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.
2
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
Smith==thanks for the link, I know it takes extra work that too often is not rewarded.
Of course “its fun” to poke holes in any issue of the day but you continue to have no theories of your own. You answer none of the questions put to you above. You invoke certain errors in the theory and make the same errors in your rebuttal. Bad Form.
As to your own question, doesn’t the first comment at your link answer that for whatever it is worth?
I readily grant your knowledge base on things scientific exceed my own and most others posting here, but your knowledge does not match the expertise of the consensus posted by the IPCC. Should we “take action” only when we have the perfect knowledge/proof you argue for? No, only fools and knaves argue for that.
No proof lead paint causes brain damage.
No proof freon damages the ozone layer.
No proof tobacco causes cancer.
No proof co2 causes warming–even when the oceans rise past our armpits.
“The best science available.” The requirement for judgment and common sense. Yes, the burden of the unconvinced must be carried by those who can make rational decisions.
Silly Hoomans.
We have 100 years of recoverable oil and 120 years of recoverable coal left. Then the problem will fix itself.
Awwwh Skeptic===”the problem” is reaching the tipping point right about now or in the next 5-10 years or 20-30 who knows? And it seems to me that if you can’t tell me the exact date we will run out of oil or coal, then by your lights, I should be able to say “There is no proof we will ever run out of oil or coal.”
Yep, I can be skeptical too!!
I thought we had thousands of years of coal reserves? I guess its definitional?
but such measures are irrelevant for the same reason that it doesn’t matter how much energy can be had from frozen methane: we’ll be under water before we ever use it all up.
I’m assuming you know that?
# 24 Smith said, “I have yet to see a pH meter with a precision of +/- 0.05 pH”, so I have to wonder about the credibility …”
Not joining here pro or con just to say you devalue your own credibility when you say things like that. Routine medical laboratory equipment reports pH to the thousandth place (0.000) though the meaningfulness of that last digit is debatable. Results are usually reported to the hundredth place (0.00) and a shift of +/- 0.05 can be a significant indicator. Typically, medical lab equipment will be able to measure between 6.300 and 8.000. It is so and has been so since I first worked in a respiratory lab in the 60s. It may have been common for some time before that.
Funny that China and Denmark never get mentioned in any of this. Strange… China and Denmark emit more air pollution than any other country, but the Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) aren’t marching for massive taxation on Chinese and Danish citizens. On a per capita basis, the Danes emit vastly more CO2 than residents of any other country.
Maybe Goldman Sachs and con artists like Algore haven’t figured out how to milk those cash cows?
Bobbo, I’m not trying to prove that man is destroying the planet, so why do I need a theory to make my case? Ice ages come and go, the Sahara was once a grass prairie, now it is sand. They have found a Viking village in Greenland that was covered by hundreds of meters of ice that is now receding. My own home is built on ground that ten thousand years ago was covered by 200 feet of water. Climate changes — but then why should anyone expect a static climate? And the climate of the last hundred years is within the range of climate experienced over the last 10,000 years, so why do I need a theory to explain any of this?
#22 And Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and President Obama will all applaud our sacrifice as they live life the way the gods were meant to live at their luxurious estates.
The one thing that stands out loud and clear about these three and their families is that any sacrifices that are going to be made are going to be made by somebody else.
Animby, if you say that medical tests can obtain that level of precision, then I accept your argument as it applies to medical applications. But I suspect those tests are conducted in a very controlled environment using solutions at specified concentrations and temperatures. The pH meters we used for measuring ground water showed the pH to the nearest hundredth, which we dutifully recorded as per procedure. But since those pH measurments were influenced by water temperature and dissolved solids, the measurement we recorded was no more than a snapshot of what we saw in a glance after giving the device a chance to settle down. It certainly wasn’t unusual to see the value change a couple of tenths after we wrote down the “official” number. And since the world’s oceans are not homogenous in either dissolved solids or temperature, then I remain skeptical of any claim of the oceans’ pH rising 0.02.
Bobbo, I’m not saying that we will be unscathed by whatever is causing the bulk of global warming, aka climate change. When we run out of carbon based energy then there will be no more to burn. The cause-effect is no more profound or certain than that. And any one who ends up underwater deserves to be there. It’s not like there isn’t time to move out of the way.
The “tipping point” you speak of changes on a whim. I’ve heard 20, 50 and 100 years. They keep moving it back as other milestones pass revealing their inadequate predictions. It could be 1000 years away, tomorrow or never. They don’t really know, just like they don’t really know how much effect anthropogenic CO2 is really having on the unimaginably complex warming of our atmosphere. Expert scientists still disagree with each other on many fronts, but it’s the alarmist pro AGW scientists that are screaming the loudest and doing a fair amount of foot stamping and teeth gnashing. Sad really.
The trillions of tons of CO2 that you speak of amounts to only a 90-100 ppm of anthropogenic CO2. One figure is alarmist, the other is unpretentious.
Smith==you got a few screws loose.
If the science is in and we are going to get ocean rise of 10-30 meters within 2-300 years if we don’t stop burning sequestered carbon and YOU want to prevent any curtailing of this eventuality because YOU personally have never used equipment that could measure ph closer than you have===then YOU are part of the problem and you should have more than your own personal ignorance to back up your position.
You have garbled up several issues that are so plain, I doubt you have read on the issue at all?
1. “And any one who ends up underwater deserves to be there. It’s not like there isn’t time to move out of the way.” /// So you don’t really know what Climate Change is all about do you! Well, significant people are not going to die in an overnight flood==but billions of people are going to have to move out of Coastal Cities and rebuild them uphill. Arable land is going to be destroyed by a factor of 10 over the land made arable by the climate shift extending the growing season to the North. So, yeah, the situation is no more serious than where you live and what you eat. You really have to read up on this more and quit examining objective/scientific issues from your own individual idiosyncratic personal circumstances.
There is a whole rest of the world outside your doorstep.
Please read more than you have.
Ah! My error as my post #42 starts and finishes responding to Smith, but deals mostly with Skeptic.
Good advice for both of you though. You both appear to have “elements” of experience and education that would allow you to post without making the glaring errors both of you have been caught on. Those types of errors throw into doubt everything else you contribute.
Easy to poke holes in any other thing, that shows imagination as much as anything else. Until you can come up with an alternate theory, the consensus of qualified scientists really is the only rational ((sic–see dictionary for definition of “rational”)) position to take.
For My Information: what scientific consensus in the past has been proven wrong by business lobbies?
Anyone?
Yes, the greenies to the rescue. If the enviro-nuts had their way we would be in straw huts eating uncooked twigs. Earth spins doesn’t care what we do.
So, in honor to our planet I planted 3 white oaks, these will clean our air and provide acorns for the deer which, I will shoot to fill my freezer. It all balances.
#40 Smith said, “I remain skeptical of any claim of the oceans’ pH rising 0.02”
The test is very common and a necessity in any modern hospital. In my day it was a delicate and arduous analysis that compared the hydrogen ion concentration of blood to a reference solution of potassium chloride. Today, it is so automated I’m surprised Obamacare doesn’t require semi-trained monkeys as technicians. Hell, they’ll even let doctors run the test in an emergency!
That said, I too, would be suspicious of a 0.02 change in pH. I’d be willing to bet the fart of a passing snapper could change the pH that much.
Just a quick review on ocen ph. Sidebar has interesting links as well.
Don’t get too excited by the websites name: its is skeptical ABOUT skepticism. Another voice saying the science is settled.
http://skepticalscience.com/Ocean-acidification-Global-warmings-evil-twin.html
The IPCC is ostensibly a scientific review, but it is by design a method for pushing for certain courses of action, while claiming to be policy neutral.
There are three working groups: Group 1 says CO2 causes temperatures to rise by a high amount.
Group 2 says the rise in temperatures will cause lots of damage to the planet.
Group 3 says certain policies are required to prevent this damage.
If any of the groups does not provide alarmist results, the IPCC would have to shut down.
Conversely, if any of them were found to be flawed, the policy implications are substantial.
Bobbo, who reads a word and conjectures an encyclopedia. Most of what you’ve written thus far can be applied to yourself, as to any other. Quite amusing.
Skeptic==glad you’ve been reading my posts and understanding them. Yes, we are all more alike than different. I guess then “most” is rather uninteresting, and its the difference that is interesting?
What a bunch of babblefarb. Answer a question. Post a link. State a theory.
Theres three “big” differences making one wonder what the most is.
If you WANT the Chinese to kick America’s ass in the new green economy — vote for Republicans this fall. (or just stay at home.)
LOL Oh, Bobbo.
You quote that Gore nonsense about the oceans rising 20-30 meters, without siting a single reference. Just try finding a research paper anywhere on the internet that makes that claim and backs it up by showing the data and the calculations. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. What you will find is someone’s calculation of what would happen if all of the ice in Greenland and the Antarctic melted … no data supporting that such an event is happening or even likely, just pure speculation. What the REAL data says — scratch that, I haven’t seen the real data, so I am forced to rely upon the unreliable internet — what some oceanographers say, and no one seems to dispute, is that the oceans have been rising at about 1/10th of an inch a year for the last 100 years.
As for the pH issue, my 30 years of experience has shown me not to place too much faith in pH measurements, especially when said measurements are in the neutral range of 7.0. Now Animby states that his experience in medical labs is different from mine in industrial settings. And I have no reason to doubt him — they can do amazing things when instruments are designed for a specific purpose under specific conditions.
Perhaps that scientist who measured the ocean’s pH had such an instrument, which was carefully calibrated using appropriate buffer solutions and procedures. The problem is he was still measuring the pH of ocean water, which contains dissolved solids and suspended sediment that is particular to the time and locale from which the sample is taken. Dissolved solids and suspended sediment influence the current measure across the pH electrodes, so before I believe the results reported by this scientist, I want to carefully analyze his calibration procedure; method of sample collection and analysis; and the precision of his test. But I don’t have access to any of this data because he never posted in online for public scrutiny. (But what he did report was that his data came from a single location, from which he inferred what was happening the world over!) Until I see such data, I will defer to my own experience and knowledge and remain skeptical of his conclusion that the worlds oceans are becoming acidic.
Blanbblefarb? Heres an example of blabblefarb:
“but billions of people are going to have to move out of Coastal Cities and rebuild them uphill. ”
I wonder who said that? Oh wait a minute, it was Bobbo, The Babblefarb Meister.
A quick search of nature.org… just to be completely fair and not chose a skeptical site, says the following:
http://nature.org/initiatives/climatechange/issues/art19621.html
“Sea levels have risen between four and eight inches in the past 100 years. Current projections suggest that sea levels could continue to rise between 4 inches and 36 inches over the next 100 years.
A 36-inch increase in sea levels would swamp every city on the East Coast of the United States, from Miami to Boston.
Worldwide, approximately 100 million people live within three feet of sea level. Sea level rise associated with climate change could displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas – especially in developing countries. Inhabitants of some small island countries that rest barely above the existing sea level are already abandoning their islands, some of the world’s first climate change refugees.”
10’s of millions become billions by the Babblefarb Meister, oh so much more alarming, but it also rapes your credibility. That’s just an example, and I wouldn’t judge a poster on one or two butt facts, but y our posts are full of the same shortfalls that you criticize other’s for. Self improvement starts with self analysis.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/09/07/belief-in-evidence-or-evidence-of-belief/
I hate it when I make stupid typos. (others)
MikeN, #54, excellent link.
Mike==yes excellent link. I posted nearly the same thing just the other day. (smile!)
Skeptic==did I say Billions? Ok, I did. Billions are going to be affected by climate change when 10’s of millions have to leave our coastal areas. sorry I was on a roll there. Still, which is more accurate? My babblefarb about how to apportion the Billions that will be affected, or your head up your ass statement that all people will have to do is move out of the way??? Ha, Ha!!! If you are hating your mistakes, typing is last on your list.
Smith–I agree. You can plug in just about any number you want given what you want to assume and the time frames you choose. I’m just wanting to indicate “the issue” for those who think you can just move out of the way. I’d rather be wrong, than you or Skeptic to be wrong, but things being what they are, the dupes unable to view the world except thru they own self referential optics are the more likely wrong in most things of any importance at all.
It would hurt if you were sensate. Do you two understand whats meant by “there can be no proof” and we can only use “the best science available?”
There is a depth below the surface. Dive! DIVE!! DDIIVVEE!!!!!!!! Your great grand kiddies will say “Thankfully there were men like Granddaddy who swept the temple of money changers and did what was right!”
I have faith in you two. Unfortunately, there’s no room on the ark for Mikey.
Bobbo, re: …your head up your ass statement that all people will have to do is move out of the way???
I responded to your head up your ass statement: “we’ll be under water before we ever use it all up.”
Of course, I didn’t say anything close to what you claimed I said. It’s just another one of your endless and useless conjectures so that you can feel superior.
#58–Skeptic==its getting more and more dissociative?
At post #57, I say you said: “…all people will have to do is move out of the way..”
and at post #41 what you posted was: “And any one who ends up underwater deserves to be there. It’s not like there isn’t time to move out of the way.”
Your complaint at #58 is “I didn’t say anything close to what you claimed I said.”
Why don’t you knock me down a notch and explain how I mischaracterized what you said because I don’t see it at all? I do commiserate with you that given your head is up your ass on these matters, it would indeed be difficult to feel superior yourself. Unusual for a man called Skeptic. I don’t feel superior to anyone here. Every asshole has an opinion, but some opinions can be debated, while others just show a dislocation of neck vertebrae and sphincters. Yes, just “move out of the way.”
“Lomborg never denied the human role in global warming”
If this is true, he didn’t switch teams. Whoever wrote this article has an agenda.
Bobbo re: “Why don’t you knock me down a notch and explain how I mischaracterized what you said because I don’t see it at all?”
That doesn’t surprise me. From a perspective outside of your own, why don’t I knock you down -another- notch? That would be easy to do, but what’s the point if you don’t see it? Try reading your first point concerning us all being underwater, and then look at your response to my reply. Your conjecture rears it’s ugly head once again. I made a joke about your claim that we’ll all be underwater someday, and from that you claim I know nothing about climate change? Oops, I was going to let you figure that one out for yourself. Oh well, I guess knocking you down another notch again doesn’t matter much now. We’re the only ones left standing.
>at least a well turned phrase: “…the burden of the unconvinced…”
It’s the alarmist scientists that started it. When errors are pointed out, instead of acknowledging the errors, they say, even if there is an error, it makes no difference to the overall scientific case…’
So they turn things around and put the burden of proof on skeptics.
Perhaps if they could acknowledge errors, people might find them more trustworthy. Ask them if Mann used certain data UPSIDE-DOWN, and the gang at RealClimate can only say they don’t know. This is a tech site, so perhaps some of the people here can look at Mann’s code and reach a conclusion on this.
http://pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/02/0805721105.full.pdf
Here is the link to Mann 2008. In it we see that Mann acknowledges possible problems with Tiljander proxy(in the Supplemental Info) but then uses it anyway. When pointed out, he issues no correction, and the defense is that the paper was calculated with and without reaching similar conclusions, therefore no correction is needed. If climate science says there is no problem with using data upside-down, then why should I hold the rest of the field in respect?