – AS ANY GOOD SCIENTIST SHOULD. He merely points out that both scientifically and economically that the fanatic liberal/environmentalist solutions simply won’t do what they claim. Those of you who dismiss him out of hand because he says that AGW is a possibility are both close minded and ignoring an individual who has made non-hysterical suggestions about how to approach this discussion.
I still can’t believe that there are people who still believe in the myth of global warming. But I suppose that it takes time for folks to understand that they’ve been lied to.
until we are able to build the death-star and fire on ourselves the delusional aspirations to destroy the planet by our own hands remain in the self-centered, narcisisstic , and self-indulgent psyches of the environmental insaneotards and their mindless retinue
to think that human beings can even begin to contemplate the intricacies of our planet (weather forecasting anyone?) shows how idiotic and arrogant we can be
I find this whole AGW scare the height of hubris and have concluded it is the end result of worshiping at the altar of the created rather than Creator. Don’t misunderstand me – I believe we all should be good stewards of the planet provided. And part of being a good steward is to exploit those resources provided to benefit as many as possible, the key word being “exploit.”
If these AGW alarmists want me to even bother to listen to their conclusions of a pending catastrophe, I will be willing to listen when they start living their own life like there is a looming crisis.
Until then, take your chicken little arguments elsewhere because I’m tuning you out.
It is dangerous to say that anyone has proven that AGW us changing our temperature. Talk to long term Atmosphere Scientists (don’t call them Atmospheric Scientist or they will hand you your head) and ask if they don’t still believe that the sun is the major controller.
curtmilr has it right in saying:
The real problem with Bjorn’s entire schtick is that he has swallowed, hook, line, and sinker, the demonstrable falsehood that man is causing the elevation in world temperatures. That rise is indisputable, of course, but to claim industrial causation, the AGW proponents have to ignore other pertinent facts.
Global Warming!!! Ha, ha, ha!!! Here in Melbourne, last year at that time of the year I used to swimm in Port Philip Bay.
Today I sit at my comp with the heater on!
“onto” Schwinns
trouble is he is wrong.
there still is no man made warming that is endangering the climate.
besides …
fear the cold not the heat. I find my carrots and beets stop growing when the ground freezes. I’m not a scientist but this is a troubling discovery for me.
Thank you. Personally I’ve been more concerned this year about my anemic tomatoes and my non-existent peppers…thanks to the mildest summer I’ve seen in my lifetime. If AGW was a real thing I might have had some decent homemade salsa this year.
my garden had some decent output this year, aside from the corn which the raccoons ate the rest was above average yield.
Something I never hear about when “experts” start talking about increased C02 emmissions is the fact that many plants can utilize higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere to incresa growth rate and O2 production. Then again, the same alarmist that scream global warming are the same group that would have to explain how plants evolved to use more CO2.
The problem with the affable Bjorn Lomborg He is still pimping the CO2 nonsense. Climate is constantly in a state of change. Every so often the earth has a cold spell that produces something called an Ice Age. What exactly caused the last Ice Age? More importantly, what caused that Ice Age to end? What defines the end of an Ice Age? Here’s a thought when all the glaciers have melted! What do you think?
have to agree with #25
lomborg was on fox and friends this morning and its becoming obvious that this guy is a kind of safety valve for those that want to hide the reality of how the earth works
“al gore, he’s scaring too many people and they havent been able to accomplish anything for 18 yrs.. but listen to me, i have the scandanavian accent (so im credible and neutral) and have good ideas”
its just the obvious hard tyranny being switched with the soft tyranny
so it is up to us to be on top of these phonies and get the truth out
A real climate scientist has spoken; briefly, manmade CO^2 might be responsible for 25% of the warming appearing in the last 100 y, or about 0.15C. The forcing by CO^2 alone can be shown to be responsible for this miniscule amount of warming. However, the debate is over feedbacks, ie, what happens when CO^2 levels double. That is the crux of the problem. The IPCC assumes positives feedback causing significant temperature rise, however, if feedbacks are neutral or negative, problematic temps won’t be a problem. Dr. Roy W. Spencer shows a simple model he uses to explain feedbacks and finds that clouds function as a negative feedback mechanism, cooling the planet as it warms in a moderating fashion. Check out: “The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists”.
How to make deserts and continent
green + energy + food + land + water + cooler climate.
Use mighty power of nature. In the northwestern Australia, we have huge tides,
huge evaporation and huge dry rivers and lakes.
Tides are up to 12m. Evaporation is up to 4m per year and can be increased.
Huge 12m tidal erosion can revive old dry paleo dormant once mighty rivers, creeks and lakes,
desalinate the country and change deserts to rain forests to provide more rain across Australia.
World population is growing rapidly and we need more energy, food, land and water.
see: Mitic CLIMATE ENGINEERING
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/submissions/cprs-green-paper/~/media/submissions/greenpaper/0929-mitic.ashx
this will change deserts and whole continent for better climate -
environment, provide hydro energy, permanently and economically.
energy + food + land + water + cooler climate
Plenty of energy and HYDROGEN TO RUN YOUR CAR environment friendly.