The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Stern scare blunted by the figures > Comments

Stern scare blunted by the figures : Comments

By Bjorn Lomborg, published 8/11/2006

The Stern review: dodgy economic modelling behind the latest warming beat-up.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
We can reduce our reliance on coal fired electricity plants - thus reduce our carbon emmissions by installing solar panels on every government building. This would provide an incentive for Australian industry to continue research into solar energy.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 9:38:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suspect our descendants will still be arguing about this when the next Ice Age arrives.

I am still entirely unconvinced by any of the arguments - for either side - that I have read.

There simply doesn't seem to be a place in this world for calm, rational assessment. It is as if the adversarial nature of the law, coupled with the gladiatorial nature of our parliaments, conspire to ensure that there can be no such thing as an objectively-arrived-at fact.

You are either a global warming nut or an ignorant nay-sayer, there seems to be no place for honest enquiry.

We - and I am generalizing fiercely here - have little genuine understanding of the issues. Sure, we have a slogan here and a placard there, but we trust others to do the down-and-dirty research for us. And surprise! Just when it is expedient for the Blair government to establish some credibility on Green issues - voilà, there appears a report that allows him to do just that.

And if the timing doesn't appear sufficiently cynical, Mr Lomberg explains how "the report seems hastily put together, with many sloppy errors." But why should we decide that he is more credible than Stern? He delights in knocking holes in other people's arguments (also, I have to own, one of my own favourite sports), but that doesn't make him necessarily right.

Watch this space. In a few nanoseconds there will be a rebuttal of Lomberg's rebuttal of Stern, followed by... and so it goes on, with us being absolutely none the wiser.

As far as Stern is concerned, wouldn't it have been more convincing if those sloppy errors had been removed, some of the estimates with which Mr Lomberg quibbles been better explained, and the whole thing couched in less cataclysmic language?

But I guess that would have made it less politically valuable.

It isn't a matter of "not believing". It is about not knowing what to believe, given that every utterance is plainly agenda-driven.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 10:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the IPCC I emitted 9 tonnes of carbon over the past 4 months as I cut down trees and milled them for timber to build a new homestead.

Never mind that my father regenerated those trees on land that granddad was compelled to clear on pain of forfeiture of land title. Never mind that greenhouse accounting theory assumes that the original clearing has already contributed to global warming, despite the fact that the wood in the old homestead, and numerous stumps etc, is still there with it's carbon intact some 80 years after the event.

Never mind that all the carbon in the regrowth forest we restored to the cleared paddocks is assumed to have always been there, and not been re-absorbed from the atmosphere. Never mind that the new house frame, being quality native hardwood, will still be there in another 80 years but its carbon is claimed by the eurospivs to be already out there warming my climate.

Never mind that any emissions from my fireplace, or any emissions from the decay of my mill waste or harvest residues will be fully absorbed by my remaining trees. If there is one thing they love more than water, it is CO2.

And as we built the houseframe last month we also took all the necessary steps to protect my grandchildren from increased cyclonic activity. For a start, we didn't build the damned house on the very top of the hill. We made sure it was protected by both hillside and, yes, more trees.

This very effective climate change abatement strategy cost us absolutely nothing. Furthermore, for added protection we spent $70 on threaded bar from the top rail to the bearers, and $180 on bracing ply. None of which was present on the old homestead that survived a number of cyclone "eyes" in the past 80 years. And we expect these global warming abatement methods to have absolutely zero impact on my grandchildren's GDP.

Now who the $%^&* is this dude called Stern?
Posted by Perseus, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 11:36:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction. There is plenty of space for sober assessment of the facts. The IPCC is such a place. It is where the world's serious scientists gather to look hard at the science of climate change.

It took them a long time to reach their conclusions, because they insisted, as scientsists do, on overwhelming proof.

Scientists are generally the last people to be sensational, they are inherently conservative, and really dislike making untested pronouncements.

Lomborg has made a name for himself by trying to spruik the calculations and the consensus of the world's scientists.

He is useful to those few who want to keep denying reality, but he is overwhelmed by hard science.

If you want to believe Lomborg, go right ahead, then we can compare notes again in 15 years time, in the face of real world events.

I will accept all apologies with good grace. Denial is a natural and understandable human response amongst those who have trouble coping with news they don't want to hear.
Posted by gecko, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 11:59:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
About 6 months to a year ago I thought the issue of global warming was a storm in a tea cup. But I now believe like most people that something is happening due to increased carbon emissions. What its effects will be I don’t think anyone knows and due to all the hype in both camps and all the very good points put forward by both sides has had the effect of totally confusing me.

Below is a link about the debate of global warming/cooling which has been going on for over 100 years.

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2006/fireandice/fireandice.asp

I guess we will all wait and see.
Posted by EasyTimes, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 12:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lomborg early on in his piece, echoing Stern, states "climate change is a real problem and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions"! While the first statement is clearly true, the second seems to me to still be subject to considerable doubt. I wonder what scientists would have been saying in the ninth or tenth century AD if they had posessed the technology we have today. They would certainly have recognised global warming as a substantial change, but it is unlikely they would have seen it as anthropogenic - very little had changed in the preceeding centure (or even millenium) to support any anthropogenic argument about the cause of teh Medieval Warm Period. However we, seeing the massive changes of the industrial revolution, mount a "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" to support the argument for the cause. Again it seems to me that the hypothesis that the present global warming is, like that of the Medieval Warm Period, is a natural phenomenon has not been disproved. There seems to be a reasonable case that we are still emerging from the Little Ice Age of 1400 to 1900.
Posted by Reynard, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 12:10:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy