Comments on: Bjørn Again http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:38:10 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Rob Jacob http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6188 Rob Jacob Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:35:32 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6188 Curry's article is very good but I hope she didn't choose the title. Paring "cooler heads" with "climate change" is usually something you see in a denier article or something written by Lomberg himself. I suspect the Post editors, who really seem to be in the denier camp. Curry’s article is very good but I hope she didn’t choose the title. Paring “cooler heads” with “climate change” is usually something you see in a denier article or something written by Lomberg himself. I suspect the Post editors, who really seem to be in the denier camp.

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6138 Earl Killian Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:39:28 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6138 To Ron: I think when economic risks are factored in, the case for doing something about global warming is yet again stronger than it already is. I believe the economic downside from action is minimal, but the economic downside from inaction is large. Delayers and Denyers like to pretend that the economic downside is all in the "solve the problem" side of the choice before us, but if you factor in wars, famines, mass people movements, and so forth, I believe there is a chance of massive economic dislocation. Here is further reading on just one small part of the risk: http://www.uni-hamburg.de/Wiss/FB/15/Sustainability/annex6.pdf Look at the 2130 line of Figure 5 (in red). The $30 billion in annual cost to protect coastlines from flooding would nearly fund the solutions to global warming all by itself. But if the world waits, it needs to do both: solve the CO2 and protect coasts. And this is just one of the economic risk factors. To Ron: I think when economic risks are factored in, the case for doing something about global warming is yet again stronger than it already is. I believe the economic downside from action is minimal, but the economic downside from inaction is large. Delayers and Denyers like to pretend that the economic downside is all in the “solve the problem” side of the choice before us, but if you factor in wars, famines, mass people movements, and so forth, I believe there is a chance of massive economic dislocation.

Here is further reading on just one small part of the risk:
http://www.uni-hamburg.de/ Wiss/ FB/ 15/ Sustainability/ annex6.pdf
Look at the 2130 line of Figure 5 (in red). The $30 billion in annual cost to protect coastlines from flooding would nearly fund the solutions to global warming all by itself. But if the world waits, it needs to do both: solve the CO2 and protect coasts. And this is just one of the economic risk factors.

]]> By: Ana http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6097 Ana Thu, 11 Oct 2007 21:05:41 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6097 A much appreciated rebuttal, but I wish in her paragraph about all the technology that exists now that she would have included a sentence about needing policies from governments at all levels to drive their deployment. A much appreciated rebuttal, but I wish in her paragraph about all the technology that exists now that she would have included a sentence about needing policies from governments at all levels to drive their deployment.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6094 Jay Alt Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:52:08 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6094 Lomborg had a 2002 book where he misused statistics in analyzing environmental problems. You can get a sense of his methods from the collection of essays in Scientific American by experts who debunked his claims. The first one being Prof Stephen Schneider on climate. Misleading math about the Earth http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000 Lomborg had a 2002 book where he misused statistics in analyzing environmental problems. You can get a sense of his methods from the collection of essays in Scientific American by experts who debunked his claims. The first one being Prof Stephen Schneider on climate.

Misleading math about the Earth
http://www.sciam.com/ article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000

]]> By: Sylvia Tognetti http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6087 Sylvia Tognetti Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:21:48 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6087 Why is this not on the front page of the Sunday Outlook section - as was the Lomborg piece. I still think the Post needs to also publish a list of corrections - if there is any quality control at all over opinion pieces. Why is this not on the front page of the Sunday Outlook section – as was the Lomborg piece. I still think the Post needs to also publish a list of corrections – if there is any quality control at all over opinion pieces.

]]> By: Ron http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/debunking-bjorn-lomborg-cool-it/#comment-6082 Ron Thu, 11 Oct 2007 15:18:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2007/10/11/bj%c3%b8rn-again/#comment-6082 I'd like to see the economic risks honestly considered as well. I’d like to see the economic risks honestly considered as well.

]]>