Don’t argue the science, Lomberg has been saying for a while now, but try and allign the problems more with the science, because much of it suggests that CO2 warming will likely present problems.
We’re cramming way too much into a tiny idea (capping carbon emissions), and the media coverage absurdly demonstrates this. We don’t want to end-up with European-style policies restricting our economy.
I still reserve the right to be entirely skeptical (what if it isn’t happening at all?), but the more time I’ve spent with data, the more I think.
How to separate reasonable environmentalism from the authoritarian impulses, the Malthusians and various other people who “know” how many people is enough? Now that environmentalism is a primary focus in our schools, it’s probably worth thinking about.
Here’s Bob Zubrin on the rather pseudo-religious and dangerous roots of much environmentalism:
Related On This Site: Bjorn Lomborg saw this coming a while ago, pricking the mighty Al Gore (who is moving beyond satire): From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics
Andrew Revkin In The NY Times: Global Warming Moderation From Bloggingheads: On Freeman Dyson’s Global Warming Heresy…From The WSJ-A Heated Exchange: Al Gore Confronts His Critics…From The Literary Review–Weather Channel Green Ideology: Founder John Coleman Upset.