The recent publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, a book by Bj¿rn Lomborg (Cambridge University Press, 2001), ignited an international controversy. Lomborg, a Danish political scientist with a background in statistics, argues in his text that claims made by environmentalists about global warming, overpopulation, energy, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, and a variety of other issues are exaggerations unsupported by a proper analysis of environmental data. His message was widely publicized in the popular media and championed by political commentators traditionally opposed to environmentalist policies.

Outraged voices within the mainstream scientific community quickly answered, however, that Lomborg¿s work was deeply flawed. His text, they said, misrepresented the actual positions of environmentalists and scientists, and his analysis was marred by invalidating errors that include a narrow, biased reading of the literature, an inadequate understanding of the science, and quotations taken out of context.

In its January 2002 issue, Scientific American published the feature "Misleading Math about the Earth," in which four environmental experts¿Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, John Bongaarts and Thomas Lovejoy¿criticized The Skeptical Environmentalist¿s arguments on global warming, energy, overpopulation and biodiversity. Lomborg has since written a detailed online rebuttal to our feature; we also have some responses to that rebuttal.

2 Comments

1. 1. JDoddsGW 01:24 PM 9/28/09

   Mother Nature has a Law called the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. It says that a body (eg Earth) will radiate energy according to the temperature raised to the 4th power.
   What this means is that when the Earth gets cooler it radiates out less energy & so warms up to equilibrium with the amount of energy coming in. When a body raises its temperature (eg by supposed CO2 induced global warming) then the body increases the amount of energy radiated and so cools down to equilibrium. This is Mother Nature’s (& the Laws of Physics) mechanism for maintaining equilibrium temperatures. We cross equilibrium exactly twice a day as we go above (morning warming) and below (nightlly cooling) The equilibrium point depends upon the amount of energy coming into and going out of the Earth. (This is basic Junior High School Physics!!) Only the amount of enegy coming in can raise the global temperature. The CO2 is irrelevant , because there is always excess CO2 in the air. It is put there whenever the energy coming in and going out decreases (sun goes down, Earth moves further away from the sun etc), and there is excess CO2 not needed by the GHE.
   John Dodds Wobble Theory (www.scribd.com) identifies the forces of Gravity (& energy) - eg Jupiter & Saturn) that cause planetary eccentricity, and hence variable amounts of energy that enter (& leave) the Earth. These variable forces correlate to the Earthly temperature variations as measured by ice cores for thousands of years, and especially for the 60 year cooling warming cycles 1880, 1940, 1998, 2058 etc observable since man started tracking temperature. There is a 60 year Jupiter/Saturn orbital resonance cycle that causes Earth eccentricity, which changes the amount of energy coming into the Earth. CO2 has nothing to do with it, because there is excess CO2 in the air, than what is needed to create the GHE for the limited amount of energy coming in.
   Mankind in trying to change the climate is trying to overcome the natural forces of planetary gravity. At man’s current level of power generation (trivial compared to solar insolation, which is trivial compared to the forces of Sun & planetary gravity) IT JUST CAN’T BE DONE.
   The CO2 contoversy is absurd.
   Lomborg needs to examine his basic premise that CO2 can cause warming. It sure can’t cause cooling & we get that for 30 out of every 60 years.
   
   — John Dodds
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. mounthell 01:53 AM 4/16/11

   Different gases, such as CO2 and O2, absorb particular energies (or wavelengths) of electromagnetic radiation to different degrees and subsequently (re)radiate or emit the absorbed energy as new photons variably in a (spherical) pattern. CO2 and methane gases (as well as water vapor) are particularly menacing because they absorb more incident thermal radiation than other common atmospheric gases: they act like insulation around the earth.
   
   What happens is that the energy emitted by the warm earth tends to be absorbed by these types of gas molecules in the earth's atmosphere and subsequently emitted spherically such that a PORTION of the energy is emitted BACK DOWN to the earth's lower atmosphere predominantly as low-energy or long-wave infrared radiation. Because that process adds more heat energy to the earth's atmosphere, the temperature rises.
   
   As this emission and re-radiation process continues, more energy-reflecting ice/snow melts which changes the earth's reflectivity (albedo) and worsens the increasing surface temperature and radiation cycle. On the other hand, increased water vapor in the atmosphere also increases cloud cover which tends to reflect more insolation (incoming solar radiation).
   
   The problem of global warming is vastly more complex than Mr. Dodds' limited description, and certainly beyond the grasp of the view of Dr. Lomborg and other cranks.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this