Bjorn Lomborg, an influential figure among climate change sceptics,
has thrown his weight behind a drive to forge a global deal to halt
rising world temperatures at a summit in Copenhagen this year.
“It’s incredibly important. We need a global deal on the climate,” Mr Lomborg told the Financial Times.
He does argue, correctly, that we should first focus on the low-hanging fruit, such as soot emissions and methane.
He also does not believe that the taxes derived from climate change legislation should specifically go toward efforts to fight climate change, but to wherever need for funding is greatest.
I agree with Finnsense – it’s really odd that Lomborg is referred to as a “skeptic” when he more or less accepts the scientific consensus on climate change.
It’d be more appropriate to call Lomborg a “climate change optimist”, in that he thinks that most proposals to deal with global warming will be more economically damaging and less helpful in dealing with the problem than focusing on maximizing growth in income and gdp (since generally only the well-to-do have the luxury of focusing on environmental concerns, and there’s enormous potential for environmentally sound technologies).
Hey, I too am all for a treaty that encodes into international law that we should in no way impoverish our generation and future generations to make the next century’s climate a little cooler!
Do I think that whatever comes out of Copenhagen will look anything like what Lomborg is describing? No. But I can hope, and I do wish him well in injecting some sanity into the process.
One thing I’ve noticed is that many in the environmentalist community don’t believe that cost-benefit analysis is a valid method to analyze policy. For some, it’s because of the “yuck” factor of putting a price tag on nature and living things (don’t see the problem personally). For others, however, it’s because CBA is equated with neoclassical economics, which they often reject. I think ecological economics (not to be confused with environmental economics) has done a lot of harm in this area.
Does anyone know of a good evaluation of ecological economics from a “free-market” perspective?
I fully agree with other readers that have said that Lomborg is NOT a climate chage sceptic. From the interview, I conclude that he is trying to contain the venality and stupidity of those supporting government’s total control of all sources of emissions.
For more on venality and stupidity in global warming, you can read
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124967502810515267.html
I thought the scientific consensus was that soot emissions were acting as a mitigating factor in climate change–by increasing the earth’s albedo and possibly inducing increased cloud cover. Does Lomborg disagree with this?
@anon
No. BC/soot is a positive forcing. Other particulate pollution, like sulfates, are negative (cooling). See the paper discussed here for references.
I tend to be suspicious of arguments that are so nasty and insulting. If the sites you are linking to are supposedly reputable sources to be believed, why are they so obviously seething with hatred? I usually expect reputable scientists to be professional and courteous when explaining things… if Lomborgs positions are so silly, why the need for the endless streams of insults and uncivil manner towards Lomborgs?
Even the people who debunk totally crackpots like the Moon Landing skeptics, tend to be courteous and friendly about the whole thing.
It is one thing to leave snide comments on an informal message board… but the tone of those sites in incredibly nasty and irritating. I mean, do you have any sites to people who debunk Lomborgs arguments in a rational professional manner, instead of naming calling? The sites you linked to are really just an echo chamber for people who already have a deep emotional hatred for Lomborg.
@Thingsbreak:
Could they? They can argue that a ten-year streak is not a streak at all compared to thousands of years in climate history. But then, they’d have to argue that actually we have a poor understanding of climate history. However, they can say that the last 100+ years there has an upward trend (which is something these sceptics don’t argue about). On the other side, it always bugged me that the bad thing about climate change is the dynamic side (meaning that the ratio of rise is higher than in other historic events), but if the ratio of change is higher that also means that smaller time samples have more meaning than before thus supporting a bit the sceptics idea.
So, actually, you don’t need a degree or a lesson in climatology or climate sciences or meteorology to understand or decypher those graphs. I think every natural scientist, engineer or statistician can do this, because they have as much experience with time lines, graphs and statistics as a “native” climate scientist. Also, I’d easily bet that for example mechanical engineers have more robust models with a better predictability than climate scientists or finance modellers =)
But leaving these scientific facts aside (which I think don’t belong on Marginal Revolution), I still think that the debate currently suffers from ad hominem attacks from both sides (may it be shrill words from alarmists who want to end any debate and equalize holocaust with climate change, or may it be Republicans who are more often than others shrill critics of global warming alarmists like Al Gore (mostly because he is a Democrat)).
I say, take it slow, most nightmare end of the world scenarios play out quite differently than expected (Atomic War holocaust, anyone? End of Oil till 2000 =)) and are more benign than anticipated. In a few years we will see if the models and predictions hold up (since the first “grave” models appeared in the late 90s) =) And if the situation is as grave as some scientists paint it, then these few years won’t change a thing, because we are already doomed and only a full scale back to nature program would save us.
Could they? They can argue that a ten-year streak is not a streak at all compared to thousands of years in climate history.
That isn’t what they’d argue, because that isn’t why a seven year temp “trend” is not in fact a climatologically meaningful trend, but a 20-30 year trend is.
As I said, anyone with a basic grasp of stats can understand why this is.
they’d have to argue that actually we have a poor understanding of climate history.
Poor is relative. We certainly have a fine enough understanding of paleoclimatology in conjunction with the fundamental physics of blackbody radiation, infrared absorptive properties of greenhouse gasses, and atmospheric thermodynamics to make meaningful statements about our current projected courses from a policy perspective.
However, they can say that the last 100+ years there has an upward trend (which is something these sceptics don’t argue about).
You don’t have much experience with “skeptics”. A good chunk of them are still arguing that the modern warming trend is due to UHI and is not actually “real”.
On the other side, it always bugged me that the bad thing about climate change is the dynamic side (meaning that the ratio of rise is higher than in other historic events)
This is a little confused. The temperature rise experienced so far may not be unprecendented- there is evidence of decadal-scale swings for at least massively regional/hemispheric if not global temps in the paleo record. Our emissions growth is definitely unprecedented going back at least 2.1 million years and likely much longer. Long enough where continental configuration, ocean circulation, etc. start to render older “Earths” decidedly less meaningful in terms of analogues. But yes, rate of change is more important in many instances than magnitude of change. The climate is definitely “tippier” than the AR4 ensemble modeling suggests. That’s why Wally Broecker has used the figurative “Climate is an angry beast, and we’re poking it with a stick” characterization.
but if the ratio of change is higher that also means that smaller time samples have more meaning than before thus supporting a bit the sceptics idea.
This makes no sense to me whatsoever. If we know that the longterm ramifications of a change in GHG concentrations of X is over Y amount of time, what “skeptic” idea is reinforced by noting that the consequences will likely be worse for humans living in a global civilization with fixed geographic boarders, widespread coastal habitation, dedicated agricultural lifelines, etc. if we force the system into X state over Z time?
So, actually, you don’t need a degree or a lesson in climatology or climate sciences or meteorology to understand or decypher those graphs.
Not necessarily, but it helps. As I said, a good grasp of stats is also probably sufficient for some of the basics, but certainly is no substitute for a solid grasp of the underlying mechanisms involved. If everyone involved in the “debate” had a functional understanding of GHGs, the carbon cycle, climatic zones, etc. we would have moved on from 95% of the “debate” in the late 70s/early 80s. Indeed, the recommendation to policy makers would be essentially the same.
I think every natural scientist, engineer or statistician can do this, because they have as much experience with time lines, graphs and statistics as a “native” climate scientist. Also, I’d easily bet that for example mechanical engineers have more robust models with a better predictability than climate scientists
Biologists have a term for this. It’s called the Salem hypothesis. There should be a corollary for climate science. In any event, Dunning-Kruger is depressingly common amongst engineers who think they’ve found “flaws” in climate science.
leaving these scientific facts aside (which I think don’t belong on Marginal Revolution)
I’d guess you’re probably not alone in feeling that way. Which is why Lomborg continues to be treated as a Serious Voice in the Climate Debate instead of laughed out of the room.
I still think that the debate currently suffers from ad hominem attacks from both sides (may it be shrill words from alarmists who want to end any debate and equalize holocaust with climate change, or may it be Republicans who are more often than others shrill critics of global warming alarmists like Al Gore (mostly because he is a Democrat)).
The “debate” is over in the scientific community in terms of whether or not we should slash emissions. Al Gore is irrelevant. Environmentalists are irrelevant. American political parties are irrelevant. We need to curb emissions.
“The “debate” is over in the scientific community in terms of whether or not we should slash emissions.”
A joke, right?
Thirty year time periods are no more relevant than 10 year periods when you are talking about millions of year histories. Natural cycles last much longer than thirty years. As one who sites statistics – are you familiar with cherry picking?
And why does most of the AGW debunking come from statisticians correcting very basic statistical problems with AGW data sets?
I’m still agnostic about whether global warming is from CO2, but its proponents always seem to have a solution in search of a problem. When absolutely forced to they will correct the problems with their models, but the models seem to put out the same answer no matter what the inputs are.
@thingsbreak
Thanks for the reference to the Salem Hypothesis. I had no idea that someone had actually granted that particular observation an official name.
Comments on this entry are closed.