"ALL CAPS IN DEFENSE OF LIBERTY IS NO VICE."

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

AL G. & ALGAE: or why plankton and not humans may really be responsible for increases in atmospheric CO2

BBC/NATURE: Ocean plankton absorbing less CO2
The amount of carbon absorbed [sequestered] by plant plankton in large segments of the Pacific Ocean is much less than previously estimated, researchers say. US scientists said the tiny ocean plants were absorbing up to two billion tonnes less CO2 because their growth was being limited by a lack of iron.

Iron deposits provide nutrients for the microbes, which in turn grow by absorbing [sequestering] atmospheric carbon dioxide. The findings have been published in the science journal Nature.
If they are sequestering less, then more will stay in the atmosphere. Er, um ... so apparently plankton is the real culprit responsible for higher atmoshperic CO2 and not SUV's. Hmmm. What will Gore do about this, give iron supplements to ocean algae!?

Seriously: it proves - once again - that IF global warming is primarily a result of increased atmospheric CO2, that this doesnlt necessarily mean that it is anthropgenic. Not at all. Therefore, it would be a huge and wasteful and horrific error to enact draconian and socialistic laws and regulations and taxes - like Kyoto - because they would not improve the ecology and would impede economic growth (and therefore lead to more poverty).

There are sensible things we should be doing. HERE'RE SOME GOOD IDEAS.

26 comments:

Pastorius said...

Al G. and Algae.

Did you crack yourself up with that one, or what?

reliapundit said...

it was easy: gore is piece of a slime, after all.

Pastorius said...

LOL!

Joe Yangtree said...

Your misinterpretation of this article closely mirrors your misunderstanding of the article on the Amazon rainforest carbon sequestration. This article isn’t saying that a sudden lack of iron is causing plankton to absorb less CO2. It’s that the models that were previously being used didn’t take into account the lack of iron in some regions and were thus over-estimating the amount of CO2 that the plankton was using worldwide. Thus, there’s no "increase in CO2" due to this finding about the plankton. So, this statement, "If they are sequestering less, then more will stay in the atmosphere," makes no sense. They’re not sequestering less than they were before. They’re sequestering less than was estimated.

We know how much CO2 man’s activities release into the atmosphere every year. We measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. The two correlate quite well (along with the measured effects of deforestation). Nothing in the past 400 thousand years even comes close to what we have seen in the past 100. Why must you continually misinterpret fairly simple and straightforward articles to try and reassure yourself that the facts are other than what they are?

"What will Gore do about this, give iron supplements to ocean algae?" Actually, this may not be such a bad idea. Then, the plankton would actually take up more CO2, as the original estimates said. However, as the article also notes, there is a feedback loop that cause the organisms that eat the plankton to "come to life because they suddenly have a more abundant food supply". So, this might not be as effective as it would seem on the surface.

reliapundit said...

planktopn and thew amazon sequester less co2 than they should according to models. the amazon has trees which are older than scienbtists figured; plankton in some regions of the seas absord less co3.

this proves that the models the scientists use are a all wrong. hence their projections are all wrong.

this year we are seeing fewer storms than last. if co2 is rising and if co2 increases increase the energy inthe atmpsphere then this would be impossible.

this is more proof that co2 is a boogeyman and that man-made increases are not a major input.

there are no scientific records which might prove whether plankton absorbed more or less twenty years ago, or had better iron uptake.

this also proves that the models are bogus. the models cannot account for the natural variables in co2 uptare.

it may very well be true that if trees in the amazxn are older than at any time in the past (due to a lack of cutting, disease, fires, etc) and if the plankton has less iron than ever before that theseare the causes of any increase in atmospheric co2 and not man.

more proof: manmade co2 has steadily increased every year for the last 100 years but temps have not.

you, joe, are a dupe and a fool.

thanks for demonstrating that here once again.

i find it fascinasting that, the left fears the bogeyman of manmade c02 (and want to enact draconian laws/taxes to stop try to dtop it) and claim that the bushies planned 9/11 (and that you want bush impeached and forces withdrawn from iraq) but that the left wants to appease the jihadoterrorist - a real breathing threat which openly avows to wipe us out and destroy our civilazation, and whch is takeing real measures to do just that.

the reazl threat the left denies. it's only the fake threats the left focuses on.

fascinating. denial denial denial denial.

reliapundit said...

joe: prove to me that climate change is not natural. and that the climate change we see now is not caused by what caused it the many MANY times the earth has had climate change before.

or: stfu.

reliapundit said...

today's news:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-434356,00.html

For Greenland's fortunate new farmers, this means that they'll be able to repeat an important part of human history within a much shorter period of time.
...

When he saw the island for the first time, explorer Eric the Red called it "Greenland," partly to entice settlers to board 25 ships and emigrate there. His advertising slogan was certainly justified. In excavations on Greenland, archaeologists have found ample evidence of rustic banquets where beef and mutton were consumed. Eric the Red owned stables that housed up to 100 cattle each.

Large sections of the northern hemisphere enjoyed a period of unusually mild weather at the time, possibly caused by changes in Atlantic Ocean currents. But the settlers' meteorological good fortune was short-lived. Climate models based on data from ice cores show that temperatures plunged quite abruptly in the 14th century, triggering a minor ice age and probably driving the Vikings from Greenland. The last known records, handed down over generations, document a wedding in the church of Hvalsøy on Sept. 16, 1408. Today, all that remains of the Vikings' rural life on Greenland are the foundations of their houses.

But now the mild temperatures of the early Middle Ages have not only returned, but are even warmer than in the days of Eric the Red. "Just a few years ago there was ice where we are now standing," says Stefan Magnusson, as he sits on his horse and looks down at a stream gushing from the glacier in front of him.

Joe Yangtree said...

"planktopn and thew amazon sequester less co2 than they should according to models. the amazon has trees which are older than scienbtists figured; plankton in some regions of the seas absord less co3. this proves that the models the scientists use are a all wrong. hence their projections are all wrong."

Wow. All of science is wrong because estimates of some factors (that they knew were only estimates) have now been enhanced with better data. Using your logic, you'd similarly have to agree that, since estimates of the cost and duration of the war in Iraq were wrong, that the war is all wrong, not to mention current calculations and projections of GDP.

Certainly, the models have some degree of inaccuracy. Anyone on either side of the debate will acknowledge that. Science is all about making observations and drawing conclusions based on the data. As data gets better, conclusions get better. As you pointed out today scientists cut their best and worst case scenarios. Better modeling and better data give a narrower range of future possibilities.


"this year we are seeing fewer storms than last. if co2 is rising and if co2 increases increase the energy in the atmpsphere then this would be impossible."
Uh, no. You really don't understand how factors and weighting work do you? For example, let's say we have a pair of loaded dice that will roll double 6's 1/12 of the time instead of the normal 1/36. If you and I played craps with these dice and I knew they were loaded and you did not, I could continuously win a lot of money from you, since you obviously believe that they couldn't be rigged if they didn't come up 12 every time. Climate change is the same way. CO2 in the atmosphere is not the only factor driving global climate. There are still solar cycles. There are still other variations that drive effects. However, increased CO2 is one that is serving on average to drive the temperature higher changing the weighting. Thus, in normal variability, the peaks will be higher and the valleys not as deep, but it doesn't suddenly make them not exist. Also, as I've already noted the climate change is just another factor in hurricane season. While it is a factor, it is one of many, probably a relatively minor driving factor given the temperature increase we've seen to date.


"this is more proof that co2 is a boogeyman and that man-made increases are not a major input."
If you mean input to overall hurricane count, I agree, at least at this point. If you mean global temperature, I disagree, Once again, we are on course to have the warmest year (globally average speaking) on record. If your premise above was correct (more energy must ALWAYS equal more storms), that would mean that we would have to have more storms. Your premise is simply wrong. While there are a few climate scientists that currently claim that noted global warming is not mostly caused by man's release of CO2 into the atmosphere, I can't think of any that claim that global warming isn't actually happening since about 2001/2002.


"there are no scientific records which might prove whether plankton absorbed more or less twenty years ago, or had better iron uptake."
If we can't know, as you now seem to realize, then how do you explain your assertion, "so apparently plankton is the real culprit responsible for higher atmoshperic CO2 and not SUV's". You just admitted that you have no data to base this assertion on, so how can it be "apparent". You might as well have said that it is caused by fairy dust, since we have no data to prove or deny that either. There's no reason to believe that the iron content is different in these areas than it has been for quite awhile. Indeed, the paper you linked to says that they used 12 years of data to determine the lack of iron in "three large areas of the Pacific", so we know that it has been relatively stable over that period, while CO2 has been steadily increasing. I guess that totally destroys your theory, at least for the last 12 years.


"this also proves that the models are bogus. the models cannot account for the natural variables in co2 uptare."
They don't actually need to. As I noted in my last post (and you ignored), "We know how much CO2 man’s activities release into the atmosphere every year. We measure the level of CO2 in the atmosphere every year. The two correlate quite well." Unexplained variability exists, but is fairly small compared to what we can measure directly. You believe simultaneously that the CO2 we know that man is creating and releasing into the atmosphere magically vanishes AND that there is some as yet unmeasured, unobserved phenomenon that is causing global CO2 levels to rise. Very scientific.


"it may very well be true that if trees in the amazxn are older than at any time in the past (due to a lack of cutting, disease, fires, etc) and if the plankton has less iron than ever before that these are the causes of any increase in atmospheric co2 and not man."
Once again, there is no evidence of this. You thought you read an article that said this, and I showed that it didn't actually say that. Now, you claim that it still might be true, even though no one who is actually involved claims this. The reason that scientists were wrong about the age of the trees was that the trees mature more slowly than they thought. There's really no mystery about why the estimates were made as they were and why they were wrong, as much as you'd like to invent one.

And seriously, "lack of cutting." Are you insane? "Between May 2000 and August 2005, Brazil lost more than 132,000 square kilometers of forest -- an area larger than Greece -- and since 1970, over 600,000 square kilometers (232,000 square miles) of Amazon rainforest have been destroyed."


"more proof: manmade co2 has steadily increased every year for the last 100 years but temps have not."
I addressed this above. No one ever claimed that CO2 and the greenhouse effect are the only factor in global temperature. I've repeated this many times, but you still seem to believe that there is some point here. In what would otherwise be a temperature valley, increased CO2 will mitigate at least some of that effect. It doesn't erase variability. Who ever claimed that it did? Arguing against points that no one ever made is commonly known as engaging straw men. You do this a lot. My salient points are often ignored as you charge and repeatedly beat the straw. I, on the other hand, try to highlight each of your "points" and address each in turn. Please point out if you feel that I have missed any.


"you, joe, are a dupe and a fool."
I appreciate your invective as a lack of substantial argument. Here's who I have on my side in this debate:

The US National Academy of Sciences
The Pentagon
The American Meteorological Society
The Union of Concerned Scientists
The American Association for the Advancement of Science
The American Geophysical Union

and those are just the US organizations. I'll add the international organizations if you desire in my next post.


"thanks for demonstrating that here once again."
If you liked my demonstrations so much, then why did you delete them? I would think you'd post them on your front page, like I post my repeated smackdowns of you on my blog. I think you actually see the reality of who comes out on top in every one of our discussions. That's why you have tried to beg, coerce, and threaten me into not responding in the past.


"i find it fascinasting that, the left fears the bogeyman of manmade c02 (and want to enact draconian laws/taxes to stop try to dtop it) and claim that the bushies planned 9/11 (and that you want bush impeached and forces withdrawn from iraq) but that the left wants to appease the jihadoterrorist - a real breathing threat which openly avows to wipe us out and destroy our civilazation, and whch is takeing real measures to do just that."
For the record, I have never claimed that Bush or any American was involved in 9/11 or that terrorism is not a threat. I also do not recommend draconian laws/taxes to try and forestall global warming. You're sure punching the hell out of that straw. If only your actual arguments against points that I argued were as strong as those against points I never did.


"the reazl threat the left denies. it's only the fake threats the left focuses on."
Can you comprehend that there might actually be more than one threat that needs to be addressed at any time in history? I guess not. One threat at a time, please, that's all your brain can handle. Everything else must be fake.


fascinating. denial denial denial denial.
I couldn't have said it better myself. You deny obvious explanations in favor of undetected fantasies. You deny the repeated and consensus conclusions of scientists in favor of your own fevered faith-based conclusions. You deny even deny what you previously claimed. I'm glad you find it so fascinating.

Joe Yangtree said...

"joe: prove to me that climate change is not natural. and that the climate change we see now is not caused by what caused it the many MANY times the earth has had climate change before."

What proof could I present that you would accept? As I remember, when I previously, repeatedly pointed out that you had miscalculated a percentage on one of your posts, you refused to acknowledge your error. The posted error still persists to this day, never corrected, even though your header boldly proclaims that you "correct disinformation". That's a math error, one that there is no question about, but still, you didn't accept it, faced with absolute and incontrovertible proof.

There is no amount of evidence that can ever prove something to someone who is as willfully and proudly ignorant as you are. I have disproven so many of your claims in the past that you clearly are unreachable. I only post here so that people who read can see how wrong you are and judge for themselves which one of us makes more sense. Oh, and for fun. It is always fun to see you cry and run away, deleting the posts and locking the threads that have aggravated and beaten you so thoroughly :-)

or: stfu.
What happened to "thanks for demonstrating that here once again". Did you read over how things have gone in the past and get back to deciding you sound better when I'm not here to demonstrate how wrong you are?

Joe Yangtree said...

today's news:

Let's first examine what your highlighted article says that you didn't quote.

"For the first time in hundreds of years, it has become possible to raise cattle and start dairy farms."

"Temperatures on the island are expected to rise almost twice as much as in Europe -- to farmer Egede's delight but to the consternation of many millions of people. That's because the Greenland ice cap, which rises behind the chain of hills where his farm is located, is shrinking. Greenland's interior is made up of 2.5 million cubic kilometers of ice that is also up to 3,400 meters thick in places. If this huge mass of ice melts, sea levels will rise by almost seven meters (about 23 feet). Although this horrifying scenario isn't likely to happen quickly, new studies published last month suggest that the shrinking of Greenland's ice sheet is speeding up."


The ice, says Magnusson, has retreated by almost 100 meters (328 feet) since he began raising reindeer more than 10 years ago. "Every meter means more pasture for my animals," says Magnusson, "and each additional day they're able to graze on a green pasture adds half a pound to their weight."

Since you picked out this article as one you accept, I assume that you agree with all of the above. Hopefully, we'll never have any further issues on whether global temperatures are rising or not and what the effects are on ice sheets.

Now, on to the parts you thought were particularly noteworthy:

"For Greenland's fortunate new farmers, this means that they'll be able to repeat an important part of human history within a much shorter period of time."
Why would this be happening in a much shorter period of time? Perhaps because it has another main driver. Perhaps one that is well understood, predicted this change in Greenland's temperature, and predicted the approximate speed at which it would happen and continue to happen.

"Large sections of the northern hemisphere enjoyed a period of unusually mild weather at the time, possibly caused by changes in Atlantic Ocean currents."
Wow, we not only know that this temperature change was regional (as opposed to our currently meticulously measured global effect), we also happen to have a good theory as to what caused it. Are those currents currently changing in that way?

"But now the mild temperatures of the early Middle Ages have not only returned, but are even warmer than in the days of Eric the Red."
Wow, they're even warmer right now and still climbing. How about that. What could possibly be causing this?

How long ago was it that I published my first answer to this argument? Two months? You still don't get it. Here it is again for those who are short of attention span:

Unreliapundit: "there are MANY warmiong periods throughout history BEFORE indistrilaizaton. Before any man-made inputs"
My response: Obviously, this contention is true. I don't think that anyone is advocating that greenhouse gases are the ONLY factor that can cause global warming. The argument is that increased greenhouse gases in the atmosphere do cause temperature increases, though those certainly could be mitigated or enhanced by other factors. As an analogy for your argument here, let's say that we take a bowl of water, put it outside, and track its temperature over time. We find through our measurements that it gets warmer during the day and cooler at night. We have established that there are "warming periods" and "cooling periods" for the water based on a natural cycle, similar to your claim above. Now, we take a hot-plate, heat the water, and observe a temperature increase. By your argument, we should discount the effect of the hot plate on temperature since we have already seen that the water temperature can rise and fall based on other factors and conclude that we're simply "AGAIN HAVING ONE OF TGHOSE WARM UPS" that we noted daily before the hot plate was in place.

Joe Yangtree said...

"Global warming is important, environmentally, politically, and economically. There is no doubt that mankind has influenced and is still increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and that this will increase temperature. -- Bjorn Lomborg, the man on the other side of your "good ideas" link.

Actually, Lomborg and I are pretty close in our beliefs. We both agree that man-made global warming is a fact. We both agree that the Kyoto Protocol is NOT a meaningful way of addressing the problem. We both agree that some of the effects of global warming have been overstated (e.g. hurricanes). Even his estimates of the overall temperature increase caused by global warming by 2100 (2-2.5 degrees C) are very reasonable. I'd probably say 2-3 degrees C, myself.

So why does the guy that you link to an claim has good ideas totally agree with the theory of global warming, and then you ask me to prove it to you. If you believe what he says, I'd think you'd listen to him a lot more readily than you'd listen to me.

reliapundit said...

because i higlight some of an article it does not follow that i agree with all.

to assert that is foolish and intellectually dishonest.

typical of you joe.

global warming may be real. it may be natural too, and have nothing to do with man-made co2 or any other so-called greenhouse gases.

i challenge you to prove that the current trend is UNNATURAL when comparedf to previous warming treends - anmd cooling trends - none of which have ever been adequately explained by science.

i cannot respond to your other arguments because it would be a waste of my time.

you never respond to the facts.

FACT: scientists now say that the most dire predictions of global warming are WRONG and exaggerated.

14 cm is 14cm. worrying about that is stupid. there are worse envirtonmental/health things to worry about - like dirty fresh water.

buhbyeee.

BTW: joe: NO ONE will rerad your overly long comments. try being PITHY.

Joe Yangtree said...

"because i higlight some of an article it does not follow that i agree with all."
OK, what does Lomborg say that you agree with then? What are his good ideas?

"global warming may be real."
This is true progress from your previous assertion that "global warming is a hoax". I appreciate all progress, no matter how small.

"i cannot respond to your other arguments"
Tell me something I don't know. We've both been down that road before and we both know it just leads to repeated ass-whippings delivered by me to you.

"you never respond to the facts."
I think I just wrote a really long post doing just that, responding to each and every one of your assertions, even though they were mostly fact free. You're the one waving the white flag and refusing to respond...again. I appreciate the "waste of my time" dodge. Anyone who ever has read one bit of our "debate" knows where the science and facts reside.

"i challenge you to prove that the current trend is UNNATURAL when comparedf to previous warming treends - anmd cooling trends - none of which have ever been adequately explained by science."
What proof could I present that you would accept? As I remember, when I previously, repeatedly pointed out that you had miscalculated a percentage on one of your posts, you refused to acknowledge your error. The posted error still persists to this day, never corrected, even though your header boldly proclaims that you "correct disinformation". That's a math error, one that there is no question about, but still, you didn't accept it, faced with absolute and incontrovertible proof.


"BTW: joe: NO ONE will rerad your overly long comments. try being PITHY"
I'll admit that scientific explanations often require more words than you are able to read and comprehend. I'm sorry about your intellectual limitations.

"FACT: scientists now say that the most dire predictions of global warming are WRONG and exaggerated."

First, we'll have to see if this is actually the conclusion. The article says, "A draft report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, obtained exclusively by The Weekend Australian", so, this report first needs to be confirmed, then reviewed, then adopted by the IPCC. Second, as I noted above, the best case scenarios were eliminted as well as the worst case ones, even in this supposed draft.

"14 cm is 14cm".
Obviously, even if the draft is correct, you know that 14cm is the absolute minimum predicted, "The report projects a rise in sea levels by century's end of between 14cm and 43cm, with further rises expected in following centuries caused by melting polar ice. "

reliapundit said...

14cm is less than the width of a polar bear's dick.

the catastrophe which dupes like you and gore promise us is NON-EXISTENT - except in your leftist minds.

man-made global warming hysteria is a HOAX merely designed to find a reason for leftists to get more involved in the free marketplace and predetermine outcomes.

reliapundit said...

joe yangtree, pleae do me a small favor:

do not clog up my blog with your long comments.

please just post a short comment with a link to your blog. you can write long stuff at your own blog.

it is impolite to post so much long stuff and so frequently on one post on anther person's blog.

it is rude. and selfish.

if you prefer, post the long stuff at my discussion/threads linked to at each post.

this is for longwinded folks like you.

please.

please. PLEASE!

don't make have to get Kofi to send you a harshly worded letter.

reliapundit said...

you know, joe, i only deleted your stuff in the HOPE wish and prayer that you'd stop bugging me LIKE A TROLL.

you are a troll, joe.

do you like that?

Please: post short comments with links to your blog, or post long astuff at the threads blog.

thanks for being a human being and respecting my wishes.

or be an asshole and don't.

your call.

Joe Yangtree said...

Don't clog your blog? Are you worried (as per Ted Stevens) that the "series of tubes" transmitting your blog can't withstand the pressure? LOL

Since you've asked nicely, I'll keep my future posts to 500 words or fewer with links to extended remarks on my blog.

Coming from you, I'll take troll to mean "guy that pounds you into dust easily." I think you meant "crushing" instead of "bugging" above.

reliapundit said...

100 words or less plus a link to a post of any length at your own blog.

or i delete them.

as i said: your comments are too long.
be pithy or be deleted. or use the thread/discussion link and post shit as long as you want.

bye joe. it was real.

reliapundit said...

quote from the article:

"The researchers identified three large areas of the Pacific where phytoplankton appeared to be suffering from a lack of iron - the southern ocean around Antarctica, the sub-arctic north below Alaska, and a vast area in the tropical Pacific cent[e]red on the equator."

if these three areas were healthy - as the rest of the world's plankton apparently is, then these three large areas would be sequestering more co2.

then, it follows necessarily, that there would be less atmospheric co2.

if atmospheric co2 contributes to global warming - something which is unproven (especially in view of known historical and pre-historical eras of warming an cooling) - then these three unhealthy areas of plankton might be a major cause.

since there are many known eras of global warming which predate industrialism and man-made co2 it is reasonable to assume that similar non-anthropgenic forces might be causing warming today.

reliapundit said...

also hajckass joe: please nopte the use of the word SERIOUSLY in my post. which most SANE people undertand measn to take the previous staement with a graion of salt.

you didn't GET IT and commented AD NAUSEUM to my joke as if it was a serious comment with crap i won't bother to sift through because it'd be a waste of my time.

you are a jerk

Joe Yangtree said...

My latest responses are here. Enjoy.

My previous offer of 500 words was only because you asked nicely, and it's non-negotiable. I'll voluntarily stick by that limit until you start deleting posts again.

You're free to respond at my blog. I don't actually feel the need to try and restrict comments there, but I guess that's because I'm actually a grown man, not a pathetic crybaby.

reliapundit said...

1 - i will delete all words which exceed 100. i wiull leave any link to your blog you post.

2 - joe: please note the use of the word SERIOUSLY in my post. most SANE people undertand the use of this word to mean to take the previous staement with a grain of salt. you didn't GET IT and commented AD NAUSEUM to my joke as if it was a serious comment, and you commented with voluminous crap which i won't even bother to sift through because it'd be a waste of my time.

3 - there is zero proof that current warming trends are not caused by whatever caused them before anthropogenic causes were possible. zero, zilch, nada, bupkus.

bye.

Joe Yangtree said...

Here is my latest response. I believe this post deals effectively with all your most recent arguments. Of all the many, many things that I've asked that you've ignored or refused to answer, I am most interested in what good ideas you feel that Lomborg has. Why did you choose to single him out among environmentalists for praise, since you obviously don't agree with his basic assumptions?

Joe Yangtree said...

2. Your statement preceding "Seriously" was a joke about giving iron supplements to algae, though I do appreciate that you're now trying to label your entire post (perhaps your entire blog) as a joke, though you've spent much effort defending it's veracity already.

3. Just because you don't understand/accept the facts doesn't invalidate them. The case is laid out again, concisely, in this post in the numbered points. As a counter-question, what would constitute acceptable evidence?

reliapundit said...

well done joe: short and to the point and with a lionk!@ bravo! this is what i like! good job!

i did not repudiate the substance of my post or of my follow up comments.

you have failed to address anyone of them. bye.

Joe Yangtree said...

What is the best point you have made above that you believe I didn't address? Will you simply not answer when asked for specifics of your specious claim? BTW, did you even read my last post before claiming I addressed none of your issues. My site records claim you didn't.

From my last two short comments alone, here were two direct questions you failed to answer in any way:

1.What would constitute acceptable evidence of anthropogenic global warming?

2.What good ideas do you feel that Lomborg has?