‘Global warming is not our most urgent priority’

Reg

Is feeding all these billions of additional humans really such a good idea? Or has Bjorn abandoned one woolly cause for another? I'm only asking.

TDK

In answer to Reg, the birthrate of rich countries is lower than that of the poor. The most widely held reasons being that (a) if lots of children die before maturity then you need to have a lot of them to guarantee some survive and (b) who will look after you when you become old if not your children.

Therefore assisting poor countries to escape their poverty may be the best means to end the population explosion.

That's not to say that all interventions are equally good. Ending CAP might even be seen as an end to an intervention. I certainly approve 100% of that step.

L Stewart

There are indeed many more important things for the West to spend its money on before
'global warming', including the West itself. I have no expertise on the subject, and no personal axe to grind as to whether the phenomenon is man-made or not. If the evidence is there I am perfectly willing to be convinced: but when I see its advocates are very often the same people who take up a dogmatic stance on any subject where they believe the West and/or its values can be faulted, and resort to the same tactics of distortion, avoidance of inconvenient facts, obfuscation, coercion, slander, and personal abuse against anyone who dares to offer a contrary opinion, I am very, very cautious.

In this country we have education, health, the armed forces and many other worthwhile causes to spend our own money on, before we look for another excuse to pour it into the bottomless pit of Third World demands.

Chris

Dissing polar bears is the worst possible 'lackey of Bush' allegation. The US has just declared them an endangered species, despite there being no evidence that they are. Maybe bears have votes in the Pacific northwest?

Sarah Salam

At last, reason. Well done. Brainwash those who never question into staring at the sky in fear. Meanwhile, in an impoverished world, introduce a nifty carbon credit card tax, passenger surcharge tax etc etc survival of the richest, poor polar bears? hardly...what price humanity? First class interview, content and style, thank you both. btw, holocaust revisionism an EU crime?

Hugh_Jorgan

Heretic! Burn him at once!

Dodgy Geezer

Anyone who looks at the maths knows that, not only is Global Warming not our most urgent priority, it's not even an issue at all!

I'm not interested in arguing politics with anyone. Look at a technical pro site (Real Climate) and an anti site (Climate Audit) and make your own mind up.

This is a scientific issue, NOT a political one!!!

Water

There is a degree of truth about the man, though I have a great deal of sympathy for the environmentalists he’s hardly the Anti-Christ. A sense of priority, as he guns for, is deeply respectable and hardly the words of Beelzebub. Ultimately “dealing with HIV/Aids, hunger… and malaria were [seen to be] the world's top priorities” by the good people in Copenhagen and though I empathize with the environmentalists such thoughts cannot be ignored.

Mark

I have to say that, having studied Bjorn's work at university, he is a bit of a joke. He manipulates statistics ridiculously, steers people away from real environmental problems, and hypothesises on out-dated views in the industry.

Water

Some examples please Mark, my knowledge of this man stems as far as the Telegraph. How does he go about manipulating as you say?

Mark

He quotes statistics that are inappropriate to make misleading statements that people take as fact. (It's been a few years, but bear with me...) For example, to state that air pollution is lessening, when using statistics for three or four basic pollutants sounds fine. But those pollutants he used had a trend of falling over the decades in the UK, because industry has changed. He has failed to identify the other two hundred more serious pollutants that are rising rapidly and cause serious damage to our health. Also, it doesn't take into account that he has measured only in territories where said pollutants decrease - not taking into account the new industries of India and China, for example. So he makes grand statements with 'stats to back it all up!', to actively misunderstand environmental concerns completely.

Moreover, his author picture denoted a penchant for terrible shirts, if I remember correctly.

Water

Shirts aside you make a strong statement. Some links showing failings in Lomborgs work would be most kind.

Mark

I'm afraid these sorts of things aren't online. You may need to have a look at his book, and my work on it as a student is long gone. I think there's a point to be discussed about trying to fit the natural world into statistical analyses without actually seeing the bigger picture. Context is everything in the environment.

Water

Context is everything in most things. But just to confirm by his book are you refering to 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'?

Water

Mark don't worry I found some information
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/error_catalogue.htm

Thanks again.

Sisyphus

For someone who fretted about whether Lomborg thought the author was "trying to pick him up", Delingpole spent the first 165 words of his article gushing over Lomborg like a teenybopper at an Nsync concert.

After paragraph 2, I didn't even care what the article was about. Nice job, DelingPOLE.

Damocles

So James, still in love with Bjørn Lomborg?