August 31, 2010

"Did Lomborg genuinely have a change of heart?"

"Or is he just trying to figure out a new way to sell books? After all, now that the prospects for a global effort to tackle climate change look dim, the green position is ripe ground for self-styled contrarians."

104 comments:

AlphaLiberal said...

Well, he's not the only one who has come around. I posted another here a couple weeks ago.

It's actually a bad bad situation and we're making it worse by not taking action.

Human beings are a force of nature. All 6 billion of us. We've changed the face of the planet, landscapes on every continent. Why people think none of this can affect our thin sliver of an atmosphere is a mystery.

It's reckless and irresponsible to play politics with this issue. The evidence is too much to deny:

- Record temperatures
- Floods across the world, not just Pakistan or Nashville.
- Massive ice breakup in Greenland.
- Polar ice caps melting.
- NW Passage - melting or melted.
- Permafrost thawing.

On and on it goes.

AlphaLiberal said...

Here is the other climate skeptic who changed his tune in the face of overwhelming evidence, Michael Hanlon. The link includes stunning photos from a trip he took to Greenland, showing very unusual thawing.

The debate has gotten ludicrous. It's like people sitting in a car on train tracks and people who happen to be liberal say, "I think a train is coming."

And all the conservatives reflexively start mocking the liberals, take the keys and play keep away and lock the doors while the car remains on the tracks.

Global warming is real, it's happening and humans are driving it.

As far as Mr Lomborg, I suspect he sees the mounting evidence, the paralysis as the carbon polluter lobby digs in, and knows the time for contrarian games is long passed.

Fen said...

The Sun.

It's reckless and irresponsible to play politics with this issue

Well, I guess its good you've come around and finally seen the error of your ways.

But I find it hard to believe you now genuinely care about the future of this planet. You wont even stomp your feet over the looming global catastrophe of record debt.

(Alpha, if you REALLY care about the planet, stop championing AGW. Your lack of credibility and partisan sniping will not help it)

Regardless, I'll never believe in AGW. The hucksters pushing it have poisoned the well with their lies and fabricated data.

chuck said...

I don't believe Lomborg was ever a climate skeptic, his position was that the problem was over-hyped and that the proposed solutions were impractical and wouldn't achieve the desired end. That small unorthodoxy was what got him labeled a skeptic.

Richard Dolan said...

Lomborg is an economist and his critique was always driven by cost/benefit economics. There has never been any bang for the buck in the proposed solutions to counteract the contribution of human activity to 'climate change,' a point made by many other economists who have also weighed in on this (e.g., Wm Nordhaus, A Question of Balance).

Lomborg's point (as set forth in his book Cool It and elsewhere) is summarized on his website: "Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent."

Nordhaus and others have argued that some modest investment in controlling greenhouse gas emissions is warranted, with a strong emphasis on 'modest.' Lomborg has always made the same argument. It's hard to say whether Lomborg's latest effort will repeat that argument (and a hundred billion dollars annually might qualify as 'modest' if it is a world-wide figure and includes all expenditures on research, etc.). But if Lomborg doesn't offer some cogent explanation about why an annual investment of that size makes sense using his own cost/benefit analysis, it will probably be time to look for some self-interested explanation for the change in tune.

traditionalguy said...

Alpha...Garbage in, garbage out. The natural variations in climate are not caused by a tiny amount of CO2 molecules released into the vast atmosphere. As any fool can see, the warming and the cooling is caused by cloudy days or clear days. The planet happens to be cooling off fast now which does cause more rain and more snow as cooling air mixes with the warm air. The degree of cloudyness seems to be a direct function of a sudden new minimum in solar flares. But by all means let's sacrifice the lives of billions of poor people while enriching the wealthy myth brokers with stolen cash...that should certainly control the sun.

Fen said...

The debate has gotten ludicrous. It's like people sitting in a car on train tracks and people who happen to be liberal say, "I think a train is coming."

More like: at every stop, the liberal standing in the aisle says: "I think a train wreck is coming. Let me take your seat"

Global warming is real, it's happening and humans are driving it.

1) yes, global warming is real, its been real since the Ice Age.

2) no, humans are not driving it.

Now go chase a unicorn or something.

Bob_R said...

Except Lomborg (like many of the serious critics of the current climate science cabal) never denied that we are in a warming period and never denied that the current computer models were a legitimate effort to understand the climate. He is not reported to be signed on to the doomed tens of trillions of dollars command and control effort to solve a problem that we don't really understand. From this report he advocates a multibillion dollar effort over the course of nine decades to try to better understand the climate. This is very different than what is being advocated by the ignorant and self interested.

Fred4Pres said...

Chuck and Dolan have it right about Lomborg. Let's see what he has to say. A hundred billion is not a lot of money for a world wide effort if it is actually fixing the problem (assuming there is a problem).

AlphaLiberal said...

I just ask people to visit the link I provided from the other skeptic who came around.

Keep an open mind, please. It's very important.

Fen said...

Alpha: just ask people to visit the link I provided from the other skeptic who came around.

No.

I've been to your links before. They were all propaganda crap. I would rather waste my time typing this out than invest any of it in your lack of credibility.

No one trusts you Alpha. And its your own damn fault.

You know what you can do with your links.

SBVOR said...

AlphaLiberal (8/31/10 10:21 AM)

Two rebuttals:

1) Click here and watch George Carlin take on your unmitigated hubris. (Language alert.)

2) Click here and educate yourself on climate change science.

shoutingthomas said...

Now that OmegaLiberal has stated his viewpoint, there can be no doubt: global warming is nonsense.

Haven't really studied the science, but if this hysterical, hyperventilating idiot is a devotee of global warming, that just about proves it's nonsense.

AllenS said...

Alpha,

Please discontinue your electrical usage. Do it for the children. And please, don't breed.

ndspinelli said...

The most reasoned analysis of this topic I've ever seen was from the late, Michael Crichton. There are video archives well worth watching. Crichton was villified for his quite reasonable view. The Hollywood crowd felt betrayed by him..and he didn't care.

Maguro said...

Lomborg has never questioned that AGW is happening and man is responsible. His deviation from the orthodoxy has always been suggesting that maybe we should spend money attempting to mitigate AGW's effects rather than reverse the warming trend itself.

So we can't know whether he's had a change of heart without seeing the specifics of his $100B recommendations. If they're for effect mitigation rather than pure carbon reduction, he hasn't really changed his position at all.

SBVOR said...

AlphaLiberal (8/31/10 10:28 AM ),

Some moronic so-called “journalist” professes his faith in the religious cult of catastrophic man made global warming and you find that to be a significant event?

Are you freaking kidding me?

Click here and educate yourself on climate change science.

Fen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fen said...

So this "skeptic turns about 180" is just another lie to prop up the AGW hoax after their CRU disaster.

Al Gore must need another yacht.

roesch-voltaire said...

Maybe modified might be a better term for the man who accepted that global warming existed, in part caused by man, but nothing to get up-tight about and therefore he went on the attack. Now he has faced a crucial turning point in his argument, as have others, and sees a need to spend some funds to reduce, or mitigate the warming trend. For a balanced discussion of this, I suggest Andrew Revkin's blog on the topic.

Fen said...

No. Its dead Jim.

And I really cant believe people are still pushing this crap.

Hint: The SUN

SBVOR said...

AlphaLiberal (8/31/10 10:28 AM ),

Click here and directly address your expressed hysteria over Greenland melting.

shoutingthomas said...

How many phony end-of-the-world environmental scenarios have the liberal/environmentalists hatched in the past 50 years?

There seems to be a real emotional need for these end-of-the-world hysterias. Sort of religion by proxy. The awful sinners get punished by extinction.

Paul Ehrlich's population hysteria is probably the most famous one. Is there a web site that summarizes all the different ways we are headed for extinction?

Smilin' Jack said...

I believe in AGW and I'm fine with it. I like summer.

And you greenies aren't going to stop it, either. If you don't burn a gallon of gas, that doesn't mean it doesn't get burnt. You've just made it a tiny bit cheaper for me and about 7 billion Chinese to burn it instead. We thank you.

traditionalguy said...

The disaster of all disasters is said to be needed to remove these extra new humans from the once pure earth. It is is simply a justification for mass murder of non-people. That's right...the Nazis are back and looking for their new Fuhrer.

chuckR said...

It will be interesting to hear his suggestions. At order billions of dollars vs order trillions of dollars, I'm guessing that Al and the carbon traders won't be getting as rich. And that the ideas are more modest and more realistic.

Here's a few ways to cut our mobile CO2 footprint that are in the works:

- OPOC engine - funded by Vinod Khosla, this diesel (initially) engine is projected at 15% improvement in mileage

- supercritical fuel injection - tune the liquid gas to supercriticality, then inject it and the burn happens much quicker and away from the piston walls - better thermomechanical efficiency - projected at 30%. Also funded by Khosla

- and absolutely low hanging fruit, 15% for city traffic from just auto shutoff/startup when the car isn't moving.

The first two are still speculative but with serious auto insiders involved; the last is a slam dunk. At a world wide market of say 50 million cars PA, fixes like these may be in the tens of billions range - recoverable in a reasonable time period.

But these are probably not looked upon as favorably by the central command and control types - too much messy contention in the marketplace.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Follow the Benjamins. Always.

Hoosier Daddy said...

It's reckless and irresponsible to play politics with this issue. The evidence is too much to deny:

- Record temperatures
- Floods across the world, not just Pakistan or Nashville.
- Massive ice breakup in Greenland.
- Polar ice caps melting.
- NW Passage - melting or melted.
- Permafrost thawing.


-fire and brimstone falling from the heavens
-rivers and seas boiling
-the dead rising from the grave
-human sacrifice
-dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!

/fixed

Hoosier Daddy said...

You want to drastically reduce fossil fuel use? Fine. Nuclear power. That's the ticket because there isn't enough wind power to run Chicago, NY or LA just to name a few. I have yet to see a serious discussion of reducing fossil fuel use that doesn't reduce our living standards to 1890.

The French use nukes for about 75% of their energy. The liberals tell me Iran is only developing it for peaceful energy use so don't get irate over it. But use it here in the USA? Horrors! Horrors! Didn't you see 3 mile island?

I'll start beleiving in AGW when Al Gore starts living up to the hot air he spews.

shoutingthomas said...

When the great global warming starts frying the sinners, will it only incinerate the bigots, or will our tolerant saints be spared?

damikesc said...

So, record snowfall this winter and a hot summer BOTH prove this inane theory?

At what point does it get accurately labelled as faith?

Scott M said...

Keep an open mind, please. It's very important.

Oh, I do. I force myself to on every issue I come into contact to (except Hillary Clinton).

But the above, coming from, borders on comedy. Weren't you just saying a couple of days ago that you were not going to engage in rational debate with us? Why should anyone here grant you anything?

Scott M said...

Lomborg has never questioned that AGW is happening and man is responsible. His deviation from the orthodoxy has always been suggesting that maybe we should spend money attempting to mitigate AGW's effects rather than reverse the warming trend itself.

Lomborg also, via an NPR interview, said that climate change has been positioned as all bad by the left. One of his main points is, for instance, the drop in cold/freezing-related deaths as well as the boon to plants and crops.

Revenant said...

I can only assume the people who are shocked that Lomborg has "changed" his position have never actually *read* The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg is not, contrary to the left's talking points, a "climate change skeptic". Lomborg stated quite clearly, in his book, that he believed (a) global warming is real, (b) it is caused by human activity, and (c) steps should be taken to mitigate it. Some climate change skeptic!

His skepticism was aimed not at global warming, but at the attempt to confront it by forcibly limiting carbon production. He was right, too -- the Kyoto treaty and punitive carbon taxes were idiotic ideas.

The solutions he's currently proposing are much more sensible and have some chance of actually *working* -- (a) investing in nuclear power, solar, and wind and (b) investing in environmental engineering research to find ways to cool the planet back down again (cloud whitening, etc).

There has been no real change in his position. He was, and is, in favor of environmental policies that make sense. He got crucified because the modern environmental movement is about religious orthodoxy, not about policies that provide net benefit to humanity.

Alex said...

I notice how on AGW and any other host of issues, the left always tries to immediately assume the moral high ground, with almost a professorial condescending tone. As if we're all just a bunch of freshmen students who need to be put in line.

AlphaLiberal said...

Bjorn Lomborg:
"we have long moved on from any mainstream disagreements about the science of climate change."

Then there's Althouse.

damikesec:

"So, record snowfall this winter and a hot summer BOTH prove this inane theory?"

Yes.

Record snowfall: Warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, which descends through more intense precipitation events such as the flooding in Pakistan, Iowa, Nashvile, etc, etc as well as snowfall. That's why we get more snowfall in warmer years.

Hot summer: I have to explain this to you? Really?

So, how many of you also reject the idea that there is a greenhouse effect. It's pretty funny that the loudest global warming opponents don't even know that that is!

You're a loud and caustic minority.

AlphaLiberal said...

More on last winter's record snowstorms:

. There is some evidence that climate change could in fact make such massive snowstorms more common, even as the world continues to warm. As the meteorologist Jeff Masters points out in his excellent blog at Weather Underground, the two major storms that hit Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, D.C., this winter — in December and during the first weekend of February — are already among the 10 heaviest snowfalls those cities have ever recorded. The chance of that happening in the same winter is incredibly unlikely.

The 2009 U.S. Climate Impacts Report found that large-scale cold-weather storm systems have gradually tracked to the north in the U.S. over the past 50 years. While the frequency of storms in the middle latitudes has decreased as the climate has warmed, the intensity of those storms has increased. That's in part because of global warming — hotter air can hold more moisture, so when a storm gathers it can unleash massive amounts of snow. Colder air, by contrast, is drier; if we were in a truly vicious cold snap, like the one that occurred over much of the East Coast during parts of January, we would be unlikely to see heavy snowfall.

Much as I dislike TIME magazine:
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1962294,00.html#ixzz0yD2N1h86

Alex said...

Notice how AL calls us a "caustic minority". We should just STFU and get in line with the AGWists.

Alex said...

Alpha Liberal supports tyranny of the majority except when he doesn't!

jayne_cobb said...

"-dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA!"


Thank you Hoosier you just made my day.

Pogo said...

AL is sooo 2008.

jayne_cobb said...

That said it is paramount that we don't allow dickless there near the power grid.

SBVOR said...

The peer reviewed science directly cited in this post documents that if the entire human race died out tomorrow, about 0.4C of direct warming from man made CO2 might be prevented over the next 100 years.

The alarmists conjure larger figures by inventing pure fantasy about the water vapor response to CO2.

How much less than 0.4C of warming would be prevented through the $10 TRILLION in utterly wasteful spending proposed by Lomborg? It’s ABSURD!

We know Kyoto was a complete waste of money. Do they really think we’re stupid enough to tolerate Kyoto on steroids?

Follow the money!

Click here for more basic climate change science.

Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Borepatch said...

AlphaLiberal, let me offer a layman's guide to the global warming debate.

On one side, you have some people who say that the globe is warming. They claim that the warming is sudden, dramatic, and unprecedented. They claim that we face disaster if we do not act immediately. They claim to have computer models and data that show this conclusively.

On the other side, we have some people who say that the warming is not sudden or unprecedented, and that the computer models and data are not as claimed, do not say what is claimed, or have been manipulated.

It should be trivial to resolve this. If the first group would simply release their computer source code and the data, it would just end the discussion. I mean, it would just be over - everyone would be able to see the crisis for themselves.

Instead, we see a wide spread pattern of persistent refusal to release the code and data. Michael Mann (of "Hockey Stick" fame) is perhaps the highest profile, but the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit spent years fighting Freedom of Information Act requests before essentially saying that they lost the data. The CRU's Prof. Jones wouldn't even identify which weather stations in China he used in his study. Warwick Hughes infamously replied to a request for his data by saying "Why should I give it to you, because you're just going to try to find something wrong with it?"

It may be that the details of the science are beyond the interest of Joe Everyman (although there are a lot of bright laymen who can understand the debate pretty well). However, what is clear to ANYONE who looks is that the "establishment" science is hiding something, and the "skeptics" are teh ones demanding openness.

Quite frankly, that's all anyone needs to know to figure out just how strong "Establishment Science" thinks their case is. No matter how many whitewash investigations they do, this won't go away without transparency.

shoutingthomas said...

Is there anything OmegaLiberal can't do?

He's going to save us from sin! You steenking bigots better watch out!

He's going to save us from the end of the world! You steenking polluters!

Can you walk on water, oh great OmegaLiberal?

Save us! oh great OmegaLiberal. Save us from our Original Sin of bigotry! Save us from our fall from the Garden of Eden!

We know that we have sinned! OmegaLiberal, forgive us our sins!

It's a good thing OmegaLiberal isn't some kind of religious zealot, or he'd be... well... doing just about the same thing.

jr565 said...

Alan S wrote:

Please discontinue your electrical usage. Do it for the children. And please, don't breed.


That would be simple enough. If you are a believer in population growth being the cause of our woes don't breed. Tie your tubes. If you think our energy usage is the cause of our woes seriously cut down on energy usage.
And for hollywood types, stop living in mansions and flying private jets. And make fewer movies.
and for non hoi poloi how about only use electricity for critical things. And note, alpha, posting on blogs is not critical. X Box usage is not critical. I've seen tv shows about people who can live fully off the grid and they do stuff like bicycling to work, no tv, hand washing laundry, using candles. Point is, Alpha should be leading the way. The way we could tell is if he stopped posting so much.
You can do it Alpha. Do it for Johnny. Do it for the polar bears!

jr565 said...

Global warming will have it's benefits, by the way. There appears to be an epidemic of people who are low in vitamin D ,and such deficiencies cause various diseases. Having more sunlight means quicker absorption of vitamin D.
Other solutions that will not cost us trillions and require us to totally change our way of life and wreck our economy (which is the greens proposal) - heavier duty sun screen. Less time outdoors. More air conditioning. If the waters are going to rise 20 feet in 100 years (total hogwash by the way), have any country that is situated by oceans construct levees that are 30 feet above sea level. If there are areas below sea level the people lving there have 100 years to find places above sea level.
Here are a few more suggestions. No more books about the environment. Books use paper which requires trees to be destroyed. Put it all on the web. No more UN get togethers to discuss climate change. iChat would work fine. No more earth days which requires a lot of power to allow second rate singers who bring all their equipment and huge entourgages on multiple tour buses which travel around the country. And did you ever see the area where the celebrations take place the day after earth day? Total messes. So, no more of them. No more movies, by anyone who believes global warming is a threat. It requires promotion and production and distribution that dwarfs most industries. Especially now that hollywood has no original ideas anyway. If it's a sequel, does the world need it? So then don't make it. Does DiCaprio need to be in 3 movies a year? How about he go into hybernation like J.D. Salinger or Marlon Brando and only make movies when they are true artistic achievements and not The Island.
And shut up about Nuclear power. No more NIMBY or BANANA excuses.

Luke Lea said...

Well said, Richard Dolan.

traditionalguy said...

Alpha...Honestly there is no greenhouse effect from CO2. That is well known science everywhere except over at the UN, the EPA and in Al Gore's movie. The water vapor that leads to more or lesser cloud formation acts as a simple shield against the sun's radiation energy hitting the earth. This causes the the oceans warming or cooling and the atmosphere's warming or cooling flow of air over the warmer inland pockets over terra firma. Check out how cold it was during the past 3 month's in the southern Hemisphere?

Robin said...

AlphaLiberal, why should I have an "open mind" when you don't show one?

The reality is that I've been following the science of this issue in great detail for more than a decade. It does not hold up.

MadisonMan said...

BANANA

??

SBVOR said...

MadisonMan,

BANANA:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY#BANANA

Skyler said...

So Lomborg is an economist and we're supposed to take his opinion seriously? After the so-called scientists have already ruined their credibility, why should we take the word of an economist?

I will continue to only believe myself and common sense that we can't measure a global average annual temperature with an accuracy within a tenth of a degree, nor can we know historical "average global annual" temperatures to that accuracy either. It's all hogwash. Once you recognize this point, no other claims matters.

bagoh20 said...

Nothing the nations of the world agree to do to reduce emissions will be half as effective as the current recession. Of course the proposed measures are in fact designed to put a permanent recession into international treaty form. I'm sure no heavily-populated, industry-expanding nations out there would dare ignore such a thing.

To further extend Alpha's analogy: It's like half the world's population refuses to drive cars out of fear that a train may hit them, while the rest drive past them shooting the moon on their way to the jobs the warmers can't get to.

Joe said...

I agree with Skyler except to add that global average temperature is completely meaningless. To whit: temperature of what, exactly?

Joe said...

how many of you also reject the idea that there is a greenhouse effect

I do since greenhouses don't work the way the global warming proponents claim and neither does the earth's atmosphere.

SBVOR said...

how many of you also reject the idea that there is a greenhouse effect

The question reveals the fundamental(ist) ignorance of the inquisitor.

Click here and see why.

Click here for a second science based perspective on the (extremely limited) warming properties of CO2.

Click here for more basic climate change science.

Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Brian O'Connell said...

What made Lomborg a bad man- to lefties- such that he could be compared with Hitler, was that he didn't accept the lefty solution to the alleged problem. This demonstrates to some degree that lefties are more interested in their particular solutions to AGW (which include world government and that govt's control over every aspect of our lives) than in coming up with what might be better solutions to the problem of AGW- if it even exists.

If they really thought it was a problem, lefties would love to hear new & different solutions and analyses. But their interest lies mainly in their own solutions, in the "don't let a crisis go to waste" vein.

The Guardian's subhead take: "Climate change voice who changed his tune". The very first commenter there called them out on this. There have to be plenty of moderates out there who understood Lomborg's complaint, and can see through The Guardian's and The New Republic's fact-free take on Lomborg's "about face". I imagine the writers there are living in a bubble sufficient to shield them from this realization.

My own take: not too sure if AGW is significant, but warmer is better for us humans in any case. Yes, there will be change costs, but the benefits will far outweigh these. To claim otherwise is to say that base year X, whatever that's defined to be (1850, 1970?), had the optimum global temperature for humans. Which must be the case if one argues that any deviation from that is less good.

stevenehrbar said...

Lormborg has always believed in global warming, and he's always supported some measures against it. Just not the insane ones the AGW crowd talks about, because he can actually do a cost-benefit analysis.

Gabriel Hanna said...

The Guardian is unfair to paint Lomborg as a climate change skeptic. I've been following his work for some time.

We get to pick our own policies, but we don't get to pick our own facts. It is a fact that there is no reasonable alternative to fossil fuels at the moment. 85% of the energy used in the US is from fossil fuels. We'd have to build something like 400 nuclear plants. Which I'm in favor of, but that would be very expensive (maybe a better use of the stimulus money). And there aren't reasonable alternatives. Environmentalists won't let us build more dams and there aren't that many more places to build them. Wind power displaces hydroelectric. Solar isn't practical.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

To claim otherwise is to say that base year X, whatever that's defined to be (1850, 1970?), had the optimum global temperature for humans. Which must be the case if one argues that any deviation from that is less good.

Not really. People have built cities slightly above sea level. If a change in temperature causes the sea level to rise* than that could cause major problems, even if the later temperature was otherwise better.

*Fortunately this won't happen, since we elected President Obama.

SBVOR said...

Ignorance is Bliss (8/31/10 6:41 PM),

I assume your comment was made with your tongue held firmly in cheek.

Either way, click here and examine the unmitigated folly of pretending we can micromanage sea levels.

Click here for more basic climate change science.

Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I assume your comment was made with your tongue held firmly in cheek.

The part about President Obama was. The rest was a serious criticism of a bad argument.

I'm a skeptic, because I've looked at the evidence enough to know that the climate scientists have a failed peer review system that is preventing them from catching basic errors.

As a skeptic, I hate bad arguments on the skeptic's side because they discredit our legitimate concerns.

MadisonMan said...

The question reveals the fundamental(ist) ignorance of the inquisitor.

I disagree. The Greenhouse Effect has a very well-known effect on Earth's temperature.

To say it doesn't exist because Greenhouses don't trap heat the same way gases in the atmosphere trap heat is foolish and pedantic.

jr565 said...

From the Junk science article:
In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).


Those damn oceans! We have to do something. I have an idea. What we need is a vaccuum cleaner that is the size of the atlantic ocean (or we could have a million smaller vaccuum cleaners if that's easier) and they vaccuum all the water up. Then we put the water into our old nuclear warheads and fire them into outer space. It will require billions of rockets to be fired into space, but we can get rid of our nukes AND remove excess water thus lowering the amount of water vapor.
Another idea, a huge sponge the size of the atlantic ocean, or a million smaller sponges....

Gabriel Hanna said...

@jr565:

Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect

Good start. So when you put a bunch of CO2 in the air, and warm the planet, you get more water vapor in the air, which warms it much more than the carbon dioxide could have.

Saying carbon dioxide isn't responsible because water vapor has a more pronounced effect is like saying, "I didn't hit that guy, I just swung my fist and he didn't duck."

And do you think climate scientists don't know about water vapor? Of course they do. That's why it's in the models.

Mark said...

First off, Lomborg made his name not by denying the possibility of climate change, but by analysing the statistical methodologies of the leading proponents of Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and concluding that the findings drawn from those studies were unsupported. (Recently, it's come to light that statistical errors were the least of it, of course.

Secondly, no one doubts climate change happens, or that it happens across all time scales. The question is, of course, what causes climate change. In reality, there are so many factors that pinning it definitively on one cause is like trying to understand how a .300 hitter can go on a 0-for-40 run, or conversely get a hit in 40 straight games. (All you have to do to get under the skin of an AGW proponent is point out that astronomers have found evidence of recent global warming on Mars and ask them how a carbon trading scheme will affect that issue.)

Thirdly, assume AGW is real and massive. What happens if we radically reduce it? This too will cause climate change away from the current status quo, and how do we know it turn out to be a good thing? (I'm not saying we'll get an Ice Age if we go to 100% nuclear power for our grid, with electric cars zooming on second-hand neutrons. I'm saying that the AGW proponents' point that the effects of a single degree change in temperature might be colossal. This is very much a double-edged argument.)

In my opinion, a lot of very smart people have accepted an idea that seems to be opposed mostly by people whom they consider not-as-smart, and instead of remaining detached and analytical (which is what scientists are supposed to do) they have become a priori policy advocates.

Also, a lot of not-as-smart-as-the-smart proponents see where the "smart money" is and are backing that horse, because that's what smart people do.

Me, I'm with Lomborg, because I've always known bad science when I see it, and any field that has as many (physical) independent variables (which are still poorly understood in relation to one another) as climatology , and so few practitioners who accept a single model (but who all know and peer-review one anothers' work) is one where the actual Science being conducted should be treated skeptically.

Mark said...

First off, Lomborg made his name not by denying the possibility of climate change, but by analysing the statistical methodologies of the leading proponents of Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and concluding that the findings drawn from those studies were unsupported. (Recently, it's come to light that statistical errors were the least of it, of course.

Secondly, no one doubts climate change happens, or that it happens across all time scales. The question is, of course, what causes climate change. In reality, there are so many factors that pinning it definitively on one cause is like trying to understand how a .300 hitter can go on a 0-for-40 run, or conversely get a hit in 40 straight games. (All you have to do to get under the skin of an AGW proponent is point out that astronomers have found evidence of recent global warming on Mars and ask them how a carbon trading scheme will affect that issue.)

Thirdly, assume AGW is real and massive. What happens if we radically reduce it? This too will cause climate change away from the current status quo, and how do we know it turn out to be a good thing? (I'm not saying we'll get an Ice Age if we go to 100% nuclear power for our grid, with electric cars zooming on second-hand neutrons. I'm saying that the AGW proponents' point that the effects of a single degree change in temperature might be colossal. This is very much a double-edged argument.)

In my opinion, a lot of very smart people have accepted an idea that seems to be opposed mostly by people whom they consider not-as-smart, and instead of remaining detached and analytical (which is what scientists are supposed to do) they have become a priori policy advocates.

Also, a lot of not-as-smart-as-the-smart proponents see where the "smart money" is and are backing that horse, because that's what smart people do.

Me, I'm with Lomborg, because I've always known bad science when I see it, and any field that has as many (physical) independent variables (which are still poorly understood in relation to one another) as climatology , and so few practitioners who accept a single model (but who all know and peer-review one anothers' work) is one where the actual Science being conducted should be treated skeptically.

Mark said...

First off, Lomborg made his name not by denying the possibility of climate change, but by analysing the statistical methodologies of the leading proponents of Anthropomorphic Global Warming, and concluding that the findings drawn from those studies were unsupported. (Recently, it's come to light that statistical errors were the least of it, of course.

Mark said...

Secondly, no one doubts climate change happens, or that it happens across all time scales. The question is, of course, what causes climate change. In reality, there are so many factors that pinning it definitively on one cause is like trying to understand how a .300 hitter can go on a 0-for-40 run, or conversely get a hit in 40 straight games. (All you have to do to get under the skin of an AGW proponent is point out that astronomers have found evidence of recent global warming on Mars and ask them how a carbon trading scheme will affect that issue.)

Mark said...

Thirdly, assume AGW is real and massive. What happens if we radically reduce it? This too will cause climate change away from the current status quo, and how do we know it turn out to be a good thing? (I'm not saying we'll get an Ice Age if we go to 100% nuclear power for our grid, with electric cars zooming on second-hand neutrons. I'm saying that the AGW proponents' point that the effects of a single degree change in temperature might be colossal. This is very much a double-edged argument.)

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

In my opinion, a lot of very smart people have accepted an idea that seems to be opposed mostly by people whom they consider not-as-smart, and instead of remaining detached and analytical (which is what scientists are supposed to do) they have become a priori policy advocates.

Also, a lot of not-as-smart-as-the-smart proponents see where the "smart money" is and are backing that horse, because that's what smart people do.

Me, I'm with Lomborg, because I've always known bad science when I see it, and any field that has as many (physical) independent variables (which are still poorly understood in relation to one another) as climatology , and so few practitioners who dissent from a single model (but who all know and peer-review one anothers' work) is one where the actual Science being conducted should be treated skeptically.

Gabriel Hanna said...

All you have to do to get under the skin of an AGW proponent is point out that astronomers have found evidence of recent global warming on Mars and ask them how a carbon trading scheme will affect that issue.)

All you have to do to get under the skin of the American Lung Association is point out that 80% of people who smoke don't get lung cancer, and ask people who got lung cancer from asbestos how quitting smoking will affect that issue.

SBVOR said...

Ignorance is Bliss (8/31/10 7:17 PM ) sez:

As a skeptic, I hate bad arguments on the skeptic's side because they discredit our legitimate concerns.

Are you suggesting that we engage in the unmitigated folly of pretending we can micromanage sea levels?

Did you examine the evidence against your bad argument?

In brief:

1) The purely political and entirely extremist IPCC estimates that sea levels will rise between 7” and 23” in the next 100 years.

(See Table 3.1 on page 45 from this rather large and slow loading IPCC PDF file.)

2) We know -- for a fact -- that Mother Nature, during the previous interglacial warming period, rose sea levels 4 to 5 METERS (13 to 16 feet) above current levels.

We also know that the previous 4 interglacial warming periods have been pretty darn consistent in their metrics.

(Click here for details and direct links to cited data sources.)

So, are you arguing that we should waste our money trying to mitigate against inches of man made sea level rise when mother nature alone could easily raise sea levels by METERS?

I guess ignorance really is bliss(ful arrogance).

SBVOR said...

MadisonMan (8/31/10 7:19 PM ) sez:

“I disagree. The Greenhouse Effect has a very well-known effect on Earth's temperature.”

Feel free to invent your own realities, semantics and laws of physics. So-called Liberals do it all the time. They live in a world entirely dominated by mythology.

But, that does not change the fact that the physics of CO2 energy absorption is entirely different from the Greenhouse Effect seen in an actual Greenhouse.

A few basic inconvenient truths about those laws of physics:

CO2 absorbs energy at specific wavelengths. That bandwidth becomes increasing saturated with each additional molecule of CO2. Ergo, each additional molecule of CO2 has exponentially less warming potential than the previous molecule. The greatest warming potential from CO2 comes in the first 100 ppm. Beyond 100 ppm, the warming potential is negligible. Our atmosphere is currently below 400 ppm (0.04% of the atmosphere). The more CO2 we add, the less impact it has.

Click here for some basic climate change science.

Click here to debunk the hysteria topic by topic.

Mark said...

Gabriel, I think that was kind of my point. Some set of things is causing Mars to warm up. Some set of things is causing the earth to warm up. When it comes to climatology, that's about all we know for sure.

(Yah, smoking increases the chance of getting lung cancer. Why do some smokers get to 100 and some die in their 40s? That is actually an interesting scientific question. And one that can be studied with some chance of success, because....)

With smokers, you've got a potential data source of billions.

With planetary climates, you've got a handful that you can compare and contrast. And they don't have a hell of a lot in common, except solar output.

What you're snarking on is comparing apples to oranges, but I would posit that treating climatology as anything nearly as robust as the epidemiology of cancer is on the face of it either in bad faith or in ignorance. The variables and their relationships aren't nearly as well understood. Practically, there is no way to cleanly correlate one independent variable (CO2 emisions) from the supposedly dependent variable of average global temperature.

As I said up front, the climate is changing. What we don't know, and at this point I believe we can't know, is how much of that is from human input and how much is from other inputs. Or ever whether whatever change we're making to average global temperature is a "good" thing or not. (Which of course is another can of worms. "Good" for whom, or what. Which is where the argument swerves into real nutcase land.)

SBVOR said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MadisonMan said...

Oh for God's sake.

I'm not gonna argue with someone with a stick up their ass because The Greenhouse Effect is foolishly named.

Unless it's a hockey stick.

SBVOR said...

MadisonMan (8/31/10 9:25 PM),

I'll take that to mean you have -- in a not entirely polite fashion -- conceded the obvious.

That's okay; losing graciously can be a difficult art to master. ;-)

Oh, and…
Speaking of hockey sticks -- click here and debunk it.

SBVOR said...

Gabriel Hanna (8/31/10 7:57 PM ) sez:

“when you put a bunch of CO2 in the air, and warm the planet, you get more water vapor in the air”

As I said before, feel free to invent your own laws of physics; so-called Liberals do it all the time. They live in a world entirely dominated by mythology.

Or, click here and realize that just because an alarmist programs convenient assumptions into a computer model, does not necessarily make those assumptions valid.

Then again, every credible climatologist knows that CO2 alone is not nearly powerful enough to whip up hysteria of any sort. That is precisely why the alarmists invented a water vapor response which direct observation is increasingly proving to be not merely wrong, but entirely upside down -- the water vapor response is found to actually mitigate AGAINST the tiny amount of warming directly resultant from the CO2.

Oopsie! Busted again!

MadisonMan said...

SBVOR, I see nothing in your links that tells me that there is no greenhouse effect on Earth.

Since you like links, Here is one for you, with a question: Why can't you see features on the surface of the Earth?

Ponder that as you consider whether there is a greenhouse effect on Earth.

bagoh20 said...

Regardless of what you believe, and that's all it can be at this point - a guess fueled by faith; the only thing that matters is can we do anything about it.

This is much harder to believe than either pro or con AGW. You have to beleive:

1) The nations of the world would agree to an overbearing policy.

2) Nobody would cheat, even when it's starving them or keeping them in a third world condition.

3) There is a set of such policies that would actually work if followed.

4) Said policies would not make things worse or have some serious unanticipated consequences (the bane of the left's ideology). Think war, starvation, freezing, drought, floods, crop failure, etc.

5) Any recent climate change is truly unnatural, and not part of a delicate dance that you simply can't understand, and that you are willing to throw into the hands of men to manage. Men who can't dance fer shit.

Another insane religion, and maybe the most dangerous of all time.

SBVOR said...

bagoh20 (8/31/10 9:52 PM ),

Kudos for an excellent comment!

Of course, we both know that the Kyoto Protocol and various other follies from the so-called “Progressives” have already tested each of your questions. The results all point to abject failure. But, so-called “Progressives” never EVER learn from their mistakes (much less admit to the fundamental flaws in their ideology).

I will document just a few of the abysmal failures directly relevant to your comment:

1) The abysmal failures of Kyoto speak to your first three points.

2) The Ethanol debacle and the wind turbine debacle both speak to the unintended consequences issue.

3) ALL of the available evidence clearly demonstrates that there is nothing even remotely unusual about current conditions OR current trends. NONE of it is even remotely close to being outside the bounds of well understood natural variation. This speaks to your last point.

4) Yes, the CAGW cult is -- by far -- the single most dangerous and destructive religious cult in the entire history of the human race.

And, with that, we have briefly demonstrated the record of failure from the morons who now insist that we must utterly waste ANOTHER $45 TRILLION (at LEAST) on their latest folly.

NO FREAKING WAY! OVER MY DEAD BODY!

Revenant said...

Well, SBVOR, I was rooting for you, but you still narrowly missed beating Lonewacko in the Althouse Biathlon.

You trounced him the "link whoring your blog" event, but he pulled ahead again in the "insulting every political position other than his own" competition when you forgot to accuse "crunchy cons" of selling out to the Left. :)

SBVOR said...

Revenant (9/1/10 12:35 AM),

By mistaking rigorous substantiation of assertions for “link whoring your blog” you win the internet trolling moron of the century award.

Accept it with pride -- it’s likely the best you’ll ever achieve. :-(

Ignorance is Bliss said...

SBVOR said

Did you examine the evidence against your bad argument?

What evidence against my argument? Your evidence backs up my argument, which is that sea levels can change with temperature, and therefore a certain temperature might be preferred by humans based on where we built our cities, even if that temperature was not an 'ideal' temperature in some cosmic sense.

Nowhere do I suggest that we can micromanage sea levels.

Link whoring, personal insults, and a failure of basic reading comprehension. Impressive.

SBVOR said...

Ignorance is Bliss (9/1/10 6:33 AM),

You certainly chose an appropriate nom de plume.

You’re telling me that you are fool enough to waste tens of trillions in yet another failed effort to mitigate a few inches of sea level rise which human activity has yet to cause and is very unlikely to cause when Mother Nature alone could very well cause 4 to 5 meters (13 to 16 feet) of sea level rise.

Again, see this comment to further substantiate those numbers.

Has your hubris reached the level where you believe you can micromanage ALL of Mother Nature?

The extent of human stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You’re telling me that...

No. I'm. Not.

Since you seem so intent on substantiating things, how about quoting what I said that you think in any way implied what you think I'm telling you.

The extent of human stupidity never ceases to amaze me.

Try stepping away from the mirror for a little while.

SBVOR said...

Ignorance Is Bliss (9/1/10 11:03 AM),

Okay, I reviewed your comments.

You are clearly arguing that rising sea levels caused by rising temperatures (natural or otherwise) could be a problem for coastal cities.

But, both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling which shows NO SIGNS of abating.

The citation links and more details are found here and here.

Granted, you have not overtly stated a preference for regulating CO2. But, neither have you argued against it. If you were to specifically state that regulating CO2 in an attempt to prevent sea levels from rising is a bone headed idea, then I will stand corrected. Care to?

MadisonMan said...

No. I'm. Not.

Doesn't matter. He (or she) is gonna put words in your mouth and accuse you of saying them.

MadisonMan said...

...and then link and link again.

SBVOR said...

Ignorance Is Bliss (9/1/10 11:03 AM),

Okay, I reviewed your comments.

You are clearly arguing that rising sea levels caused by rising temperatures (natural or otherwise) could be a problem for coastal cities.

But, both the Arctic AND the Antarctic are experiencing an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling which shows NO SIGNS of abating.

The citation links and more details are found here and here.

Granted, you have not overtly stated a preference for regulating CO2. But, neither have you argued against it. If you were to specifically state that regulating CO2 in an attempt to prevent sea levels from rising is a bone headed idea, then I will stand corrected. Care to?

SBVOR said...

Okay, it appears that Ann has decided to censor the substantiated facts supported by directly cited peer reviewed science. That's her right -- it's her blog. Never the less, I am very disappointed.

Adios! I shan't be back.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

...and there was much rejoicing.

SBVOR said...

... among the willfully ignorant.

MadisonMan said...

???

What did althouse censor? Nothing that I can see.

SBVOR, you missed two chances to link. What a missed opportunity!

SBVOR said...

"Nothing that I can see."

Censorship works that way. DUH!

What was twice deleted was my (somewhat concessionary) response to the latest request from Ignorance is Bliss.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

More likely automatic spam filter rather than intentional censorship.

Probably something you linked to looked suspecious.

SBVOR said...

9/1/10 2:10 PM,

I can say with 99.99% certainty that this is not the case.

MadisonMan said...

Just saying that in the past I've seen a This post has been removed by a blog administrator when the hostess does it. (As opposed to This post has been removed by the author)

So I am inclined to thinking an autodelete for a spam-ish look to the post.

SBVOR said...

Okay, my comment reappeared.

The evidence now suggest to me that the comment was -- erroneously -- flagged as spam.

If so, my apologies to Ann.

Either way, it is clear that Ann intervened to publish the comment.

For that, I thank her.

Blogger.com administrators have two options when deleting comments. One results in no trace of the post remaining, the other results in a message indicating the post was removed by the blog administrator. The former makes it impossible for the admin to restore the comment. Thus, my suspicion that the comment was -- erroneously -- flagged as spam.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You are clearly arguing that rising sea levels caused by rising temperatures (natural or otherwise) could be a problem for coastal cities.

You're getting a little closer, but still having a lot of trouble with the reading comprehension.

What I said was "If a change in temperature causes the sea level to rise* than that could cause major problems..."

It's called a hypo-fucking-thetical. Basic logic. If I say 'If A then B' then I'm not arguing that A is true, only that either B is true or A is false.

If you were to specifically state that regulating CO2 in an attempt to prevent sea levels from rising is a bone headed idea, then I will stand corrected. Care to?

No, because you're a fucking idiot who stands corrected even if you don't realize it.

SBVOR said...

9/1/10 6:01 PM,

Clearly, you're not worth my time.

Adios!