I think "alarmist" is politicised, as he comments. I also agree with his bottom line that "reasonable solutions" need to be found.
His comments relating to the effect (extent) of greenhouse emissions on global warming I also agree with, as his stance is that they do effect global warming but to what extent (and as he states there are many opinions on this). His issue seems to be that the media and politics adopt the "worse case" scenario, which he doesn't believe is always the best for actually coming up with reasonable solutions.
I see no need for alarm, the scientist have told us their findings and we can choose to act upon those findings or not.
The facts are that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that without greenhouse gasses the earth average temperature would be 33C colder (a giant snowball) and that we have added 40% more CO2 to the atmosphere. There is not one person who denies these facts.
Panic does do more harm than good. We need a rational response to global warming. But I don't see a lot of people pushing their cars off cliffs. And people who can't afford solar panels continue to buy power off the grid. However, fear has led to food being made into fuel and to Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power.
Why would an intelligent go to some blog for quotes in a language they don't understand that provide no context, when some of man's lectures are available online. Why not read directly from his own site, in his own translation?
http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/pdf/Th...
It is the same things that everyone else says:
Places with lots of rain are getting more rain; dry places are becoming more dry.
Cyclones are becoming more intense and less frequent.
It seems from one of the answers below that you have misinterpreted Dr. Lennart Bengtsson's article. No matter what his position actually is, "alarmism" is justified. Scientific research shows the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, the temperature of the Earth is rising, the oceans are becoming more acidic, glaciers and polar ice caps are melting, sea levels are rising, the probability of severe weather events is increasing, food supplies are threatened, and weather-related natural disasters are becoming more frequent and more costly. We are changing the Earth in ways that threaten the existence of future generations. Shouldn't we be alarmed about that ?
The only people who are not alarmed are those who profit from destroying the environment or who are in denial. The article below explains why that is.
Always fun to watch deniers make up stories, according to your blog "Do you agree with Dr. Lennart Bengtsson that alarmism is unjustified?"
According to a direct translation by Google he actually said
"We create a great anxiety, but it is justified"
So do you agree with Bengtsson, and will you in future stop using secondhand blogs and go to the source, oh sorry I forgot that's not how denial works.
Don't believe me here is the source
http://translate.google.com.au/translate...
I wonder how quickly this question will now be accidentally deleted.
edit
Xi Gua (or whoever) sorry are you agreeing with what the blog claimed he said or what he actually said.
Well Dr lennart Bengtsson is one of a growing number climate change activist's who are looking for ways to wriggle off, the hook, they realize climate change is not happening.
First they realized that global warming was making them look stupid, so they change the name to CC, now they are trying to tone down predictions that obviously won't happen.
Who are the deniers, is it those who deny that climate change is not happening, or is it those who said it's not such a big problem in the first case.
That's basically what I have been saying all along. (And you didn't have to translate it.)
http://notrickszone.com/2013/02/03/top-swedish-climate-scientist-lennart-bengtsson-says-warming-not-noticeable-without-meteorologists/
