keep a fair view on the analysis, and I hope that my discussion will be received fairly.

The casual media analyses of climate science is often quite poor, that is agreed, and

encourage people to jump on a bandwagon they do not have sufficient knowledge of. That

bandwagon, however, currently seems to be the ‘lots of scientists doubt anthropogenic

climate change’. Short of introducing everyone to the issues, I would prefer it if the

media did accept the the core science is ‘settled’, rather than misrepresenting or simply

lying about it being doubted.

The doubts are, as you said, over specific aspects of the models. This models are often

complicated, with multiple factors and inter-linked feedback mechanisms, and when dealing

with such complexity there are bound to be readjustments and reappraisals to components.

These are fine-tuning the extent to which some aspects will be affected, but do not throw

off the overall conclusions. I am a biological scientist, and so routinely read the peer-

reviewed scientific journals relevant to environmental sciences, and I do not recall the

masses of climate change doubting papers certain commentators are reporting.

The fact ‘that the earth has not warmed at all over the last decade’ is rather misleading.

This claim has been widely circulated and is only valid in the sense that 1998, the hottest

year ever recorded has not been surpassed. The overall trend has most definitely been an

increase, as multiple independ sources agree, and the 2000′s has been the hottest decade

ever, which the 1990′s were before and the 1980′s before that.

The assertion that ‘crops grow better in warmer conditions’ is a new fact to me, even

though I am a plant ecologist. Some crops, in some regions, may well grow better (for

example in the UK, where I live, some of our crops can expect increased growing seasons), but globally there is little reason to be optimistic. Already arid regions are going to struggle even more, and even if one doubts anthropogenic climate change, there has been much research done on how plant growth is altered in increased CO2, indicate a general decrease in nutritional value and shifts in plant communities.

It is odd to argue that money being spent in trying to avoid climate change might better be used to provide water and food provision in the developing world. A change of 1 to 2 degrees may seem piffling, we go through much greater changes every day, but the ecological effects of such a change seem likely to massively alter global ecology, with loss of water supply and crop production making certain areas completely inhospitable. It is also wirth mentioning that this 1-2 degree change is what might be achieved WITH action taken by global governments, without the shift is estimated up to as much as 6 degress.

It is difficult to argue with Lomborg’s analyses. Not because they are irrefutible, but because it comes down to what economic costs to agree with. His values for the potential costs of climate change are comparitively low, for example when compared with the UK government’s own review. Even ignoring this, I fail to see what is so bad about taking the safe view and cutting emissions anyway. What is there to lose from a cleaner world? It is my believe that most of the changes to be made a for the best anyway, and there there are wide benefits to living in a more efficient, considerate world.

Your story has been featured on Japundit!

Here is the link: http://www.japundit.com/Environment/Some_Thoughts_on_Copenhagen_and_Climate_Change...