Bjørn Lomborg publicly reverses his stance on glabal warming - the one intelligent denier does a 180

[Bill8]

Well this is not good news for the Koch brothers and all the little Kochsuckers - the one person who wrote a semi-intelligent book arguing the denial case is about to release a new book reversing his earlier position.

For those of us who actually read books, Lombergs original book had as it'score thesis the argument that while global warming may or may not be happening, the prposed solutions, such as cap-and-trade, all cost more than either migration or accepting the effects of global warming. An interesting thesis still worth considering, especially as humans are not politically capable of either planning ahead or of cutting back consumption voluntarily.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-change-u-turn

The world's most high-profile climate change sceptic is to declare that global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront", in an apparent U-turn that will give a huge boost to the embattled environmental lobby.

Bjørn Lomborg, the self-styled "sceptical environmentalist" once compared to Adolf Hitler by the UN's climate chief, is famous for attacking climate scientists, campaigners, the media and others for exaggerating the rate of global warming and its effects on humans, and the costly waste of policies to stop the problem.

But in a new book to be published next month, Lomborg will call for tens of billions of dollars a year to be invested in tackling climate change. "Investing $100bn annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century," the book concludes.

Examining eight methods to reduce or stop global warming, Lomborg and his fellow economists recommend pouring money into researching and developing clean energy sources such as wind, wave, solar and nuclear power, and more work on climate engineering ideas such as "cloud whitening" to reflect the sun's heat back into the outer atmosphere.

In a Guardian interview, he said he would finance investment through a tax on carbon emissions that would also raise $50bn to mitigate the effect of climate change, for example by building better sea defences, and $100bn for global healthcare.

His declaration about the importance of action on climate change comes at a crucial point in the debate, with international efforts to agree a global deal on emissions stalled amid a resurgence in scepticism caused by rows over the reliability of the scientific evidence for global warming.

Understand this - it wont make a difference, because we humans are do not have the type of brain that allows us to reason and plan for the long term. Short term benefits will favor the Koch Brothers for several decades yet.

[Agent 488]

weird ....................

[hjnet]

Now he can cash in twice ;)

[Bossman]

Actual he does not say anything new... he has never denied that the climate is changing.

His argument is that its too costly to do anything about it with current technologies... that for every $1 spend it will mean 3 cent reduction in climate change. So instead he wants big funding for research ($100 billion per year), which in time will bring $8 reduction for every $1 used.

[_Richard_]

someone got some evidence

[onwebcam]

They call that "two-faced" where I come from.

[PornAffiliate]

100bn sounds like some wandom number he tosses out. also he is forgetting alot of technologies

[GrouchyAdmin]

Just like shaking the demons of a satanist - the game in getting the idiots to pony up their cash to watch is more than the cost of the show.

[DaddyHalbucks]

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/196642

[CaptainHowdy]

"Hardly a hero"...

[Rochard]

Somewhere along the line we have become dependent on facts and figures - that may or may not be true. It's very easy to pick figures that support your side of the discussion, and ignore others. We've been reading about the ice shrinking, yet NASA just released a report that it's increased 20% in the past three years. Whatever already.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Bossman

Actual he does not say anything new... he has never denied that the climate is changing.

His argument is that its too costly to do anything about it with current technologies... that for every $1 spend it will mean 3 cent reduction in climate change. So instead he wants big funding for research ($100 billion per year), which in time will bring $8 reduction for every $1 used.

I always thought that was a reasonable argument - altho, that argument itself has to be examined closely for errors.

In any case, focusing on actions that have the maximum desired effect at the most reasonable cost does make sense.

However, right now we aren't in a position to do much of anything, we are in political and economic paralysis.

China and other competitor economies will seize the initiative and become the world leaders in manufacturing the new technologies, while we wait.

Arguably we don't have the manufacturing capacity left to do anything important anyway.

[Coup]

Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers
Kochsuckers Kochsuckers Kochsuckers

[Dirty Dane]

Lomborg has been misunderstood and misquoted. On both sides of the debate. He was never a denier or sceptical environmentalist but a sceptical economist.

When Al Gore says "omg 5 polar bears are drowning" and Lomborg says "omg 100 polar bears are hunted and killed" it's quite obvious what cause the reduction of polar bears in a region. But when Lomborg says things like that, he become enemy of the environmentalists agenda and the oil lobby misquote him out of context to brainwash the public by telling global warming isn't taking place.

Copenhagen Consensus is not about Lomborgs personal views. It's a broad and representative collection of economists analyzing world problems and how to deal with it in a logic and affordable way. Climate change is only one issue and more people should start listening to them, instead of listening to the misguided and unproductive debates.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

Copenhagen Consensus is not about Lomborgs personal views. It's a broad and representative collection of economists analyzing world problems and how to deal with it in a logic and affordable way. Climate change is only one issue and more people should start listening to them, instead of listening to the misguided and unproductive debates.

You should post links explaining "Copenhagen Consensus".

I'll be interested in seeing Lombergs new book and the reactions to it. I expect we'll see some interesting stuff about it when it comes out.

It's a shame we don't get well done video versions of books like these.

[Dirty Dane]

Originally Posted by Bill8

You should post links explaining "Copenhagen Consensus".

I'll be interested in seeing Lombergs new book and the reactions to it. I expect we'll see some interesting stuff about it when it comes out.

It's a shame we don't get well done video versions of books like these.

http://copenhagenconsensus.com

It's economic research at the Copenhagen Business School. I do not think there will be any video versions. Not like Al Gore

[CheeseFrog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Somewhere along the line we have become dependent on facts and figures - that may or may not be true. It's very easy to pick figures that support your side of the discussion, and ignore others. We've been reading about the ice shrinking, yet NASA just released a report that it's increased 20% in the past three years. Whatever already.

They're talking about sea-bound ice. Not land ice. That's what happens when land-bound ice breaks off and floats into the ocean... you end up with more of it. 20% in this case.

[CheeseFrog]

Global warming is a largely accepted fact amongst the scientific community. The only sector where there's an huge split between the believers and skeptics is the general populace.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

Global warming is a largely accepted fact amongst the scientific community. The only sector where there's an huge split between the believers and skeptics is the general populace.

You should say "model" or "theory", or something like that, not fact. I think model describes it best.

Facts, in the scientific method, means data, measurements, usually.

And facts in law and politics are something else entirely again.

sorry to be a language and rhetoric geek, but use of the word "fact" like that just sets you up for easy proceedural rebuttal - they do a strawman argument over the word fact.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

http://copenhagenconsensus.com

It's economic research at the Copenhagen Business School. I do not think there will be any video versions. Not like Al Gore

most of the projects they promote as good - that is, under welfare economics, as having the most benefit per dollar spent - seem to focus on increasing the health of the third world.

That seems empathic but possibly misguided - if the health of the thord world is increased without pressing them into the modern form of society, the birth rate will just crush their economies all the faster.

The stuff they label "good" - new appropriate ag tech for the 3rd world, new water tech, sanitation tech, and aid starting new businesses, all sound fine to me, but way touchy feely cruchy granola for the rightwingers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus

Very Good
The highest priority was assigned to implementing certain new measures to prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS. The economists estimated that an investment of $27 billion could avert nearly 30 million new infections by 2010.

Policies to reduce malnutrition and hunger were chosen as the second priority. Increasing the availability of micronutrients, particularly reducing iron deficiency anemia through dietary supplements, was judged to have an exceptionally high ratio of benefits to costs, which were estimated at $12 billion.

Third on the list was trade liberalization; the experts agreed that modest costs could yield large benefits for the world as a whole and for developing nations.

The fourth priority identified was controlling and treating malaria; $13 billion costs were judged to produce very good benefits, particularly if applied toward chemically-treated mosquito netting for beds[4].

Good
The fifth priority identified was increased spending on research into new agricultural technologies appropriate for developing nations. Three proposals for improving sanitation and water quality for a billion of the world?s poorest followed in priority (ranked sixth to eighth: small-scale water technology for livelihoods, community-managed water supply and sanitation, and research on water productivity in food production). Completing this group was the 'government' project concerned with lowering the cost of starting new businesses.

[edit] Fair
Ranked tenth was the project on lowering barriers to migration for skilled workers. Eleventh and twelfth on the list were malnutrition projects - improving infant and child nutrition and reducing the prevalence of low birth weight. Ranked thirteenth was the plan for scaled-up basic health services to fight diseases.

[edit] Poor
Ranked fourteenth to seventeenth were: a migration project (guest-worker programmes for the unskilled), which was deemed to discourage integration; and three projects addressing climate change (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), which the panel judged to be least cost-efficient of the proposals.

[edit] Global warming
The panel found that all three climate policies have "costs that were likely to exceed the benefits". It further stated "global warming must be addressed, but agreed that approaches based on too abrupt a shift toward lower emissions of carbon are needlessly expensive." [5]

In regard to the science of global warming, the paper presented by Cline relied primarily on the framework set by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and accepted the consensus view on global warming that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the global warming. Cline relies on various research studies published in the field of economics and attempted to compare the estimated cost of mitigation policies against the expected reduction in the damage of the global warming.

Cline used a discount rate of 1.5%. (Cline's summary is on the project webpage [6]) He justified his choice of discount rate on the ground of "utility-based discounting", that is there is zero bias in terms of preference between the present and the future generation (see time preference). Moreover, Cline extended the time frame of the analysis to three hundred years in the future. Because the expected net damage of the global warming becomes more apparent beyond the present generation(s), this choice had the effect of increasing the present-value cost of the damage of global warming as well as the benefit of abatement policies.

Members of the panel including Thomas Schelling and one of the two perspective paper writers Robert O. Mendelsohn (both opponents of the Kyoto protocol) criticised Cline, mainly on the issue of discount rates. (See "The opponent notes to the paper on Climate Change" [6]) Mendelsohn, in particular, characterizing Cline's position, said that "[i]f we use a large discount rate, they will be judged to be small effects" and called it "circular reasoning, not a justification". Cline responded to this by arguing that there is no obvious reason to use a large discount rate just because this is what is usually done in economic analysis. In other words climate change ought to be treated differently than other, more imminent problems. The Economist quoted Mendelsohn as worrying that "climate change was set up to fail".[7].

[Paul Markham]

The world is getting warmer. Fact and undeniable.

The cause can be argued. Is it natural, man made or a combination?

Can it be slowed or stopped down by man? Not without a massive reduction in population and living standards. And that's a pill no one will swallow until it's too late.

[Bill8]

Metafilter has a post about Lomberg today, with some good links going to both sides of the news debate.

I only recreated two of the links in the quote below because they pretty much all go to news sources not science sources, so they are only as good or bad as any news source can be, and don't have much real authority.

http://www.metafilter.com/95317/Bjrn...global-warming

Global warming skeptic Bjørn Lomborg changes position, saying global warming is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today" and "a challenge humanity must confront." He says in a new book forthcoming this year that governments should levy a tax on carbon and spend billions annually on research for new technologies. I suppose it's hard to ignore when 10 of 10 key indicators show the world is warming, and Lomberg is not the first prominent skeptic to change position.

Lomberg's 2001 The Skeptical Environmentalist has been for better or worse very influential, creating a mini-industry of Lomberg'ian pros and cons through the 2000s. This about-face has not impressed all his critics, some of whom see a skilled self-promoter able to "play the media" by simply "adopting a position already held by millions of sensible people." Mike Childs in the Guardian says "It appears that the self-styled skeptical environmentalist is beginning to become less skeptical as he enters middle age."

Right wing media has often cited Lomberg, how will they react? It's possible Lomberg hasn't really changed his position. The Telegraph are distancing themselves saying Lomberg was always "a warmer" and this story of defection is a canard.

To continue with the copenhagen consensus thing, here's a bit that applies, from one of the links:

http://mediamatters.org/research/201008310034

Previously, Lomborg said climate change "is emphatically not the end of the world." In his 2007 book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg stated that while "climate change is a problem ... it is emphatically not the end of the world." He also contended that "the benefits from moderately using fossil fuels vastly outweigh the costs. Yes, the costs are obvious in the 'fear, terror and disaster' we read about in the papers every day, but the benefits, though much more prosaic, are nonetheless important." Lomborg also suggested that the money spent combating climate change would be better spent in other areas that do more "social good." (emphasis mine)

Right-wing media has frequently cited Lomborg to minimize threat of global warming
Conservative media figures and outlets have frequently cited or hosted Lomborg to downplay the potential danger of global warming; to make the point that attempts to prevent it would be overly expensive and ineffective; or to promote the idea that public officials should instead focus on more pressing issues. Fox example:

Lomborg appeared in 2006 Fox News special that centered upon purported lack of "scientific consensus about" impact of climate change. On May 21, 2006, Fox News aired a special titled Global Warming: The Debate Continues. As Media Matters has previously noted, the special gave viewers the impression that there is a significant divide among scientists regarding the cause and effects of global warming. One of these contributors was Lomborg, who claimed that climate change was not an imminent threat and that "the data, the facts tell you that many, many things are moving in the right direction."

Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change. On the September 21, 2006, edition of his CNN Headline News show, Glenn Beck hosted Lomborg to discuss how "our priorities are all mixed up" on climate change and his decision to switch from being an environmental activist to a "skeptical environmentalist." On the show, Lomborg claimed that "climate change is happening, but the real question we have to ask ourselves is: How much can we do against it? And how much is it going to cost?"

Beck featured Lomborg in two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate." On May 2, 2007, Beck aired a two-hour special on "the other side of the climate debate" titled Exposed: The Climate of Fear. In the special, Beck introduced Lomborg as "an expert on the economic impact of global warming," but noted that he is "not a scientist." Lomborg said during the interview:

With global warming you're going to see more heat deaths, but what most people don't tell us is we're also going to see much less cold deaths.

And actually, many more people die from cold than from heat, so for England alone you mentioned the number 2,000 people. Actually that's what we expect will die from more heat waves in 2080, but what we have to remember is that 20,000 fewer will die from cold each year in 2080.

Now I'm not sitting and saying we should go for global warming, but I'm saying we need to know both.

He also said, "We worry intensely about climate change, but the point is we can do very little good at very high cost."

[Bill8]

Ahhh, I didn't know this - it turns out that Stu Ostrum, the weather channel guy whose youtube videos the rightwing likes to trot out, (I think I have that attribution correct, please correct me if I am wrong.) has reversed his position from the mid oughts and now says anthropogenic global warming is happening.

From a few days ago...

http://www.weather.com/blog/weather/8_22625.html

And it could be said that while the skeptics might currently be sweating due to what's going on climatically and meteorologically, during the past couple of years my own faith in those climate scientists and data and models was tested due to such things as the "Climategate" email imbroglio and a temporary cooling of the Earth, but that my faith has emerged still strong. In fact, my point of view is now stronger than ever that our changing climate is a serious problem. With the goal of being objective and open-minded, I changed my point of view from what it was in the days of the Fred Singer article, and would do so again if that's what the evidence shows. But it does not.

As I wrote back in 2006, global warming is not a religion. The chemistry, physics, and thermodynamics involved are science, not religion, nor are they liberal or conservative.

Some have pointed to the sharp dip in globally-averaged temperatures during the past couple of years, coupled with a peak in 1998, as proof that global warming stopped. But when smoothing out the short-term wiggles the long-term trend is still up.

Those noisy ups-and-downs are the result of year-to-year natural variability which has always and will always be present. Natural variability and anthropogenic global warming are not mutually exclusive!

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by CheeseFrog

Global warming is a largely accepted fact amongst the scientific community. The only sector where there's an huge split between the believers and skeptics is the general populace.

Climate change is a fact.

The causes of climate change are still largely unknown.

[xmas13]

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-ente...ry?id=11535128

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by xmas13

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-ente...ry?id=11535128

Yes, that will be big political news the next few days. And will be used to cast greens as terrorists.

As I have said, it is pointless to expect the political process to take any actions but suppression of global warming politics and technology. The corporations are in control, and the big profits to be made from environmental crisis handling are still a decade or two in the future, and thus outside of the short term cycle of politics and corporate profit.

I'm sure we've all heard about the plans the military is discussing to adapt to global warming conflicts and migrations if or when they start happening. The military is a little better about long term planning, even if they tend to always fight the last war.

[Grapesoda]

Originally Posted by Agent 488

weird ....................

the grant funding was yanked I guess

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by xmas13

http://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-ente...ry?id=11535128

Wild - raw story is reporting that this guys demands included "anchor babies" and immigration, as well as global warming. An odd mix - but we'll probably see more of it.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/0901...very-building/

Authorities have identified the man as James Jay Lee, a 43-year-old resident of Silver Spring. NBC in Washington has linked Lee to an event two years ago in which he threw thousands of dollars in the air during a protest outside the Discovery building. He was subsequently ordered to stay at least 500 feet away from the building.

Multiple news sources have linked Lee to a Web site, Save The Planet Protest, which sets out a list of demands on Discovery and calls in harsh terms for an end to human reproduction, specifically singling out the children of undocumented migrants, whom he describes as "anchor baby filth."

"Humans are the most destructive, filthy, pollutive creatures around and are wrecking what's left of the planet with their false morals and breeding culture," the Web site states in part.

The site was unavailable when Raw Story tried to access it, but a Google cache of the site uncovers a Web site devoted to a philosophy that combines hatred of the human race with environmentalism and anti-immigrant sentiment:

All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs' places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed.

Civilization must be exposed for the filth it is. That, and all its disgusting religious-cultural roots and greed. Broadcast this message until the pollution in the planet is reversed and the human population goes down! This is your obligation. If you think it isn't, then get hell off the planet! Breathe Oil! It is the moral obligation of everyone living otherwise what good are they??

Immigration: Programs must be developed to find solutions to stopping ALL immigration pollution and the anchor baby filth that follows that.

Find solutions for Global Warming, Automotive pollution, International Trade, factory pollution, and the whole blasted human economy. Find ways so that people don't build more housing pollution which destroys the environment to make way for more human filth!

Saving the Planet means saving what's left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies! You're the media, you can reach enough people. It's your resposibility [sic] because you reach so many minds!!!

A MySpace page identified as belonging to Lee describes him as being a 43-year-old resident of Silver Spring, an atheist, and a fan of Captain James T. Kirk and Daniel Quinn, an environmentalist who has focused his work on the problems caused by overpopulation.