The author has simply compiled a list of straw-men and red-herrings and demonstrated that while he is very good at polemics he is also very poor at science (or perhaps he is just be deceiving.)
Note his choice to only reference “alarmists” rather than “scientists”. What, are you afraid of actually venturing into the scientific literature?
Note also his choice of picking on ethanol – as if the US mandate for ethanol use arose out of any concern for CO2. (Truth is simply that ethanol use grew as an agriculture policy, then later endorsed as an energy security policy.)
As an essay the author muddles the actual science, then the policy decisions that will/must be made to address both climate change and other issues. Perhaps Lomborg is correct on how to spend money to deal with issues, but that hasn’t as much to do with how much CO2 causes climate change, rather that the ROI for the funds available dictate one of the many other environmental issues gets addressed first.
It is so sad to see a display of polemics being dressed up as either a discussion of science, or even of policy.
Would the author be willing to actually engage in a discussion of science and policy, rather than simply to vent against Al Gore?
