O’Neel also said that the IPCC’s sea-level rise estimates were far too conservative, failing to take into account glacier melt/breakup. (He did not directly speculate as to the likelihood of a *multi-meter* rise in the next century, but my impression is that he considered that to be highly unlikely). Nonetheless, a 0.5-1 meter rise over the next century would be very expensive for the first-world and a disaster for some parts of the third-world.

O’Neel also said that smaller glaciers will likely contribute more to sea-level rise than the giant ice-sheets will for most of the next century.

But should global-warming get to the point that the big ice-sheets are significantly impacted, then we (as in future generations of “we”) will be in big trouble.

Drew Jones, Sustainability Institute

As Hansen, Joe and others have pointed out, past warmings of the magnitude expected from the current anthropogenic warming have resulted in mulit-meter increases in sea-leval rise, often in a very short time.

Models can be useful, but so can geologic history. And given that our model based forecasts have consistently understated both the rate and magnitude of warming, it’s time to consign the Lomborg’s of the world to the intellectual scrap heep reserved for sophists, professional icoconclasts, and researchers for hire and to start dealing with the reality that GW is coming, it’s coming soon and it’s likely to be a bad thing.

As Monty Python might have said:

“Well spoken, Bruce!”

The sea level thing can be laid at the feet of the latest IPCC report, which badly underrepresents the risk.

With all due respect and appreciation for your efforts in general, I haven’t seen any reason to accuse Lomborg of intellectual dishonesty, and frankly I see such accusations as counterproductive.

More here:
http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 09/ taking-lomborg-seriously.html

While I agree with you that “managing the earth” is the core problem we face, I take issue with your contention that Lomborg is being intellectually honest in this book.

Lomborg has a history of selectively using of facts and statistics to make points that are counterfactual. Remember his first book, the Skeptical Environmentalist? In an unprecedented move, the editors of Scientific American printed an editorial calling him on his sophstry. After three months of debates on the pages of Scientific American — in which Lomborg was given as much space to rebut as he wanted, his entire book lay in tatters, exposed as the intelluctual junk it was.

When an author makes the same kinds of mistakes over and over again, he is either dumb (in which case we should pay him no mind) or dishonest (in which case we should pay him no mind).

I think you underestimate the importance of culture gaps.

I haven’t seen any compelling evidence to believe that Lomborg is addressing the problem either dishonestly or incompetently in the terms that he thinks are appropriate. I shave seen the Scientific American editorial and thought it inappropriate as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

I guess I believe this debate should be conducted under the rules of Bacon’s New Organon —

Under the scientific method, we are obligated to assess all facts, and then using those facts, assemble a hypothesis and test that hypothesis against new facts as they emerge. It is this method that has helped humans come as close to truths as possible.

Lomborg starts with a hypothesis (based largely on neoclassical economic canon) and SELECTS facts to support it.

There is certainly a cultural divide between these epistemological approaches — one dominated the dark ages, the other has held sway since the enlightenment.

So, I don’t underestimate cultural differences — I just believe they are scintilatingly irrelevant to arriving at truths about global warming.

And further, as I stated, Lomborg seems to be a smart fellow (most Sophists are) and I don’t believe a smart fellow compiles a history of selective fact gathering aimed at a common perspective by accident.

Lomborg’s selection may be skewed or yours may be, or both. In fact I am inclined to believe that Lomborg is in fact a bit skewed. That doesn’t make him intellectually dishonest.

Also his facts are not nearly as skewed as I see made out. So far I haven’t seen him say anything that is unsupportable, and in fact everything he says is, as far as I know, compatible with WG1, and with the opinion of some of the more conservative climate science professionals I am personally acquainted with and who have no problems with the WG1 reports. It’s more his reasoning and his conclusions that are skewed.

It’s a missed opportunity to challenge Lomborg on the climatology, when it is the fundamental economic axioms that need to be called into question. The real difference between Lomborg and Stern is about how to treat long time scales economically, not about how fast sea level is rising. This is a real substantive diference on the matters on which they are expert, and on this matter Lomborg is closer to the economic field’s consensus.

If the Hansen scenarios don’t play out and sea level rise is hundreds of years in the future, we will still be as morally wrong to commit our distand descendants to it as we would be if it were the very next generation we were messing up. Conventional economics cannot process that thought, so either the thought is wrong or economics is wrong. This is what we should be talking about when we talk about Lomborg.

If Lomborg were right about the impacts of global warming, he would be (mostly) right about the economics. But I will get around to critiquing his economic analysis.

Two points — even without the discounting issue, Lomborg’s economics are wrong. See RFFs paper, “An Even Sterner Report.”

As to whether there’s any evidence that Lomborg is being dishonest, I echo Joe’s response above.

There are two options with regard to Lomborg’s research.

One is that by sheer happenstance, his research turned up only facts and forecasts that supported his contention that global warming is not as big a deal as folks are saying. Highly unlikely.

Option two is that he did comprehensive research but used only those studies and those sections of studies which suport his perspective. Much more likely and fundamentally dishonest.

In fact, it is evident from the nature of studies Lomborg cites that he was reasonably comprehensive in his review of the literature, but selective in how he used it.

Ergo, he was dishonest.

Finally, your metaphor about the Isreali and Palestinean suggests you have missunderstood my point about how science works. History, politics
religion and other such issues are inherently maleable. Science, on the other hand, is composed of observed phenomena that can be tested and verified (or refuted). Bacon laid out the requirements of scientific inquiry in his New Organon — one of the rules is that all data must be used and assessed in formulating a hypothesis or in attempting to refute one.

This isn’t a cultural issue in the way you describe it. it’s not a “on the one hand, this; on the other that” — I refer you to C.P. Snow’s essay on this exact topic.

As long as we’re being tendentious, in my earlier comment about the Scientific American editorial, you stated you thought it was unfair … but what discredited Lomborg were the many articles by scientists themselves which effectively and unequivocably discredited Lomborg, not the opinion piece published by the editors.

If there is truly a problem that man can actually affect, why isn’t the process transparent? No we have the likes of Al Gore telling us not to look at the dust in the corners. Why does the IPCC and its affiliates strong arm anyone who disagrees. The mockery of the concept of peer review is totally ridiculous. Those who make the report are responsible for choosing those that will do the peer review. Then if those that did the choosing don’t like what was said by the reviewers they simply ignore it. Just how inbred a process do we need to have for you to open your eyes and see that what is being sold to you is deception on a huge scale.

In my humble opinion the IPCC needs to be held accountable for its actions. The whole process needs to be audited and cleaned up. It needs to have an independent review process, not selected by those in the system.

If scientists, such as Dr. Paul Reiter, are bringing valid questions contending the assertions made by this bunch of clowns. Then “scientists” need to address the issues and stop with the BS ad hominem attacks. If it is a good question, it doesn’t matter if it is a child who has raised the point, it needs to be addressed.

A Bangladeshi scientist had warned that Bangladesh would be submerged decades ago… but nobody paid attention. Nobody bothered even after scientists from around the world raised the alarm.

RQ

Peer review, like democracy, is not perfect, but it has served science very, very well. There is no area of human activity that is more successful than science, and peer review is an essential and critical component of that success. If Barry has a better idea, let’s hear it, but please let it show an understanding of how science actually works.

Are we really supposed to pay attention to Paul Reiter, a medical entomologist, regarding climate change? According to Reiter, “Science proceeds by observation, hypothesis and experiment.” Sounds reasonable to the public. Also sounds like a grade-school formulation of the scientific method. Sigh.