2010-11-28 09:57:47"Cool It" by Bjorn Lomborg
Robert Way


I think we should consider that this is going to become popular. Perhaps we should prepare a response and send it to him/put it online. We make a document about it. I think this might be important.
2010-11-28 10:58:20


Unfortunately, this is just a preview of the movie: It has almost no content.

From what I've read of his previous efforts, he doesn't really deny that AGW is happening, but rather argues about the impacts. Since he disagrees with the experts on their areas of expertise, I don't give any credence to his evaluation - but there's nothing said about any of this stuff in the preview.

One can respond to his book (which has been out about 3 years) or one can wait for the movie to come out. But there's nothing to respond to in the preview. The most substantive moment is Freeman Dyson making a fool of himself on AGW. (And, yes, I know exactly who Freeman Dyson is. The situation is unfortunate.)

2010-11-28 11:09:01comment
Robert Way


I showed the preview because the movie is released/being released now so once some people see it we should prepare something. I know of a lot of people already following his views unfortunately and a lot of people "eager" to see the movie.

I know one fault already is he uses the IPCC sea level predictions of around 20 inches which has been resoundingly rejected now. But beyond that i'm just preparing that once people see the movie we might need to prepare something.
2010-11-28 11:58:39
Andy S


It might be best to ignore the movie altogether. It looks as though it's a box-office flop. Total US takings are only$53000 as of November 21. That's only about 5000 people. Articles on the movie include:

Michael Tobis.

Randy Olsen. 



2010-12-03 03:20:28
Mark Richardson

I think a general pointing out of some problems with economic analyses is important.



Economic analyses are very sensitive to assumptions like discount rate, technological development etc. And several I've seen assume the IPCC's sea level rise predictions are the most accurate when they clearly pointed out this assumes no dynamic ice sheet breakup...