Quills sharpened, and dipped in...?

An interesting choice for the Sunday Times' review of the Bjorn Lomborg book: Cool It

Richard Girling is eminently qualified and actually I have a lot of time for him, but in view of his environmental advocacy I do wonder whether he could be seen to be approaching it from a balanced viewpoint.

But rely on it I must, as I have not the money nor the time to invest in reading it myself. At least not for a while.

Lomborg’s view is certainly a view. And though it's coming from a different place and leading to different conclusion to mine on best moves, he at least seems to have the spirit of enviROI at heart, where few others do.

But logic certainly does not seem to be his strong point, as this amply nails: ' If we really can’t stand the heat, then he looks forward to “increased access to air-conditioning”. How these powerful appliances can be run without further consumption of fossil fuel is another nice teaser for the technology boys.'

Does this review serve the cause any more than Mr. Lomborg's book? For me, not really. As a poster has indicated: 'I would also suggest that characterizing skeptics as 'nutters' and 'right-wing pressure groups' is evidence of a rather unscientific attitude. And I speak as a left-winger. ' Quite.

And speaking of crass and callous, on the subject that dare not be discussed, I merely note a slight disconnect between corrective mechanisms that nature may already being employing and the advocacy for where more money goes if not to address climate change. I must carefully avoid any opinion one way or the other, but there seems to be some logical (but not moral or ethical or compassionate) issues to consider here.

ADDENDUM - A question was posed, so I replied... and had a wee dig:

'...if one does not already exist. If one is available, please help direct me. Henry Markant'

You can try RealClimate.org.

As with everything in the heated (warmed?) debate cum industry, you have to read what is being said and who/where it's coming from, but as an attempt at looking at the facts and science objectively it's better than most.

Though as it gets more popular the pejoratives from either side are starting to creep in before you ever get to proper analysis, as they have here.

ADDENDUM - The western appetite for biofuels is causing starvation in the poor world
- meanwhile, back at the coalface (I mix metaphors a bit). On the one hand biofuels look like a techno-solution. On the other...