Lomborg is at it again...
actually he never stopped.

---------------------

Take these global warnings with a pinch of salt

Bjorn Lomborg
September 27, 2007

You know how you are told to give your children organic food because pesticides will give them cancer? Well, it's technically true that there is a link between the chemicals and illness, but the risk is minuscule in any well-regulated country.

There is another threat that you haven't been told much about. One of the best ways to avoid cancer is to eat lots of fruit and vegetables. Organic items are 10 per cent or 20 per cent more expensive than regular produce, so most of us naturally buy less when we "go organic".

If you reduce your child's intake of fruits and vegetables by just 0.03 grams a day (that's the equivalent of half a grain of rice) when you opt for more expensive organic produce, the total risk of cancer goes up, not down. Omit buying just one apple every 20 years because you have gone organic, and your child is worse off.

-------------------

Gus: What a crock. If one compares apples with apples, some are better than others, even in the non-organic stakes. For example you could buy some Fuji or red delicious that are big and eat the lot — or buy smaller ones and only eat half — but you might collect the same "apple value" in both cases, because as you would have noticed yourself many "big" apples can be tasteless and full of water, that some marketeers would call "juice"...

Sure Lomborg has a sense of humour but the people who go "organic" do not buy less per say, they buy what they need. Most organically grown apples are not full of water and if the concentration of "goodness" is related to taste, then it is often evident that organic apples are better — even if the quantity we eat is smaller.

Organically grown, and bio-dynamically grown, produce is better. Less poisons used to grow, less herbicides, less water needed. And Mr Lomborg, despite "the risk being minuscule in any well-regulated country", the cumulative effect of tampering with acceleration of production can have bad effect. Some powerful insecticides had to be banned because effects were noticed after their usage. A bit late when the devastation upon nature has already taken place. Like the lack of insects (good and bad) being the link to the decline of bird life in the UK. Who cares about bird life you might say? What about the 1080 usage in Tasmania? Banned nearly everywhere in the world, this powerful killer is still use in that State. What about the decimation of the Tassie Devil? Unnatural? you bet...

And the drought? Growing wheat in areas where there is no water and where the soil is "poor" or "unsuitable" is not a good idea. We destroy the integrity of a landscape with super-phosphate and irrigation practices that bring salt to the surface. It is not a good idea. It might work for few years but soon farmers have to "quit the land". This borderline land. In many cases, the "Western intensive yield farming techniques can work for a few years in some part of Africa but soon, the same problem occurs... Drought. Big farms turn to desert while before that, the land could sustain itself under more friendly, deemed "archaic" farming techniques.   

And be fair, Polar bears are a lot more endangered by global warming than by a few hunters who should be banned anyway... It often takes more than one factor to induce extinction in species but once the process is going, it is hard to stop.

And some people like to have a choice. For example some of my "organically" grown oranges look like brown cricket balls and they are as hard... But once you cut them up the juice is divine, far better than any mass produce Jaffas, the skin of which seem to glow in the dark.

Bjorn, I do not have time to take you on at full speed. I hope that others will do. Your statistical mathematics stink and each of your argument presented can be challenged like your 0,03 grams of veggie a day...

And since you're talking BS, Mr Lomborg, please take note that in my book, organic processed food makes better compost.

Exclusive 'Skeptical Environmentalist' and critic of climate scientists to declare global warming a chief concern facing world

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.

His declaration about the importance of action on climate change comes at a crucial point in the debate, with international efforts to agree a global deal on emissions stalled amid a resurgence in scepticism caused by rows over the reliability of the scientific evidence for global warming.

--------------------

See toon and follow the trail at top... May this turn-about by Goldilocks be genuine and truly concerned... Now to cut Lord Monckton down to size... and may some of the crumbs from "Goldilocks' billions" fall on Gus' lap for the excellent diatribes — presented here on YD to expose global warming as it should be — and for fighting the deniers into the ditches.

from Crickey

Instead, argues Lomborg, we should invest heavily in low-emission R&D. If we spent just half the Kyoto amount doing so, we could bring in the technologies needed to keep emissions stable, and avoid global warming. People would use the new technologies not because they were being forced to, but because they would be cheaper than coal. As soon as we reach that point, the problem will be solved. For every $1 invested, we would get $11 worth of the benefit of avoided climate change costs. Isn’t that better?

Absolutely! But what makes Mr Lomborg dangerous is that he presents this as though they are two alternative paths. It’s a false dichotomy. We need a strong investment in R&D. But the way governments can pay for that — and encourage the private sector to invest — is through a carbon price.

The orthodox economic view is that when you put a price on carbon, the costs of high-emission energy and technologies go up. Low-emission alternatives become relatively cheaper, and so more commercially viable, and so more investment is attracted to develop them. In addition, if the government raises any funds through a carbon tax or an auction of carbon permits, those funds may be invested in early-stage R&D, accelerating the process. That’s what the tax or permit revenue is for. Transitional compensation is only to gain the political support to implement the scheme, without which nothing is possible.

The more that is invested in R&D, the sooner low-emission technologies emerge to offer the consumer practical alternatives. On that, I agree with Lomborg. But a carbon price is necessary for that public and private investment. As well, the carbon price is added to the cost of high-emission technologies, so that the low-emission alternatives undercut them more quickly, bringing forward the solution.

Kyoto-based policies are not in themselves the solution, but are a necessary part of it. They are also transitional. Implementing a carbon price in a sensible and effective way will bring on new technologies, which in the end will make the carbon price less of an issue.

see toon at top and read more at crikey.com.au

EARTH Hour, the annual push for people to turn their lights off for 60 minutes, actually causes an increase in emissions.

That’s the controversial claim made by offbeat environmental writer and academic Bjorn Lomborg, in a think piece for the Slate website.

Turning all your lights off will slash CO2 emissions during the hour, Mr Lomborg said - but it will be offset by coal or gas stations having to fire up to restore electricity supplies afterward.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/world-news/earth-hour-increases-emissions-claim/story-fndir2ev-1226599970236#ixzz2NrvP29ju

Whether the Earth Hour saves energy or not is not the point... The point of Earth Hour is to make people AWARE of global warming and of their own emissions of CO2...

And on this one there is a good chance that the Earth Hour will actually reduce emissions for at least 55 minutes and that no extraneous emissions would be needed to increase the electricity output — as in a normal change in load.

Lomborg is a fake environmentalist. See toon and stories from top down...

And where else but this "news" item is seen? In the merde-och press, of course, that will DO ANYTHING TO STOP US FROM TRYING TO REDUCE OUR CO2 EMISSIONS...

The Abbott government found $4m for the climate contrarian Bjørn Lomborg to establish his “consensus centre” at an Australian university, even as it struggled to impose deep spending cuts on the higher education sector.

A spokesman for the education minister, Christopher Pyne, said the government was contributing $4m over four years to “bring the Copenhagen Consensus Center methodology to Australia” at a new centre in the University of Western Australia’s business school.

The spokesman said the “Australia Consensus Centre” was a proposal put forward by the “university and Dr Lomborg’s organisation”.

Sources have told Guardian Australia the establishment of the centre had come as a surprise even to senior staff in the business school, who were unaware that the centre was being established until shortly before it was announced this month.

The University of Western Australia vice-chancellor, Prof Paul Johnson, confirmed the money had been offered specifically for the centre, telling Guardian Australia it was “an opportunity that arose in discussions with the department and the minister”.

“As we all know it is difficult to get federal dollars to flow across the Nullabor,” he said.

“Bjørn Lomborg was in WA last year and called in at the university. He had separate conversations with the minister … I have been having conversations about this for six or seven months.”

As Lomborg explained in a Freakonomics podcast last year, his consensus centre was defunded by the centre-left Danish government in 2012 and he was searching for a long-term funding solution. In the meantime his centre had moved to the US and was relying on private donations for a budget of about US$1m a year.

read more: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/abbott-government-gives-4m-to-help-climate-sceptic-set-up-australian-centre

---------------------------------------

We all know that crap comes from Mr Thomas Crapper, a Yorkshire man who did not invent the flushing dunny or such, but popularised it... But the word "crapola" or "crapula" was in use long before that, possible adaptation of the French word "crapule" which means a "mean bad scoundrel" in pommy lingo:

The drunkard now supinely snores,

   His load of ale sweats through his pores ;

Yet when he wakes, the swine shall find

   A crapula remains behind.

                             Charles Cotton (1630-1687)

But CRAP is the word that comes to mind in regard to Bjørn Lomborg and his “consensus centre” which has no proper understanding of what is happening to the world's climates.

And here we are at YD, fighting all these morons on a budget that would make a cockroach die on a bench top.

Note a 'crapula" in the context of the poem means a MASSIVE headache.