BigNorseWolf wrote: Unless teslas cloud based transmission of energy works, I don't think alaska using shore based energy production is practical. You have to GET that power somewhere , somehow, and permafrost is hell on powerlines and poles. Uh, dude, AGW? Permafrost be gone by mid-century.
:D
So there's this study and if you project this analysis forward to the present we've got over 100M infected (current and recovered) in the US. Which means we're halfway to herd immunity! Yay!
:D
In related news, South Korea is having a relatively small outbreak at a pace not seen since March. While I expect they'll get it under control, just as they did this spring, I also note that this outbreak is the result of easing restrictions because the economic impact was deemed too great to bear. Again, human life has a price.
The good news is that vaccines are on pace to get this all cleared up by late spring or early summer next year. Assuming of course that mink 'farms' don't give us something new to fight by then.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
BigNorseWolf wrote: Unless teslas cloud based transmission of energy works, I don't think alaska using shore based energy production is practical. You have to GET that power somewhere , somehow, and permafrost is hell on powerlines and poles. Power transmission along the 'Railbelt' from the Kenai peninsula up to Fairbanks is about the only part of Alaska where long distance power transmission (of any sort) makes sense even without the melting permafrost problem. About two-thirds of the state's population lives alongside that ~500 mile long corridor in the southern part of the state. Melting permafrost HAS been playing havoc with power lines (not to mention the roads and railways) in that area... but as that happens they repair or replace the infrastructure. It is a small enough area that they could just bury the main power line.
Everywhere else you are looking at small isolated communities where it makes more sense to build local power rather than hundreds of miles of transmission line. This has led to an explosion of solar replacing diesel power in those areas... despite the relative lack of sunlight in Alaska. Local wind, geothermal, and/or small hydro plants can also supply power for these remote areas.
Is solar power replacing the diesel really or just supplementing it for 6 months?
BigNorseWolf wrote: Is solar power replacing the diesel really or just supplementing it for 6 months? The only significant settlement in Alaska which can't get solar power all year is Utqiagvik... which is just inside the Arctic circle and thus has no sunrise for about two months in Winter. Of course, that means there are also two months in Summer when the Sun never sets and solar works great.
In any case, Utqiagvik is right on top of a major natural gas field and thus uses that for most of their power. The city is also being wrecked by melting permafrost and coastal erosion, and will almost certainly need to be abandoned / relocated within a few decades... making the question of solar power for US settlements within the Arctic circle moot.
For the rest of the state, solar power is available year round and however much they generate that way 'replaces' that much which would previously have been covered by expensive shipped in diesel. In pretty much all cases they still use some diesel (e.g. at night), but less than they did previously.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Is solar power replacing the diesel really or just supplementing it for 6 months? Anchorage AK also gets most of its precipitation and thus clouds in the summer with fog most anytime. And in the winter the nights are always long, cold and lacking in solar energy input. So while diesel can theoretically be a supplement to solar, without serious investment in battery storage it's more accurate to say solar is supplementing diesel. And that will be the case for at least another decade, even assuming a most amazing built-out of solar and batteries.
.
Since some people seem to have a hard time getting a handle on the scale of the AGW problem, here's a bite sized example.
Pat Woods wrote: According to Owen Burney, New Mexico State University associate professor and superintendent at the John D. Harrington Forest Research Center, reforestation needs in New Mexico are currently estimated to be between 1 million to 2.6 million acres, which would require 150 million to 390 million seedlings.
Current seedling production capacity in the state of New Mexico is approximately 300,000 per year....
In the upcoming 2021 legislative session, I intend to request a $25 million appropriation to support reforestation efforts, beginning with nurseries and seedlings.
So this proposed solution will get maybe 20% of the identified problem solved. Now, assuming no other complicating factors arrive, they need only another $100 M/year to actually get this off the ground. And once that's done (decades from now) they've solved about 3% of the AGW issue for New Mexico.
Then repeat this theoretical success about 5,000 more times over the next 30 years for the USofA as a whole and then repeat that 20 to 50 times over (conservatively) for the rest of the globe and you've got an outline of how ########### difficult it will be to hit the +1.5°C year 2100 IPCC target. Even more so when you consider tipping elements and unforeseen complications - because things unforeseen are inevitably entropic.
Also, my usual caveat about near-miracle tech....
Professor Kevin Anderson has a 45 minute talk that, except for general temperament, could've been given by Bjorn Lomborg. They're often seen to be advocating proposals that are at odds but really they both want sensible action based on science, on data, on facts and eschew the patent emotionalism of their lessers, er... critics. In short, Bjorn calls stupid proposals stupid, which puts people off, and Kevin simply points out that we ought to focus on things that will work instead of the many popular proposals that won't (e.g. carbon cap and trade).
Interestingly for moi, is that they both firmly agree we should've been moving on AGW issues in the 1990s when it could've been tackled with ease and, contrary to our present situation, in a way not at all dependent on CC&S or development other near-miracle tech. That in fact mere improvements in efficiency, started then and continuing past the present, would have us in track for no more than a +1.5°C year 2100.
I'd provide a few timestamps of Kevin Anderson's key points but none of my detractors will watch the video anyway with the possible exception of Mark Hoover who will no doubt watch it whether or not I annotate. But I can't help myself and will compromise with my cynicism and list just one. The example of the CO2 Pie at 20:00 to about 21:45.
Is it doable? Anderson thinks so but I'm not yet convinced since human beings are such ######## ########## in large groups; especially when things are emotional and the more so when you tell people they'll need to seriously do without, right now!
A carbon cap and trade would be a government program.
Are you now telling us that government programs are the solution?
Quark Blast wrote: Professor Kevin Anderson has a 45 minute talk that, except for general temperament, could've been given by Bjorn Lomborg. It really couldn't have.
Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook. The biggest problem he has is his view that 'equitable' climate mitigation means that less developed countries which haven't emitted much GHG so far should be allowed to emit more to 'catch up'... and thus there are virtually no emissions left for developed countries. This might be reasonable if fossil fuels were still the only option, but that simply is not the case. Thus, Anderson's analysis assumes large future fossil emissions for developing countries which are in reality approaching 100% renewable power... because doing so now costs them LESS than going the fossil fuel route would. His analysis is thus skewed by an underlying assumption (i.e. developing countries must rely on fossil fuels to advance) which is clearly false.
Lomborg, on the other hand, is just an outright fraud with no real scientific credentials to speak of.
Lomborg being Lomborg
CBDunkerson wrote: ...Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook.... Yes, totally implausible. Things like the Mouvement des Gilets Jaunes never happen. Move along now. Nothing to see or worry about.
.
Amazon Deforestation Reaches 12-Year High
And we know this ^ will have no consequences globally.
Yes, yes, so many inconvenient facts to ignore. How do I make the time?
Everything is a tea party in a rose garden.
:D
Standard QB... completely ignore the substance and then try to distract with something that was never in dispute.
So QB, I'm having a hard time tracking here. These are the points I'm reading:
1. You post w/a link to Professor Anderson's talk - full disclosure, I haven't watched it yet but I will this evening.
2. C to the Beedunks says Anderson's outlook is pessimistic and suggests that the actual issue with his points is that they assume non-developed countries have to catch up to developed ones in fossil fuel usage and subsequent emissions
3. You connect the professor's pessimism to a populist economic movement in France (a developed country) over, among other things, gas prices that went bad.
How does YOUR Yellow Vest notation address CB Radio's concern that Anderson's points contain a faulty assumption? Please explain for the meatheads such as myself :)
Ignore what he says about the yellow vest protest. He's making up his own motivation for it and ignoring facts and evidence about the protests that don't suit his invented narrative.
To give an analogy:
A 4 year-old child throws a tantrum about eating broccoli.
QB: Obviously the child hates all food.
That's how dumb his analysis is.
Irontruth wrote: Ignore what he says about the yellow vest protest. He's making up his own motivation for it and ignoring facts and evidence about the protests that don't suit his invented narrative. But even with his own motivation, it still doesn't have anything to do with Anderson's pessimism. Or at least not with the argument that non-developed countries have to catch up to developed ones in fossil fuel usage and subsequent emissions.
Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting!
That being said, I can't access YouTube while connected to my company's VPN so I still haven't watched the talk, but over lunch I read through this article about Professor Anderson and his recent paper about mitigation in the UK.
One thing that I noticed Anderson is really blunt and direct, almost alarmist, about the fact that we're as bad off as we are. Also, it seems like his message summed up in the Guardian article is about driving policy to where his data shows it's needed the most.
Supposedly 20% of the elite in the UK contribute to 70% of their emissions. I haven't read Anderson's actual research, but if this is accurate this means that policy meant to curb the entire populace of the country is like using a broadsword instead of a scalpel. However, one of his proposed solutions sounds like energy Socialism - equalize 10% of the populace to the other 90%'s usage.
Does that seem unrealistic to anyone else, or is that just me being an "ugly American?"
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting!
That being said, I can't access YouTube while connected to my company's VPN so I still haven't watched the talk, but over lunch I read through this article about Professor Anderson and his recent paper about mitigation in the UK.
One thing that I noticed Anderson is really blunt and direct, almost alarmist, about the fact that we're as bad off as we are. Also, it seems like his message summed up in the Guardian article is about driving policy to where his data shows it's needed the most.
Supposedly 20% of the elite in the UK contribute to 70% of their emissions. I haven't read Anderson's actual research, but if this is accurate this means that policy meant to curb the entire populace of the country is like using a broadsword instead of a scalpel. However, one of his proposed solutions sounds like energy Socialism - equalize 10% of the populace to the other 90%'s usage.
Does that seem unrealistic to anyone else, or is that just me being an "ugly American?"
In that sense, energy socialism seems like a good idea. If a small number of people are creating the vast majority of the problem, that makes it easier to solve without the widespread deprivation we're often threatened with.
Why should the 20% get to use so much more energy, especially when it's creating problems for everyone?
Well, if I recall correctly that's the idea of The Commons in English law. Common grazelands, common resources like water, electricity and such that are necessary to benefit every human being equally are supposed to be shared, equally, and then taxed, equally.
Unfortunately over the centuries larger corporations and wealthier individuals have found ways to game the system whereby they are allowed to use a greater share of the commons than other entities but pay less for them. Or at least, that's how it is here in the US; I have no idea what it's like in other countries.
I hear a particular left-leaning radio pundit go off all the time about The Commons and how bringing back fair compensation for fair usage would resolve so many problems. He may very well be right, I don't know, but that's not how our current system is set up.
Anyway, if Professor Anderson is correct and 20% are responsible for 70% of emissions, I'd favor targeting policy to the greatest impact. Of course, that's an advocacy for government regulation and intervention. As Quark-Mononoff is constantly pointing out, the government can't sustain long-term initiatives like that. So, I guess we're back to being doomed or pinning our hopes on magic technology again?
The Tragedy of the Commons is a fiction invented by capitalists.
Like... literally. It was invented by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 as a justification for population control.
The problem described by the thought exercise is more likely to happen under a capitalist system than it is in a socialist one.
Irontruth wrote: The Tragedy of the Commons is a fiction invented by capitalists.
Like... literally. It was invented by William Forster Lloyd in 1833 as a justification for population control.
The problem described by the thought exercise is more likely to happen under a capitalist system than it is in a socialist one.
That's generally my take on it. Not just a justification for population control, but a justification for moving public land to private ownership.
The tragedy of the commons is a real problem though. At least a potential one. It's just that the effective solution is a socialist one, not a capitalist one. The problem with the original framing was that the literal Commons had been effectively managed communally for centuries with out the tragedy happening.
Mark Hoover wrote: Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting! The Yellow Vest movement is a flat contradiction of the bald assertion, "...Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook....".
No, I'd say Anderson, like Lomborg, is spot-on pessimistic.
.
Mark Hoover wrote: ...One thing that I noticed Anderson is really blunt and direct, almost alarmist, about the fact that we're as bad off as we are. Also, it seems like his message summed up in the Guardian article is about driving policy to where his data shows it's needed the most. And so is Lomborg's message.
.
Mark Hoover wrote: Supposedly 20% of the elite in the UK contribute to 70% of their emissions. I haven't read Anderson's actual research, but if this is accurate this means that policy meant to curb the entire populace of the country is like using a broadsword instead of a scalpel. However, one of his proposed solutions sounds like energy Socialism - equalize 10% of the populace to the other 90%'s usage.
Does that seem unrealistic to anyone else, or is that just me being an "ugly American?"
I think it's so close to right that it's not worth quibbling over minutia on this forum.
.
Mark Hoover wrote: ...Anyway, if Professor Anderson is correct and 20% are responsible for 70% of emissions, I'd favor targeting policy to the greatest impact. Of course, that's an advocacy for government regulation and intervention. As Quark-Mononoff is constantly pointing out, the government can't sustain long-term initiatives like that. So, I guess we're back to being doomed or pinning our hopes on magic technology again? As to your last point:
#### governments can't even sustain large scale short term initiatives all too often. Take a look at the stats for the Coronavirus for Washington state and New Mexico. The latter, with half the population of the former, has had even more stringent controls in attempt to squash the virus and yet... yet, they're doing patently worse, no matter how you look at the data.
.
thejeff wrote: Why should the 20% get to use so much more energy, especially when it's creating problems for everyone? I don't think we should in an ideal world. This animated cartoon might help you figure out Who is Responsible? You can shortcut to 8:25-35 and see that this is basically what Bjorn and Kevin aim at. Theirs are complimentary solutions on the occasions when they're not talking about exactly the same thing.
Sadly, this web of complex solutions involve not just human beings but essentially all human beings. There is a bit of cartoon wisdom offered at 9:50-10:00 and therein lies the problem.
Ballparking an answer to your question directly:
In the real world, the only one we've got, you need to pay another 20%-30% on gross taxes to help cover that expense. Somehow I doubt you'll go for that, and even if you would there's the need to convince about 200 million of your voting fellow citizens that they should go along with you. And then another 1,000-1,500 million more around the globe.
Another option is to take out #### ### ####### loans that won't have to be paid back until after, perhaps well after, you're planted in a bone orchard. I'm not so keen on that option because, should I live to the average age for my cohort, I'll be totally ###### ## ### ### at the time in my life when I should be looking most "up" financially.
A third option is to go the Lomborg approach.
The fourth option is to blow up the discussion with asinine and puerile personal attacks like, "That's how dumb his analysis is."
I prefer the third option.
:D
Yeah, your fake offense right there isn't fooling anyone.
You routinely make comments about me. If you think this kind of behavior should end, feel free to stop. As long as you continue, your whining is obvious.
Quarkanator, I'm watchin' the Lomborg Approach as I'm typing this. He's holding up the UN's data as the standard and specifically on the weather impacts, he's boiling it all down to percent of GDP changes expected by 2100. So on the one hand Bjorn himself says that while they EXPECT that there'll be less hurricanes, they'll be more damaging, but on the other hand he fully acknowledges something I've found upthread from multiple studies which is that current science knows they don't know enough to make definitive statements on weather related to climate change.
So... we're not sure that we're right about climate change's effects on extreme weather, but we also know that we're right that hurricanes will only be 0.02 percent GDP in the future where now they're 0.04%.
This seems contradictory.
Then there's the fact that in developing countries a hurricane deals significantly more damage, but then ALSO it takes so much longer for them to recover. This isn't a one-time effect on the economy in those countries, one bad hurricane drags them down for half a decade. Now, imagine that such a country is going to suffer only 10 instead of 20 hurricanes in a season, but instead of 5 of 20 being bad, now 6 of 10 are going to be bad.
All of Bjorn's messages, talks and articles that I've read is that climate change, or at least it's impacts, are financial. Period. People can adapt to uncomfortable temperatures, it'll just cost money.
Rising sea levels, which Bjorn admits will happen, will cause more than a hit to global GDP growth. This will damage ecosystems, which in turn will break food chains. We'll definitely see an impact to quality of life and food availability if the sea rises by 3' by 2100.
But Bjorn says over and over that there will be little impact to lives lost from climate change; this is a financial problem, we'll adapt. But higher salinity will affect farming, underwater life will falter, and while floods might or might not get worse, the remaining water after the flooding has nowhere to run back out to.
These aren't just cost prohibitive. AND NOAA and the UN and others say they're not sure what all the effects on weather will actually be from global warming. Why should we NOT be saying the sky is falling?
But ok, maybe we shouldn't panic, and I DO agree that we need to use money wisely to combat this, but I wholeheartedly reject this idea that meh, it'll cost slightly more money by 2100 if temps rise, so we should finally get around to doing something about this.
The reason the AOC's of the world are running around scaring the heck out of people is that since the 60's we've been trying a slow, rational approach, and year after year this is falling short of doing what's needed.
The idea that Lomborg and Anderson in any way 'agree' on AGW is just bizarre.
Lomborg essentially argues that AGW is a relatively minor problem and that we can just adapt to it by spending a little money to adjust to the higher temperatures.
Anderson, conversely, claims that we have run out of time and wealthy countries must make immediate drastic cuts in emissions to avoid dooming the majority of the world's population to climate catastrophe.
IMO they are both wrong. Anderson because he considers solar and wind 'future technologies' that cannot reduce emissions fast enough, and Lomborg because he's a professional shill for the fossil fuel industry who has no compunctions whatsoever against deliberately deceiving people.
Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover wrote: Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting! The Yellow Vest movement is a flat contradiction of the bald assertion, "...Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook....".
No, I'd say Anderson, like Lomborg, is spot-on pessimistic.
Mark, you'll note the lack of any assessment, just flat argument by assertion.
thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover wrote: Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting! The Yellow Vest movement is a flat contradiction of the bald assertion, "...Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook....".
No, I'd say Anderson, like Lomborg, is spot-on pessimistic.
Mark, you'll note the lack of any assessment, just flat argument by assertion. Yes, QB essentially just said the Yellow Vest Movement is connected to the statement about Anderson b/c the Yellow Vest Movement is a contradiction of the statement about Anderson. Nothing about HOW its a contradiction despite my specific request for such explanation.
No, I get it, I just thought it was important that QB deliver that answer rather than just take everyone else's word for how QB would answer. I was trying to be nice, or at least fair.
CBDunkerson wrote: The idea that Lomborg and Anderson in any way 'agree' on AGW is just bizarre.
Lomborg essentially argues that AGW is a relatively minor problem and that we can just adapt to it by spending a little money to adjust to the higher temperatures.
Anderson, conversely, claims that we have run out of time and wealthy countries must make immediate drastic cuts in emissions to avoid dooming the majority of the world's population to climate catastrophe.
IMO they are both wrong. Anderson because he considers solar and wind 'future technologies' that cannot reduce emissions fast enough, and Lomborg because he's a professional shill for the fossil fuel industry who has no compunctions whatsoever against deliberately deceiving people.
This kind of fits with all the info that I'm finding on the 2 gentlemen, except: do you really think Bjorn Lomborg is somehow working WITH some facet of the fossil fuel industry? I can't find any direct ties but then I'm not particularly good at internet digging.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: thejeff wrote: Quark Blast wrote: Mark Hoover wrote: Well, I'll wait to hear QB's assessment of his own motivations and associations of the Yellow Vest movement and Professor Anderson's talk. All due respect but I think I owe it to Quarkly Blastycaps to hear his side of things. Also it'd been so long between posts you had me worried there QB, glad you're still posting! The Yellow Vest movement is a flat contradiction of the bald assertion, "...Anderson is a competent scientist with an implausibly pessimistic outlook....".
No, I'd say Anderson, like Lomborg, is spot-on pessimistic.
Mark, you'll note the lack of any assessment, just flat argument by assertion. Yes, QB essentially just said the Yellow Vest Movement is connected to the statement about Anderson b/c the Yellow Vest Movement is a contradiction of the statement about Anderson. Nothing about HOW its a contradiction despite my specific request for such explanation.
No, I get it, I just thought it was important that QB deliver that answer rather than just take everyone else's word for how QB would answer. I was trying to be nice, or at least fair. I understand it's a pain in the ass, but there are literally 2 years of him posting comments about the Yellow Vest protests. He's explained his viewpoint on it quite a few times.
I try to be careful not to misrepresent his views. I am not kind to them, but I think I can portray them fairly accurately.
You're right IT and I apologize for my laziness. Per earlier posts in this thread, His Quarkiness has suggested that the Yellow Vest movement shows that while you might be able to tell the general populace that climate change is happening you can't force them to pay for it.
QB, do I have that right? If so, that would explain why you use it as an example of why Anderson's pessimism is so well founded.
I don't know that I agree though. Currently in our country we have a debate over whether or not another stimulus is needed to boost the economy to get us through the pandemic. One poll shows 72% of Americans say yes, we need more stimulus despite the fact that certain media outlets are saying all this stimulus will do more damage financially long term.
In other words, Americans are willing to pay for stuff that they're convinced will help them long term.
Right now we don't have exact figures on the GND initiatives since it's not actually a bill but just some ideas. However, this shows that a little over half the country supports the GND as a whole and more support some of the individual points proposed.
There's evidence that suggests that over 50% of the American voters 1. believe climate change is real and is threatening us currently, 2. should have something done about it, 3. support some of the initiatives of the GND to address these challenges, and that's before they even have a price tag.
But as IT was quick to point out in one of the MANY exchanges between them and QB re: the Yellow Vest movement, using history to predict future outcomes isn't an exact science.
I don't know that there would be riots over getting the US populace to pay for climate change initiatives. I don't think I'd even say that the Yellow Vest protests are an indicator that Anderson is right in his pessimism. I think it just says that you can't do an unpopular tax under an unpopular president.
As for Bjorn... wow. Just... wow.
He's a PHD in Poli Sci with an emphasis on Game Theory? He's only done 1 peer reviewed piece, ever? And THAT'S the guy everyone goes to for climate science review and cost benefit analysis? Plus, he's not even an economist, so how's Bjorn able to accurately take a science he's not trained in, drill it down to absolutes and then predict out that we'll be so rich as a global economy by 2100 that AGW will just be a minor inconvenience to our pocket books?
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
You guys don't really expect him to respond to your question... right?
He's been full of nothing but hot air and pseudo-intellectual think tank talking points, he isn't going to address the obvious holes in his argument. The best you can hope for is a successful deflection onto a tangentially related topic while ignoring the intent of your actual question regardless of how pointed you make it.
Dalton, philosopher wrote: Be nice. If someone gets in your face, calls you an inconvenient fact-er, be nice. If they won't walk to the point of their argument; walk them, but be nice. If you can't walk them, one of the others will help you. I want you to remember it's only a climate change thread, it's nothing personal. Be nice... until it's time, not to be nice. I'm paraphrasing the legendary peace maker of course, but his words are literally some of those that I live by. QB has been at least the online version of respectful to me through this thread and others. I will continue to treat them with the same kindness and respect, until I become one of the many folks QB inevitably rolls their eyes at :)
So... I'll keep asking questions. I might not agree with Bjorn's populist ideas or this notion that government is bad for climate change initiatives but at the same time good for them, but I'll keep being nice until I get a reason not to be.
QB, please correct me if I got anything wrong here on your assessment upthread. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on all this. Thanks!
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: You're right IT and I apologize for my laziness. Per earlier posts in this thread, His Quarkiness has suggested that the Yellow Vest movement shows that while you might be able to tell the general populace that climate change is happening you can't force them to pay for it.
QB, do I have that right? If so, that would explain why you use it as an example of why Anderson's pessimism is so well founded.
Beyond that, he's still not right unless that's why Anderson is pessimistic. Which also hasn't been established.
So now, we're feeding not only plausible reasoning to QB, but inventing reasons for Anderson, all in service of making QB right about Anderson, while ignoring CB's actual arguments about him:
Quote: The biggest problem he has is his view that 'equitable' climate mitigation means that less developed countries which haven't emitted much GHG so far should be allowed to emit more to 'catch up'... and thus there are virtually no emissions left for developed countries. This might be reasonable if fossil fuels were still the only option, but that simply is not the case. Thus, Anderson's analysis assumes large future fossil emissions for developing countries which are in reality approaching 100% renewable power... because doing so now costs them LESS than going the fossil fuel route would. His analysis is thus skewed by an underlying assumption (i.e. developing countries must rely on fossil fuels to advance) which is clearly false."
"Anderson, conversely, claims that we have run out of time and wealthy countries must make immediate drastic cuts in emissions to avoid dooming the majority of the world's population to climate catastrophe.
IMO they are both wrong. Anderson because he considers solar and wind 'future technologies' that cannot reduce emissions fast enough,
To accept the argument we've invented for QB, we have to ignore the reasons CB called him implausibly pessimistic and accept without any supporting evidence that he's right about needing those immediate drastic cuts that the yellow vests will protest.
And this is the same kind of dance QB's been doing here for years. Ignoring arguments and throwing out random statements to get us to argue about. Then generally throwing out insults for not following his nonsense.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: You're right IT and I apologize for my laziness. Per earlier posts in this thread, His Quarkiness has suggested that the Yellow Vest movement shows that while you might be able to tell the general populace that climate change is happening you can't force them to pay for it.
Yes, I would agree that this is QB's point.
No, I do not agree that this is a good summary of the Yellow Vest movement.
Gas taxes are hard sells because they confront working class people on a weekly basis. Also, significant gas taxes (especially ones on a per gallon/liter basis) can be really obvious and have an immediate effect on a working class person's daily finances.
All of this makes it an immediate and difficult burden on those who are profiting the least.
I'll give another analogy:
Imagine a group of friends at a restaurant. One friend orders steak, sushi, and the most expensive wine on the menu. Another friend drinks water and orders one appetizer. Then the bill comes and it is suggested that everyone pay an equal share (not a proportional one). The person who ordered water and an app gets mad.
QB is suggesting we conclude that this person hates paying restaurant bills.
Yes, we probably need a tax on ICE vehicles. But the problem is if the solution as presented either creates an actual unfair burden, or creates the illusion of an unfair burden, then people are going to be upset even if they agree something needs to be done.
France's gas tax either needs to be made more fair to tax those who have profited the most from fossil fuels, or if it is fair, the politicians need to do a better job of selling it as fair.
Taxi drivers who barely live over the poverty line are not the primary cause of Global Warming. A gas tax that mostly impacts them is not going to solve the problem anyways.
Irontruth wrote: Mark Hoover 330 wrote: You're right IT and I apologize for my laziness. Per earlier posts in this thread, His Quarkiness has suggested that the Yellow Vest movement shows that while you might be able to tell the general populace that climate change is happening you can't force them to pay for it.
Yes, I would agree that this is QB's point.
No, I do not agree that this is a good summary of the Yellow Vest movement.
Gas taxes are hard sells because they confront working class people on a weekly basis. Also, significant gas taxes (especially ones on a per gallon/liter basis) can be really obvious and have an immediate effect on a working class person's daily finances.
All of this makes it an immediate and difficult burden on those who are profiting the least.
I'll give another analogy:
Imagine a group of friends at a restaurant. One friend orders steak, sushi, and the most expensive wine on the menu. Another friend drinks water and orders one appetizer. Then the bill comes and it is suggested that everyone pay an equal share (not a proportional one). The person who ordered water and an app gets mad.
QB is suggesting we conclude that this person hates paying restaurant bills.
Yes, we probably need a tax on ICE vehicles. But the problem is if the solution as presented either creates an actual unfair burden, or creates the illusion of an unfair burden, then people are going to be upset even if they agree something needs to be done.
France's gas tax either needs to be made more fair to tax those who have profited the most from fossil fuels, or if it is fair, the politicians need to do a better job of selling it as fair.
Taxi drivers who barely live over the poverty line are not the primary cause of Global Warming. A gas tax that mostly impacts them is not going to solve the problem anyways. Right, gas taxes are regressive, effectively a flat tax. Superficially fair because everyone pays the same rate.
jocundthejolly wrote:
Right, gas taxes are regressive, effectively a flat tax. Superficially fair because everyone pays the same rate.
Though at least some of the carbon tax proposals are designed to be revenue neutral, with flat rebates covering the expected tax revenues. Everyone gets the same rebate, but the incentive to cut back on usage remains, since spending $500 extra on fuel taxes while getting a $1000 rebate is better than spending $1000 extra while getting the same $1000 rebate.
In practice, this may still lean towards the well off, since they'd be able to afford electric cars or other investments that reduce usage. On the other hand, they also tend to use more to start with.
Mark Hoover 330 wrote: do you really think Bjorn Lomborg is somehow working WITH some facet of the fossil fuel industry? I can't find any direct ties but then I'm not particularly good at internet digging. I really do
Thanks for that C to the BD. Not only does this help illuminate your assessment of Lomborg's affiliations, it also introduced me to the DeSmogBlog. As a novice at not only climate science but also online research that doesn't involve entertainment news, every google search I do only brings up the most mainstream stuff, so a lot of my searches bring up the Guardian, Forbes and so on.
It's handy to know some resources to go to for more targeted info. Of course, I've got to be careful that I'm not getting too far into tin foil hat territory from these sources. Bottom line, accurate, neutral internet searches are hard.
5 years after Paris, how do countries’ climate policies match up to their promises?
”qz” wrote: Even if established clean technologies like renewable energy are at the core of the transition, the pace of change required to meet the Paris goals remains daunting. Socioeconomic issues will also have to be put front and center….Why that’s just what Bjorn Lomborg says!
Our analysis found the deployment of renewable power would need to accelerate two- to three-fold. Global renewable energy use would need to go from around 20% of energy today to 65% by 2050, and from 28% to 85% of the power sector. Electric vehicle use would have to skyrocket, from less than 10 million EVs today to more than 1.5 billion by 2050.
Of course the real question is how do countries’ climate policy actions match up to their promises?
Partial answer:
”LA Times” wrote: U.N. Production Gap Report issued last week found that while nations must reduce fossil fuel production by about 6% a year through 2030 to meet the Paris goals, “countries are instead planning and projecting an average annual increase of 2%." In other words, the world knows what it needs to do. It’s just not doing it fast enough or diligently enough. “Not doing it fast enough"?
Um, did you see the part where a 2% increase was projected instead of the required minimum 6% decrease?
Going in the wrong direction means “fast enough” is the wrong verb/adverb.
:D
.
”Mark Hoover” wrote: So... we're not sure that we're right about climate change's effects on extreme weather, but we also know that we're right that hurricanes will only be 0.02 percent GDP in the future where now they're 0.04%.
This seems contradictory.
Lomborg is saying that in the doomsday scenarios being spun up you have to do two things:
1) Take the climate predictions at face value, and
2) Also assume that people will just sit around and wait for #### to happen.
His point is that people won’t. They’ll take action that will cost a few tens of billions then instead of a few tens of trillions now. And the reason it will be so much cheaper then is also two-fold.
1) Green tech will keep getting better and cheaper/more efficient to implement, and
2) Green initiatives will be underway from now until well past 2100 and so there will be far less mitigation to undertake then compared to doing it all “now” (by 2030 or 2040 or even 2050).
To decarbonize our power supply will require moving to a ‘smart grid’ which will require upgrading the entire system currently in place and also doubling the current transmissions lines. Mainly because the footprint of green power is so huge compared to a natural gas generation plant. That's only a fraction of the GND and by itself is nearly an impossibly large project to complete well in only a decade.
.
”Mark Hoover” wrote: Rising sea levels, which Bjorn admits will happen, will cause more than a hit to global GDP growth. This will damage ecosystems, which in turn will break food chains. We'll definitely see an impact to quality of life and food availability if the sea rises by 3' by 2100….
These aren't just cost prohibitive. AND NOAA and the UN and others say they're not sure what all the effects on weather will actually be from global warming. Why should we NOT be saying the sky is falling?
Again, only if we sit and wait 80 years for the sky to fall on us. You know the sea level rise is already baked in? Should we stop emitting CO2 globally tomorrow from fossil fuels the amount of sea level rise we are expecting by the year 2100 is exactly the same as if we go total ####### GND right now.
There was a paper printed about 14 years ago that tried to asses the danger of AGW and whether this danger is best described as “alarmist” or “alarming”. Unsurprisingly the author concluded that the situation was the latter.
”James S. Risbey” wrote: ...the few studies that have looked systematically at this issue have concluded that the available window of action to shift the emissions trajectory sufficiently far downward to avoid locking in that warming is perhaps as short as a decade or two. Taken together, the view of climate change that emerges in this review of the science and discourse on alarm indicates the emergence of a new ‘‘alarming’’ discourse. It’s important to note that there are only 6 years left of his “decade or two” window of action, but no worries because – magically! – it’s still a two decade window we have to act in. It’s also important to note that regardless of which adjective best describes the state of climate science, had we taken GND-level action in 2007 we’d be bankrupt already and have damn little to show for it come 2100.
Until just recently, and even still in some jurisdictions, wind/solar farms don’t have decommissioning costs factored in. Wind farms from 20+ years ago are mostly getting blown up and stuffed in landfills when they aren’t sitting as idle eyesores on the landscape. Ponnequin Wind Farm was slated for removal circa 2015. AFAIK it’s still there, idle for half a decade and counting. Brilliant! And then there’s the cost to wildlife – habitat fragmentation and clocking birds and bats for twenty years while the blades turned. Best for the GND cheerleaders if we don’t consider these very real costs. Yes, yes…. Let’s move along now.
But, but… new wind farms have bond measures attached to cover the cost of decommissioning. Indeed, and who pays for those bonds? Are those costs factored into the electricity rates when we’re being sold on the new wind farms?
This brings us back to the Yellow Vest debacle.
”Mark Hoover” wrote: Yes, QB essentially just said the Yellow Vest Movement is connected to the statement about Anderson b/c the Yellow Vest Movement is a contradiction of the statement about Anderson. Nothing about HOW its a contradiction despite my specific request for such explanation.
No, I get it, I just thought it was important that QB deliver that answer rather than just take everyone else's word for how QB would answer. I was trying to be nice, or at least fair. ….
Per earlier posts in this thread, His Quarkiness has suggested that the Yellow Vest movement shows that while you might be able to tell the general populace that climate change is happening you can't force them to pay for it.
QB, do I have that right? If so, that would explain why you use it as an example of why Anderson's pessimism is so well founded.
The fuel tax was an “enlightened” government response that totally ####### failed to account for how it might actually be received by those getting ##### ## ### #### by the tax. Now tell me letting the government have free reign over tens of trillions of dollars this next decade in order to liberally sprinkle hundreds (thousands?) more of these “good ideas” on we huddled masses will somehow not turn out to be a total #### ####.
”Mark Hoover” wrote: As for Bjorn... wow. Just... wow.
He's a PHD in Poli Sci with an emphasis on Game Theory? He's only done 1 peer reviewed piece, ever? And THAT'S the guy everyone goes to for climate science review and cost benefit analysis? Plus, he's not even an economist, so how's Bjorn able to accurately take a science he's not trained in, drill it down to absolutes and then predict out that we'll be so rich as a global economy by 2100 that AGW will just be a minor inconvenience to our pocket books?
Lomborg’s ideas aren’t merely his own. Meet the experts Lomborg works with to develop his prescriptions for large scale problems.
And so what if Lomborg’s PhD is in PoliSci with and emphasis on Game Theory?
The whole idea behind his Copenhagen Consensus Center is to generate economically sound policy prescriptions. Game Theory is absolutely directly relevant.
Here’s professor Max Boycoff taking the approach Lomborg (and Anderson) takes, Ditching the Doomsaying for Better Climate Discourse.
Given how well “doomsaying” has worked to date, I’d think people would be ready to try a more productive approach. But then ####### on the Internet, so no, I really don’t think that.
:D
The most recent cases in point:
“Yeah, your fake offense right there isn't fooling anyone…. your whining is obvious.”
“BTW, he doesn't publish peer reviewed work. I get why QB likes him.”
“He's been full of nothing but hot air and pseudo-intellectual think tank talking points, he isn't going to address the obvious holes in his argument. The best you can hope for is a successful deflection onto a tangentially related topic while ignoring the intent of your actual question regardless of how pointed you make it.”
“And this is the same kind of dance QB's been doing here for years. Ignoring arguments and throwing out random statements to get us to argue about. Then generally throwing out insults for not following his nonsense.”
“QB is suggesting we conclude that this person hates paying restaurant bills.”
No indeed, I’m quite certain that the fourth option will remain the most popular. That’s the one where total ######## just blow up the discussion with asinine and puerile personal attacks, as we’ve just seen. Again.
:D
”Mark Hoover” wrote: Not only does this help illuminate your assessment of Lomborg's affiliations, it also introduced me to the DeSmogBlog. As a novice at not only climate science but also online research that doesn't involve entertainment news, every google search I do only brings up the most mainstream stuff, so a lot of my searches bring up the Guardian, Forbes and so on.
It's handy to know some resources to go to for more targeted info. Of course, I've got to be careful that I'm not getting too far into tin foil hat territory from these sources. Bottom line, accurate, neutral internet searches are hard.
One option is to stop using Google, duckduckgo is a thing.
And I’d say reading any opinion piece from Greenpeace is solidly in the tinfoil hat territory. If you want good science avoid them and the Sierra Club. Stick with The Nature Conservancy or the Union of Concerned Scientists. The UCS can get expressly political at times but then the bias isn’t hidden so I’m ok with that.
”thejeff” wrote: Mark, you'll note the lack of any assessment, just flat argument by assertion. Pardon me for providing links and letting people think for themselves.
:D
So QB, from the link you provided from Professor Boykoff, Professor Boykoff wrote: He argues that only framing the issue as a matter of individual responsibility and encouraging generations to snipe at one another—“OK, Boomer,” for example, or criticizing younger people for failing to live up to their proclaimed ideals—are often distractions that do little to address the problem. Haven't you been telling me it's down to individual responsibility and using a fair amount of snark in responses to others in this thread? And, in return for the rest of us, haven't we returned snark with snark? In the article QUARKIUS MAXIMUS linked to this is a straight up admonishment of ALL our communication on the matter.
Based on the age of this thread I don't think this irony will assuage any frustrations or change anyone's styles. I just figured it was worth pointing out.
Blaster of Quarks, I voiced my frustration with Dr Lomborg's qualifications b/c he is often lambasting politicians with accusations of fancy words with no targeted actions, yet his role is as the voice for the consortium. Also, he has published opinion pieces and books that relate his opinions to others' data, but he also makes conclusions in those works - conclusions about economics he may or may not actually be qualified to make. Finally, these conclusions cannot be held up to scrutiny as he doesn't peer review, so the best that can be done is that his work can be critiqued by professional critics.
In the link that IT provided, the Skeptical Environmentalist was critiqued harshly by the Scientific American and he crowd-sourced the rebuttal. Or at least, it's implied he crowd-sourced the portion of the rebuttal that addressed the science of the critique.
Then you have the fact that the think tank Dr Lomborg is employed by has taken money from both the Koch brothers AND Paul Singer, all with fossil fuel friendly agendas. Ironically, looking back through IT's link, the more Dr Lomborg works with the CCC, the softer his views on the time frame for phasing out fossil fuels has gotten.
This is where my skepticism comes from QB.
Why not let Lomborg speak for himself?
Understanding the Cost of Climate Change with Bjorn Lomborg - Chapter 1
Understanding the Cost of Climate Change with Bjorn Lomborg - Chapter 2
Understanding the Cost of Climate Change with Bjorn Lomborg - Chapter 3
Understanding the Cost of Climate Change with Bjorn Lomborg - Chapter 4
Romm Critique of COP21 Impact Deeply Flawed
Response to Bob Ward - Activism Dressed Up as Science
Mark Hoover wrote: Haven't you been telling me it's down to individual responsibility and using a fair amount of snark in responses to others in this thread? And, in return for the rest of us, haven't we returned snark with snark? My snark is both apt and honest. I aim to denigrate the asininity of their puerile "arguments", not the people themselves. That they can't differentiate their person from their ill-suited ideas is not my problem, nor my concern.
.
Mark Hoover wrote: Finally, these conclusions cannot be held up to scrutiny as he Lomborg doesn't peer review, so the best that can be done is that his work can be critiqued by professional critics. All of his more academic books are published by Cambridge University Press. Are they patsies for the oil industry too?
I've linked to a YouTube video where Lomborg defends his ideas against a detractor in a moderated academic setting. He wiped the floor with the guy - of all the people in the room who could be persuaded, he persuaded them all.
There is a bandwagon for keeping your academic position and of getting funding and you better be on it lest you find yourself out of a job. As my advisor and department head said to me not so long ago, "I've learned that certain people don't want to hear my opinion, and so I don't share it with them".
It's no coincidence that the major academic GND detractors are all professors emeriti.
I'm not afraid of losing my job so I speak my mind. I'm not afraid of what my peers may publicly claim to think about me or my ideas so I feel free to engage in substantive discussion of ideas that interest me.
Mark Hoover wrote: Blaster of Quarks, I voiced my frustration with Dr Lomborg's qualifications b/c he is often lambasting politicians with accusations of fancy words with no targeted actions, yet his role is as the voice for the consortium. Also, he has published opinion pieces and books that relate his opinions to others' data, but he also makes conclusions in those works - conclusions about economics he may or may not actually be qualified to make. What does this mean?
Elected officials are often among the least qualified. Why is it good that they establish policy and set budgets? At least Lomborg consults relevant academic professionals and provides an outline of positive actions to take, both individually and corporately.
Quark Blast wrote: And so what if Lomborg’s PhD is in PoliSci with and emphasis on Game Theory? It means that he's not actually an expert on climate science, economics, or computer modeling.
Now, I agree that he could be using some of the data correctly, but every source I've examined who has expertise in these fields have claimed that when they double check his work they find errors.
www.lomborg-errors.dk
A whole website that goes into great detail about the errors he makes. From the "Smart Solutions" section of criticism focusing on economic models, one part of the analysis on discounts within the model:
Quote: A problem with this very high discount rate is the underlying ideology that investments in climate mitigation should be equally profitable as present-day industrial investments. That is, investments in climate mitigation should only be made when they are just as profitable as any other average business, and the reason to mitigate climate should be to make or spare money, not to prevent deterioration of the environment per se. However, if the world economy grows at 1.5 % per year, nobody can maintain a sustained return on invested capital of 5.5 % per year for any extended period of several decades or even centuries. This is the time-scale of climate change, and a discount rate as high as 5.5 % on this time scale makes no sense. Actually, climate economists have failed to resolve the discrepancy that arises because short-term returns on invested capital are much higher than the long-term growth rate of the total economy. This is explained in more detail on the page on discount rates on Lomborg-errors. This one aspect is so severe, that we can see his models of the economic impact on climate change are entirely subjective. Even if they do use some objective information, they are tainted by very large subjective factors.
Anything Lomborg says that is based on these models should be considered fiction.
But wait, there's more....
Lomborg's models suggest that a 2 degree increase would result in a 1% reduction of global GDP. Okay... maybe that's true. It then goes on to suggest that a 6 degree increase (which would mostly likely result in the extinction of 95%+ of all species on the planet right now) would only cost us 8-9% in GDP.
If you believe that, I've got some land in Florida to sell you.
No, no! Wait! There's even more!
Response to Howard Friel’s "The Lomborg Deception"
FAQ wrote: Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg proved scientifically dishonest?
No. Using a critique written by Lomborg's critics in the Scientific American (January 2002), the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) found that The Skeptical Environmentalist was objectively scientifically dishonest on January 7 2003. However, on December 17 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rescinded this finding. It released a 70-page evaluation criticizing at least 13 points in the DCSD report, three of which individually would have led to it being rescinded.
It found the DCSD verdict "dissatisfactory", "deserving [of] criticism" and "emotional." Most importantly, the Ministry found "that the DCSD has not documented where [Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the [DCSD] ruling is completely void of argumentation."
The case was finally dropped by DCSD March 12 2004.
While Lomborg's critics continue to quote the DCSD's 2003 verdict, it has been rescinded and found to be "dissatisfactory," "emotional" and "completely void of argumentation." An independent Dutch group of scientists analyzed the DCSD verdict and found that the comittee "delivered an almost totally political verdict."
If the decades-long patent and proven lack of integrity among Lomborg's most vocal detractors isn't enough, catch this:
The Mau-Mauing of Bjorn Lomborg
Environmentalists have reason to be afraid of this critic; but what are scientists afraid of?
September 2002
David Schoenbrod wrote: Bjørn Lomborg, is a Danish professor of statistics in his mid-thirties who was once a Greenpeace activist and who still thinks of himself as a dedicated environmentalist. His twin interests, in statistics and the environment, came into alignment when he was provoked into investigating the veracity of a statement by the late American economist Julian Simon. According to Simon—who was also an inveterate gadfly of orthodox environmentalists—the statistical record failed spectacularly to bear out the popular notion that we were in imminent danger of environmental ruin. Lomborg, together with a group of his brightest students, set out to prove Simon wrong. In the event, however, he found him largely right. The Skeptical Environmentalist marshals a formidable array of evidence to demonstrate why. .
David Schoenbrod wrote: Moreover, Lomborg shows, the IPCC has resolved uncertainties in its climatological models in ways that maximize the amount of the projected increase. And even if one were to posit the reliability of those models, the IPCC’s predictions of future carbon-dioxide emissions, which critically affect its most alarming predictions of temperature increases, are also too high, being based on the unwarranted assumption that the price of solar power and other alternatives to fossil fuels will drop much more slowly than it has been doing... "unwarranted assumption that the price of solar power and other alternatives to fossil fuels will drop much more slowly than it has been doing". Now who on this thread has been saying that? And Lomborg makes pains to cite the same truth. A truth I don't emphasize, though neither do I deny it.
Interesting, I'm willing to cite people who do not 100% agree with me.
But, but... hasn't it been said in this very forum that QB is "... full of nothing but hot air and pseudo-intellectual think tank talking points, he isn't going to address the obvious holes in his argument."
Oh yes, but that's not even 1/100th of the asininity to be found herein. Never mind that shall we?
Can we dispense with the character assassination approach to debunking Lomborg's* sound scientific pronouncements?
Excellent!
* By all means keep up with the puerility against me because I don't give a tinker's darn what your emotional and misinformed opinion is of me.
1. Everything I said about Lomborg was about his work. I didn't say anything about his character.
2. You didn't address anything I pointed out and show how his work isn't entirely subjective.
The economic impact of everything he says is based on "discounting" which is an entirely subjective process.
FAQ wrote: Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg proved scientifically dishonest?
No. Using a critique written by Lomborg's critics in the Scientific American (January 2002), the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) found that The Skeptical Environmentalist was objectively scientifically dishonest on January 7 2003. However, on December 17 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rescinded this finding. It released a 70-page evaluation criticizing at least 13 points in the DCSD report, three of which individually would have led to it being rescinded.
It found the DCSD verdict "dissatisfactory", "deserving [of] criticism" and "emotional." Most importantly, the Ministry found "that the DCSD has not documented where [Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the [DCSD] ruling is completely void of argumentation."
The case was finally dropped by DCSD March 12 2004.
While Lomborg's critics continue to quote the DCSD's 2003 verdict, it has been rescinded and found to be "dissatisfactory," "emotional" and "completely void of argumentation." An independent Dutch group of scientists analyzed the DCSD verdict and found that the comittee "delivered an almost totally political verdict."
Isn't it weird that Lomborg does not give a specific reason why the DCSD dropped the case, after the ministry "completely rescinded" their work?
wikipedia wrote: On December 17, 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD had made a number of procedural errors, including:
Not using a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;
Defining "objective scientific dishonesty" in a way unclear in determining whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;
Not properly documenting that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
Not providing specific statements on actual errors.
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate. On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.
In short: The ministry accused them of botching some technicalities, and the DCSD said "look, we could give you our answer in 10x the length, or we could just save everyone the time, because it would not change the underlying issues of the book."
Personally, I find the third complaint to be the best one: "Not properly documenting that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication." Because the DCSD literally asked Lomborg himself "is this an opinion piece or a scientific work?" before starting their assessment, and Lomborg HIMSELF classified it as the later.
So they defended Lomborgs scientific credentials ... by telling people that Lomborg has no idea what is even in his own book. With friends like these, who needs enemies.
... and a plain reading of his economic models already highlights that these are in no way valuable as economic models, let alone scientific ones. They are pure speculation where the person making the model gets to make up whatever rules they like.
Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character.
So, the crux of your rebuttal can also be dismissed.
His "discounting" method is purely subjective. He's literally just picking a number he likes and there is no valid objective support for why it should be that number.
Quark Blast wrote: Since Cambridge University Press has been publishing his books for 20 years, I'll go ahead and side with Cambridge University and let others call Lomborg a bald face liar and/or total scientific rube while pretending that says nothing about his character. Lomborg has an M.A. and a PhD in political sciences. Yes, he knows things, and yes, he is probably smart. But the fact that he is an expert in A field doesn't mean that he is an expert in THIS specific field.
|
