And, does anyone have a set of links to the various sites handy for evaluating deniers' claims?  I can think of the "how to talk to a skeptic" site, RealClimate, Deltoid, and DeSmogBlog, but I know I've seen others.

Puddingtoppen, to borrow a couple of words from next to the photo of the cheery blonde at the top of that fun page on Old Norse name formation.

(So now I know what "Ingmar," as in Bergman, means; to my frustration, though, they do not define the "-rid" of "Ingrid," as in the other Bergman.  I shall have to look up who this god Ingr is.  The "Vig" of "Viggo," as in Mortensen, means "battle" -- it seems every other word means either "battle" or "victory" -- , but they give us no clue about the "-go" part.)

As for Bjorn's bright forecast about how the polar bears will quickly adapt to their changing conditions, that is simple craziness.  Even the much more resourceful and adaptable grizzlies of Yellowstone are coming under pressure, as the life cycle of the alpine moths that they feed on in late Summer is shifting on account of climate change.

In fact, as the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions grow warmer, we should not be surprised if polar bears come increasingly into competition with northward-moving brown bears, aka grizzlies.  The changing conditions of those regions would seem likely to favor the grizzlies, so the increasing overlap of ranges and habitat -- grizzlies are already present on the north coasts of Canada and Alaska -- would add yet another pressure on polar bears.

We already see how this might work, in the case of red foxes moving in ever greater numbers into the range of Arctic foxes.  Red foxes are of course among the cleverest, most adaptable and most successful animals on the planet.  Arctic foxes no doubt have their virtues too; but being adapted to life in the Arctic, like polar bears -- in fact they often follow polar bears, in order to scavenge from the bears' kills -- , their repertoire of behaviors and adaptive devices is limited.  The presence of red foxes in their territory is not good news for them at all.

By the way, while Arctic sea ice has been much discussed lately, in connexion with the fate of polar bears, I do not recall reading anything about snow cover on dry land.  Has the season of snow cover been growing briefer?  That will be important to animals that are permanently white in color, such as the polar bear, and those that seasonally adopt a white phase, such as the Arctic fox, the snowshoe and Arctic hares, the long-tailed, short-tailed and least weasels, and the willow ptarmigan.  Presumably they would all be at a disadvantage, to find themselves for increasingly longer periods very conspicuous to prey and predators on snowless ground.  By the same token, a shorter season of snow cover would be an advantage to such permanently dark animals as the grizzly and the red fox.  Presumably these animals are not at their best when there is snow on the ground.  In southern regions, where the winter season of snow cover is limited, grizzlies are dormant; red foxes remain active, but no doubt the Winter is a tough season for them.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

Bjorn Lomborg seems to appear on the scene as an errand boy for the new Janus approach of Denmark.

Denmark, well known for its leading role in development and use of wind energy - yes, as a matter of fact, until recently a world leader in that field - now also has become a world leader in air pollution.

How did it come about, that a Scandinavian country shifted from being an invocative leading sustainable developer to an extremely high contributor of greenhouse gases [GHG]?
Denmark, with an annual growth rate of 12, 7% in primary energy consumption of fossil fuels in 2006, now has the highest rate of energy growth among OECD members' countries - even higher than the growth rate in China (8, 4%).

Add thereto, the GHG-emissions from the Danish International Shipping Industry [DISI] - which now owns and manages a fleet with a gross tonnage of approximately 50 million  - equal to ca. 10 percent of the entire world fleet (and with a heavy segment of high-speed container vessels, (Maersk-Line etc.)). In 2006 DISI consumed about 40 million tons of heavy marine bunker oil - more than twice of the country's entire domestic energy consumption (total domestic fossil fuel consumption 2006: 19, 5 mill. tons oil equivalent, according to BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2007)  

To Denmark, that gives a yearly consumption rate of 11 tons fossil fuel/capita and a corresponding emission rate of 32, 5 tons CO2/capita - far beyond the figures from US.

So, The Kingdom of Denmark, which ironically embraces Greenland, has as a world leader in air pollution sent a messenger to play down the consequences of the global warming.

Why do the media pay attention to Bjorn Lomberg, who has been accused by the Danish Institute of Science of deception and lying? Second question: why are BOTH the extreme right and the extreme left denying global warming? From the latter we have Alexander Cockburn; from the former we have numerous neo cons from conservative think tanks, such as one Don Kates, a lawyer connected to the Pacific Research Foundation. Of course their intent is to muddy the waters and cloud the issues. But it also is, apparently, to defend capitalism, economic growth and technology from the heathens and neo luddites. Isnt it interesting how the left and right converge in their philosophies? They also converge in their methodology: mock, denigrate and deny anything that deviates from their political ideologies. I have acquaintances on each end of the spectrum - a libertarian intellectual and a Marxist green from the US Green Party, lined up with the deniers. Strange bedfellows.

Lorna Salzman

CLIMATE CRAP: A SEQUEL BY THE "SKEPTICAL ENVIRONMENTALIST."

Bjorn Lomborg's "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming" is out.  Well, yes it is getting warmer he finds, but aside from polar bears, it just means more beach weather.  We've got bigger problems, he says.  Instead of spending all that money trying to prevent warming, let's focus on making everyone rich so they can all buy air conditioners.

Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.