tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post6205687633278853449..comments2024-03-17T17:03:57.875-07:00Comments on Idiot Tracker: Lomborg's lies, part oneTheTrackerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-17496955607117960792018-09-07T12:06:14.808-07:002018-09-07T12:06:14.808-07:00I came here from his mocie 'cool it' which...I came here from his mocie 'cool it' which I watched for not more than 20minutes that I realised it was totally misleading in a way that would attract corporates and skeptics to make more money and forget about climate change. He seems to only focus on carbon emission cut down policies by the government, that's the last lap. We environmentals are not working only to reach that goal. By educating people about future climate projections we show the reality, we scream because we are already in a point of no return. This awareness starts with individuals installing solar power, switching to greener vehicles,boycotting toxic products, banning plastic and of course sustainability which will eventually reduce emissions. He is focusing on corporate companies and politics, we are actually focusing on common people. The biggest flaw of his argument is that he is only concerned about the human population and their development,healthcare and progress which makes me so angry. We are one among millions of species, we occupy a little portion of the land..there are creatures dying in oceans, coral reefs are bleaching rapidly, so many species are extinct already. Yes there is definitely a problem and this guy is preaching to only worry about humans? He has done a terrible injustice to his education. MBeenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-83859180105650982992012-07-10T18:37:47.326-07:002012-07-10T18:37:47.326-07:00There'a an even simpler and more obvious probl...There'a an even simpler and more obvious problem with Lomborg's thesis.<br /><br />Overhauling our energy systems simply has nothing to do with poverty, no more than do our purchases of deodorant, music, luxury yachts and the latest hemline. The money we waste on nonessential things makes the funding for climate mitigation pale in comparison. We won't stop our feckless spending simply because some faceless person somewhere is huddling in a stinky twilight provided by a kerosene lantern and trying to cope with dysentery. This is true today and it will continue to be true.<br /><br />We could have fixed all the problems Lomborg cites a long time ago <i>but we did not.</i> The amount of money necessary to mend the ills he speaks of is not so much <i>but we have always chosen not to spend it.</i> We know our choices and we make them; our actions have very little to do with helping disadvantaged people. <br /><br />We could boost the income of the poorest third of the world's population by an order of magnitude through contributions from the incomes of the top fifth earners and the effect on those contributors wouldn't even be noticeable except through careful accounting; no sacrifices need be made to make a stunning difference in the lives of the world's poor. But we <i>don't do that.</i> We don't do it now and we won't do it tomorrow, regardless of what we choose to do about our energy future.<br /><br />We simply don't behave in the manner Lomborg suggests; this isn't a matter of us carefully assessing whether to do Good Work A or Good Work B. Our amply demonstrated natural inclination and typical mode of behavior is indifference when it comes to helping the poor and there's not a shred of evidence that we're going to change.<br /><br />What possible evidence can Lomborg cite to claim that human nature has changed, that we'll now do what we've always refused to do previously?dbostromhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13885863615343906724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-45046155928200157712012-07-10T15:30:30.582-07:002012-07-10T15:30:30.582-07:00Well, you're aptly named, at least.
Everybody...Well, you're aptly named, at least.<br /><br />Everybody else seems to understand Lomborg's central thesis--that if we decide to spend trillions each and every year between now and 2100, it is not unreasonable to assume that other worthy uses of that money will not receive funding.<br /><br />I assume you will report the outcome of the Danish pastry attacks and their subsequent withdrawal of their conjured up attacks on Lomborg. Evidently the pie in the face Lomborg received was enough calorific feedback.<br /><br />And please quit calling me Steve. It just reinforces the validity of your eponymous blog.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12747117922597525042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-8162199996757067542012-07-06T06:30:21.835-07:002012-07-06T06:30:21.835-07:00Cool blog, too. I will be having that for the blog...Cool blog, too. I will be having that for the blogroll, if you please.TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-79879707216759781212012-07-05T18:25:42.642-07:002012-07-05T18:25:42.642-07:00My pleasure. Seems like a nice way to counter/def...My pleasure. Seems like a nice way to counter/deflect Mr. Lomborg.Tom Grayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14728522824855808421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-51381324405888719072012-07-05T16:07:11.839-07:002012-07-05T16:07:11.839-07:00Great article, thanks for the tip!Great article, thanks for the tip!TheTrackerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10011829472333355911noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6718772691289114123.post-7651181742597313972012-07-05T15:59:30.491-07:002012-07-05T15:59:30.491-07:00You may find this interesting and useful reading: ...You may find this interesting and useful reading: <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/b0072m7777772k7r/fulltext.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.springerlink.com/content/b0072m7777772k7r/fulltext.pdf</a>climatehawk1noreply@blogger.com