Looming Climate Disaster: Hold on to you butts.

[korbel]

Hello JB,

Okay, back on subject. As a historian the first thing I do is to validate the source. The information I find on Noel Sheppard indicates he is a political writer not a scientist. The first hit I got on him is his website...Newsbusters: Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias. He writes frequently for the American Thinker (identified as a "right wing internet publication) and is frequently quoted by Rush Limbaugh. I am not denying or giving credit to the alleged facts in the article you provided, which I did read, but I would prefer far far less politicized sources for myself. This guy looks like the right-handed mirror opposite of the equally political Michael Moore, both of whom have an obvious politcal agenda. The tittle of his website alone shows his predisposition.

Thanks for your efforts. I hate to answer you this way. I am really not trying to piss you off or be difficult, but this is not credible proof of anything when the source is so biased, from the right or the left, even if the facts he alleges may be true.

Bonne nuit,

Korbel

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Undestand this.........

I see. So you dismiss Lomborg's views offhand (a known skeptic) just like you do with Lindzen's views (another known skeptic). Attacking the source because you don't agree with the views expressed just doesn't cut it. Now, since you're the one who brought up the Stern review, would you care to show us exactly where Lomborg fails in his criticism of the document?

I informed readers that Lindzen accepted money from coal and oil companies ($2,500 daily as a consultant). I would add that he was a spokesperson for the tobacco industry at some point of his career. These elements of information are part of his resume. readers draw their own conclusions. That been said, I never disqualified Lindzen findings, just presented that he has been caught a few times in situations of conflict of interest. His association with several ultra-conservative think-tanks, all of which are generously sponsored by ExxonMobil, adds weight to this statement. You are entitled to accept it or not. You responded to that earlier. Point taken. Everyone gained something in understanding how some incentives work on both sides of the issues. Your loss if you have problems accepting the truth.

Interestingly, Lindzen said he's willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. Only thing, he's asking 50:1 odd in his favor.

Lomborg's resume includes not being a trained scientist, being accused of scientific dishonesty by several Danish and international scientific community and a sensationalist opus entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, based widely on statistical analysis (which he confuses with long-term global data). He is also known for being one-track minded as well as for some famous quotes: "Forest cover across the world has increased". "The world's species are not disappearing at an alarming rate", "Acid rain does not kill forests"... I don't know about you but...

Lomborg's article opens with two explosive claims: Stern's cost/benefit hypotheses "fall apart" and "Stern's conclusions would make the world worse off". He first refers to "many sloppy errors" but points only to one which he likely invented given that nowhere in the Stern Review, as I recall it, it is said that the cost of hurricanes equates to 1.3% of the U.S. GDP. (The report says 0.13%).

Conversely, Lomborg appears to have missed a serious error made in Chapter 9, one concerning the cost of abating carbon emission. Quoting Maddison but other critics can be quoted as well:

The chapter notes that hydrocarbons are exhaustible resources and that their market prices reflect not only the marginal costs of extraction but scarcity rents as well. The chapter then goes on wrongly to assert that because these are income transfers they should not be included when it comes to calculating the resource cost of carbon abatement. Although this is probably just a drafting error it should be noted that if such logic has played any part in calculating the resource costs of carbon abatement then the results presented in chapter 9 will be unreliable.

Then Lomborg makes a bunch of claims, none of which can be assessed by ourselves. No data is provided in support of Lomborg's claim that "hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats." He's been repeating this argument ad nauseam but never provided his calculations nor hypotheses. Lomborg also fails to explain how he reaches several of his own conclusions, including: "[Stern] assumes that we will continue to pump out carbon far into the 22nd century — a rather unlikely scenario given the falling cost of alternative fuels, and especially if some of his predictions become clear to us toward the end of this century."

The list goes on. Basically, Lomborg asks the reader to accept his summary of evidence. He conveniently forgets to explain that there are many other reasons why Stern comes up with such high damage cost estimates (deficiencies of existing analyzes, namely "their failure to pay adequate attention to the possibility of extremely bad outcomes associated with climate change and the phenomenon of risk aversion." (Maddison, p.3).

How Lomborg's lament of the Stern Review and call for inaction makes the world a better place - his opening premise - that too he doesn't say.

BTW, Tom Cruise and Borat also expressed opinions over global warming. Would it be a sin to disqualify such opinions ad hominem? Starting to understand why your "attack the argument, not the source" doesn't always apply? Exposing self-appointed experts for what they are qualifies as argument. Comes a point when things need to be addressed in black and white. One who presents himself as an authority yet doesn't have the credentials and doesn't back up his statements (Lomborg) or his caught in situations of conflict of interest (Lindzen) are unreliable sources.

You fail to mention that I've been keeping things in balance by posting a link to Maddison's critique of the Stern Review a much more balanced one, backed up with some good references.

Oh, and I don't think I've seen you admit to your share of responsibility for making this thread the mess that it was. Surely an oversight on your part?

I'm not the one who looked down on merb members, calling them ignorants. Exposing such a "condescending" attitude was therefore appropriate. Just as it was appropriate of me to challenge your self-attributed expertise. Sorry, case closed.

 

[JustBob]

Oh, and I don't think I've seen you admit to your share of responsibility for making this thread the mess that it was. (Note: Korbel and I did) Surely an oversight on your part?

I'm not the one who looked down on merb members, calling them ignorants. Exposing such a "condescending" attitude was therefore appropriate. Just as it was appropriate of me to challenge your self-attributed expertise. Sorry, case closed.

Exactly as I expected. Mr Montana keeps doing what he does best, blaming others for his own behavior.

Shame on you.

And people wonder why I keep saying that having an intelligent debate with him is impossible...

Now I'm going to heed Korbel's advice and move on. I'm no longer going to try to engage Mr Montana in debates he refuses to have, and will limit myself to exposing these fallacies he keeps spreading.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Rolleyes.................................

Exactly as I expected. Mr Montana keeps doing what he does best, blaming others for his own behavior.

Shame on you.

And people wonder why I keep saying that having an intelligent debate with him is impossible...

Now I'm going to heed Korbel's advice and move on. I'm no longer going to try to engage Mr Montana in debates he refuses to have, and will limit myself to exposing these fallacies he keeps spreading.

Oh quit being such a drama queen... You want a public apology for exposing your condescending ways and false expertise? Fine then:

Merbites, I apologize for whatever fault, sin, whoever is reproaching me of. Now back to the program. Good Lord...

p.s. post #84 addresses your question but you only choose to read what fits in your relentless rant which has grown to a new level - to Rotweiller-bite proportion...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Here's my crazy theory: First there was nothing, then single-cell organisms, then dinosaurs, then man appeared and started inventing things (ok, I skipped some history). 20000 years down the line he invents fossil-fuel burning Industry. Roughly 50 years later (1950) scientists start taking greenhouse gas measurements and note an increase every year thereafter (CO2 can stay in the atmosphere 200 years so we may yet have experienced the full warming impact of Industrialisation). 50 years later, they note the earth's temperature has risen 1 degree (between 1900 and 1995). Then the ices start really melting in the North (though all our theories on global warming were based on this event occuring decades down the line) and polar bears need to become long-distance swimmers in order to survive. The permafrost melt too. Humans ban cars and Industry, but the harm is already done - Mother Nature has released her secret weapon and the most potent greenhouse gases start going up in our atmosphere, exasperating global warming. The process can no longer be stopped. 1000 years later there is no more life or civilization - the earth's temperature has gotten so high the oceans boil. Water evaporates, cools the atmosphere. Single cell organisms start to appear, then more complex life. Then, a few billion years go by and man reappears and the process starts all over again Worry not, it's a vicious cycle!

Policy makers should have tons of spaghetti dropped into the ocean so that when it will boil, future species will have pasta readily available... Now what do we do with oil and garlic?

 

[JustBob]

Now about Lindzen and Lomborg. Of course, I'm not telling anyone to take their word as gospel, but to call them names and dismiss their views offhand is just silly. If one wants to have a better understanding of global warming research and it's implications, then all points of view should be considered. Furthermore, and the more you read about this issue, the more it becomes clear, "skeptics" rarely resort to personally attacking other scientists directly. They tend to attack the science, not the individuals. "Alarmists" however, resort to this infantile name calling nonsense all the time. Geez, I wonder why...

Now about Lomborg specifically. He's a controversial figure and he has his detractors, both in and outside the scientific community. What pisses scientists off, is that Lomborg isn't a scientist (as in "how dare you non scientist criticize us scientists). Note that he never claimed to be one. He's a political scientist and an expert (and lecturer) on statistical analysis. And he's a shit disturber, just like a certain Mr Michael Moore. Scientists, just like politicians, tend to live in their own little private world, don't like to be disturbed, and especially don't like to have to answer tough questions. So, "alarmists" will quickly dismiss Lomborg as a loon, just like the American right will quickly dismiss Moore as a fat idiot. Now with Lomborg as with Moore, although their methods are often questionable, and despite whatever perceived flaws in said methods, larger truths often emerge, and more importantly they stir up debate which is seriously lacking.

So, Lomborg is hardly a con artist. And if you want to make up your own mind about him, here's a fairly accurate portrait:

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

Now here's something extremely important. Ziggy here, is the one who brought up the cost/benefit approach to environmental concerns because he thought it would broaden the discussion AND because: "Scientific debates between non-scientific belligerents on escort review boards are counter-productive, not to say risible." Hmmm, we're too dumb to understand the science... I'm sorry, isn't that a tad arrogant?... Regardless, the cost/benefit aspect is indeed a valid approach to tackle environmental issues. Now what Ziggy here seems to forget (or ignore), is that Bjorn Lomborg has been instrumental in developing the cost/benefit approach to environmental issues (based on the theory of welfare economics), and that without him, that approach certainly woudn't be as relevant and popular as it is today.

In November 2001, Lomborg was selected "Global Leader for Tomorrow" by the World Economic Forum. In June 2002, BusinessWeek named Lomborg one of the "50 Stars of Europe" (June 17), in the category of Agenda Setters. The magazine noted, "No matter what they think of his views, nobody denies that Bjorn Lomborg has shaken the environmental movement to its core."[13] Lomborg was selected as one of TIME magazine's 100 most influential people of 2004.

Controversial yes, but a con artist? hardly...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

JB,

In regards to Lindzen and Lomborg, the points were made, no need to repeat the same things over and over again. It’s not about convincing each other but to contribute relevant information. And to keep things in balance, done.

Stirring up debate is fine by me, that's what Maddison and several other critics of the Stern Review are doing. How these critics present their analysis -vs- how Lomborg works is what bothers me, plain and simple. Lomborg would gain credibility, IMO, if his method was better defined and if he was less inclined to make sensational statements. I have the exact same problem with Al Gore. Same with Michael Moore. On both sides of the U.S. political spectrum I also have problems accepting Al Franken and Ann Coulter's rants. All interesting, engaging, colored, spirited, fun, love-to-hate, whatever, people –yes. Reliable? Let's not kid ourselves. There’s a point when the complexity of issues exceeds fun figure’s competences.

Now here's something extremely important. Ziggy here, is the one who brought up the cost/benefit approach to environmental concerns because he thought it would broaden the discussion AND because: "Scientific debates between non-scientific belligerents on escort review boards are counter-productive, not to say risible." Hmmm, we're too dumb to understand the science... I'm sorry, isn't that a tad arrogant?...

Not at all because I never pretended to be more knowledgeable than others, let alone to be an expert. Understanding the science is one thing (how much of the science one understands anyway is another thing - does everyone understand all the complex maths behind every statement? please...), playing scientists capable, by ourselves, of validating scientific findings is downright presumptuous if we can’t backup this sort of appeal to authority.

My comment was a call for modesty. I know you need to save face but, sorry, that doesn’t work. Move on.

Forget policy makers. I suggest you add them to tomatoes and make me a kickass spaghetti and invite me over We could call it 'Alarmist Spaghetti Night' (not that the skeptics would be jealous... they'd probably complain our ooos and ahhhs weren't empirically grounded ).

t76

Sold!

 

[JustBob]

JB,

In regards to Lindzen and Lomborg, the points were made, no need to repeat the same things over and over again. It’s not about convincing each other but to contribute relevant information. And to keep things in balance, done.

Fine, so you have no problem with other people providing their assessment of individuals involved in global science research correct? You stated your opinion of Lomborg, I stated mine. So, this isn't "the points were made, no need to repeat the same things over and over again", unless you assume that only your own opinion matters.

Stirring up debate is fine by me, that's what Maddison and several other critics of the Stern Review are doing. How these critics present their analysis -vs- how Lomborg works is what bothers me, plain and simple. Lomborg would gain credibility, IMO, if his method was better defined and if he was less inclined to make sensational statements. I have the exact same problem with Al Gore. Same with Michael Moore. On both sides of the U.S. political spectrum I also have problems accepting Al Franken and Ann Coulter's rants. All interesting, engaging, colored, spirited, fun, love-to-hate, whatever, people –yes. Reliable? Let's not kid ourselves. There’s a point when the complexity of issues exceeds fun figure’s competences.

A fair point. However, so-called extremists who stir up discussion and attack the status quo surely have their place in public debate, as long as one understands the flaws in their methodology. If we leave all the debating to the "pure" scientists, then average joe would never be informed. That's exactly what someone like Lomborg does. And again, it was Lomborg who criticised environmentalists' refusal to accept a cost-benefit analysis of environmental questions, and stressed the need to prioritise some issues above others. Without him, you might not even be hearing about that approach today.

"No matter what they think of his views, nobody denies that Bjorn Lomborg has shaken the environmental movement to its core."

And, I don't know if that was your intent and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, but putting Gore in the same boat as Lomborg or Moore in the same boat as Coulter is like comparing the common cold to rabies. Gore has repeatedly refused to debate Lomborg on environmental issues.

Not at all because I never pretended to be more knowledgeable than others, let alone to be an expert. Understanding the science is one thing (how much of the science one understands anyway is another thing - does everyone understand all the complex maths behind every statement? please...), playing scientists capable, by ourselves, of validating scientific findings is downright presumptuous if we can’t backup this sort of appeal to authority.

Red herring. Just like I can't possibly know (and I admit that) that I have more scientific knowledge than other people here, you can't possibly know that nobody here is capable of evaluating scientific findings. (Not to mention that there is such a thing as peer review). Furthermore, you could apply the same logic to the cost/benefits approach and argue that unless one has a PhD in economics, they can't possibly comprehend or validate findings of the Stern report, let alone be capable of evaluating criticism of it.

So, we are left with... nothing whatsoever to debate.

 

[Mike Mercury]

I have a degree IN science... ...My point, is that As much as the media would have you believe it, there is no scientific concensus on the level of impact of humans on Global Warming.

I'll bite.
What degree? What field or major or department? What school?
But then again it doesn't matter. You're just a messenger...just a finger pointing at something.

So I'll go where you pointed....

There is a scientific concensus that anthropogenic green house gases are significant proportion of total green house gases.
There is absolutely no question that green house gases retain heat in the atmosphere.
Human beings have polluted land, water, air and even outer space; they've done it before, they do it now and they will do it in future.

This is not a scam.

 

[JustBob]

I'll bite.
What degree? What field or major or department? What school?
But then again it doesn't matter. You're just a messenger...just a finger pointing at something.

So I'll go where you pointed....

There is a scientific concensus that anthropogenic green house gases are significant proportion of total green house gases.
There is absolutely no question that green house gases retain heat in the atmosphere.
Human beings have polluted land, water, air and even outer space; they've done it before, they do it now and they will do it in future.

This is not a scam.

You will find your answers in my posts about "perspective".

As much as the media would have you believe it, there is no scientific concensus on the level of impact of humans on Global Warming.

The point stands, unless you somehow believe that all "skeptics" are lunatics
and that they are only a very tiny minority (another thing the media would have you believe).

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Not quite.........

Furthermore, you could apply the same logic to the cost/benefits approach and argue that unless one has a PhD in economics, they can't possibly comprehend or validate findings of the Stern report, let alone be capable of evaluating criticism of it.

So, we are left with... nothing whatsoever to debate.

Cost/benefit analysis refers to both formal and informal approaches to making decisions. People from different segments of population and fields of specialty are using the cost/benefit approach to make decisions, any kind of decisions, on a daily basis (is a heat pump cost-effective? etc..) .

Conversely, only a handful of individuals extract and study microorganisms from ice samples taken from Antarctic subglacial lakes. Impossible for many of us partaking this discussion, if not everyone, to validate methods, data, hypotheses, etc...)

The cost/benefit approach of global warming allows people with different backgrounds to participate and contribute. The approach can certainly be refined to points where specific expertises are required yet everyone can participate and contribute and, most importantly, validate.

Cost/benefit approach is even more so relevant if we hold that there’s no consensus over global warming. Hence, decisions to mitigate or not the risk associated with uncertainty can benefit from the cost/benefit approach.

p.s. other points you made are well taken. My response would only repeat what I stated previously.

 

[JustBob]

Ziggy, I understand perfectly. My last comment was in jest, sort of an attempt to lighten up the mood if you will. I don't think you and I are quite ready to call an SP and have a threesome yet, but at least we seem to be getting somewhere.

 

[JustBob]

Speaking of lightening up the mood, in addition to her previous announcement that she will stop washing her hair and take 2 minute showers Cate Blanchett now will drink her own (filtrated) pee:

http://thebosh.com/archives/2007/09...gs_sexy_back_for_w_magazine_october_issue.php

In advance of all that, however, Blanchett will have a few blessedly domestic weeks in Sydney, where Dash will start the new school year and she and Upton will work on renovating their house. Green before it was hip—she cites Al Gore and David de Rothschild as heroes and believes that leaf blowers “sum up everything that is wrong with the human race”—the couple are trying to make the ecological footprint of the home as small as possible, installing solar panels and even a filtration system that will allow them to drink their own wastewater.

Nothing wrong with going "green" of course but one can't help but wonder if that filtration system will use more energy in its manufacture, transportation and use than just drinking tapwater...

Celebrities... The madness I tell you...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Ziggy, I understand perfectly. My last comment was in jest, sort of an attempt to lighten up the mood if you will. I don't think you and I are quite ready to call an SP and have a threesome yet, but at least we seem to be getting somewhere.

Which brings up to the mother of all subjects: ladies, which are more sexy, alarmists or contrarians?

No problem, it's all fun...

 

[z/m(Ret)]

Speaking of lightening up the mood, in addition to her previous announcement that she will stop washing her hair and take 2 minute showers Cate Blanchett now will drink her own (filtrated) pee:

http://thebosh.com/archives/2007/09...gs_sexy_back_for_w_magazine_october_issue.php



Nothing wrong with going "green" of course but one can't help but wonder if that filtration system will use more energy in its manufacture, transportation and use than just drinking tapwater...

Celebrities... The madness I tell you...

Cate Blanchett, like Mery Streep, is incredibly attractive, I mean, the way some women have this aura... hum... what was the subject again?

 

[Mike Mercury]

The point stands, unless you somehow believe that all "skeptics" are lunatics
and that they are only a very tiny minority (another thing the media would have you believe).

Bob,
There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic or a heretic. You need that in society. You need that in science.
But.....its not enough to be a skeptic or heretic or a "lone voice of reason".

The person has to have arguments, observational and/or experimental evidence, he must account for cause, effect and mechanisms between them. Smugly pointing at paradoxes, contradictions and holes in data does not an expert make.
This is where your boys fail miserably. They are just not credible. They are not believable. They don't rate. They are non-entities propped up by certain power groups and equal time laws.

They are no more credible than the few Phds that are making money on the UFO circuit or intelligent design advocates trying to impose religious dogma on the credulous & innocent.


In the the case of climate change, pollution, energy policy, military spending, war mongering, transfats, tobacco etc. All you do is get a few people with some "credentials" and give them air time and a bit of money to muddy up the debate and subvert democracy.

 

[eastender]

Cause of Global Warming

Cate Blanchett, like Mery Streep, is incredibly attractive, I mean, the way some women have this aura... hum... what was the subject again?

ZM,

Now we have ZM's Aura Theory of Global Warming .................. major contributing factor of global warming is the aura emitted by sexy women.

 

[z/m(Ret)]

ZM,

Now we have ZM's Aura Theory of Global Warming .................. major contributing factor of global warming is the aura emitted by sexy women.

Then, please, PLEASE! let's do nothing, I mean not a damn thing, about global warming. Let the planet burn if we must!

 

[JustBob]

Now we have ZM's Aura Theory of Global Warming .................. major contributing factor of global warming is the aura emitted by sexy women.

Not mentionning all the heat produced during our encounters with SP's. Let's face it guys, "hobbying" is a major contributor to global warming.

 

[Ben Dover]

Indeed, the tons of "hot air" on this board is making matters worse... People need to "stay cool". I agree