Bjorn again

His argument is still bogus

Posted by Andrew Dessler (Guest Contributor) at 1:56 PM on 26 Jun 2008

Read more about: climate | climate change impacts | climate science | climate change skepticism

The Washington Post embarrasses itself today by publishing the usual delayer drivel in an op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg.

The fundamental problem with Lomborg's argument (which he also makes in his recent book Cool It!) is that it is based on the assumption that the worst-case, climate-change scenario cannot happen.

The IPCC's predictions for climate change over the next hundred years range from about 2°C to 5°C. If you assume that the warming will be closer to 2° than 5°, which Lomborg does, then it certainly does reduce the pressure to act immediately on climate change. No doubt about that.

However, there is no scientific basis for that assumption. Future warming certainly could be closer to 2°, but it could equally likely be close to 5°. We just don't know.

Why does he make this assumption? Because there is a conclusion he wants to reach: We should not be taking action on climate change. The only way you can reach that conclusion is by assuming that future climate change will be mild.

This argument is bogus. Don't believe it.

For story: Bjorn again
10 Comments | Post a Comment

I Assume You Drink Iced Tea

Studies have shown the Sahara has been 3 degrees hotter than it is now...and at that temperature it turns into a paradise.

3 degrees or even 5 would benefit almost all humanity.

I look forward to the naturogenic processes that warm the Earth continuing to work their magic!!

by jabailo at 5:48 PM on 26 Jun 2008

Not Mutually Exclusive

I keep seeing this argument - don't price carbon, invest in clean energy. For the life of me I can't understand why the two would be mutually exclusive. Shouldn't these people be advocating for a more sensible use of revenue from carbon pricing programs - which could easily yield the tens of billions a year they want for R&D with plenty left over for consumer assistance. This either/or thing does the debate a real disservice, because it just gives more political cover to the conservatives who want to do nothing.

by Max8806 at 6:05 PM on 26 Jun 2008

Tax and Invest

I'm not sure where Lomberg is trying to go on this one. Max is close on this one. The most effective path would be to discourage carbon burning with a carbon tax and coupling that with limited investment. I say limited because this investment would have to be channeled through governments that have been historically very inefficient and ineffective at R&D work. The majority of proceeds from a carbon tax should directly offset exising taxes to allow the public to vote with their dollars on energy saving methods.

by KenG at 6:35 PM on 26 Jun 2008

"fundamental problem"

Part of that problem is that he exploits the minimal welfare of the countless disadvantaged in the undeveloped world, as part of his cold global economic calculus, to gain leverage through emotional moral blackmail.

It might also be pointed out that he says nothing about the Biodiversity Crisis.

(And in that regard, Grist/Gristmill see eye-to-eye with him.)

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 6:18 AM on 27 Jun 2008

A very old tactic

Lomborg did not invent the tactic. It goes back to the 1980s and was first practiced by Yohe and Nordhaus for Wm. Nierenberg.

OTOH, I do have a question. One of the latest hoohas is that relative humidity is staying constant in the troposphere (I think this started with Anthony Watt). You published in this area a while ago (there was a deficit). What gives. If you want to stick an oar in one of the hotspots is dotearth.

by EliRabett at 8:51 PM on 27 Jun 2008

relative humidity

I'm still working on relative humidity. I'm not aware of any arguments going on the fruit-loop-o-sphere on RH ... can you give me a link?

thanks!

by Andrew Dessler at 9:27 PM on 27 Jun 2008

All wet

It started here, which turned out to be a giant never mind because what Watts thought was up to the 300 mb level was at the 300 mb level, but of course it continued in detail at the second link

This figure appears to be all over the place now from this link (your work gets a friendly mention, and I think Tony's friends at Climate Audit are on the case. Anyhow it is metastsizing.

by EliRabett at 4:35 AM on 28 Jun 2008
[ Parent ]

relative humidity, v2

thanks for the link. that stuff is amazingly bogus. it's amazing that the same people who don't believe climate models fully trust the ncep reanalysis, which is --- wait for it --- a climate model (although one in which data is periodically inserted). and the quality of the water data from the 1950s is highly suspect. I guess this really shows that most skeptics have a conclusion they want to reach, and, like Lomborg, they cheerfully accept anything that fits the conclusion, and reject anything else.

by Andrew Dessler at 11:48 AM on 28 Jun 2008

GW = Good = Very Bad

Anyone that believes GW is a good thing on this planet doesn't understand the delicate balance our ecosystems exist within. The difference between freezing and thawing is only 1 degree. If you mess with the temperature too much in the arctic you get ice melting. When all the ice on land melts that will cause sea levels to rise. Not to mention that the 2 - 5 degrees is a global average. Temperature increases in different regions could be much more than 5 degrees.

With so much data and consensus regarding the validity of GW and human induced changes, I seriously can't understand the logic of Climate Change deniers... that is until I realize they don't operate on logic.

by Angelsnecropolis at 2:50 PM on 28 Jun 2008

Lom borg Not Credible

Bjorn Lomborg is a statistician. He has no special knowledge of climate, geology, or biology. So any publication, such as the Washington Post, that publishes his comments shows that the publication is not credible. Of course, if you think that the corporate press is credible, you've already been successfully brainwashed.

by Wolverine at 11:04 AM on 30 Jun 2008

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.