Slashdot Mirror

from parent:

...we should be carefully, rationally, constructing the best possible estimates of the cost of global warming under various scenarios

from Bjorn Lomborg:

A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.

He has a PHd in political "science" and he taught statistics as a professor at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. Pretty sure that makes him more of a scientist and statistician than a random commentator on / like you. But hey, here's a list of his published scientific papers, mostly via the Cambridge University Press. I'm sure you'll be able to refute all this by giving us a list of your published papers showing how much better of a scientist and statistician you are. I won't hold my breath.

Look, I believe there is disciplined scientific enquiry on the topic, but some of the proposed solutions don't make sense. For example, doing the math on the Paris accord teaches us that following all of the goals set forth would reduce the global temperature by a whopping 0.05C by 2100 compared to business-as-usual. Before rushing to get on board with the narrative, let's do all the math and weight the pros and cons from a neutral perspective rather than just shutting people down who disagree with you. http://www.lomborg.com/press-r...

I found it here.

I do not find Friel convincing.

-jcr

Lomborg paints himself a persecuted DaVinci, a lone voice of scientific genius against the harsh dogma of the establishment. Basically Friel has published a detailed book review debunking that picture, the journal of nature also reviews books and like Friel they do not claim them to be anything more than researched opinion.

Lomborg was persecuted, by Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty.

From FAQ - Bjørn Lomborg (emphasis mine):

[The Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation] found the DCSD verdict "dissatisfactory", "deserving [of] criticism" and "emotional." Most importantly, the Ministry found "that the DCSD has not documented where [Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the [DCSD] ruling is completely void of argumentation."

To buy off the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty, he'd need to be de Medici (which makes more sense for an economist to begin with), not DaVinci. Where did you come up with that? Instead of opening up an artery of purple prose, you might with more creativity have cited him for posing as Robert Hooke, a man who looked at the same phenomena as every other scientist, but actually saw what he was seeing. It would still exaggerate Lomborg's conceit, but at least it would edify and amuse.

If Lomborg's fraud was so blatant and egregious, how could DCSD have managed to so badly bungle their cause? Is DCSD a lighthouse of incompetence among an otherwise irreproachable system of peer review? Personally, I neither find Lomborg singular, nor the incompetence of his detractors singular. Where there's mass funding at stake, I find the peer review system no less vulnerable to bubbles of human ambition than the banking system.

As for being the "lone voice", you might wish to confer with The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty concerning his isolation as a pariah. A man willing to go as much against the grain as he has is going to have either a thicker skin or more ego blubber than your average man. Newton chose to alienate Leibniz rather than embracing and engaging in dialog with perhaps the only man alive who could fully appreciate Newton's achievements. What evidence do you have that Lomborg would rather be the sole beacon of his cause rather than embrace his natural allies? Is his solitude selective, or generously bequeathed?

Lomborg does not claim to do science. He's an economist exposing leaps of faith from scientific mechanism to speculation about the probable future effects, to even wilder speculation about costs and outcomes in mitigating those effects. Most scientists are excellent at step one, identifying the scientific mechanism. Few scientists have any training at all in steps two or three. I agree with Lomborg that the discipline of economics has a stronger and better substantiated tradition in assessing cost-benefit of radical intervention. Scientists wade into the dismal science with no apparent concern for all the corpses buried there. To my eye, they look like fools.

What gives scientists the amazing hubris to cross this boundary of fact to speculation unmarked? The peer review process keeps them honest about the mechanism. Most of their contact with step three (cost benefit of mitigation) is a paragraph tacked on to their funding applications about the amazing benefits to humanity that will accrue if their research project is approved. These vapid claims are not subject to peer review. They are instead subject to fiscal reward, an extremely poor substitute for claiming moral high ground in the debate.

I find the obeisance to peer review in popular culture fascinating. Like hazing in the military, it's such an obnoxious process, you have to grow to love it, or lose your sanity. Like military culture, it seems to achieve its stated purpose, and has for hundreds of years.

I love this comment from Lesli

What Lomborg does is nothing like a rigorous analysis of abatement policies. If it were, it wouldn't be a book with disingenuous footnotes

How do you know that it's a book with disingenuous footnotes? Lomborg's rebuttal to Friel's book seems quite convincing.

You'd have done much better to link to Lomborg's response, than going off on your speculative aura.

I didn't speculate. Perhaps you don't know what "speculate" means?

Instead of paraphrasing freely, I encourage you to read Lomborg's actual response. He makes a more nuanced (and scholarly) argument than you suggest, and at only 27 pages is well worth the read: http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

On page 13 it addresses the point you raised. I've quoted it below for your convenience, but in short the number was calculated directly from a peer-reviewed study, which Friel misunderstood or overlooked in his review of the text.

"The only peer-reviewed study to calculate all extra heat deaths and avoided cold deaths globally shows that the number of avoided cold deaths strongly outweigh the extra heat deaths. This study, (Bosello, Roson, & Tol, 2006), shows that although we are likely to see about 400,000 more heat deaths because of global warming by 2050, we will likely see about 1.8 million fewer cold deaths. Moreover, this effect will persist until at least 2200: 'The first complete survey for the world was published in 2006, and what it shows us very clearly is that climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls. Actually, the direct impact of climate change in 2050 will mean fewer dead, and not by a small amount. In total, about 1.4 million people will be saved each year, due to more than 1.7 million fewer deaths from cardiovascular diseases and 365,000 more deaths from respiratory disorders.'"

First of all, linking to realclimate.org without providing context is wasting everyone's time. Realclimate is a project run by Gavin Schmidt of GISS, and is very heavily moderated. That's his bag, but it can hardly be considered an unbiased source (particularly as the response to any questions or requests for clarification is sneering). They don't acknowledge that they're working in a complex multidisciplinary field and that people with expertise in methods that they use can have valid criticisms of techniques used. To be a climate scientist you would need expertise in biology, meteorology, solar physics, physics, chemistry, statistics and data analysis, oceanography and geology, amongst others. That's an impressive list, and I submit that the list of people who could rightly claim to be experts in half of them is very, very small. Yet the climate change community seems to react to questions over methods and conclusions by experts in these various fields angrily and defensively, rather than constructively. Some of those studying in the field are not happy about this, such as Prof Atte Korhola, who has some interesting comments on the state of climate science at the moment.

The problem with getting anthropogenic climate change accepted by the general public is we know how bloody complicated the field is, so there will always be problems in the details, and therefore opportunities for questioning. Answering those questions is the whole reason the field exists, no? Climate is a complex system with many, many inputs. Many of these inputs have effects that are under question, or are poorly understood.

The predictions in the IPCC report were largely based off computer models that have questionable predictive power, and are based off data that is assumed to be global but in reality is taken from local data points. We all know that climate is not weather, as weather is a local phenomenon, and these data points are measuring localities. Okay, so we use more. But some of the data points reliabilities are under question, such as the tree-ring data that depends on the assumption that trees are good thermometers, which is, frankly, not supported particularly well by the evidence.

Lomborg does not deny climate change is happening. He even goes further and states that there is an anthropogenic component (which is the real point of contention). His discussion in his books is "What should we do about it". He reckons economists should decide. His response is actually a good read. This seems relatively non-controversial to me. Is the problem that he used the work "skeptical" and "cool" in his book titles?

So far, these are my own writeups:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242704

Thirty seconds and two Googlings confirm Lomborg is right (on an issue raised in TFA) and Friel is a liar.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1559622&cid=31242742

Friel biting his own glacial ass. Delicious.

For the whole shebang, do take the time to read:

http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."

When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!

Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains
no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.

Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”

However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.

  Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."

Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]

Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).

In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.

I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”

Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7262/670

The quote is confirmed by Google Books:

http://books.google.se/books?q=estimated+in+the+text,+using+Keatinge+et+al.,+2000:672&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker

In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.

http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

"Without reading both books, I can't take sides on the merits. But I will say some of the stuff in TFA sets off my alarms--like spending a footnote on a WHO report just to cite the population of Europe."

When doing math, statistical sources matter. But here we have something substantial to discuss. Is Lomborg dishonest in this case? Read along for the answer!

Friel: "But Lomborg's only source for these figures—a chart in the statistical annex of a 2004 World Health Organization report—contains
no data on human mortality due to excess heat or cold. In fact, the words "excess heat" and "excess cold" make no appearance in the WHO document; neither does the word "heat," and the word "cold" appears only once in a reference unrelated to death due to excess cold.

Lomborg's reference to the WHO document, which allegedly supports his claim that two hundred thousand people die each year in Europe from excess heat, reads in its entirety: "207,000, based on a simple average of the available cold and heat deaths per million, cautiously excluding London and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”

However, page 121 of the 2004 WHO report—The World Health Report 2004: Changing History— which is what this source references, lists no data on cold- and heatrelated deaths per million, or for cold- and heat-related deaths in any context.

  Likewise, Lomborg's very next reference-to support his claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold - reads in its entirety: "1.48 million, estimated in the same way as total heat deaths."

Thus, Lomborg's references indicate that page 121 of the 2004 WHO report is the source of his estimates of annual heat- and cold-related deaths in Europe; however, this page in the WHO report lists no statistics for either cold- or heat-related deaths. Consequently, there is no apparent basis here or elsewhere in Cool It for Lomborg's claim that 1.5 million Europeans die annually from excess cold. [LD, p. 86, emphasis added]

Lomborg: "In fact, the text and first endnote in this section make it very clear where the figures are sourced from: “Based on the summary of the biggest European heat and cold study (Keatinge, et al., 2000, p. 672).” (p. 170).

In the UK edition of the book, there is even a figure with the numbers, with the further explanation: “estimated in the text, using Keatinge et al., 2000:672.” (p. 233, CIUK) Friel’s claim that I relied on a WHO document that does not support my case is astonishing and profoundly disingenuous.

I clearly used the WHO report solely to provide an estimate of Europe’s population (because WHO uses the standard geographical definition of Europe to the Ural Mountains).This is evident in the text that Friel himself quoted: “and using WHO’s estimate for Europe’s population of 878 million (WHO, 2004a:121).”

Finding this study on Google Scholar took me all of two seconds using the reference provided by Lomborg (in his book).

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7262/670

The quote is confirmed by Google Books:

http://books.google.se/books?q=estimated+in+the+text,+using+Keatinge+et+al.,+2000:672&btnG=S%C3%B6k+i+b%C3%B6cker

In short, from this example, picked by you - not me, it plainly evident that is Friels honesty or literacy that should be in question, not Lomborgs. This is likely to be representative of the "debunking" in its entirety, going from what I have read of the rebuttal so far.

http://www.lomborg.com/dyn/files/basic_items/118-file/BL%20reply%20to%20Howard%20Friel.pdf

I've never heard of the Daily Mail, much less read it.

Then there may yet be hope for you, it's the UK's version of Fox news combined with the E! channel.

Please read Lomborg's (relatively short) rebuttal.

I assume you mean this one, I got to the third paragraph and realised it was just a foaming at the mouth attack on his critics.

If he was interested in a rational argument he would have published it as a paper, not a book.

You'd have done much better to link to Lomborg's response, than going off on your speculative aura.

I'm sure everybody here will be interested in reading Lomborg's response before forming an opinion.

70 years ago we didn't pollute ANYWHERE as much as we do today.

actually i think you will find that there was FAR more CO2 output then.

funnily enough ths is according to Bjorn Lomborg , the chap who wrote the book "the sceptical environmentalist", he also did a video presentation it find someof his videos here, he's very good and cuts through much of the FUD

Veho link to a critique of the man made global warming theory(and inconvenient truth. the great global warming conspiracy),us congressional testimoney 2007, then here ,then here and then we have his site right here and finally Penn and Teller on environmental hysteria, they have quite the crack research team
now you sir, are being rude and patronising and also very presumptuous. you have to recognise the FUD and also that there are rather a lot of people making rather a lot of money out of the environmental "movement".

i would also propose that it is also a fact that human c02 emissions are far less than those from volcanoes and c02 is actually not a major greenhouse gas when compared to the emissions(methane,ethane,propane and butane) from bovine animals, termites, and various other natural sources of greenhouse gases.

now ,yes, we contribute but only to part of a natural cycle and there IS a natrural cycle.

Bjorn is not alone in making these statements of fact and is backed by many other people in this field.

as i said, all i could call you is rude, presumptuous and closed minded

Except environmentalists are supporting nuclear power.

That's certainly not my experience here in the UK. For example, Friends of the Earth are distinctly anti-nuclear and seem to believe that a bunch of wind turbines can solve the whole of the UK's power needs.

More and more environmentalists do support nuclear power, Bjorn Lomborg "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has had an impact on at least some people.

You need a lot less power transmission infrastructure to connect a 3GW power station to the grid than close to a thousand wind turbines spread over a large area. Especially if those turbines happen to be off-shore

Not if they're located near where the power will be used. Centralized power generation I think is a big problem, power should be generated near where it's used. Instead of having large power stations, we should have distributed power generation. Not only will power loss from transmission be cut but coengeration can be done. For instance the steam from a plant can be used to heat buildings near it.

Wind generation and built up areas don't mix - you're not going to be able to site wind turbines in a city.

You can mount solar panels on roofs. New York Michael Bloomberg wants to use off-shore wind farms, small-scale wind installations, and tidal power systems. Actually one of the proposals for the reconstruction of the WTC had a turbine mounted between two towers. It's not the same but I found this: "World Trade Center's Freedom Tower to Feature Wind Turbines". And Bahrain has done something similar.

If you plan to store power you need more wind-turbines in order to over-produce and give you power to store.

Why are you stuck on wind? Other energy sources can be used.

Falcon

I think that there is general agreement that the planet has undergone numerous significant temperature shifts over the its life. And on the topic of global warming or a global climate change, I'm not sure that there is that much dissent. I think the question is really whether or not the current upswing in temperatures is the result of something that humans are doing or something else.

It strikes me as somewhat odd that the planet can undergo a number of changes over time and yet this one must be our fault.

Computer models are only as good as the data that they use and the assumptions on which they are built. Since we have evidence of increasing CO2 levels and warmer average temperature, a model trying to fit those things with an assumption about CO2 causing the temperature to rise, will tend to show higher temperatures as we inject more CO2 into the atmosphere.

The real implication of the mandate that Hardison got is that if the video is shown, the "opposing theory" that gets presented is his a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

I think the Supreme Court has already made it clear that that kind of fundamentalist BS posing as "science" doesn't cut it. No, I think a good starting point for the "opposing theory" would be Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist . Show "An Inconvenient Truth", then make the kids read Lomborg's book. Randomly assign half the kids to the "pro" side and half to the "con" side, then have a debate or have them write reports or whatever.

Are you talking this Bjorn? Because he is not a scientist. He is not even a statistician who can validate what others have. He is simply a politician. In fact, he has been accused of scientific dishonesty. If he were a real scientist, his career would have ended immediately.

Scares are what you get from the media and politicians. That is somebody who whips things around.

BTW, Interesting what you pointed to. Genetic mods have had their issues. In particular, some of the genome from GM crops are being spread around. Then the company who develops it gets upset. But the real issue is that mods that were not suppose to leave a particular strain has. So once these are introduced, we will have issues. As to BSE, well, in the west, we have a large issue with CWD in the deer population. And CWD is nothing more than BSE. Sadly, it takes a number of years before the BSE really shows up in populations. Funny thing about a disease that is asymptomatic is that it can takes it toll before you are aware of it. As to the build up to toxic chemicals leading to sterility, well, if you like you can go ahead and switch your diet to shark and swordfish. In fact, go ahead and switch your children's diet to them. Have a steak a day. Somehow, I do not think that it will make a difference.

Unlike the grand parent I'm posting anonymously because people have a habit of reacting in a negative way when they disagree with you when it comes to a discussion on a highly political issue like global warming.

Someone I think you should look into is Bjorn Lomborg who was named one of the 100 globally most influential people by Time magazine in 2004. He was a very well respected statistician until he had his book The Skeptical Environmentalist published at which point he became one of the most controversial names in the Global warming debate; in 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty reached a decision on complaints that had been filed against Lomborg and ruled that "The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question" which was later over turned because the DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors (which have never been demonstrated) and The Skeptical Environmentalist was not a scientific publication so the DCSD had no right to intervene in the first place.

He is someone you should listen to and try to understand what he is saying regardless on your stance on global warming. Here is an example from an interview he did ( link):

"Perhaps this is most clear when you look at the movie from Al Gore. Everything he says is technically true. He says for instance that if Greenland melts, sea levels will rise about 20 feet. This is technically true. But of course the very evocative imagery of seeing Holland disappear under the waves - or New York, or Shanghai - leaves the impression that this is all going to happen very soon. Where in fact the UN climate panel says that the sea level rise over the next 100 years is going to be 30 cm - about 20 times less than he talks about. So there is a dramatic difference between what we're being told and what we're actually seeing. Which is also why I am writing a new book which comes out next fall on climate change, and I will address some of these issues."

A lot of his discussions tend to be centered around how the science of global warming is distorted by the media, or by people who have a political investment in the debate, and not necessarly about the science itself.

What he says is correct as many news organizations have been associating weather paterns that are normally associated with El Nino with Global Warming this year; being that we are currently under the influence of El Nino it is dishonest to link a mild or warm winter to global warming.

Unlike the grand parent I'm posting anonymously because people have a habit of reacting in a negative way when they disagree with you when it comes to a discussion on a highly political issue like global warming.

Someone I think you should look into is Bjorn Lomborg who was named one of the 100 globally most influential people by Time magazine in 2004. He was a very well respected statistician until he had his book The Skeptical Environmentalist published at which point he became one of the most controversial names in the Global warming debate; in 2003 the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty reached a decision on complaints that had been filed against Lomborg and ruled that "The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question" which was later over turned because the DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors (which have never been demonstrated) and The Skeptical Environmentalist was not a scientific publication so the DCSD had no right to intervene in the first place.

He is someone you should listen to and try to understand what he is saying regardless on your stance on global warming. Here is an example from an interview he did ( link):

"Perhaps this is most clear when you look at the movie from Al Gore. Everything he says is technically true. He says for instance that if Greenland melts, sea levels will rise about 20 feet. This is technically true. But of course the very evocative imagery of seeing Holland disappear under the waves - or New York, or Shanghai - leaves the impression that this is all going to happen very soon. Where in fact the UN climate panel says that the sea level rise over the next 100 years is going to be 30 cm - about 20 times less than he talks about. So there is a dramatic difference between what we're being told and what we're actually seeing. Which is also why I am writing a new book which comes out next fall on climate change, and I will address some of these issues."

A lot of his discussions tend to be centered around how the science of global warming is distorted by the media, or by people who have a political investment in the debate, and not necessarly about the science itself.

What he says is correct as many news organizations have been associating weather paterns that are normally associated with El Nino with Global Warming this year; being that we are currently under the influence of El Nino it is dishonest to link a mild or warm winter to global warming.

For the record, Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

And also, Mr Lomborg had a position as a professor of statistics. Your dismissive note about being a professor of economics suggests that he's a soft science type and not up to the task of evaluating climate science. A professor of statistics has exactly the background you want to show that the climate change analysis might be bogus or not.

the vast body of the evidence indicates climate change is real; Lomborg is the only serious counter-claimaint that I am aware of.

Others have pointed out that Lomborg isn't disputing global warming but have failed to point out why. He can't! He's not a scientist, well, at least not physical science.

As his bio points out, he is a political scientist. His area of expertise is public policy and since 1998 his major focus has been on public policy surrounding global warming. If it wasn't in the original post, I'd probably have modded (yes, I'm sitting on mod points but decided to respond directly) comments regarding Lomborg as off-topic; the BBC is looking for evidence of scientific bias not of political dissension.

If reality really had a left-wing bias, Russia and the Eastern Bloc would have become the richest countries in the world by 1989.

Instead, they dissolved into nothingness.

Since I live in Pennsylvania, in the chilly East, I tell you honestly that I welcome our Global Warming Overlords. Please, a 10degF warming today would have been absolutely delightful. Bjorn Lomberg, author of the Skeptical Environmentalist quite rightly points out that global warming, if it is in fact occuring, would have benefits as well as costs.

There have been a lot of accusations moving back and forth over this issue, and I'm not convinced one way or the other that warming is happening or not. However, I am convinced that if it exists, it's part of a natural cycle and it's highly unlikely we can influence it in any significant way. The idea that we can influence it by giving up the products of our industrial society strikes me as wistful thinking on the part of the left. After all, if you read anything that's been said on the left, no matter what the problem, giving up the car and the factory always seems to be the answer.

Here's lots more:
http://www.lomborg.com/

D

The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist.

Oh? Before Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist where he arrives at nearly the opposite conclusion?

All should read Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist! http://www.lomborg.com/ These guys fall victim to politics just the same as anyone. The Journal Nature all but put out a hit piece on this guy -- why? Because what he had to say (and back up with data) was contrary to their politics

I call shenanigans all over that. It's not some vast conspiracy of SUV-loving, gas guzzling eco-terrorists that keeps things as they are

It actually is a valid counter point because anybody who is getting their funding from the oil industry has an innate bias towards conclusions that benefit the oil industry. This is obvious.

Not a single one. Not one in all of those piles of papers, not one damn paper.

It does mean there is not an official, unquestioned consensus. In the 1970s, there was also a consensus that we were all going to be in a new Ice Age by now.

Wrong: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Hell, one guy even put out a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist

The "one guy" was a political scientist name Bjørn Lomborg. How is he qualified to make judgements about climate science?

On the other hand the detractors all seem to fall into two categories:
1) Industry funded pseudo-scientists
2) People who don't know jack about climatology

I just ask for one. One legitimate paper that really shows valid evidence to discredit the consensus. I assume said paper will be delivered by Godot.

I equate the invective with a fervently held belief that the invectors doubt can withstand criticism.

Global warming is a fairly simple concept. It most likely has been occuring over the past century, but definitely withing historical norms and probably withing historical rates-of-change. The cause is much less provable. Some people blame CO2 (especially anthropogenic), when it is almost certainly an effect (ever open a warm soda?).

Here's your source. I'll dig up some others but did you know C02 was higher duing the dinasaur era? We're not even making a dent on the Earth, I'm afraid. I'll post the links on how our forests but you're spouting 70's era Rachel Carson crap that's been proven many times over as nonsense on acid rain. Please READ a bit. Try reading Bjorn Lomborg's book. I will post more information for you later, try reading it with an open mind.

He's at http://www.lomborg.com/ ...where you can hardly avoid reading or watching interviews where he stresses that he accepts global warming and discusses the issue mostly in the context of the IPCC report - the major one that predicted global warming between 1.4C and 5.8C by 2100, with a couple of "most likely" scenarios around 2.2C.

A page or two of 'The SE' did ah, "cover the controversy" about global warming itself, Lomborg mentions that there are data that point the other way, scientists who disagree.

Then he basically waves all that aside and stipulates the conclusions of the IPCC report are true and should form the basis of deciding our response.

I hate them both. Do a little research. Did you know we exited the "Little Ice Age" in 1850? Do you know anything about this book? Did you know West Antarctic ice is increasing at the rate of 26.8 gigatons per year? Did you know 420,000 years ago the Earth was warmer than it is today?

    FYI, just because someone disagrees with a liberal doesn't mean they're Rush Limbaugh fans.

Lol!

I quoted text to the same effect from both Lomborgs site (which I said should be taken with a grain of salt) as well as Wikipedia, the quoted text were largely identical in information. I recommended you read the whole Wikipedia entry. The quotes I made from Wikipedia were from both HAN as well as DSCD.

And all you do is come up with stuff like this?:

"...check it for yourself before spouting more corporate propaganda." - do you comprehend anything I've written?

"...an [sic] highly biased source (of course you "forgot" to mention the Wikipedia page was quoting that)." - a page I recommended you read in full... that's some excellent "hiding" on my part lol

"Lomborg's "exhoneration" came from a political body, not a scientific one. Furthermore, the main case for Lomborg was that his objective dishonesty was not sufficiently proven in the papers--i.e., it had not been excluded he was simply an ignorant fool. The incorrectness of his conclusions was never a topic in discussion." - are you talking about HAN or DSCD or perhaps both here? One of the quotes were attributed to DSCD at the Wikipedia entry; you do know what DSCD is and the role it played right? And do you realize just what you are saying with the last sentence? It is hard to believe you do...

"Lomborg taught a course in statistics, but that does not amount being a statistician. Bunches [sic] of professors in school teach history, and are not historians for that." - are you saying they teach history without having the faintest clue about history? More to the point: are you saying that an associate professor of statistics would be teaching statistics without having a clue about statistics?

"Quoting Lomborg's own website is plain useless, as the guy is just short of a compulsive liar." - I quoted nothing from his site that wasn't supported by Wikipedia, did you miss out on that? If this has triggered some sort of revision war at Wikipedia you can check the quotes in the post you replied to as well as in the Wikipedia revision history.

"I assume Kåre Fog's website is credible" - it seems you assume a whole lot of stuff, about him, about Lomborg, about me, and I'm sure it doesn't stop there.

Thank you for making me laugh :)

You obviously cherish lomborg-errors.dk since you link so much to it. Here is a collection of various critique and correspondence at Lomborgs site so that people can look at it from both sides: http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

First of all the link he provided says that forest area is stable in industrialised countries and that in addition the volume of wood within this stable area is actually increasing in those countries. It then goes on to say that the situation is different in developing countries where about 0.8 percent is converted to agricultural use per year.

All this was in the first paragraph of text which you have obviously either not read or simply not understood.

You say: "The author is a CS professor..." but perhaps if you actually read his, John McCarthy's, statements they might not be in such contrast to your FAO link? If you read http://www.fao.org/forestry/foris/webview/forestry 2/index.jsp?siteId=101&sitetreeId=1191&langId=1&ge oId=0 there doesn't seem to be any outright contradictions as there is a positive net change in forest area in the non-tropics which would include most industrialised nations. Your link to lombog-errors.dk completely misses the point of what John McCarthy wrote as he goes as far back as to 1850 when talking about deforestation.

Anyway the author is not Bjørn Lomborg, nor is any of the links and references to him, even so you want him to be your scapegoat and so you write:

"...Bjørn Lomborg (who by the way has no knowledge of climatology nor statistics)..."

It's hard to take you seriously when you manage to be totally wrong about things that are so easy to check up on. Are you being willfully wrong? Your case would be better if you stopped injecting such nonsense.

First from his own site which should of course be taken with a few grains of salt. It has a biography at http://www.lomborg.com/biograph.htm:
"Bjørn Lomborg is an associate professor of statistics in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." and of course it makes perfect sense that an assistant professor of statistics knows nil about statistics... (sarcasm).

Let's check with a source that strives for factual objectivity, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg:
"He taught as an associate professor, lecturing in statistics, in the Department of Political Science at the University of Aarhus." this too confirms that he ought to know a thing or two about statistics.

Read the Wikipedia article in full; it might surprise you and make you understand why some people dislike the decidedly unscientific attitude prevalent among many so-called environmentalists.

Choice quotes from the Wikipedia entry:

"12 March 2004: The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DSCD) have finally ended their case, rejecting the original complaints. They have decided that the original decision is invalid and has ended any further inquiry." i.e. they completely exhonerated Bjørn Lomberg.

"Having reached the conclusion that the concrete accusations against Lomborg largely don't hold, it is legitimate to question the approaches of Lomborg's opponents. Using some historical examples it is argued that almost all opponents use discussion tactics, which come very near to those of dogmatically driven pseudo-scientists"

So we have a guy who uses the knowledge he has in statistics to substansiate his scepticism about environmentalist claims, because of this he is more or less immediately hung out to dry and flamed by people who later on is caught with their pants down and their dicks in the pie - /* start sarcasm */ but oh! wait! Those are the good guys who think they're about the save the world, of course there is absolutely no way they could be misguided or *shudder* wrong, not in the least bit... /* end sarcasm */

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm

In a nutshell: Lomborg is a leftist, green, gay PhD statistitian who set out to prove man-made global warming. Instead, when he used statistics to analyze the data and models from the UN report on climate change he found the dire conclusions spouted by climate scientists were not supported by the numbers. He took close look at the data and methodology and found all sorts of skuldugery.

He published his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" saying as much and was thoroughly trashed. Problem is that he was very meticulous in documenting his data and his methods (the book has 150+ pages of references) so his critics attack him rather than his work.

It is a good book that sheds light on a complex issues involved in global policy decisions. Eg: the UN models say that without Kyoto global temperature will rise by 3 degrees in the next 100 years, but Kyoto will cost 100's of billions AND with Kyoto fully implemented the same model says the global temperature still rises by 3 degrees but over the next 105 years. Is delaying the same temperature rise by 5 years worth of 100's of billion$? Maybe politically but economically.

Personally I worked in the computer simulation business for years on some of the most complex models in the world. Simulators are very twitchy beasts, data is often manually tweaked, and conclusions are rarely objective. Take everything you read about computer models with a grain of salt.

Somehow, Slashdot disagrees with you.

If scientists use the scientific method "by definition," as you assert, then one-third of the published authors are not scientists. This throws the whole "peer review" process into question.

When the challenges to conclusions are themselves repudiated without argument (that is, simply dismissed out-of-hand), as politicians and other egoists-in-white-coats attempted with Bjorn Lomborg, the god-like stature of "scientists" loses its credibility with the people who have to live with the consequences of their pronouncements "from on high." Barton is simply doing what his voters elected him to do: represent their interests.

I think common sense is evidence enough.

Seriously, when people are expressing scepticism, other people try to muzzle the sceptics. What has happened to the academic freedom of expression and development of science through critique and open debate? When it comes to the global environment it seems that critique is muzzled instead of being refuted with arguments in an open scientific debate.

For an example of this here on /. just see the post you replied to. This person was expressing his scepticism, and the post is modded down as flamebait. Looks to me like some moderators don't want an open debate on this topic.

For an example of this in the scientific world, just look at what happened when the accredited scientist specializing in game theory and environmental statistics Bjørn Lomborg published a book that (among other things) pointed out that the United Nations Environmental Programme (who published TFA) had abused statistics to paint a more devastating picture of the global environment than could be concluded if statistics were used correctly.

I think common sense is evidence enough.

Seriously, when people are expressing scepticism, other people try to muzzle the sceptics. What has happened to the academic freedom of expression and development of science through critique and open debate? When it comes to the global environment it seems that critique is muzzled instead of being refuted with arguments in an open scientific debate.

For an example of this here on /. just see the post you replied to. This person was expressing his scepticism, and the post is modded down as flamebait. Looks to me like some moderators don't want an open debate on this topic.

For an example of this in the scientific world, just look at what happened when the accredited scientist specializing in game theory and environmental statistics Bjørn Lomborg published a book that (among other things) pointed out that the United Nations Environmental Programme (who published TFA) had abused statistics to paint a more devastating picture of the global environment than could be concluded if statistics were used correctly.

I think common sense is evidence enough.

Seriously, when people are expressing scepticism, other people try to muzzle the sceptics. What has happened to the academic freedom of expression and development of science through critique and open debate? When it comes to the global environment it seems that critique is muzzled instead of being refuted with arguments in an open scientific debate.

For an example of this here on /. just see the post you replied to. This person was expressing his scepticism, and the post is modded down as flamebait. Looks to me like some moderators don't want an open debate on this topic.

For an example of this in the scientific world, just look at what happened when the accredited scientist specializing in game theory and environmental statistics Bjørn Lomborg published a book that (among other things) pointed out that the United Nations Environmental Programme (who published TFA) had abused statistics to paint a more devastating picture of the global environment than could be concluded if statistics were used correctly.

As the Economist noted,
...The arresting thing about Scientific American's coverage, however, was not this barrage of ineffective rejoinders but the editor's notion of what was going on: "Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist," he announced....

Quite impressive that some people still believe that buffoon Lomborg. Here is the usual website by Kåre Fog, with all the errors (pretty word for "lies") of Lomborg exposed.

This example is quite nice: in order to demonstrate that forest area is not only stable, but even increasing, in spite of all deforestation environmentalist litany along about, Lomborg has used statistics taken from a time when countries were still joining the FAO - as a result, looking at his data, all the Borneo forest appears from nothing in 1961. Never mind that FAO (Lomborg's source) published a corrected data set, that clearly shows the decline, before Lomborg's book in English edition.

As a side note: I have not seen that many articles by Lomborg in the scientific literature. In fact, according to his own website, he's published one peer-reviewed article only once, and not about environment (and I did not personally check whether it exists really, it would not be the first time the guy lies). A scientist who tries to dodge peer review by printing books instead of submitting articles is most likely just a charlatan and a snake-oil salesman. The Skeptical Environmentalist can quietly join cold fusion in the drawer of junk science.

Skeptics view of the Buenos Aires conference

Debate of the IPCC executive summary

"Stanford scientist Stephen Schneider has been a leader of the alarmist camp, which has received most of the publicity" Ronald Hilton (Stanford University - 03/18/99

E-mail correspondence between S. Fred Singer and Ben Santer

Industry contributions to the environmental movement

Environmentalism for the 21st Century

The CO2 & Climate Team

is calling a scientist with a contrary view "Mass Murderer" ok under the "ends justify the means rules

Now as a Parthian shot. Below are the primary movers in the anti "Big warming Industry". I cannot find, please point it out if you can find one, a page devoted to "Smear tactics" against the Big GW scientists, though I will admit that Milloy occasionally uses a bit of sarcasm, and Singer is none to friendly towards Schneider, none devote a page to "smear tactics". Lomborg of course, in Danish Stoicism, wouldn't say anything hurtful about anyone.

Patrick Michaels
Bjorn Lomborg
Steve Milloy

Now we move on to Schneider's site.

Schneider Contrarians

Here Schneider devotes 13,245 words to mud slinging and smear tactics (including the exorbitant amount of API funding to Soon and Baliunas that covered 5% of their budget, no mention to where the remainder of the funding comes from.

Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.

As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.

As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.

But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him. References.

Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself." Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation"
FBjorn's press release

And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.

Continued

Name the last time you saw an anti GW article in the mainstream news. Be honest with yourself and say anytime you've seen a mainstream news source even mentioning the other side, or even noticing that there was an other side. Aside, of course, from people like me posting such articles in places like this.

As to scientists on the pro-GW side not getting press. Say the word I'll cite 10 articles a day till you tell me to stop. In fact I see plenty of articles about things that have absolutely nothing to do with GW saying something along the lines of "As global warming predicts.." or "We can expect more events like that because of global warming..." the Dec 26th Tsunami for example. There is absolutely no correlation between a seismic event under kilometers of water and global warming. Yet they grab headlines by supposedly connecting them. There are currently 6 to 7 articles about this in the British press everyday at this point. Quite frankly I'm calling you on that one, there are just to many contrary examples.

As to whey the likes of Lomborg, Michels, Milloy, and Singer being more well known, quite frankly because the pond is smaller, and those involved feel strongly about getting the word out, not because they are paid by oil companies (Do you think I make money from oil companies?) but because they are disgusted (as am I) by the me too science that is going on in this area, and the obvious distortions (which I notice you don't want to talk about the science, just the semantics, sorry I'm keeping it down but it struggled up), Singer for an example was a member of the IPCC, his stated reason is quite simply what he saw during that time, and as I've mentioned his site sepp is 100% funded by private contributions. So if it's a motive argument, I put my money on "my" guys every time.

But your comment about Lomborg intrigues me. Why skeptical about Lomborg. Again stick to the science and ignore what you've been told about him poersonally. Research it yourself. Lomborg himself talks openly and at length about the criticisms against him. References.

Lomborgs Critic page
Quote from Patrick Moore (one of the founders of Greenpeace "I believe they acted out of political motivation and are purposefully stifling Lomborg's efforts to defend himself." Patrick Moore Sci Amer rebuttal
If your opinion of Lomborg comes from the supposed case against him by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, note that the Ministry responsible found that committees judgment was "Not backed up by documentation and was "completely void of argumentation"
FBjorn's press release

And to my previous point. There was plenty of press about the case by the DCSD against Bjorn, but little about the retraction of that case. And I assume your opinion was jaded by this.

Continued

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had

As an MBA student, I tend to agree. But only because I found arguments like those presented by Bjorn Lomborg and Stephen McInthyre compelling.

Really, should we consider these to be statements without facts to back them up?

On point 1. Some European countries do allow firearms, and in fact in some cases mandate ownership, these are typically the nations with lower crime rates. Evidence also does not support that restricting firearms reduces crime.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/cft a-rfn020805.php/

On Point 2, here is a list of European articles that do not support the huge Global Warming scare industry. All European articles from this month. Should you want more citations I can gladly supply them.
Natural climate change may be larger than commonly thought
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/src -ncc020905.php/
Discounting global warming, and more importantly the costs of fighting it even if it is true. http://www.lomborg.com/index.html
And before people say, as they always do, "wasn't he discredited?" No, those that tried to discredit him were in fact told to "put up or shut up" and since they had no facts that proved him wrong they had to shut up.
Prometheus: A Climate of Staged Angst Archives (English reprint of German article)
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archi ves/climate_change/000343a_climate_of_staged_.html
UK Anti-global warming Blog
http://greenspin.blogspot.com/
Polar bears defy extinction threat
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm? id=143012005
RUSSIA SHOULD DENOUNCE KYOTO PROTOCOL IMMEDIATELY
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id =5377079&startrow=1&date=2005-02-04&do_alert=0
ILLARIONOV CRITICIZES CENSORSHIP BIAS AT CLIMATIC CONFERENCE
http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id =5371407&startrow=1&date=2005-02-02&do_alert=0

In all the cry of Big Warming is "Everyone knows its true" Which only holds when you discount those that do not hold it is true, those that do not hold its true include the majority of climatologists.

And since when is the European opinion the end all be all in the discussion? How does "The Europeans believe it so it must be true!" statement work. Regardless the majority of Big Warming is here in the States, not in Europe, so your statement makes no sense, because the Majority of GW BS is domestic, not imported.


It should also be noted that the scientists that discovered the flaws, and poor science, in the infamous "Hockey Stick" data are Canadians, McIntyre and McKitrick.

Yes, I have. For example, the "Skeptical Environmentalist". However, I'll grant that this appears to be a problem in the long term.

That's why I say that it seems like we have a known problem and a known solution. The only argument seems to be whether to apply the solution or not.

The problem isn't urgent. Poverty, corrupt societies, limited human lifespan, and the fact that Earth is the sole residence of humanity are urgent problems. And by fixing these problems we go a long ways to fixing other potential problems like global warming.

My point here is what makes global warming such a dire problem that we should set aside more urgent needs for it?

Your comment: "In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry." still stands without any documentation. Notice that your criticism is NOT present on the website you provided. Unless you can be bothered to give documentation or at least completely describe your conjecture, I won't believe you.