A well-known climate change skeptic has changed his mind regarding the importance of global warming, and in his new book, he is urging the spending of over $100 billion annually to help fight warming.
Bjorn Lomborg, an academic and environmental author, has held a strong opposing opinion against global warming for some time now, writing books such as “The Skeptical Environmentalist.” In this book, he argues against claims regarding certain aspects of global warming, species loss, water shortages, etc. […] Lomborg has now switched teams and makes this new vision clear in his upcoming book, “Smart Solutions to Climate Change,” which will be published next month.
Lomborg never denied the human role in global warming, but always argued that trying to counter climate change should be a “low priority” when it comes to government spending. […] So what made him change his mind? According to Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus project, which is where a group of economists are asked to consider the best way to spend $50 billion, made him reconsider global warming’s importance.
[…]
Lomborg now proposes a global carbon tax to raise $250 billion annually, where $100 billion will be spent on clean energy research and development, $50 billion on climate change adaptation and $1 billion on low-cost geo-engineering solutions. He wants the rest to be spent on better healthcare in poor countries and cleaner water.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
#2 is a complete lie. Climate change SKEPTICISM gets millions of dollars of funding annually from the oil and coal industry. It is FAR more profitable to generate reports denying Anthropic Global Warming (AGW), than it is to generate science supporting it.
Global warming has been studied extensively since the late 50’s with thousands of peer reviewed papers some supporting it, some denying it, and by the early 90’s science came to the consensus that Global Warming is real, and human caused. That’s about the time that the oil and coal industries started multiple disinformation campaigns that are still going on.
I keep hearing that “in the 70’s science was saying we were headed towards a new ice age”. Yes they did, and since then dozens of peer reviewed papers have pretty much disproven that thesis. This is how REAL science works: Evidence examination, interpretation of data, re-interpretation of data, repeatable experiments, skeptical questions, and ultimately consensus.
Science is not an opinion poll where majority rules, it is constantly question your own positions, looking for evidence that you may be wrong. And if you do, adjusting your position, and if you don’t, your position is even stronger.
Every scientist is a “flip-flopper”. They HAVE to be to be scientists! They are not politicians that want to appeal to the masses, they are in a constant search for truth.
“Climate change SKEPTICISM gets millions of dollars of funding annually from the oil and coal industry.”
So now it’s “climate change.” No one denies the climate changes. It has always been in a state of flux.
Climate change promoters get millions of dollars of funding from governments and grant purveyors and companies like Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse. It’s a lucrative racket!
“It is FAR more profitable to generate reports denying Anthropic Global Warming (AGW), than it is to generate science supporting it.”
Bullcrap. Google Goldman Sachs carbon credits.
“So what made him change his mind? According to Lomborg, the Copenhagen Consensus project, which is where a group of economists are asked to consider the best way to spend $50 billion, made him reconsider global warming’s importance. He noted that in 2004, global warming was put near the bottom of the list, and in 2008, new ideas for fighting global warming made it about halfway up the list. Lomborg then stated that he “decided to consider a much wider variety of policies to reduce global warming, so it wouldn’t end up at the bottom.” Science didn’t make him change his mind, money did. nuff said.
Just one comment. I’m not a Lomborg fan and I strongly oppose his position on implementing a carbon tax which incidentally is already implemented here in Denmark where both I and Lomborg reside as we pay a yearly tax on our cars based upon gas emissions (on top on our ridiculous 180% tax an car sales prices – yea you read correct 180%).
However, there is one general misunderstanding on Lomborg that nobody seems to get and I think it’s due to the media’s twisting of the story and no regard to the truth.
If you read Lomborg’s original book “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”, and I have, you will actually realize that he never denied global warming nor did he oppose the idea of doing something against it. What he did say was that in every aspect of life there are limitations. So we don’t have an infinite amount of money to spend for example. Then all he went on to say was we need to make sure that we spendt the money the best way – that’s it. That is he’s whole book in a nutshell.
Then he went on to give a bunch of examples. Like it does not make sense to spend 1 billion dollars on reducing emissions in Denmark if you can get 100 times the result by spending the same money in e.g. India. In essence the problem is global and does not know country borders so use the resources in the best place.
That is all he said he wasnt really skeptical. The book title even says he is an environmentalist… just a skeptical one. But it sure sold a lot of books and landed him a great job 🙂
#4 Bullcrap to your bullcrap. Carbon credits has nothing to do with climate science, it is a completely different debate. That Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse wants carbon credits mandated, thus giving them another outlet to trade, is no secret. But they are not paying for science, except in the sense that they have their fingers in everything.
Believe me scientists are NOT getting rich!
The problem is that the climate has never been stable. While we do have some data suggesting some warming during the last part of the 20th century at a time carbon dioxide levels were going up we not only weren’t able to control the varibals in order to confirm that this was due to CO2 emmisions we still don’t know what all the variables are much less have solid data on them.
It appears that the climate was warmer during the Medieval maximum; a time of great prosperity in Europe which was followed by the little ice age when populations declined. The reason for either was…we don’t know though the little ice age occurred during a low in sunspot activity.
Short term predictions based on climate/weather modals and the nature of the data on hand suggests a very low level of confidence should be placed in them.
For example NOAA proclaimed that we were going to have a very active Hurricane season this year with 28 hurricanes and during the first half of the season we had a couple of tropical storms.
When reviewing what NOAA said was happening to climate I looked at the numbers posted and they said that they were “correcting” the data at virtually every location they had data from and were “estimating” the numbers at locations as much as 1200 miles from a weather station nor were they accepting data from above sea ice because those numbers are to cold.
When it comes to modeling anything the old saying is “garbage in, garbage out” and the first thing that report did was make clear the numbers being used are garbage. When the apparent margin of error is greater than the effect you are looking for it’s a no go.
The real killer in spending everything possible trying to lower CO2 is the statement by many of the man made global warming modelers that having the US do everything that cap and trade wants done would have vertically no impact on CO2 levels.
On the other hand there is every reason to think that even a healthy US economy would totally tank if we tried it.
The side issue almost never addressed is that Scotland is only getting 1/3 the energy from their wind farms predicted because they aren’t getting the wind predicted. They trusted the climate modelers who said the wind would blow and they got bleeped.
They have to keep the coal powered plants on line or shut everything down. This means that for Scotland “green energy” has turned out to be little more than a hefty extra price hike for the user with little to no reduction in actual carbon emissions.
Big science is at the root of all evil. Stop making the oil companies your whipping boys and put the blame where it belongs. The universities. We must end higher education because it is destroying our country. One thing I know is that learning has never taught me anything.
In January, 2009 the Space And Science Research Center (SSRC) sent a letter to President Obama’s science advisor, Dr. John Holdren. The letter warned in clear terms that “Global Warming is over; a new cold climate has arrived.”
SSRC director, John Casey, called on Dr. Holdren to immediately reverse course on global warming programs and start preparing the country for an era of “bitter cold”.
Mr. Casey went on to say “There can no longer be any doubt that the Sun has entered an historic period of dramatically reduced activity which will bring us many long years of deep cold weather.”
The SSRC is a for profit group with zero scientific credentials and it’s not surprising that skeptics would find such a group of tards authoritative. May as well cite scooby doo.
I’m up in Canada nice summers and cold,c-c-c-cold winters nothing is changing the world is not static its living and you constantly see the flux. The great mother is always giving me what I need , this Al Gore is a snake oil man.
Really Madoc. Because I work in the north, 100k south of the territories border, and last winter was the warmest I have ever seen here. Most of december had daytime highs above -10. A lot of work had to be put off because the skeg wouldn’t freeze hard enough to get at sites.
So let me get this straight… When he was against global warming he was a “denier” and now because he has flipped to the other side he’s referred to as a former “skeptic”…
#7
Believe me scientists are NOT getting rich!
Correct, however someone will be getting rich and that is the purpose for carbon credits. They have nothing to do with saving the environment or reducing carbon emissions. It’s about a small number of people getting rich. It is the modern version of Catholic indulgences.
Various climate scientists and activists disliked what he was saying back then, and even filed complaints against him with the Danish Science Academy. Maybe they should stop being so alarmist. Even here, the things for which he is arguing are quite different than the proposed solutions presented by the power hungry.
and I blame Book TV on C-Span. 3-4 authors in the last month casually reporting on climate scientists being resolved on this issue “years ago.” I now “assume” that is the case. When “science” says xyz, the evidence to the contrary produced by vested interests in the status quo must be extra-oridary to overcome the scientific presumption.
Initially, I started doubting the IPCC reports because of procedural flaws and some philosophical limitations of “modeling” as a basis for drawing conclusions==but at least they have “something.” The opposition to global warming have got “nothing.”
Science vs Business///Something vs Nothing.
My conclusion used to be that we were already at or past the tipping point for a 20 meter ocean rise, and again from the last month, I think pretty obviously I was wrong. Instead, somewhere there will be a massive flood, or drought, or ice flow, or permafrost up chuck of carbon and “overnight” there will be consensus on co2 poisoning our atmosphere and water. THEN governments will implement GEO-ENGINEERING to lower the solar input and offset the carbon heating to give co2 reduction a time to take effect. These are effective, cheap, and off the shelf do-able.
1. Spray upper atmosphere with sulfur dioxide gas.
2. Pump streams of water into the air at ocean level and let the vapor create more clouds.
3. Paint everything white.
So, science once again instructs us while politics waits for disaster before taking steps.
Seems about right to me.
PS–btw==can anyone give an example of the last time science was proven wrong by a business lobby?
Wow! More co2 in the atmosphere. Does that mean we’ll have fizzy rain?
Tick, remember records only show an onion slice of say a 100 feet of the great mothers life as an analogy, you must not think so small. This has happened before it is a cycle maybe you should check the whole 100 ft before your slice of a life has any reputation!
#12–macdic==you say:
I’m up in Canada nice summers and cold,c-c-c-cold winters nothing is changing /// not true as you contradict yourself immediately by saying:
the world is not static its living and you constantly see the flux. /// and thats the whole point: how/why does the climate change, how sensitive are the inputs, how do the interact, what can we do about it?
The great mother is always giving me what I need, /// very limited view of the world and centuries of progression.
this Al Gore is a snake oil man. /// True, but you are an idiot nontheless.
Stoopid Human.
Macdoc, I am fully aware of the cyclic nature of climate. I have also looked at a ton of evidence from both sides of the argument. Now, you and others may prefer to take the advice of weathermen because al gore gives you bad dreams,,,,but I will rely on reason.
Enlightened by the wealth of information found on Dvorak and other blogs, I have changed my mind.
I propose that every available dollar, that includes your savings accounts and all income over $15,000 per person, should be expropriated for the greater good of humanity. I am in the process of writing a book containing all the details of my plan.
There is no time to lose. I now believe that money will cause new discoveries. Cold Fusion plants will be in full production after an estimate $130 billion is spent (details in my book). Redistributing wealth so that every person on earth has $15,000 per year income will eliminate poverty.
Free education for all medical degrees will ensure a doctor for every 500 people in the world. For an estimated $300 billion, passenger cars will achieve 500 miles on a rechargeable and 100% recyclable battery that has a 0% carbon footprint, and is he size of a shoe box.
All it will take is money. The more we spend, the faster the geniuses of the world will find solutions. If only we had known this before! Cancer could have been cured hundreds of years ago.
>but at least they have “something.” The opposition to global warming have got “nothing.”
That’s how it should be. I wouldn’t start with the proposition that the science is right, it is their burden to make a case. It is not the burden of the unconvinced to present an alternative model of the atmosphere.
Bobbo, you completely miss-applied the Scientific Method. “Deniers” don’t have to prove anything; the burden of proof lies with the AGW crowd. Global Warming (pardon me, Climate Change) is their theory, and it is their theory that must withstand scrutiny. If the theory doesn’t satisfy ALL of the evidence, then the theory is wrong.
And by the way, exactly what evidence do the AGW crowd have to support their theory? The Hockey Stick? Totally discredited. CO2 trapped in ice? Nope, it shows warming precedes CO2 increases, not the reverse that the AGW crowd want us to believe. Melting ice caps? Sorry, the ice caps are not melting (and the big Arctic melt of 2007 was caused from a shift in wind patterns blowing the ice flow south, not from hot air over the North Pole). Acidification of the oceans? Speaking as a former lab chemist and as someone who has taken hundreds of ground water pH measurements, I have yet to see a pH meter with a precision of +/- 0.05 pH, so I have to wonder about the credibility of “scientists” who report ocean field measurements showing the pH has risen a couple hundredths. Malaria? Dead frogs? Oh, please.
Oh wait, I forgot about the computer models … no I didn’t. Anyone who claims climate computer models are proof of Climate Change should be immediately blackballed by the entire scientific community.
Virtually all “proof” claimed by climate scientist relies upon the proper application of statistics to data collected by other scientists — those being biologists, meterologists, oceanographers, physisists etc. So if you understand statistics, then you can follow the arguments. And, if you really understand statistics, then you are more of “climate scientist” than either Michael Mann or James Hansen.
Three in a row? Easily Dispatched:
#22–Skeptic==don’t get so bored so quickly. Climate change takes centuries, and you have burned out after only a few months? ADD?
#23–Mickey==at least a well turned phrase: “…the burden of the unconvinced…” They are quite a burden aren’t they? Oh Well, off to Sunday School with the lot.
#24–Smith==thanks for a thoughtful post, but just “how thoughtful?” There will never be “proof” of AGW as there can be no control group but what we do have thankfully is: “the best science available” and that is the IPCC with plenty of common sense support and the “consensus of qualified scientists.” So–to say “there is no proof” is what misses the argument totally.
I agree the errors and misses of the development of the “theory” of AGW put me off as well accounting for my waffling. But in the end, I have no axe to grind. I am but a simple man of common sense and pragmatism. Experimentation does show if you increase the concentration of co2 in a closed space the air will heat up faster and higher than before. That is proof enough the same thing will happen to another closed space: “Mother Earth.” The burden therefore DOES SHIFT to the deniers to come up with a theory/mechanism to negate the science that does have proof.
What “body” of qualified experts disagrees with the IPCC?===None.
Ocean acidification is measured by in one way by plankton/coral die off? I haven’t given the world wide average measurement process much thought. I’m sure there can be many individual stories of bad measurements told to invalidate the trend of thousands of other measurements. And still the coral dies.
I think a good net/net indication of GW is ocean level and it is steadily going up.
Proof. Yes, quite the heady concept. A refuge for a fool. Room for three or more.
Silly Hoomans.
#23 “I wouldn’t start with the proposition that the science is right, it is their burden to make a case. It is not the burden of the unconvinced to present an alternative model of the atmosphere.”
#24 “Bobbo, you completely miss-applied the Scientific Method. “Deniers” don’t have to prove anything; the burden of proof lies with the AGW crowd. Global Warming (pardon me, Climate Change) is their theory, and it is their theory that must withstand scrutiny. If the theory doesn’t satisfy ALL of the evidence, then the theory is wrong.”
Wrong!!
Science has already made the case, that is why it is called SCIENCE. It is up to YOU to do the research and learn for yourself. If you wish to remain ignorant, it is your choice, but stop trying to drag people into ignorance with you.
And I forgot to mention one of the biggest flaws in the Climate Change theory. The theory predicts that an atmospheric warming signature must be found at around 6000 meters elevation along the equatorial region. Except that the thousands of ballon measurements taken over the decades don’t show this warm signature. This single bit of evidence should have been sufficient to disprove the AGW theory. So what did the climate “scientists” do? They declared the thermometers on the ballons to be in error and that by running the wind data through some mysterious algorithym, they could determine the actual temperature at those elevations. And lo-and-behold, they found the warming signature!
Unbelievable.
Smith==what is your theory as to how trillions of tons of sequestered co2 can be dumped into our atmosphere and it should make “no difference?”
Link to your global warming signature? Quick google does not turn up anything close.
FYI–temp measurements would only prove GW or CC but not AGW.
ArianeB, you made me laugh! You accuse me of being ignorant of the facts when I have examined and studied the arguments of those who have discredited the global warming theory. (I would like to say that I have examined and studied the pro-AGW arguments but, in spite of my best efforts, I can’t find their data or algorithms online, only their rhetoric.)
Furthermore, my own education and experience has given me a huge dose of skeptism when it comes to people claiming they can accurately model a chaotic system (global climate). Sorry, but this is mathematically impossible. I also have a problem with researchers who cherry pick their data.
Devo.
Bobbo, the papers I read, but did not reference, were published in 2006. I just did a quick google and found a 2009 reference http://tinyurl.com/283mppp which is the latest spin by the AGW crowd to discredit the earlier papers. (“Oh, you didn’t understand what we were saying when we publish those charts in 2004.”) But if that were the case, then why did they try soooo hard to discredit the radiosonde temperature data in 2006?
And it does matter for AGW: How can tropospheric CO2 be absorbing reflected infrared without a corresponding temperature signature?
This doesn’t make any sense. Most Americans believe that God exists and has an intelligent plan about how He’s going to kill them.