tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post2648053974460846755..comments2008-03-12T19:00:32.847-07:00Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-53835896236122742252008-03-12T19:00:00.000-07:002008-03-12T19:00:00.000-07:00Bjorn Lomborg’s book, Cool It, outlines the platform of the “skeptical environmentalist.” Evolving from their previous argument denying the existence of global warming, the new age skeptics admit the occurrence of climate change and accept human impact as a cause, with Lomborg as their leader. Lomborg formulates our knowledge climate change in a cost-benefit model to deligitimize our emphasis on immediate drastic solutions. He proposes that in order to truly better all mankind, we should apply our resources to the solvable problems at hand, not the hypothetical threats of climate change in the future. <BR/><BR/> While Lomborg’s arguments are clear and seemingly accurate, his outlook on climate change feels limited. In determining cost-benefit predictions, Lomborg’s statistics are constraining. Building formulas by our current cost predictions, Lomborg runs cost models for the entire 21st century. However, these predictions cannot account for the vast run-away scenarios that currently are in question. For example, possible oceanic current shifts or shutdowns that would change our climate instantly and dramatically. Already in the 21st century, researchers underestimated the rate of sea-ice melt in the current decade. Lomborg’s future scenarios don’t account for the massive spectrum of potential earth feedback responses.<BR/><BR/> Along with a tunnel-vision approach towards the future of climate change, I get the feeling that Lomborg is playing the statistics in his favor. For example, in discussing a possible carbon tax, Lomborg quotes the cost of one ton of CO2 to be between two and fourteen dollars. Next, he cites “one radical report” proposing $85 per ton of carbon, and compares the costs of this proposal to the minimal two-dollar quota. By taking the extremes of these cost estimates - the two-dollar minimal projection and the radical $85 proposal - Lomborg comes up with a $38 trillion dollar cost difference. While dramatic predictions like $38 trillion dollars are certainly shocking, I question his use of statistics in this manner throughout Cool It. <BR/><BR/> Finally, Lomborg’s intentions are questionable. Acknowledging that efforts for climate change prevention are for the betterment of mankind, Lomborg sees reducing CO2 as a waste of valuable resources for this cause. However, in thinking about the current allocation of resources by the world’s superpowers, environmental legislation is far down on resource allocation priorities. Why doesn’t Lomborg propose taking money away from military spending or United States’ pork-barrel politics? Lomborg’s attacks on climate change prevention are aimed at the wrong target.<BR/><BR/> In all, Cool It is a fresh perspective in the climate change debate. While there are undoubtedly several holes in Lomborg’s arguments, his book brings up a good point: the need to settle our international humanitary priorities beyond climate change. Beyond this, Lomborg’s pile of cost-benefit assesments on climate change prevention seems too shaky when the laundry list of lurking variables is brought to the table. If even one of the several possible “run-away” effects occurs in the next century, this pile will topple like a lost game of Jenga.Dan Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-30766266240734044652008-03-12T18:59:00.000-07:002008-03-12T18:59:00.000-07:00Bjorn Lomborg’s book, Cool It, outlines the platform of the “skeptical environmentalist.” Evolving from their previous argument denying the existence of global warming, the new age skeptics admit the occurrence of climate change and accept human impact as a cause, with Lomborg as their leader. Lomborg formulates our knowledge climate change in a cost-benefit model to deligitimize our emphasis on immediate drastic solutions. He proposes that in order to truly better all mankind, we should apply our resources to the solvable problems at hand, not the hypothetical threats of climate change in the future. <BR/> While Lomborg’s arguments are clear and seemingly accurate, his outlook on climate change feels limited. In determining cost-benefit predictions, Lomborg’s statistics are constraining. Building formulas by our current cost predictions, Lomborg runs cost models for the entire 21st century. However, these predictions cannot account for the vast run-away scenarios that currently are in question. For example, possible oceanic current shifts or shutdowns that would change our climate instantly and dramatically. Already in the 21st century, researchers underestimated the rate of sea-ice melt in the current decade. Lomborg’s future scenarios don’t account for the massive spectrum of potential earth feedback responses.<BR/> Along with a tunnel-vision approach towards the future of climate change, I get the feeling that Lomborg is playing the statistics in his favor. For example, in discussing a possible carbon tax, Lomborg quotes the cost of one ton of CO2 to be between two and fourteen dollars. Next, he cites “one radical report” proposing $85 per ton of carbon, and compares the costs of this proposal to the minimal two-dollar quota. By taking the extremes of these cost estimates - the two-dollar minimal projection and the radical $85 proposal - Lomborg comes up with a $38 trillion dollar cost difference. While dramatic predictions like $38 trillion dollars are certainly shocking, I question his use of statistics in this manner throughout Cool It. <BR/> Finally, Lomborg’s intentions are questionable. Acknowledging that efforts for climate change prevention are for the betterment of mankind, Lomborg sees reducing CO2 as a waste of valuable resources for this cause. However, in thinking about the current allocation of resources by the world’s superpowers, environmental legislation is far down on resource allocation priorities. Why doesn’t Lomborg propose taking money away from military spending or United States’ pork-barrel politics? Lomborg’s attacks on climate change prevention are aimed at the wrong target.<BR/> In all, Cool It is a fresh perspective in the climate change debate. While there are undoubtedly several holes in Lomborg’s arguments, his book brings up a good point: the need to settle our international humanitary priorities beyond climate change. Beyond this, Lomborg’s pile of cost-benefit assesments on climate change prevention seems too shaky when the laundry list of lurking variables is brought to the table. If even one of the several possible “run-away” effects occurs in the next century, this pile will topple like a lost game of Jenga.Dan Jnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-58416660182345841502008-03-04T05:05:00.000-08:002008-03-04T05:05:00.000-08:00What you forget is that science is not a consensus based thing, that is the preserve of politicians. Dogmatists on either side can cherry-pick data (as Mann did with his flawed hockey stick graph). Common sense and science dictate a simple double blind analysis of the data to eliminate bias. If is CO2 then prove it and deal with it. If it is sun activity (and remember the non water based ice is melting on other planets) then why wastse time on CO2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-15095903529719801202008-03-04T05:04:00.000-08:002008-03-04T05:04:00.000-08:00What you forget is that science is not a consensus based thing, that is the preserve of politicians. Dogmatists on either side can cherry-pick data (as Mann did with his flawed hockey stick graph). Common sense and science dictate a simple double blind analysis of the data to eliminate bias. If is CO2 then prove it and deal with it. If it is sun activity (and remember the non water based ice is melting on other planets) then why wastse time on CO2.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-53503606097273426992007-10-24T00:42:00.000-07:002007-10-24T00:42:00.000-07:00If every type of scientist in existence supported a study stating that we should shoot as much smog as possible into the ozone, who would support it? Probably no one because this sort of cause has little emotional utility. (Those who did support it would simply use the study as a justification for their already-ignored contribution to pollution.)<BR/><BR/>Many people in support of global warming have already been environmentalists for a number of years. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that for most people to vigorously support a position on an issue it takes 1) an issue that is widely hailed as a humanitarian and 2) any degree of scientific consensus about the issue itself. It has nothing to do with truth. <BR/><BR/>This is why the world needs Mr. Lomborgs.<BR/><BR/>LukeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-61162113036572203192007-10-21T11:29:00.000-07:002007-10-21T11:29:00.000-07:00Jesse Jenkins over-reacts. His beleif system is challenged.<BR/><BR/>I just read the book and he does does address the 'fix everything' claim based on an examination of resources and priorities. Following Kyoto precludes the other more rational alternatives because it is ver expensive. <BR/><BR/>I would like to hear the climate lobby address some of Dr Lomborgs points - such as the unfounded hysteria over polar bears - and sea level rises.<BR/><BR/>'Tipping points' are only an hypothesis - and a very convenient one at that.<BR/><BR/>cliveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-79192694904697673772007-09-24T04:11:00.000-07:002007-09-24T04:11:00.000-07:00Reply to Jesse Jenkins<BR/><BR/>Hi Jesse,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for mail.<BR/>Believe the problem here is that you are a firm believer in disastrous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) as the greatest threat to the future of mankind on this planet while I am not. Your review showed clearly that you are, as you have said, biased in this regard. I am not, since I am open to any new rational discussion of this subject. <BR/><BR/>Categorically, I reject hysterical calls for action based on fear mongering, since they make me suspicious of the hidden agendas that may hide behind them. I also believe that the current DAGW “doomsday prediction” will go the way of the many others that have preceded it and vanish into thin air, to be replaced by a new paradigm.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I have gone through the IPCC 2007 “Summary for Policy Makers” in some detail. I do not believe everything that is stated in this report, since a check of available studies, which have been ignored or overlooked by IPCC, reveals several claims that are either exaggerated or false. <BR/><BR/>We could go on at nauseum discussing all the details, but believe this would be non-value added, since neither of us is likely to convince the other.<BR/><BR/>Fear is a very strong emotion that leaves little room for rational skepticism.<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/><BR/>MaxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-61180139973097780502007-09-20T11:34:00.000-07:002007-09-20T11:34:00.000-07:00Another <A HREF="http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/9/17/21135/7701" REL="nofollow">good review</A> of Lomborg's <I>Cool It</I>.Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-59310760061503843842007-09-19T16:29:00.000-07:002007-09-19T16:29:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed because it linked to malicious content. <a href='http://www.blogger.com/content.g'>Learn more</a>.Jesse Jenkinshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00297127385884430247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15306282.post-36771701121479520262007-09-14T07:16:00.000-07:002007-09-14T07:16:00.000-07:00Just read two reviews of Bjorn Lomborg’s new book, “Cool It”. <BR/><BR/>What caught my eye was the different reactions to the book.<BR/><BR/>WSJ reviewer, Kimberley Strassel, gave an objective review without resorting to polemic, calling Lomborg’s analysis “smart and refreshing”. Strassel’s review neither attacked those who are believers in imminent “disastrous anthropogenic global warming” nor did it support those who deny that significant global warming is even occuring, or is caused by man. It just mentioned that both camps exist and that Lomborg stands in the “practical middle”.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, Jesse Jenkins’ post was condiderably less level-headed. Citing an earlier review of Lomborg’s previous book as a “sordid mess”, it went on to trash the latest book as a “particularly slanted view of the world”, which “rests on ‘facts’ that are selectively picked to support his arguments as he ignores a vast body of science”.<BR/><BR/>Wow! Sounds like polemic rather than a book review.<BR/><BR/>Jenkins then goes on to quote a review by climate activist, Eban Goodstein, the founder of “Focus the Nation”, whose stated goal is to strengthen worldwide support for a “clean energy revolution that can avert future potential catastrophic effects of climate change” (Wikipedia).<BR/><BR/>No one expects an outspoken global warming alarmist like Goodstein to objectively review a book that questions the more hysterical disaster predictions and calls for immediate action that he espouses.<BR/><BR/>Jenkins, who is also involved with “Focus the Nation”, then cites James E. Hansen’s (far from scientifically proven) “tipping point” hypothesis as a “fundamental and critical characteristic of climate systems”. By not calling for immediate action now, Jenkins says Lomborg advocates playing “Russian roulette with our lives and the fate of all future inhabitants of the planet”.<BR/><BR/>His advice: “Don’t pick up Lomborg’s book unless you’re looking for more misleading, heel-dragging hot air.”<BR/><BR/>Seems to me it’s Jenkins that is spouting the “hot air” and having a hard time staying objective in the process.<BR/><BR/>But then I guess he is in what Strassel calls the “believer” camp, that’s driven by the fear that “humanity faces no greater threat than a warming Earth”, which makes it pretty hard for him to stay objective if someone questions his paradigm (or belief).<BR/><BR/>MaxAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com