USA’s top Climate Change Expert Lied

[Old Greg]

Doggerel? The irony.

This picture was taken at the north pole in March 1959 (it is of USS Skate). Not much ice at all. Which sort of knocks your argument into a c0cked hat.

March? That is early in the year.

[EternalOptimist]

It's this aspect that annoys me: I think I read that if the UK meets its carbon reduction targets it will have cost us billions and will retard warming by just a few minutes.

I'd quite like to find that link again.... anyone remember it?

hi Platypus

in the interests of fairness and balance, this link comes from a believer in CAGW

Im a believer but....

[pjclarke]

This picture was taken at the north pole in March 1959 (it is of USS Skate). Not much ice at all. Which sort of knocks your argument into a c0cked hat.

One out of three. That IS the Skate but it ain't 1959 and it ain't the North Pole, though she did indeed go there on that date. Subs can surface even when the Arctic is frozen over as there are always areas of thinner or no ice (Google 'Polynanas' and 'Leads'. )

For a historically accurate account of the Skate's travels try this book written by the captain. It features the phrase 'thick canopy of ice'.

I think your argument belongs in the cocked hat, my friend.

[pjclarke]

Well, of course if you look at the impact on the globe of individual country's emission reduction, then the cost benefit looks lousy. Like saying the UK should not have bothered banning CFCs because our individual impact on the ozone layer would be tiny. Duh.

And the 'believer' is Bjorn Lomborg, a man who has got his facts wrong so many times there is a website just dedicated to documenting his errors ...

Lomborg Errors

[EternalOptimist]

So the facts are correct. but you attack the man anyway. who got the facts right





er..ok

[EternalOptimist]

just think what that x billion quid per year could do instead of pushing back warming by a few hours(assuming you believe all that guff in the first place)

every child in the world could have clean drinking water.
Research in Dementia(for example) could take off into realms undreamt of by the current researchers
You not take it from the consumers and tax payers in the first place, boost the economy.

[Old Greg]

just think what that x billion quid per year could do instead of pushing back warming by a few hours(assuming you believe all that guff in the first place)

every child in the world could have clean drinking water.
Research in Dementia(for example) could take off into realms undreamt of by the current researchers
You not take it from the consumers and tax payers in the first place, boost the economy.

It does not follow that agreement with the scientific consensus on global warming leads to agreement with solutions propose and implemented.

[pjclarke]

Well EO, your link was to another link to a newspaper review of a TV programme. Quality primary source that. In the show Lomborg apparently made the claim the Germans are spending $110 billion os solar panel subsidies, and contrasting that with the impact that one country's investment in one type of renewable can have on emissions and therefore temperatures. Of course in isolation it is miniscule. If Germany ceased all fossil fuel burning tomorrow it would reduce global emissions by just a few percent.

I've no idea if Lomborg's number is right (though you've obviously checked it, as a good 'sceptic' yes? I mean you wouldn't just take a quote from a TV show as reliable ... ), he does have a history of distortion, but the point is - bogus numbers or correct, his comparison is ludicrous.

[Old Greg]

Well EO, your link was to another link to a newspaper review of a TV programme. Quality primary source that. In the show Lomborg apparently made the claim the Germans are spending $110 billion os solar panel subsidies, and contrasting that with the impact that one country's investment in one type of renewable can have on emissions and therefore temperatures. Of course in isolation it is miniscule. If Germany ceased all fossil fuel burning tomorrow it would reduce global emissions by just a few percent.

I've no idea if Lomborg's number is right (though you've obviously checked it, as a good 'sceptic' yes? I mean you wouldn't just take a quote from a TV show as reliable ... ), he does have a history of distortion, but the point is - bogus numbers or correct, his comparison is ludicrous.

Don't worry pj, they'll have some more mud to fling later, and who care if it's bulltulip or not? Remember the Greenland ice data that showed the present day as 1855? Present it, and then when it's shown to be nonsense, it didn't matter anyway.

[pjclarke]

just think what that x billion quid per year could do instead of pushing back warming by a few hours

We agree on one thing - it is not the most pressing priority, but you could make the same argument about the defence budget (for example), bllions spent on wars or terrorist activities which may or may not come about, on a far smaller probability than the threat from climate change. Good luck with diverting that budget to clean water.

Every study on the economics has concluded that the benefit/cost ratio of mitigation + adpatation is positive, and it does not have to be expensive in relative terms, a few % of GDP to prevent a far greater reduction in productivity as we adapt to a changing climate. Here's one commissioned by Lomborg himself as part of the Copenhagen Consensus project:

ISSUU - SummaryGlobalWarming by Copenhagen Consensus Center

which found that $800bn spent on Mitigation/R&D/Adaptation yields benefits of $2129bn.

BTW, I did a quick check and in 2012 Germany subsidies, in the form of the FIT, were EUR 14bn, or around $18 bn for wind and solar combined, so I dunno where Lomborg got his numbers from. And the solar FIT is being phased out: seems it has achieved the aim of stimulating investment and bringing down costs...