Global Warning
Cars, Bombs, and Climate Change
Bjørn Lomborg
|
|
|
|
COPENHAGEN – For the better part of a decade, I have upset many climate activists by pointing out that there are far better ways to stop global warming than trying to persuade governments to force or bribe their citizens into slashing their reliance on fuels that emit carbon dioxide. What especially bugs my critics is the idea that cutting carbon is a cure that is worse than the disease – or, to put it in economic terms, that it would cost far more than the problem it is meant to solve. “How can that possibly be true?” they ask. “After all, we are talking about the end of the world. What could be worse – or more costly – than that?”
They have a point. If we actually face, as Al Gore recently put it, “an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventative measures to protect human civilization as we know it,” then no price would be too high to pay to stop global warming in its tracks. But are the stakes really that high?
The answer is no. Even the worst-case scenarios proposed by mainstream climate scientists – scenarios that go far beyond what the consensus climate models predict – are not as bad as Gore would have us believe. For example, a sea-level rise of five meters – more than eight times what the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects, and more than twice what is probably physically possible – would not deluge all or even most of mankind.
Of course, such a rise would not be a trivial problem. It would affect about 400 million people, force the relocation of 15 million, and imply costly protection of the rest. But it would certainly not mean the end of the world. Estimates show that the cost in terms of adaptation would be less than 1% of global GDP. In other words, the price of unchecked global warming may be high, but it is not infinite.
According to the best global-warming economic models, every ton of carbon dioxide that we put into the atmosphere now will do about $7 worth of damage to the environment. What this means is that we should be prepared to pay an awful lot to stop global warming, but anything more than $7 a ton would be economically indefensible.
This idea is hard for a lot of people to accept. If we have a solution to a serious problem like global warming, they argue, how can we possibly say that it is too expensive to implement?
Well, we do exactly that all the time. There are many potential solutions to serious problems that we do not implement, or that we implement only partially, because the costs associated with them are greater than the benefits.
For example, traffic accidents claim an estimated 1.2 million lives every year. We have the ability to solve this problem completely, eliminating half a trillion dollars in damages, and sparing untold anguish. All we have to do is lower the speed limit everywhere to five kilometers per hour.
Obviously, we will not do this. The benefits of driving moderately fast vastly outweigh the costs. For a wide variety of social and economic reasons, a world moving at only five kilometers per hour would be utterly unacceptable to most of us – so unacceptable that we are willing to tolerate millions of accidental deaths if that is what it takes to keep us speeding down the highway.
Consider, too, homeland security. On the one hand, the more we spend on anti-terrorism measures (and the more inconvenience we are willing to tolerate), the safer we feel. On the other, even though everyone agrees that a successful terrorist attack is unacceptable, there is clearly a limit to how much we are willing to spend (and how much inconvenience we are willing to put up with) to keep ourselves safe.
Why are we willing to calculate costs and benefits when it comes to traffic safety and terrorism, but not when devising policies to deal with global warming? Perhaps it is because we experience the downside of excessive traffic regulation or security measures every day, while the downside of bad climate policy is more of an abstraction. It shouldn’t be, for the risks posed by bad climate policy deserve just as much attention as the risks of worse-than-expected climate impacts – maybe more.
Remember how biofuel requirements were supposed to help reduce carbon emissions? In fact, the artificially inflated demand for ethanol – and for the corn to manufacture it – wound up driving up food prices (which pushed roughly 30 million poor people into the ranks of the malnourished). It also ate up more arable land, which led directly to the destruction of rain forests and generally created a situation that will result in more CO2 emissions over the next hundred years.
The biofuel lesson is salutary. If we panic and make the wrong choices in response to global warming, we run the risk of leaving the world’s most vulnerable people – those who will overwhelmingly experience the worst effects of warming – even worse off.
If we are to have a constructive dialogue about the smartest policy responses to global warming, we need to replace our fixation on far-fetched, Armageddon scenarios with realism about the true costs of dealing with this challenge.
Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School and the author of Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg58.mp3
You might also like to read more from Bjørn Lomborg or return to our home page.
|
|
KaareFog 10:25 22 Mar 10
Why are we not willing to act on the figures provided by Lomborg for global warming issues? Because they are not credible. Bangladesh has 150 million inhabitants, and two-thirds of that country is below 5 m. How come, then, that only 15 million would need to be relocated?
IN his book `Cool it´, Lomborg argues that the costs of emitting one ton of CO2 is $2, corresponding to $7 per ton carbon. See here:
www.Lomborg-errors/coolitBchap2carboncuts.htm
Now, suddenly, he says that the cost is $7 per ton CO2. With such a shift, how can we trust in his estimates? Actually, his approach to costs and benefits of climate change is flawed and not credibel, see
www.Lomborg-errors/coolitgeneral.htm
Tingleff 03:00 22 Mar 10
hmm KaareFog.. Did you indeed read the article?
"as Gore would have us believe. For example, a sea-level rise of five meters – more than eight times what the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects, and more than twice what is probably physically possible"
Of course, such a rise would not be a trivial problem. It would affect about 400 million people, force the relocation of 15 million, and imply costly protection of the rest."
As far as I can see Lomborg looks at 400 Mil getting an impact.
I think I do understand the C02 to C cost calculation.
However, I don't quite get the 60 to 600 cm "calc" of Al Gore ... http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/press_releases/monckton-response-to-gore-errors.pdf
(BTW - In Bangladesh, every year a wast number of people are past & presently forced to relocate for a part of the year in the rain season.)
Tingleff 03:35 22 Mar 10
The historical fact...
When "world-leaders" raises their right hand to stir up a storm, then there are always shady problems hidden in the left palm.
KaareFog 04:46 22 Mar 10
Lomborg is clearly speaking of the consequences of a sea level rise of 5 m.
That would `affect´ more than 100 million people in Bangladesh alone. So relocation of 15 million would help little there. That is, Lomborg must presuppose that dikes are built to protect the Bangladeshians. The good question is: Who will pay the bill for those dikes? If the oil industry in Texas says the cost of building dikes is less than their profit from selling oil, does that mean that the oil industry will actually pay the dikes, not only in Bangladesh, but also in Egypt, in Iraq, in Holland, at San Francisco etc. ? Could we get a promise from them before the problem becomes acute that yes, they will pay. If not, such cost-benefit calculations are worth nothing for those who are hit.
KaareFog 04:58 22 Mar 10
To Tingleff.
Do not use Monckton as a source concering Al Gore. Monckton is not reliable. But you might consult
www.Lomborg-errors.dk/Goreacknowledgederrors.htm
In `Cool it`, Lomborg wrote that the costs of omitting CO2 are $2 per ton CO2. Now he writes that the costs are $7 per ton CO2. He gives no hint where this shift comes from. As so often, his figure is weakly founded.
IPCC has not projected a sea level rise of 60 cm in a century. You forget that their figure (59 cm) does not include dynamic glacier responses.
Lomborg postulates that James Hansen says there WILL be a 5 m rise in sea level i a hundred years. But in the sources that he cites, Hansen says that a 5 m rise COULD possibly happen. Hansen seems to be wrong - the rise will be maximally 2 m - the glaciers cannot move faster than that scenario. Recent projections of future sea level rise in a century are probably 0.8 m, and possibly 2.0 m, Allison et al. (2009): Antarctic Science 21(5): 413-426.
Tingleff 12:06 27 Mar 10
Well, anyway, all that imaginary numberdigging with regards to CO2 is futile. At the end of the day, nature does prevail. This may help: http://peer.tamu.edu/curriculum_modules/Ecosystems/Hazards/global_warming.htm
CO2 quotes is IMVHO the worlds largest scam ever. It is the good old silver certificate scam over again. You produce a "product" at very few cents, and puts it into trade. Only this time is isn't just a few investors losing some money, but a whole businessworld being picked for funds that should have been put to much better use in areas of more real and fully documented needs (Thx Lomborg).
KaareFog 05:04 27 Mar 10
Tingleff.
You just demonstrated that you have run out of arguments. Also, the web site you refer to is so primitive that it can hardly be taken serious.
I hope that other comments on this forum will live up to a certain minimum standard.
Tingleff 06:50 28 Mar 10
Kaare, you are so right - Good luck up there.
Tingleff 07:22 28 Mar 10
For the rest, it is a FACT that warming comes from the sun. Therefore it is also a FACT that all solar energy that can be converted to other energy (eg electricity & warm water) will utilise the energy that otherwise becomes the heating factor. At the same time such usage will lower the emission of one of the greenhouse gasses CO2green
Tingleff 07:31 28 Mar 10
Therefore - Making industries pay for CO2 quotes rather than spending the money on developing utilisation of the solar power is certainly in the interest of the oil industry.
Tingleff 07:42 28 Mar 10
Finally - Lombog is merely a sceptic based on economy..
Here are some of the other ones:
"The new scientific report “directly challenges the conclusions of the IPCC Summary that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing dangerous and unprecedented warming.” - Quantitative Economist Kenneth A. Haapala, the past president of the prestigious Philosophical Society of Washington, the oldest scientific society in Washington (founded 1871), has reviewed hundreds of reports based on quantitative techniques. Haapala co-authored the report “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate”
“I think that climatic changes have a natural causes according many geological data…I am very glad to sign the U.S. Senate’s report of scientists against the theory of man-made global warming.” - Geology Professor Uberto Crescenti of the University G.d'Annunzio in Italy is the past president of the Society of Italian Geologists.
“I am appalled at the state of discord in the field of climate science…There is no observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.” - Award-winning atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, former member of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, served on a committee of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and authored more than 90 peer-reviewed studies.
“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalisti c malpractice…the press only promotes the global warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” - Chemist Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, MD, who has published numerous studies in the Journal of the American Chemical Society on topics such as methane.
“Once again we have misleading climate change pronouncements being based on data errors, data errors detected by non-UN, non-IPCC, non-peer-reviewed external observers…This is exactly what happens when you base your arguments on ‘consensus science’ and not scientific fact.” - Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, a mathematician, computer programmer, and engineer, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics simulations. Hoff man co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth, described as “bringing a dose of skeptical reality to climate science and the global warming debate.”
“The questions are scientific, but the UN answers are political. The global warming debate is hardly about science.” - Computer Modeler and Engineer Allen Simmons, who worked 12 years with NASA's top climate scientists and wrote computer systems software for the world's first weather satellites and aided in the development of computer systems for polar orbiting satellites. Simmons co-authored the new skeptical book The Resilient Earth.
Belief in climate models compared to “ancient astrology”… "I believe the anthropogenic (man-made) effect for climate change is still only one of the hypotheses to explain the variability of climate.” - Award-winning Japanese Physicist Dr. Kanya Kusano, program director of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology who’s research “focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change.” compared climate models to ancient astrology.”
“The recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that US, and other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Climatologist and Paloeclimate researcher Dr. Diane Douglas, who has authored or edited over 200 technical reports, specialized in the reconstruction of a variety of proxy data and has worked for the Department of Energy and conducted research for the Arizona State Office of Climatology to investigate the Little Ice Age.
“Temperature measurements show that the [climate model-predicted mid-troposphere] hot zone is non-existent. This is more than sufficient to invalidate global climate models and projections made with them!”- UN IPCC Scientist Dr. Steven M. Japar, a PhD atmospheric chemist who was part of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Second (1995) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports, and has authored 83 peer-reviewed publications and in the areas of climate change, atmospheric chemistry, air pollutions and vehicle emissions.
“The cause of these global changes is fundamentally due to the Sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in its orbit. Not from man-made activities.” - Retired Award Winning NASA Atmospheric Scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Medal, a former Division Chief of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and author more than 100 refereed journal articles, monographs, and papers.
“Unfortunately, Climate Science has become Political Science…It is tragic that some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomena which is statistically questionable at best.” - Award-Winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Robert H. Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers , was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is the current Chair of the U.S. Liaison Committee of the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics. Austin, who won the 2005 Edgar Lilienfeld Prize of the American Physical Society
“If global cooling will come soon -- scientists will lose trust .” - Award-winning Japanese Geologist Dr. Shigenori Maruyama, a professor at the Tokyo Institute of Technology’s Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences who has authored more than 125 scientific publications, was decorated with the Medal of Honor with Purple Ribbon for a major contribution in the field of geology, specializes in the geological evidence of prehistoric climate change.
“Observe which side resorts to the most vociferous name-calling and you are likely to have identified the side with the weaker argument and they know it.” - Materials and Research Physicist Dr. Charles R. Anderson, a former Department of Navy research physicist who has published more than 25 scientific papers specializes in spectroscopy, microscopy, thermal analysis, mass spectroscopy, and surface chemistry.
“The data which is used to date for making the conclusions and predictions on global warming are so rough and primitive, compared to what’s needed, and so unreliable that they are not even worth mentioning by respectful scientists.” - Award-winning Aerospace and Mechanical Engineer Dr. Gregory W. Moore, who has authored or co-authored more than 75 publications, book chapters, and rep orts, and authored the 2001 Version of the NASA Space Science Technology Plan which included a comprehensive approach to studying the Sun-Earth connection aspect of space-based research.
“I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man-made…Hansen embarrassed NASA by coming out with his claims of global warming.” - Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist Dr. John S. Theon, a former supervisor of NASA’s James Hansen, and the former Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch.
“I am pleased to be considered a ‘denier’ in this cause if this puts me in the class with those who defied prevailing ‘scientific consensus’ that the earth was flat and that the earth was the not the center of the universe.” – Retired U.S. Air Force (USAF) Meteorologist William “Bill” Lyons, of the USAF’s Global Weather Central at Strategic Air Command.
“I do not find the supposed scientific consensus among my colleagues… Curiously, it is a feature of man-made global warming that every fact confirms it: rising temperatures or decreasing temperatures. No matter what the weather, some model of global warming offers a watertight explanation.” - Earth Scientist Dr. Javier Cuadros of the UK Natural History Museum, who specializes in Clay Mineralogy and has published more than 30 scientific papers.
“It is amazing to me, as a professional geologist, how many otherwise intelligent people have, as some may say, ‘drunk the Al Gore Kool-Aid’ concerning global climate change.” - Professional Geologist Earl F. Titcomb Jr. has co-authored analyses of geological and seismological hazards.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus [which] is the business of politics. . . . What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." - Atmospheric Scientist Timothy R. Minnich, who has more than 30 years experience in the design and management of a wide range of air quality investigations for industry and government, is a past member of the American Meteorological Socie ty and specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, and has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
“Based on the laws of physics, the effect on temperature of man’s contribution to atmospheric CO2 levels is minuscule and indiscernible from the natural variability caused in large part by changes in solar energy output.” - Atmospheric Scientist Robert L. Scotto, who has more than 30 years air quality consulting experience, served as a manager for an EPA Superfund contract and is co-founder of Minnich and Scotto, Inc., a full-service air quality consulting firm. He also is a past member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Scotto, a meteorologist who has authored or co-authored numerous technical publications and reports.
“Whether the ice caps melt, or expand --- whatever happens --- the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theorists claim it confirms their theory. A perfect example of a pseudo-science like astrology.” - Mathematical Physicist Dr. Frank Tipler, professor at Tulane University has authored 58 peer-reviewed publications and five books.
My dear colleague [NASA’s James] Hansen, I believe, has finally gone off the deep end... The global warming ‘time bomb,’ ‘disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity's control.’ These are the words of an apocalyptic prophet, not a rational scientist.” - Chemist Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of Oregon State University Chemistry Department
“There is no credible evidence of the current exceptional global warming trumpeted by the IPCC…The IPCC is no longer behaving as an investigative scientific organization or pretending to be one…Their leaders betrayed the trust of the world community.” - Chemist Dr. Grant Miles, author of numerous scientific publications who was elected to a Fellowship of the Royal Institute of Chemistry, was a member of UK Atomic Energy Authority Chemical Separation Plant Committee.
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
KaareFog 10:41 28 Mar 10
Why suddenly all these quotes? You can quote a lot of people who do not believe in manmade global warming, and you can quote a lot others who do believe in it. So what is the point in quoting many people from one list, and none from the other?
Who of all these people is credible? That is hardly the issue here. The point in question right here is if Lomborg is credible. He certainly is not, neither as regards the subject treated here, nor in general.
Tingleff 09:57 29 Mar 10
Well, I now realise that it is something personal going on there..
Interesting.. Who said that Lomborg is saying quite the opposite than EVERYBODY else.. Incredible..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCVJbGt-Vv0
Understandable that the long list of other sceptics is annoying
KaareFog 10:16 29 Mar 10
The debate here is about what Lomborg says, not about what everybody else says.
This is not the place to discuss in general about manmade global warming, simply because that could involve thousands and thousands of pages going through all arguments pro et con.
There are so many lies in this field, and so many deliberate manipulations and misleadings. Everybody in one camp is accusing every body in the other camp to be lying manipulative scoundrels. How did all this hate and mistrust enter the field? It is relevant to point out those places where lies pop up out of nowhere - these are some of the places where all this vice came into the world. And in that respect, Lomborg´s talks and writings are overflowing with cases where lies and deliberate misleading came into being. So it is relevant to discuss just this just here.
But of course, I will never be able to convince you of anything at all. So discussion with you here has no purpose.
Tingleff 06:47 30 Mar 10
Pardon me Kaare, but isn't it somewhat wrong to pick on someone in your own camp. Lomborg do ackonwledge the global warming as a problem, only he is weary that so many other problems are not getting the attention needed, due to the owerwhelming overheating of the CO2 issue.
Se and listen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvNg7TKbQPM
While the long list I posted above is quite a few established scientists that do not acknowledge the CO2 problem. (count me in as layman there)
Picking on Lomborg like you do, IMO is the same as not acknowledging the very current hunger and water problems.
Furthermore I must say that IMO, nursing a personal grouch is far below what is suited for a Ph.D
Tingleff 08:20 30 Mar 10
How much will the waters rise before April 13, 2036?
Why? - Because 99942 Apophis gives ample concerns about a real climate change. If something is to be done about that, then it is within the next 8 years actions must be taken.
Tingleff 08:21 30 Mar 10
Correction - next not only 8 but 18 years
KaareFog 09:49 30 Mar 10
Tingleff.
You do not understand what I write, and I guess you will never be willing to understand it.
What I try to explain - in vain, of course - is that the first and foremost prerequisite for debating anything, including global warming, is that you do not lie and mislead deliberately. If you base your discussion on `evidence´ which is false or manipulated, then of course you cannot lead a sensible discussion. Now, the point is that Lomborg lies and manipulates. This is not just a postulate that I express because I dislike his attitudes and have other attitudes myself. It is not about his attitudes at all. It is about the hundreds of cases when Lomborg says one thing, and then when you check his sources and references, they say something else. It is about all the cases when you see that Lomborg has deliberately distorted the evidence to fit his agenda, wiht an evil intent.
So, before you start to discuss anything, you must at first ensure that the evidence is not all lies. When that is not the case, then of course, you cannot discuss the matter. Instead, you must discuss the lies.
That is the situation here.
So I does not matter what camp Lomborg is in. All that matters is that he lies.
embb 11:10 30 Mar 10
KaareFogg: "What I try to explain - in vain, of course - is that the first and foremost prerequisite for debating anything, including global warming, is that you do not lie and mislead deliberately. If you base your discussion on `evidence´ which is false or manipulated, then of course you cannot lead a sensible discussion"
Funny that you should say that. Are you aware of the manipulations, data deletion, influencing of the peer-review process and all that is called "Climategate"? It pretty much covers what you call "mislead deliberately". if you base your discussion on false and manipulated data then you will find it tough to lead a discussion, I fully agree.
KaareFog 01:28 31 Mar 10
To embb.
"Are you aware of the manipulations . . ."
Yes, of course. But there is also much hype / hysteria involved here.
For instance the case of glaciers melting in the Himalya. In one of its chapters, the IPCC cites an article in New Scientist (via citation in an otherwise solid WWF report) that the glaciers there will be gone by 2035, although they may in fact probably be gone only by the end of the century. This flaw has been called Glaciergate". What hype! Glaciers are dwindling practically everywhere, and instead of discussing that, you discuss whether glaciers inone particular region are gone soon or a little later. Is that a scandal? No! Was the error deliberate? Probably not. Another chapter in the same IPCC report presents different data on these glaciers, indicating a later melt.
KaareFog 01:31 31 Mar 10
IPCC has made probably about 6 errors in a 3,000 page report, of which the WORST is the one about Himalayan glaciers.
Lomborg has made more than 500 errors and flaws in just 500 pages of text, that is an "error rate" of more than 1 per page, or 500 times higher than that of IPCC. Many (most?) of these errors are deliberate.
So if we kept a sense of proportions, we should focus 500 times more strongly on Lomborg´s errors than on IPCC´s errors. Why don´t we do that? Because this is a wave of mass hysteria among the skeptics.
KaareFog 03:35 02 Jun 10
To Randallflagg.
You write ". . because the costs associated with them are greater than the benefits . .", and then you link to one of Bjørn Lomborg´s articles, as if this were a source for the claim about the costs. You cannot do that - Lomborg is not an authoritative source, he is a person with a special agenda (defending the interests of the oil companies), wherefore all costs and benefits indicated by him are more or less manipulated. Lomborg may sometimes happen to give figures which are are mainstream estimates, but in the majority of the cases, his figures are deliberately flawed. They have a purpose - to `prove´ that efforts to reduce C combustion are not worthwhile. Wherefore he always takes care to bring only manipulated or biased figures which prove just that. He has an agenda and he is known to be consistently dishonest, so he is simply not a source to be used.
If we were honest, we would admit that we have no chance to know what the costs and the benefits will be, because nobody knows the future. If you want to calculate how much you will lose or save by replacing oil with sustainable energy sources, then you must know the oil prices 100 years ahead. And nobody does that, not even approximately. So any claim that the costs or the benefits for 100 years to come will be of any particular size, are bogus.
wauch 12:32 13 Mar 10
Two words: Arthur Pigou
This notion that the poor will suffer most for moving forward with climate change legislation is a bit of a canard, because we in developed markets are the ones keeping General Mills, Coke, and Kraft/Cadbury in business. This argument is used to defer the discussion and make those in favor of legislation look anti-emergin markets. We are not. You levy a Pigouvian tax and tell me who starts complaining. Folks in Malaysia or Manhattan? Exactly.
And as for the traffic accident issue. Raise oil to it's true externality and peak-oil incorporated price of Way North of $145. Again those of us in the north that are addicted to our vehicles will experience the greatest shock.