You really are an intolerant bunch, when it comes to matters of faith - any deviation from extreme alarmism is unacceptable. Here I was thinking Lomborg was one of you.
... [Eric Worrall, 2013-01-26]
Contrarians often use Lomborg to support their misinformation, possibly because he's getting better at pretending to accept the science. When brucmack described Lomborg as more pragmatic than skeptic, I replied that "I've never heard of Lomborg before today, but your summary makes him sound like someone I could agree with."
But when I actually read his claims, it became clear that Lomborg is repeatedly misrepresenting science. Like many contrarians, Lomborg also misrepresents his own position by claiming to accept the science while simultaneously misrepresenting that science. Lomborg's books are often used to support accusations like these:
... Last time the Eugenics catastrophists, confident in their scientific consensus that genetic pollution would return us to the stone age, killed 7 million Jews to improve the race. Now poor people are dying because only rich people can afford the self inflicted expense of trying to appease the Carbon God.
... How many poor Africans and Asians will die because of the great global warming swindle, before their pseudo scientific bluff is finally called? ... [Eric Worrall, 2008-02-05]
... Mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions would be the kiss of death. The U.S. is about to undergo this madness in the form of a deluge of Environmental Protection Agency carbon dioxide regulations that will strangle the economy and kill jobs. Unless the Congress can eliminate them via legislation, it will constitute a form of national suicide.
... If successful, the U.N. will lead the world back to a new Dark Ages. [Alan Caruba (Heartland Institute), 2012-12-10]
Consider a group of academics who claim the world faces an imminent catastrophe unless drastic steps are taken. Am I talking about Eugenics NAZIs or Climate alarmists? [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-18]
Its not my fault if you guys are pushing for the implementation of harmful policies on the basis of pseudoscientific predictions of imminent catastrophe - just like the NAZIs did. [Eric Worrall, 2012-12-29]
Given your gross advantage in economic and political muscle, its a wonder we've managed so far to hold off your new dark age.
... [Eric Worrall, 2013-02-27]
... As for my children, they'll be laughing at the stupidity of their ancestors, wondering how we could ever fall for alarmist nonsense, gasping at murderous biofuel policies, talking about the need for reparations to compensate formerly poor people for the mistreatment of their ancestors - just as we marvel at the incomprehensible stupidity of people who mistreated the Jews in the early 20th century.
... [Eric Worrall, 2013-03-21]
The cartoonish irony of these alarmist accusations is simply overwhelming. I've repeatedly pointed out that many economists (including Republican economists) agree that reducing CO2 emissions can be done without damaging the economy. In fact, clean energy creates more jobs per unit output than energy from coal or oil.
Bigger concerns? How about problems that we KNOW are serious, rather than just hypothetical? For example, economist Bjorn Lomborg (closest English spelling) calculates that the cost of reducing CO2 levels enough to keep the earth cooler by approximately 1/2 degree over the next hudred years (and that is even assuming that the CO2-driven model of global warming is correct as presented... something that is far from demonstrated)... that same cost would be enough to completely eliminate human hunger on earth. Which do you think is better? 1/2 degree cooler (if the scare mongers are correct), or NO CHILDREN ON EARTH STARVING? A small hypothetical change or a big real one? That is just one small example. [Jane Q. Public, 2007-10-22]
Jane doesn't bother to provide a citation for her claim that preventing 1/2 degree of warming would cost as much as completely eliminating world hunger.
You ought to read some of Lomborg's works. He demonstrates that [Portion of comment in violation of site policies deleted.] far more deaths due to extreme cold conditions would be averted than the increased deaths attributable to warmer temperatures. [Norman Rogers, 2008-07]
Bruce, you should try (holding your nose and) reading Lomborg. If indeed the most dire warming scenarios unfold, it will be easy (and cheap) to deal with them. Indeed, the benefits (longer growing seasons in now colder climes, shorter winters (no change to summers), fewer deaths due to cold) far outweigh the problems. Are you really as stupid as your writings suggest? [Norman Rogers, 2008-07]
More of the usual BS. The heat wave scare is a very worn part of the global warming alarmism litany. The neatest way of demolishing this is to point out, as Bjorn Lomborg has, that cold waves kill far more people than heat waves. So, global warming should reduce temperature related deaths. [Norman Rogers, 2010-07-14]
Lomborg's comparison of deaths due to heat and cold waves ignores extreme heat waves. It also assumes that increased winter mortality is caused exclusively by cold weather, and doesn't demolish anything because the 2001 IPCC report openly acknowledged that "Limited evidence indicates that, in at least some temperate countries, reduced winter deaths would outnumber increased summer deaths." Of course, their caveats never seem to show up in Lomborg's books, and Table 3-10 makes it clear that heat and cold waves aren't the only impacts of global warming.
The 2007 IPCC report also made similar points while noting that reduced winter mortality rates "can be overestimated unless they take into account the effects of influenza and season". The IPCC was wise to be more cautious than Lomborg. A recent paper concludes that climate change is unlikely to dramatically reduce overall winter mortality rates.
Again, I suggest you read Lomborg. He grants your (ilk's) worst predictions and then demonstrates that even if the most dire of your predictions come true, it's still far, far cheaper to let it happen and mitigate against it (make the seawalls a little higher and such) than to impoverish our progeny to try to prevent your scenarios.Even if Kyoto were fully implemented, it would push back the worst case 100 year temperature rise by SIX YEARS! And NOBODY is adhering to Kyoto. And I'm not (and most scientists are not) willing to grant you anything. There's no science behind the IPCC - just politics. You luddites want to kill off most of humanity so you can go back to living in trees (I guess your primary motivation is take the toys away from people who can afford them because no one will pay you enough to enable you to buy your own). [Norman Rogers, 2008-07]
Bruce, you really are thick. Lomborg's central thesis is that even if the wild-ass predictions of the warm-mongers come true (and Lomborg doesn't contest them), they're not (by FAR) the most pressing problem of humanity (lack of clean water in the 3rd world would be number one). And, if given the opportunity to prioritize problems and the costs and benefits of available solutions - ALL OF THE World's LEADERS would place Global Warming near the bottom of their lists. And, Lomborg specifically addresses the problem of killing our economies (and impoverishing our children and their children) to try to pretend to prevent a problem (Kyoto would delay the most catastrophic predictions for a mere 6 years - if fully implemented) that could be easily and cheaply mitigated. Indeed, the benefits of a warmer climate far outweigh what little damage would result. Can't you read, Bruce? Oh, I forgot - you're a moron. [Norman Rogers, 2008-07]
Anyone who seriously thinks that a rapidly warming climate would benefit humanity probably skipped reading about the PETM and the end-Permian extinction, instead getting all their information from Lomborg's sloppy analyses of biodiversity.
I share Norman's concern about water security, especially in the developing world. Ironically, that's also why I'm disappointed in Lomborg's confused analysis of water security, which understates the price of desalination and misrepresents the IPCC reports.
... there is a good bit of evidence that there is little we can do about much of the warming that is taking place, even with the best will in the world and a lot of resources. Economist Bjorn Lomborg takes the stance that we would be much better off spending our money and labor tackling other problems, and he is not alone in this belief. (You can see his TED talk on YouTube).
... [Lonny Eachus, 2009-06-02]
Lonny's only citation is to wave in the general direction of YouTube.
Bjorn Lomborg - This Danish economist wrote the best selling book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. He artfully questioned global warming mitigation proposals as well as other aspects of the environmental agenda. The Scientific American devoted 11 pages to attacking him and denied him an opportunity to reply.7 Among the attackers was John Holdren, now the President's science advisor. [Norman Rogers, 2010-08-05]
In 2002, Scientific American published a set of essays: Misleading Math about the Earth. These scientists used 11 pages to debunk some claims in 515 pages of Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg thought it was reasonable to ask a magazine to print his 32 page rebuttal on paper, and apparently Norman agrees. But Lomborg wasn't denied an opportunity to reply. A few months later, Scientific American published a 1 page Lomborg reply. Holdren's reply and Lomborg's complete rebuttal are available on their website.
... one estimate, given at a TED conference, is that (again assuming the CO2 warming models are correct) for the same amount of money and effort needed to reduce temperature by a mere 1/2 degree C over the next century by reducing CO2, could instead be used to COMPLETELY END world hunger. Even given the world's growing population.
... [Lonny Eachus, 2011-07-29]
Secondly, it has already been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that IF the oft-touted AGW models are accurate, then any expenditure less than what it would take to break even the most wealthy nations will not be enough to make a significant difference. Economist Bjorn Lomborg (English-ified spelling) has estimated that of the models are accurate, the amount of money necessary to reduce temperature by 1/2 degree C over the next hundred years, would also be enough to completely eradicate world hunger, even considering increasing population. So it's not just a matter of spending money... it's a matter of where the money is better spent. And AGW ain't it. There are a lot of other worthwhile causes. [Jane Q. Public, 2011-11-19]
Again, neither Jane or Lonny provide citations for their nearly identical 1/2 degree C claims. I share Jane and Lonny's concerns about world hunger, which is why I'm concerned about the fact that rice grows 10% less with every 1C of night-time warming. Ironically, that's also why I'm disappointed in Lomborg's sloppy analysis of food security, which wrongly disputes the existence of an upper limit to rice yields, among other flaws.
... "May be" possible and beneficial to reduce the warming? By how much and at what cost? Remember that some economists have said that even if the worst predictions about CO2 are correct (meaning that reducing CO2 might have a noticeable effect), it would nearly bankrupt humanity to very significantly affect it over that hundred years. One estimate was that for the cost of reducing warming by 0.5 degrees C over 100 years by reducing CO2, we could completely ELIMINATE world hunger, even adjusting for increased population levels.
... [Jane Q. Public, 2012-04-14]
Again, no citation for Jane's 0.5 degrees C claim. Switching to clean energy won't bankrupt humanity; it will cost about as much as developing our sewer system.
Jane and Norman Rogers have repeatedly claimed that Lomborg bases his claims on the worst-case IPCC scenarios, but that's just not true. At best, Lomborg misunderstands the IPCC scenarios and tries to downplay the changes in Greenland and Antarctica. He even misrepresented the IPCC by only mentioning their estimate of sea level rise in the B1 scenario, which isn't worst-case. Also, the IPCC excluded future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow, and they're already accelerating.
In a BBC interview, Lomborg denied ignoring the worst-case scenarios. Perhaps he's forgotten his own books? Others might consider doing that too.
The net cost of zero CO2 emissions would be minimal. [jd]
Hahaha! That's what I love about warmist alarmists. Their utter faith in their equally utter lack of facts is so endearing.
REAL economists have made the REAL estimate that if the worst predictions about CO2 are true (which would make it MOST important, yes?), the amount of money it would cost to reduce the amount of warming by 0.5 degrees C over the next 100 years by means of reducing CO2, would be enough money to completely end world hunger, even accounting for the predicted increased population. [Jane Q. Public, 2012-05-03]
Again, no citation for Jane's 0.5 degrees C claim. Real economists probably have degrees in economics rather than political science.
Bjorn Lomborg's famous book The Skeptical Environmentalist is an excellent introduction to the nutty world of environmentalism. [Norman Rogers, 2012-10]
"... note the immediate conflation between environmentalism and climate science. Dissolving the boundaries between the two allows Lomborg to use the actions of one group to impugn the other and vice versa. It also allows him the freedom to attack from outside the science itself."
Consider this exchange:
"What if global warming is a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" [SirGarlon, 2013-01-16]
I'm thinking the real question is, "What if global warming is true (and it seems to be), but we spend trillions of dollars - presumably to the detriment of other beneficial things - to obtain only a marginally better outcome?" [OakDragon, 2013-01-16]
Here's how Jane quoted that exchange. Notice how Morton's demon shields Jane from a troublesome phrase by replacing it with "...":
"What if global warming is true
... but we spend trillions of dollars - presumably to the detriment of other beneficial things - to obtain only a marginally better outcome?"
I don't know if it's true (and I do have my doubts) but I think this is really the essential point.
Even if you dismiss economist Bjorn Lomborg as an "anti-warmist", nobody has really refuted his calculations: that the cost of reducing CO2 warming by 1 degree C over the course of 100 years is about the same that it would cost to completely end world hunger... and that's taking changed conditions and population into account.
Which is more important? [Jane Q. Public, 2013-01-16]
Woah! Suddenly ending world hunger is about the same as stopping 1 degree C of warming? Jane gives no citation, and doesn't explain why stopping global warming is suddenly twice as affordable as before. Sadly, Morton's demon continues to keep Jane et al. from noticing that Lomborg's bizarre claims have been repeatedly refuted.
In reality, we should reduce CO2 emissions as quickly as possible. This will create new jobs and improve the food and water security for future generations.
Bjorn Lomborg, Norman Rogers, Alan Caruba, Jane Q. Public, Lonny Eachus, Eric Worrall: please stop spamming humanity with all this misinformation. It's staining your legacies and threatening the future of our civilization.