Global warming... again.

[Metsfanmax]

The best summary of climate change I read was State of Fear by Michael Crichton

I love Michael Crichton's writing, but oh boy is that an inaccurate assessment of the state of scientific knowledge.

[BigBallinStalin]

I've always enjoyed reading Bjørn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. Many of the environmentalists/welfare liberals hate him because he calls for an informed discussion.


http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skepti ... nmentalist

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.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming.Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it

[Symmetry]

I've always enjoyed reading Bjørn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. Many of the environmentalists/welfare liberals hate him because he calls for an informed discussion.


http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skepti ... nmentalist

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.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming.Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it

Lol, well found, the man likes to promote himself.

[betiko]

I haven t read anything in this thread and I m not going to. But wow, just saw the poster just above still exists!

[Symmetry]

I haven t read anything in this thread and I m not going to. But wow, just saw the poster just above still exists!

I'm slightly amazed myself.

[thegreekdog]

I haven t read anything in this thread and I m not going to. But wow, just saw the poster just above still exists!

I'm slightly amazed myself.

I missed you.

[Symmetry]

I haven t read anything in this thread and I m not going to. But wow, just saw the poster just above still exists!

I'm slightly amazed myself.

I missed you.

Aww

[BigBallinStalin]

I've always enjoyed reading Bjørn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. Many of the environmentalists/welfare liberals hate him because he calls for an informed discussion.


http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skepti ... nmentalist

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.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming.Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it

Lol, well found, the man likes to promote himself.

Sure! If one's ideas mattered very much, then why not promote them?

[Symmetry]

I've always enjoyed reading Bjørn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist. Many of the environmentalists/welfare liberals hate him because he calls for an informed discussion.


http://www.lomborg.com/publications/the ... mentalist/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skepti ... nmentalist

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.

Lomborg presents us with a second generation of thinking on global warming that believes panic is neither warranted nor a constructive place from which to deal with any of humanity's problems, not just global warming.Cool It promises to be one of the most talked about and influential books of our time.

http://www.lomborg.com/publications/cool_it

Lol, well found, the man likes to promote himself.

Sure! If one's ideas mattered very much, then why not promote them?

Heh, there are already resources combatting HIV and malaria. His premise is that we can only focus on one thing, and when that gets done, then focus on the next thing. His main idea is that we shouldn't even look at climate change. It's a point of view that will always gain him money and attention.

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? If you've read his books, or listen to some 1 hour lecture, you'd know he'd disagree with that assessment.

The point about malaria and HIV is about opportunity cost. The questions of public policy are: How should we allocate X-amount of goods for these various goals? And what are the relative benefits and costs? Decision-making becomes more informed when you compare the foregone value of an alternative plan (opportunity cost) for the sake of going with the plan in question. He's saying that allocating more* resources to such programs (combating HIV, malaria) have clearer implications; whereas, with climate change much is uncertain and the relative impact is not as significant.

*So, the argument that 'we already have resources dedicated to reducing HIV and malaria' is moot. It's about more or less; it's not about absolutes.

[Symmetry]

Really? If you've read his books, or listen to some 1 hour lecture, you'd know he'd disagree with that assessment.

The point about malaria and HIV is about opportunity cost. The questions of public policy are: How should we allocate X-amount of goods for these various goals? And what are the relative benefits and costs? Decision-making becomes more informed when you compare the foregone value of an alternative plan (opportunity cost) for the sake of going with the plan in question. He's saying that allocating more* resources to such programs (combating HIV, malaria) have clearer implications; whereas, with climate change much is uncertain and the relative impact is not as significant.

*So, the argument that 'we already have resources dedicated to reducing HIV and malaria' is moot. It's about more or less; it's not about absolutes.

I merely responded to the argument presented. To respond to your argument, if I'm interpreting it correctly, I would argue that the idea that zero money and research go into climate change research is ridiculous.

As an economist, do you feel that research into climate change is worthwhile? Secondly, do you dislike the research because it may be unprofitable?

[BigBallinStalin]

Really? If you've read his books, or listen to some 1 hour lecture, you'd know he'd disagree with that assessment.

The point about malaria and HIV is about opportunity cost. The questions of public policy are: How should we allocate X-amount of goods for these various goals? And what are the relative benefits and costs? Decision-making becomes more informed when you compare the foregone value of an alternative plan (opportunity cost) for the sake of going with the plan in question. He's saying that allocating more* resources to such programs (combating HIV, malaria) have clearer implications; whereas, with climate change much is uncertain and the relative impact is not as significant.

*So, the argument that 'we already have resources dedicated to reducing HIV and malaria' is moot. It's about more or less; it's not about absolutes.

I merely responded to the argument presented. To respond to your argument, if I'm interpreting it correctly, I would argue that the idea that zero money and research go into climate change research is ridiculous.

Again, it's not about absolutes: e.g. NO money or money. It's about relative amounts: more or less. That's generally what I've taken from his positions as expressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist, from which I'm grabbing the argument as I presented it. Lomborg is concerned about the environment and climate change, but I've never read him advocating for 0 research into climate change.

As an economist, do you feel that research into climate change is worthwhile? Secondly, do you dislike the research because it may be unprofitable?

1. It depends on one's goals and valuations. If one perceives monetary and/or non-monetary profit in research, then be my guest.

2. No, but no one's arguing about Zero research. Lomborg's general shtick is to compare the relative benefits and costs of public policies and envr. issues, and then reassess them (e.g. government subsidies to consumers for purchasing hybrid cars is counter-productive, if one has environmental goals--given a range of conditions).

[Symmetry]

Really? If you've read his books, or listen to some 1 hour lecture, you'd know he'd disagree with that assessment.

The point about malaria and HIV is about opportunity cost. The questions of public policy are: How should we allocate X-amount of goods for these various goals? And what are the relative benefits and costs? Decision-making becomes more informed when you compare the foregone value of an alternative plan (opportunity cost) for the sake of going with the plan in question. He's saying that allocating more* resources to such programs (combating HIV, malaria) have clearer implications; whereas, with climate change much is uncertain and the relative impact is not as significant.

*So, the argument that 'we already have resources dedicated to reducing HIV and malaria' is moot. It's about more or less; it's not about absolutes.

I merely responded to the argument presented. To respond to your argument, if I'm interpreting it correctly, I would argue that the idea that zero money and research go into climate change research is ridiculous.

Again, it's not about absolutes: e.g. NO money or money. It's about relative amounts: more or less. That's generally what I've taken from his positions as expressed in The Skeptical Environmentalist, from which I'm grabbing the argument as I presented it. Lomborg is concerned about the environment and climate change, but I've never read him advocating for 0 research into climate change.

As an economist, do you feel that research into climate change is worthwhile? Secondly, do you dislike the research because it may be unprofitable?

1. It depends on one's goals and valuations. If one perceives monetary and/or non-monetary profit in research, then be my guest.

2. No, but no one's arguing about Zero research. Lomborg's general shtick is to compare the relative benefits and costs of public policies and envr. issues, and then reassess them (e.g. government subsidies to consumers for purchasing hybrid cars is counter-productive, if one has environmental goals--given a range of conditions).

Thanks for the response. Of course, the question that has to be asked is where should research be allocated. Lomborg may well not advocate zero research, but he clearly advocates other things as priorities, which essentially works out to the same thing, that money spent on climate change could be better spent elsewhere.

Have I summed up my position fairly?

[BigBallinStalin]

Um, pretty much, but I'd add that Lomborg isn't addressing only global change research. He's mostly concerned with the counter-productive plans of government which intended on mitigating the expected (and uncertain) impacts of climate change but have instead led to negative, unintended consequences.

Lomborg's general argument is rooted in the economic principles of opportunity cost, profit, marginalism (i.e. more v. less; not absolutes), and various means ---> various ends (e.g. good intentions ---> bad outcomes).


Hope everything has been well with ya, Sym.

[PLAYER57832]

Really? If you've read his books, or listen to some 1 hour lecture, you'd know he'd disagree with that assessment.

The point about malaria and HIV is about opportunity cost. The questions of public policy are: How should we allocate X-amount of goods for these various goals? And what are the relative benefits and costs? Decision-making becomes more informed when you compare the foregone value of an alternative plan (opportunity cost) for the sake of going with the plan in question. He's saying that allocating more* resources to such programs (combating HIV, malaria) have clearer implications; whereas, with climate change much is uncertain and the relative impact is not as significant.

*So, the argument that 'we already have resources dedicated to reducing HIV and malaria' is moot. It's about more or less; it's not about absolutes.

The premise is interesting, but when you start talking about opportunity costs and benefits, that is where
the comparisons fail. They fail because these impacts and results are not equal, not even close.

In fact, you have hit on one big reason why we are entering the messes we are.

The problems are twofold. First, as bad as HIV and Malaria are, they don't have the same potential for destruction as global warming, not even close. Biologically speaking, we will eventually develop some kind of resistance or defense against HIV. People already have some malaria defense (albeit the most well-known defense is tied to sickle cell anemia.) Global warming will impact all of every bit of life on Earth, not just humanity. As much as we like to pretend we are independent and that our brains will save us from dire impacts to the world around us, there is no escape if the worst predictions of global warming come true. The only real hope is that we can avert the worst predictions. Some people want to bank on the science, the predictions just being wrong, even though even the milder predictions purport significant catastrophe for humanity. A lot of people basically take the "I cannot solve it, so let's just pretend its not happening" approach". Right now, only a few are really giving the science true attention. Sadly, if history is a measure most people won't acknowledge the problem until the impacts are directly serious to their immediate lives. Even then, they will try to blame many other things first. The means that by the time global warming really hits the level of immediate and apparent need that malaria and AIDS have now reached, the world will already be doomed (and note that even as serious as they are, these issues are likely not getting the attention needed to truly cure either), there may not BE any real solution. Waiting until the problem is serious enough to "warrant" attention is essentially committing suicide in this case.


Second, there is the basic approach issue. Many very successful people are successful because they are narrowly focused on a single goal. It works for some things quite well. However, the idea of an identified focus and the process of invention, creation, artistry and science discovery are almost opposite. It somewhat ironic. To be a successful scientists requires a fair amount of focus. However, having the vision to pick out the solution or the real path to any problem requires thinking broadly and not within focus. Then... to carry out the research and prove the point requires focus again.

When a group like "the government" focuses on "a goal", it can work because "the government" is not one person or one real focus. Instead, it is a large enough body to bring together people from many different fields and, often to allow for many different types of approaches. When JFK came out and said "We will go to the moon", that was a singular focus, but there were still several ideas about how to get there. It was, for example, Johnson who wanted test pilots -- something that apparently had a huge impact on what the space program eventually became. More importantly, I don't think anyone really envisioned Microsoft, cell phones or the internet from the shot at the moon. Tang and space ice cream were fun novelties in the 70's, but gave rise to many kinds of foods we see today. What made the space program successful was first, that it had some giant head starts. A lot had already been invented, just needed to be pulled together properly. Second, that many tangential operations and inventions were allowed to each be pursued. For every "success". there were many failures. BUT, what often gets lost is that many of the "failures" wound up being successes later, in some cases scientific success, in some cases commercial or both.

[PLAYER57832]

Um, pretty much, but I'd add that Lomborg isn't addressing only global change research. He's mostly concerned with the counter-productive plans of government which intended on mitigating the expected (and uncertain) impacts of climate change but have instead led to negative, unintended consequences.

Lomborg's general argument is rooted in the economic principles of opportunity cost, profit, marginalism (i.e. more v. less; not absolutes), and various means ---> various ends (e.g. good intentions ---> bad outcomes).
.

For those to be valid, requires understanding and correctly valuing the inputs. Since so little in nature is given real material value, it always falls short in such equations. Yet... the reality is that without the natural world we all die.. quite literally.

[Phatscotty]

The dude who discovered global warming has recanted his findings and admitted they were politically motivated and politically pressured.

The debate is not only over, it should have never begun. Now excuse me while I bail water out of my basement because it all got flooded by rising ocean levels right on time and just as predicted, in 1993...

The largest impact global warming had was on school and college students who have been programmed to accept a leftist template and vote Democrat based on lies.

This was the moment that we began to provide healthcare for the sick (cuz we never have before) and good jobs for the jobless (cuz we never have before), when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal (the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years), this was the moment when we ended war and secured our nation and restored out image as the last best hope on earth (oh, our image is soooo restored!)



One day Player, you will realize all the lies and the manipulation and false premises and false guilt....

[BigBallinStalin]

Um, pretty much, but I'd add that Lomborg isn't addressing only global change research. He's mostly concerned with the counter-productive plans of government which intended on mitigating the expected (and uncertain) impacts of climate change but have instead led to negative, unintended consequences.

Lomborg's general argument is rooted in the economic principles of opportunity cost, profit, marginalism (i.e. more v. less; not absolutes), and various means ---> various ends (e.g. good intentions ---> bad outcomes).
.

For those to be valid, requires understanding and correctly valuing the inputs. Since so little in nature is given real material value, it always falls short in such equations. Yet... the reality is that without the natural world we all die.. quite literally.

Nature doesn't have intrinsic value, if that's what you're implying. Nothing does. Value is relative.

[BigBallinStalin]

The dude who discovered global warming has recanted his findings and admitted they were politically motivated and politically pressured.

The debate is not only over, it should have never begun. Now excuse me while I bail water out of my basement because it all got flooded by rising ocean levels right on time and just as predicted, in 1993...

The largest impact global warming had was on school and college students who have been programmed to accept a leftist template and vote Democrat based on lies.

This was the moment that we began to provide healthcare for the sick (cuz we never have before) and good jobs for the jobless (cuz we never have before), when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal (the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years), this was the moment when we ended war and secured our nation and restored out image as the last best hope on earth (oh, our image is soooo restored!)



One day Player, you will realize all the lies and the manipulation and false premises and false guilt....

Stupid conservatives/Republicans are the cornerstone of Uhmerica.

[Phatscotty]

The dude who discovered global warming has recanted his findings and admitted they were politically motivated and politically pressured.

The debate is not only over, it should have never begun. Now excuse me while I bail water out of my basement because it all got flooded by rising ocean levels right on time and just as predicted, in 1993...

The largest impact global warming had was on school and college students who have been programmed to accept a leftist template and vote Democrat based on lies.

This was the moment that we began to provide healthcare for the sick (cuz we never have before) and good jobs for the jobless (cuz we never have before), when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal (the earth has been cooling for the last 15 years), this was the moment when we ended war and secured our nation and restored out image as the last best hope on earth (oh, our image is soooo restored!)



One day Player, you will realize all the lies and the manipulation and false premises and false guilt....

Stupid conservatives/Republicans are the cornerstone of Uhmerica.

If your point is that those stupid Conservatives/Republicans just sat back and watched Obama win re-election, have Obamacare cemented into a new trillion dollar plus entitlement program, and flip the entire chess board in the middle east over to see where all the pieces land, oh, and stopped the oceans from rising...if that's your point, then I understand. Yes, they are complicit.

Unless you mean the colleges are really turning too many of them out....

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh yes, dem der scientists and dem der sciencing is done gone wrong with Uhmerica! Yhere mah example! All people wrong!

[Phatscotty]

Oh yes, dem der scientists and dem der sciencing is done gone wrong with Uhmerica! Yhere mah example! All people wrong!

One thing I know for sure is that there is NOT consensus amongst the scientific community, and as time goes on it seems the global warming theories are being challenged and refuted more and more, and being backed up or verified less and less.

Example:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/09/arcti ... -last-year

[Metsfanmax]

One thing I know for sure is that there is NOT consensus amongst the scientific community, and as time goes on it seems the global warming theories are being challenged and refuted more and more, and being backed up or verified less and less.

You are simply incorrect about the lack of consensus. 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.

Example:

A chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.

The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/09/arcti ... -last-year

That is reprinted from a piece in the Daily Mail by David Rose, a well known climate denialist with no special training in climate science. The report is misleading for many reasons, and I won't be too in-depth here; it is covered in a number of other places. The ice sheet did not "grow." Ice sheets change cyclically every year -- when it gets hotter they melt, and when it gets colder they re-freeze and spread. What they're actually comparing is the extent of the summer ice at two times in consecutive years and showing that the sea ice minimum extent is larger this year than it was last year. That is essentially because 2012 was a record-breaking year with very little ice, and it would have been hard (just by pure chance) for this year's minimum to be less than last year's -- or else it would have broken the record again. There's nothing conflicting with the consensus view of global warming here -- in fact, many climate scientists were predicting that this year's minimum would be larger than last year's, despite the general trend over decades towards lower ice.



Incidentally, you mentioned the "BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013." That was not a consensus view among climate scientists; it was the early end of a model from one scientist. The BBC even reported in the very same article comments by other scientists suggesting that the model was a bit too aggressive.

[BigBallinStalin]

One thing I know for sure is that there is NOT consensus amongst the scientific community, and as time goes on it seems the global warming theories are being challenged and refuted more and more, and being backed up or verified less and less.

You are simply incorrect about the lack of consensus. 97% of peer-reviewed climate science papers agree that global warming is occurring and that humans are causing it.
.

.... in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming

Why omit that 66%?

Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In other words, if you narrow the results to "AGW is happening" or "AGW is not happening" (while implicitly removing the "undecided"), then you get 97%.

But what about the undecided? Is this not confirmation bias?



And even if this consensus is accepted as True, then what's the consensus on the magnitude of anthropogenic GW?

And the most important question, which is constantly ignored, is: what are the negative and positive effects of GW?

[oVo]

The dude who discovered global warming has recanted his findings and admitted they were politically motivated and politically pressured.

I think that was a movie and not actual reality.

One word is enough for all of us...
Koyaanisqatsi