The most valuable view is the dissenting view, that disagrees with you, or mob rule/conventional wisdom.

If a man and his boss agree on almost everything? One of them is clearly redundant!

Throughout the course of human history all progress has been accompanied by spirited debate!

Debate that saw the end of slavery, child labour, and other unconscionable practises!

When it comes to climate change, cause and effect, Bjorn Lomborg is the only one making sense!?

If your view is based on logic's rites, you have nothing to fear from dissent, but plenty if the opponent makes vastly more sense than you do!?

Look, poor folks live hand to mouth, with the first casualty being our/their forests, as they clearfell/burn land to grow food or use wood as their primary fuel.

Thus they add to the Co2 levels and reduce the natural means to sequester it?

They should change to wind or solar power!

Would that any could actually afford to do so!

A far better solution and one that produces the world's cheapest alternative energy is using digestors to turn human biological waste into a fuel, that can be used in ceramic fuel cells; that then produce reliable 24/7, on demand energy and endless free hot water!

[Let's not forget the consequence of raw sewage on the health prospects of millions!]

The aforementioned, the very best place for our finest hour, aid dollars!

So instead of the world's most impoverished folks being the central part of the problem; they become a major part of the solution!

These university (we must silence Bjorn Lomborg) cretins are no better than someone with fingers in ears going, la,la,la,la,la!

Had humankind followed that odious example? We would still be living in caves hunting our food with a stone tied to a stick!
Rhrosty.

Hi Peter,

Surely a university is supposed to be a forum for 'dangerous ideas' ? In this case, if I were a faculty member in environmental science, with hundreds of students to assign essays and projects to, this would be a golden opportunity to mobilise students to pick apart any and all of the ideas that such a Centre would put up ? Examining real-world problems (such as the very existence of such a Centre represents to faculty staff, it seems) would be surely more exciting and productive than getting students to just draw out stuff from books and articles to pad out their 1500 words and get a B+ ?

Karl Popper would be overjoyed at such an initiative: he would ask, do the propositions of such a Centre stand up to scrutiny ? How can we learn from their 'mistakes' ? If they come up with other ideas in response, how can we pull them apart and find their shortcomings ? How can we advance human understanding in a co-operative way ?

It's a bit ironic that the same people who would complain that universities are nothing more than bourgeois sausage-factories, are afraid of any mechanism for critiquing environmental and social policies, and of anything provocative enough to make students think through issues: are their better ways ? have we got it all a bit arse-up ? what's really at stake here ? why do so many questions, and proposals about climate have to be demonised ?

Thanks, Peter.

Joe

How China must laugh at the total irrational dogmas that line the pockets of Green activist. Like the evolution fantasy anyone with half a brain knows its a fallacy but self interest in holding on the tax payer funded jobs wins out. The 'Rationalist' have certainly brainwashed the masses. Like Flannery, the charlotans need the media and a few UN 'experts' to prevent any proper analysis and to demonise those pointing out their totally flawed prophecies/dogmas. Those who have been around a while just shake their head and say here we go again.

btw - any water left in Sydney dams?, any snow left in Europe? has the oil run out (isn't it $1000 barrel), one fool from Greenpeace or likeminded organisation tried to tell me that kangaroos were close to extinction. The more immorral our community becomes the more 'moral' environment causes our councils, Goverments and individuals take on.
Imagine how clean our water ways, oceans and land could be if we put a fraction of the money into doing something useful rather than pushing the deceptive faith of the socialist.

These days, the dictators, the totalitarians, are academics totally lacking in real life experience, couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag or get a productive job; they would wet themselves if confronted - and we meekly allow them to ruin our lives.

Sheesh!

Hi Runner,

About all those dams running dry, as Professor Flannery predicted, is it still raining in southern New South wales ? Is that dam still about to burst up from Kiama ? Are the dams filling up around Sydney ? Or are they already full ?

Back in March or April, the BoM here in Adelaide predicted a warm, dry winter and spring. I suppose we're lucky here that winter wasn't colder and wetter, otherwise we would have been in trouble. Now they're predicting a wetter-than-usual spring. Time to get out the sun-screen. Slip slop slap.

Joe

Greens will never forgive Lomborg for his book “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, which systematically debunks many of the more alarmist claims about humanity’s effects on the environment.

The idea that evidence-based policy making should be opposed in principle is rather alarming. I think Lomborg is wrong on some things, but he has interesting things to say and deserves a hearing.

It is shameful that UWA backed down on this issue – especially as it apparently had no qualms about hosting the shameless propagandist Stephan Lewandowsky.

Lomborg certainly shouldn't be silenced. Though he's often wrong on the details, his basic point is sound and should be considered more thoroughly, particularly by the greens.

However, there seems to be a big irony here: Peter McCloy's doing the same sort of hatchet job on the greens as many of them did on Lomborg!

You can find extremists on almost every issue – and the broader the issue the more extreme views you're likely to find. But most greens, including many of the anti Lomborg protesters, are actually much closer to the Lomborg view than the David Foreman view.

Just because Bob Brown held world federalist ideals doesn't mean that it would be necessary to abandon the current political system. Firstly, progress is being made under the existing arrangements, albeit too slow to have much effect yet. Secondly federalism doesn't require states to be abolished.

And I suggest you listen to what Tim Flannery actually said before quoting him out of context. Apart from the phrase "global community" (which those who've read the Left Behind books would baulk at) there's nothing remotely scary about his statement that "We will form a global community with a set of shared beliefs" in the context he used it, where he gave "democracy" as an example of one of those shared beliefs. That was during the Arab Spring and in hindsight we can see he was overoptimistic. But is optimism really scary?

As for his ant colony quotes, he was referring to specialisation. He made the point that within an ant colony, different ants had different tasks. He correctly said that humans are even more specialised than ants. He also made the point that what holds human society together is different from what holds an ant colony together. But he certainly DIDN'T suggest that human reproduction would or should be limited to certain individuals like in an ant colony. Only Andrew Bolt and the idiots who source their opinions from him would get that ridiculous impression!

(TBC)

(continued)

Though I don't always agree with them, Tim Flannery's views are fairly sensible. Yet people keep trying to discredit him by falsely accusing him of making silly claims (like that the dams will never fill again; what he actually warned about was the unacceptable risk that they could empty).

Why are so few people willing to listen to what both Lomborg and Flannery have to say?

Hi Aidan,

Here's a really naïve idea: what if a university set up a joint Lomborg-Flannery Climate Centre ? With the stipulations that Lomborg-offices and Flannery-offices had to alternate, and that a weekly seminar had to be presented, followed by a fiery debate ?

Now THAT would be some university. A bit like they are supposed to be.

Cheers,

Joe

PS. Yeah, well, I said it was a naïve idea.

Don't be so silly Aidan. You say "Peter McCloy's doing the same sort of hatchet job on the greens".

That is of course impossible, you can't hit a fairy with a hatchet, or an axe.

Than that is a great effort, trying to take the words out of that fool Flannery's mouth, but just not possible today. Too many have copies of video, & stored writings of these fools. They can't now deny what they said, the way they once could, but good try anyway.

Hasbeen, that's uncalled for! Bob Brown's sexuality is his own business and is irrelevant to the matter we're discussing.

I'm glad you noticed those videos of Tim Flannery are so easily accessible. I suggest you try actually watching them in their entirity instead of just the misleadingly edited highlights. When you do, you'll see they support my interpretation, not Andrew Bolt's.

Thanks for your comments, Aidan. I’d just like clarify a few points.

I assert that the Greens are ideologically opposed to Lomberg. I acknowledge that there is a broad spectrum of Green philosophy (theology?) - at one extreme is Foreman.

I agree that Bob Brown’s world federalist ideals don’t mean abandoning the current political system. It just means that it becomes subordinate to a superior power, which is exactly what is happening - the EU is a good example, and it applies every time Australia signs a treaty without consulting the electorate. The IPCC springs to mind.

My source for Tim Flannery’s statements is his Guardian interview. You’re correct in saying that I didn’t know he made these remarks in the context of the Arab Spring.

I’ve followed Tim’s career since before he converted to climate change.

Within the context of his present and past career, I think I’ve treated him fairly. When he says “We will form a global community with a set of shared beliefs” I have no doubt whose beliefs he believes those will be. When he speaks of ant colonies he certainly has Plato’s philosophy of the ideal society in mind.

In this interview he expresses beliefs that are very precisely aligned with Lomberg’s, but he publicly attacks him. He calls the funding of the Centre “an insult to the scientific community”. Perhaps his unwillingness to support somebody else’s ideas, even when they coincide with his own, has something to do with them receiving funding when he’s lost his. But taken in context he is merely being, as always, responsive to his audience.

I’m afraid I don’t find the reference to Andrew Bolt relevant. I certainly agree with most of his views on free speech, and if you think this makes me an idiot, fine. I believe in free speech.

TBC

Both Brown and Flannery believe in subordinating individual beliefs to a superior authority. Plato would approve. His focus was on perfecting society.

Lomberg is more like Aristotle. He doesn’t want to perfect society, he just wants to improve the existing one. The entire purpose of society is to enable each person “to attain a higher and better life by the mutual exchange of their different services.”

Where the Greens see ‘a set of shared beliefs’, Lomberg sees the value of a multitude of diverse ideas rising from the culture and knowledge of individuals.

It’s an argument that’s been going on for more than two thousand years, and it’s fundamental. That’s the real context.

Hi Peter,

Fascinating.

On the notion of State versus individual, I don't have a very good understanding of the philosophical principles involved, but Popper has a wonderful article (originally a lecture in Christchurch in 1940) which teases out the potential conflicts and links between

* State and individual,

* altruism and egoism, and

* individuality and collectivism.

He concludes that altruism is certainly compatible with the assertion of individuality, actually essential for it, and that in that context, the State must serve the individual rather than the other way around. The total subordination of the individual to the state leads to fascism, even via Plato.

Even though I grew up as a Marxist-socialist, I am very much a convert to Popper when he asserts that:

* individuality, creativity, freedom of expression, all spring from similar sources, and are indeterminate, nobody knows where they may lead; but

* subordination to some dominant ideology, the State and the so-called 'collective' quite inevitably to fascism - unless some other socialist can demonstrate where that hasn't happened ?

I have no doubt that Bob Brown is a good-hearted man, but any attempt to bring the world under one system of rule, no matter how benevolent it may sound, is bound - if it could even occur, given the current slight differences between major players such as the US, China, Russia, ISIS - to move towards authoritarian means to achieve its ends. And therefore towards totalitarianism, some form of rule which is intolerant of any dissent - from there the step to fascism, by whatever name, is inevitable.

Long may people in the world strive for better lives. Long may the outcomes of their struggles always be imperfect.

But always perfectible.

Hi Peter McCloy

Lomborg describes himself as an environmentalist and a former Greenpeace supporter. Many of the policies he advocates aim at improving the environment, including significant amounts of state aid and intervention. You point out that “green” covers a wide spectrum. I think it’s fair to describe Lomborg as part of that spectrum, albeit part that many greens repudiate.

Where he differs from more extreme greens is willingness to explore the factual evidence rather than start from a presumption that humans are trashing the planet. He also has a pragmatist’s approach to aid and environmental policies, trying to direct our efforts to areas that yield the most advantage for the least expenditure: hence his use of cost-benefit analysis to determine which aid programs yield the best bang for a donor’s buck.

Personally I think his cost-benefit approach works very well on policies like aid programs, but less so for climate change policies. Cost benefit approaches work best when the likely costs and benefits of a measure are fairly readily understood and quantified. With climate change modelling and projections there is a large measure of uncertainty, including some unlikely but extreme outliers. Lomborg tends to argue that the costs of adjusting to and mitigating climate change are manageable and spread over a long period, so we have plenty of time to adjust. Meanwhile, spending money now on more immediate problems will yield larger net benefits in human welfare. He could well be right, but there is also a small but significant risk that the effects of climate change will turn out to be far worse than Lomborg expects. In this case, I think a risk management rather than a cost-benefit approach is more appropriate. Even if the probability of humans trashing the planet is less than the climate models suggest, its consequences would be so deleterious that it’s worth acting to avoid them.

Hi Rhian,

Discussions such as you raise are precisely why there should be some sort of Centre, where Lomborg's notions can be teased out, perhaps in response to those of other environmentalists.

As for risk-aversion, i.e. avoiding the risk of the production of ever-more CO2, and thus boosting global warming:

* how much CO2 is produced in the production of wind-towers and solar panels, over their lifetimes ? If they were so efficacious, then why not produce them using primarily wind power and solar power, before they are put to any other use ?

Because, you are justified in saying, the technology is improving so fast that soon, perhaps in a generation, wind power and solar power will be cheaper than fossil-fuel-generated power.

Yes, and by the same logic, carbon capture technology etc. may also improve so fast that soon, clean power will be generated from fossil-fuels. Sauce and goose .....

* fossil fuels have boosted the economic well-being in Western countries immeasurably, a benefit that we have no right to deny other parts of the world.

Yes, there have been costs but see last paragraph above.

We come down to a very difficult issue in discussions of energy and development: do we think that people in Africa and Asia have the same rights to a comfortable life as we do ? Those vast areas - a dozen Australias with a hundred times the rainfall - could feed the world ten times over if their resources were harnessed, and harnessed in an environmentally sensible way, massively improving health and living standards across the continent in the process. Of course, there are some slight modifications that might need to be made, such as ending corruption, and putting in adequate infrastructure.

But of all continents, Africa could ultimately be the ideal place for environmentally-friendly technologies, with massive hydro and solar potential, once the appropriate infrastructure has been put in place, probably by Chinese firms, over the next fifty years.

These are the sorts of issues that a 'Lomborg Centre' could tease out in order to generate appropriate research on a massive scale.

Hi Loudmouth

I agree that the centre would have been a good idea. As a West Australian I was particularly disappointed at UWA’s decision. The centre he proposed would have sparked some interesting debates, and we don’t have many institutions here in the west that do that.

Your questions about Africa are also very important. Implicit in the deep green agenda is the implication that we should try to prevent people in poor countries from matching western living standards – so-called “lifeboat ethics”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifeboat_ethics

I don’t think that’s either practical or morally tenable. The alternative is to find ways of raising living standards that don’t cause unsustainable environmental damage. That’s where Lomborg’s ideas have a lot to contribute.

On greenhouse gases, I partly agree. Technological change is indeed making low-emission energy cheaper and more practical, but there’s a long way to go before we could rely on it without massively more expensive and unreliable energy. And, as you say, even "green" technologies have a lot of hidden emissions. I’d like to see a carbon tax or emissions trading scheme to encourage changing technology and behaviour.

I’m not generally a fan of the “precautionary principle”, as it seems to be used as an excuse to never risk anything, just in case. But in this case a precautionary approach seems reasonable. Even if the “luke warmists” are right, and the models are probably overstating the risk of major and damaging AGW, “probably” is not a good enough reason to defer action. I probably won’t be in a major accident next time I drive the car, but I’ll still wear a seatbelt.