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. 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
The fact the Siberian permafrost is melting for the first time in 11,000 years and releasing vast quantities of methane is indicative of some sort of problem that goes beyond "cycles of hundreds of years".

The effect of the release this quantity of methane (70 billion tons)will have far more impact on the environment than the current debate which seems to be fixated on C02 emissions only.

This wasn't even a factor when the last major climate change report was drawn up in 2001.

I'm a little surprised that people still imagine that humanity is having only a negligible (if any) effect on the environment.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 1:40:09 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 has made a name for himself by trying to spruik the calculations and the consensus of the world's scientists.”

Gecko, Lomborg does not dispute that global warming is happening or that human activity is contributing to it, and in this piece he defends the IPCC’s range of temperature projections against Stern’s use of higher increases. He’s defending not attacking the consensus.

The case against Stern is that he’s used some dodgy methods to come up with conclusions that overstate the cost of climate change and understate the cost of some measures to address it. Lots of other serious commentators agree with Lomborg’s assessment of that.

I don’t entirely agree with Lomborg’s conclusions – I think Stern has done a useful job in outlining the “worst case scenario” for climate change, and also that the risk of the effects of climate change being worse than our “best guess” estimates makes action to mitigate climate change worthwhile. But I with Lomborg agree that the costs of those actions must be weighed honestly, and also that the debate on responses to climate change should give more weight to adaptation (given that climate change will happen no matter what we do now, but its effects can be lessened).

Lomborg’s broader thesis is that there are better things we can spend money on to improve human welfare than mitigating climate change. These include tackling Aids and malnutrition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_Consensus). That’s also open to debate, but raises some really important questions that tend to be eclipsed by the greenhouse debate in developed countries.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 3:10:33 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
This Lundborg bloke's book of 2001 was widely discredited, from memory. How does someone who teaches in some obscure Copenhagen business school get an article attacking the Stern report spread so widely around the planet almost overnight ? even to our not-so-famous-yet OLO ? are the coal companies so eager to bury Stern ?? anyway someone is certainly working overtime to get this piece out and about. Or perhaps he has an Australian girl friend who just happens to subscribe to OLO ? If so I take it all back.
Posted by kang, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 3:37:41 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
Who is this .....dude called Stern. ?. Persious,when Eurospiv Stern wrote his report, he was discussing and stating environmental issues,affecting the whole global population scenario. He would be aware that not everyone lives a "Waltons" lifestyle occupying a homestead in the hills. However i guess ur efforts are commendable.
Posted by DerekorDirk, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 3:59:48 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
gecko, what's with the attitude?

>>Correction. There is plenty of space for sober assessment of the facts. The IPCC is such a place<<

This is not offered in the spirit of enquiry, is it? You are trying to put me in my place, as do all your fellow doom-mongers, despite the fact that I tried very hard to let you know that in my view, the arguments - on both sides - are unconvincing.

Open your mind for a moment. This should not be a battle of competing ideologies. It should be a concerted and cooperative search for common ground, through which an agreed position may be reached that we can all see the sense of, and hence buy into.

All this "look at me" stuff is extremely tiresome. By praising one camp and denigrating the other, you are displaying the signs of a classic follower. No need to think for yourself, is there, when you have a mighty international Quango to tell you what ideas to have.

IPCC, and all its chairs, vice-chairs and co-chairs is about as credible as my auntie Edith on the topic. Not because Edie knows squat about climate change, but because she is not paid to know about climate change.

Once you have scored a position as co-chair of the "count the sunbeam" committee, are you likely to find a single scrap of evidence against global warming? Fat chance.

This was the gist of my original point. There are so many vested interests, some in the status quo, some in new technology, some in the opportunity for political advancement and so on, what chance is there that anything rational will emerge?

Buckleys.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 4:31:26 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
As Rhian points out, Lomborg doesn't deny that there is a climate problem, but does say that there are more important problems. The following paragraph, which appeared in the original Wall Street Journal article and makes this clear, was omitted by The Australian:

"Last weekend in New York, I asked 24 U.N. ambassadors--from nations including China, India and the U.S.--to prioritize the best solutions for the world's greatest challenges, in a project known as Copenhagen Consensus. They looked at what spending money to combat climate change and other major problems could achieve. They found that the world should prioritize the need for better health, nutrition, water, sanitation and education, long before we turn our attention to the costly mitigation of global warning."

As for kang's question about how someone "who teaches in some obscure Copenhagen business school" gets so much attention, the Copenhagen Consensus referred to in Lomborg's omitted paragraph, which first met in 2004, was sponsored by The Economist newspaper and the Danish government. It set out to answer the question, "How would you spend $50 billion?" Its web site is at http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=675

Since the 2006 conference in New York last month, chaired by Lomborg, drew ambassadors and diplomats from 24 countries, perhaps Lomborg is not as obscure as kang thinks.

What Nicholas Stern has done is to take a fresh look at the economics with the benefit of more recent information, and come to a different view from Lomborg.
Posted by MikeM, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 5:55:06 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
The scientific case for accelerated global warming, which Stern took as given. is not cut and dried. A significant point, rarely if ever noted in the media, is that the increase in surface heat loss as the surface temperature increases is nonlinear and provides a strong damping factor against surface temperature warming - suggestions of a runaway process are false. CO2 contributes to warming by reducing infrared radiation to space. Meteorologist William Kininmonth notes that initial introduction of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere leads to a reduction of about 20 W/m2 at 50 parts per million by volume (ppmv) concentration. A further increase to the present concentration of 380 ppmv causes an additional reduction of ONLY 10 W/m2. IPCC's calculations suggest that a doubling of carbon dioxide from pre-industrial levels will only reduce the infrared radiation to space (the radiative forcing) by about 4 W/m2.

That is, the more than six-fold increase in CO2 from 50 ppmv to recent levels of 380 ppmv has led to only a 50% increase in CO2's warming impact on global temperature, and the forecast further increases will have little impact.

It's also worth noting that paleohistorical records show that in many (? most) previous global warmings, increased CO2 concentrations have followed warming rather than preceding it, and have therefore not been a causative agent.

Stern has form with politically-inspired distortions in earlier UN work. For example, in a major publication he claimed that the average income in the 20 poorest nations fell over the period (from memory) 1980-98. However, the 20 poorest nations in 1980 included China and India, which then had rapid per capita growth. The 20 pn in 1980 had a population of maybe 2.5 bn. The 20 (not all the same) pn in 1998 had a population of maybe 100-200m. That is, 2.3 billion-plus people had been lifted from poverty in the period when Stern claimed things were getting worse!

Kang, Lomborg’s book was not “widely discredited.” On the contrary, his detractors were discredited – the attempts to discredit him in the Scientific American, including by leading IPCC researchers, were woeful.
Posted by Faustino, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 5:55:08 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
I thoroughly enjoy public debate. I absolutely support democratic exchange. So let the debate rage.

But let's not deny that vested interests behind the fossil fuel industry have much at stake. Not surprisingly, then, that there are websites out there attempting to discredit the reality of global warming and the need for strong policy responses. Not surprising, either, that some innocent folk are persuaded.

There are two kinds of climate sceptics: 1) Those that support the fossil fuel industry and are paid for doing the job. 2) Those who support the fossil fuel industry and are not paid for doing the job. The work of the two are indistinguishable, so who can tell who is who?

I say to the latter group, I admire your generous commitment. You are far more credible than your paid counterparts because you do it for free.

It could be you have just been duped by industry PR, but that should not take away from your selfless commitment to a cause.

The cause of keeping on burning fossil fuel, and denigrating those who want a safer, more sustainable future, is to some a rather curious one. But we live in a democracy and you should be applauded for your democratic participation.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 9 November 2006 7:32:30 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
Where is my favorite anti global warming warrior Andrew Bolt when you need him?

F**k the science - it is counter intuitive and just plain silly to not believe that as the species that engineers so much of the built environment and mnipulstes the rest as best we can we are not impacting on the environment

And it is prudential to believe that the impact is probably, if not negative, at the very least altering the status quo and rearranging weather patterns for example - at best we can take cold comfort in the knowledge that if we dry up, some where else will be blooming and fertile where once dust was the order of the day.

It is almost bizarre to witness the ALMOST Pauline Conversion of John Howard on this matter - it is as if he has been visited by God (but is still a bit of a doubting Thomas) in the true spirit of the Oakshott conservative he leads by intimation - from behind.

If all we do is develop a national policy and ethos on water conservation we are back in the game - but when you have irrigators farming marginal land - using in excess fo 97% of available water - you have to wonder - and wonder still more when some of them say if we take measures to save water the best application for what is saved it is to use for more irrigation! For many the root of the problem are city folk using dishwashers and having the temerity to water a lawn - when metro/regional town use of available water is a mere drop in an ever rapidly emptying bucket

If we cant get that right - I am investing in copmanies that make hats and sunblock - I expect to die a rich and thirsty man
Posted by sneekeepete, Thursday, 9 November 2006 11:50:51 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
Gecko, I confess. I went down a deep coal mine in NE England around 1958, crawled through two-feet (60 cm) high seams and blew out coal dust for two days.

Other than that, I have no connection with nor carry a (?solar-powered) torch for fossil fuel industries.

However, I have followed the AGW debate since being briefed by leading IPCC scientists in 1989 or 90, and have been at times involved in AGW policy formulation. I even persuaded the pre-Beattie Queensland Coalition government, not widely regarded as green-tinged, to support Kyoto on a precautionary basis.

But the more I learn, the more sceptical I become.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 9 November 2006 1:49:58 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
Wobbles that one about the perma frost was knocked on the head by the Russians themselves.

The big issue is what credence can anyone place on climate models that have a spatial resolution of 480km, and yet still cant model how clouds are created and behave, cant accommodate local topographical features, cant model things like the Freemantle doctors, yet project out 50 years with the positive assurrance that we should spend megabucks.

Can anyone point to any example whereby we have committed substantial funds in advance to resolve a prediction that is only 25 years out.never mind 50.

Who believes economic or stock market predictions 5 or 10 years out never mind something as complex as climate going out for 50 years.

Big business may have an vested interest in making sure they dont lose, but government funded scientists in the hundreds have a vested interest in making sure the problem is portrayed as something infintely worse than it is in reality. Thats why if there is any doubt about a paremeter or interpretation they always take the most extreme position.

It might be alright if the available evidence supported their predictions but it still doesnt.
Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 9 November 2006 1:51:09 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
Gecko, Derek et al, I am a past member of the AGO's consultative panel on the landuse change and forestry section of the national greenhouse inventory. I left in total disgust at the shonky methodology that was developed by the IPCC.

The examples I used in respect of my farm and trees were provided to highlight the complete crock of the proverbial that is "greenhouse accounting". Accounting is, above all else, a record of fact provided for the purpose of obtaining a true and fair view of the matters concerned. For vegetation based carbon measurements, "Greenhouse accounting" is an oxymoron.

It is a rigid set of rules that have a nominal relevance to european conditions but serve to seriously distort the situation in Australia and, if we ratify Kyoto, will cause a totally undeserved detriment to Australian businesses, workers and job seekers.

Remember that next time you drive through the countryside and see trees that were ringbarked decades ago but still have their carbon intact. Remember that as you see endless lines of fence posts that have been there for more than half a century but which the IPCC in its infinite wisdom has deemed to be already out in the atmosphere warming someone's backside.

If the IPCC's projections were provided for a prospectus for an investment company the whole damned lot of them would be doing a stretch in stir by now.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:23:31 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
Now Perseus, we all know white collar criminals don't go to jail, they get a slap on the wrist and a bit of ribbing down at the Liberal Club.

Your issues with AGO accounting sound curious, you think dead trees lose no carbon?! Ever hear of leaves? And wouldn't the higher soil temp alone (lacking shade) increase emissions from soil carbon? I know a remote sensing scientist who worked on the AGO's veg assesments, he still gets apopaleptic about Howard government thought police redefining what is a tree (now anything a midget can't see over, nothing to do with our Prime Miniatures stature, i 'm sure)
Posted by Liam, Saturday, 11 November 2006 9:03:55 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
Bjorn Lomborg gives as his qualifications "the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge, 2001), teaches at the Copenhagen Business School and is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center".

None of these give me any confidence in his competence to add to a debate on a highly technical scientific subject.

The same goes for many contributors. If you write a detailed technical report let us know something of your experience and qualifications in the field, otherwise I for one will ignore you.

Generally speaking climatologists and meteorologists with some years of pertinent experience (not smart students with a recently aquired PHD) are the most able to add to our stock of knowledge. The rest of us can only make useful comments based on informed opinion. Science and technology are very complex fields although every second recently graduated Arts/Economics/Business graduate seems to think they can master its complexities with no relevent studies whatever.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 12 November 2006 7:24:42 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
Deputy Director of the Australian Research Council Centre for Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, Professor McCulloch, advises that investigations of the coral reef at Foul Bay, south of Margaret River in WA reveals:

"The Earth is in another warm, interglacial period and due to return to another ice age. But extra-high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from industrial emissions could instead cause the Earth to warm, creating a super-interglacial period".

"In warm periods, CO2 levels in the atmosphere rose to 280ppm about 100ppm higher than in ice ages. Today's levels were 380ppm with 100pm attributed to human activity. If CO2 levels continue to increase to above 550-600ppm, as many scientists expect by 2050, the climate shifts and warming effects will become more dramatic and surpass those of the last interglacial period".

He said "The Foul Bay reef - the most southerly know coral reef, showed sea levels had previously risen at least 3 - 4 metres above current levels, but many now believe polar melting could cause rises up to 7 metres in the next 50 - 100 years".

For the time being, I shall enthusiastically accept Professor McCulloch's theories over some bean counter's skepticism of Stern's fiscal estimates. Several years of research on the uncontrolled release of industrial carbon emissions, validates for me, what the good Professor is advising!

Governments, in bed with serial polluters, take heed! If YOU sleep with dogs, you'll give US fleas!

Apologies to the canine species!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 12 November 2006 11:25:39 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 find it amusing that someone who goes by a pseudonym of logic critices the involvement of so called non scientists in the GW debate. I thought that, for starters the scenarios component of the projections and modelling of what may happen in 2050 etc, was pure economics. Also the use of modelling tools etc are used in many disciplines, not just climate science. It is the lessons learnt from imprecise nature of these tools in other disciplines that enables others to call for great caution in extrapolating from a bundle of assumptions out for 50 years or so.

Like someone said this whole AGW is like a pyramid balancing on a the ahead of pin. The further out from the original assumptions one gets the more unstable it becomes.

Finally I have to say if Logic wants people to just accept what scientists say, just because it is only they who have the received knowledge and wisdom, then they had better clean up their act. I wonder what the score is for scientific fraud and misconduct over the last few years is.?

I dont trust or distrust scientists any more than I do any other discipline, but from what I have read of the AGW debate/issue I wouldnt give them the keys to the Treasury at any time.
Posted by bigmal, Sunday, 12 November 2006 11:54:33 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
bigmal

I accept your criticism that the article was chiefly a critique of an economic argument.

However you and other contributors have shifted to the scientific aspects. Perhaps you are correct but how can I tell if you don't give us an indication of your scientific credentials?

It is true that there has been some scientific fraud but given the enormous scientific contributions that have been made in recent years this is relatively small and the mechanisms for identification of this fraud amongst the scientific community exist. The number of scientific papers on this subject are sufficient to make us worry. The pity is that the only thing that can move some governments is the considerations of cost.

Comparing the track records of economists and scientists on the basis of successful outcomes I think scientists and the associated applied sciences (medicine, engineering etc) win hands down.
Posted by logic, Sunday, 12 November 2006 3:11:50 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
Logic, I’m an economist. The statistical basis for economics and science is basically the same, and ALL of the IPCC’s scenarios are based on statistical and economic modelling which has been shown to be seriously flawed by acknowledged leaders in those fields.

Economic forecasting is a minor part of economics which attracts undue attention. (Of course, if you are sceptical of medium-term economic forecasts, covering 3-5 years, you must be incredulous of the IPCC’s inexpert use of those techniques to forecast a century hence.) Most of economics is about understanding how the world works so as to better inform policy and business decisions. An economist might not be able to give an accurate forecast of data ten years hence, but can demonstrate why policy A would lead to better outcomes than policy B.

To quote myself, “economic growth is about transformation, about change. The main message of this paper is that policies which embrace openness, competition, change and innovation will promote growth. Policies which have the effect of restricting or slowing change by protecting or favouring particular industries or firms are likely over time to slow growth to the disadvantage of the community.” Similarly, we don’t know what the course of global warming will be in the next 100 years. We do know that climate is, and always has been, highly variable, and can pursue policies which increase our capacity to respond positively to changing climate and economic circumstances rather than policies based on a view of what may or may not be the situation in the 22nd century.

Finally, anyone with well developed analytical, statistical and modeling skills in one field is reasonably well placed to assess work in fields outside their specialty. Even if you don’t have a deep understanding of all the science, you can assess whether it stacks up in a, s & m terms. Much of the AGW advocates’ work doesn’t.
Posted by Faustino, Sunday, 12 November 2006 10:14:22 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
Faustino,

That expresses what I was trying to say, so very much better. I agree with you 100%.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 13 November 2006 7:54:09 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
logic, it appears that you are suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials (whatever they might be) are empowered to contribute to this discussion, a view that is both arrogant and misguided.

One of the tasks of the scientific community is to translate their findings so that we ignoranti can understand their implications and - if the opportunity presents itself - to place a vote consistent with that understanding.

It helps us to do so if i) there is some form of consensus among those scientists and ii) we can detect no personal agenda that might introduce a bias to their findings.

Unfortunately, neither of these conditions has yet been fulfilled in the realm of climate change.

>>The number of scientific papers on this subject are sufficient to make us worry<<

Nonsense. That is akin to measuring the success of the US in Iraq by measuring the number of leaflets it has distributed, or the number of speeches George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard have made on the topic.

What is needed here is clarity of thought and honesty in presentation. Unfortunately, with the intrusion of money from vested interests on both sides, we are unlikely to witness either of these within our lifetimes.

In the meantime we can - and should - be able to comment on the apparent quality and credibility of the evidence that is presented to us.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 November 2006 8:42:31 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
"All of the IPCC's scenarios are based on statistical and economic modelling which has been shown to be seriously flawed by acknowledged leaders in those fields".
Now that opens opportunity for discussion on the differences existing between those "acknowledged" and those others who do not agree with them. It would provide an interesting break from the desperate efforts being made to lever apart the hairline cracks of imperfection within the solid greenhouse data.
I would rather put my faith in the models provided by the well-qualified scientists and economists Al Gore founds his campaign upon, than in the rarefied elements hovering around them and shouting loudly against the message found to be so inconvenient.
If most of economics is about understanding how the world works, then I wish the economics community would get those recalcitrant members of its ranks up to speed on that. For starters, it could get them to accept the reality that the world is finite; and consequently unlimited growth in consumption of the planet's resources is pie in the sky; that "just" 2.5% annual growth of GDP means a doubling during each human generation.
Instead of heading towards a 13th generation rejoicing(?) under 200,000 times our current GDP (assuming 2.5% annual growth), or even our grandkids' generation pleased(?) with 16 times our GDP, couldn't we change direction towards the reality of the planet? Maybe head towards a steady state of no growth in consumption; and a situation in which a Genuine Progress Indicatior takes precedence over the current one ruled by growth of GDP?
Yes, be skeptical - but, most of all, be skeptical of the uninhibited professional skeptic.
Posted by colinsett, Monday, 13 November 2006 10:16:24 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
Colinsett

Now that is a laugh. Gores story is just that, a comprehensive fiction designed to further his political ends. You will notice that he avoids debating the issues with anyone other than his fawing followers.

This fraud cant even get the facts surrounding Kilimanjaro right, thats how bad it is, and there is about 50 more just like that.
Posted by bigmal, Monday, 13 November 2006 4:48:00 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
I am not saying suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials are empowered to contribute to this discussion. I am saying that only those who have the relevent knowledge and experience are able to contribulte useful data. Would any of you like to have a non medical team take part in your operation?

And regarding statistical methods they may be the same for science and economics but the impirical input and measurement is vastly different.

Judging by the comments it suggests to me that the global warming doubters on this site are comming mainly from economists rather than scientists. And that could be a problem.
Posted by logic, Monday, 13 November 2006 7:50:44 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
Well, logic, that's a relief.

>>I am not saying suggesting that only those who have impeccable scientific credentials are empowered to contribute to this discussion.<<

That leaves the way open to us laymen to observe and comment upon the quality of evidence placed before us.

One of the elements in making this assessment is, as always, the pecuniary, reputational and political interests of the scientist in question.

One significant aspect, to me at any rate, is the massive amounts of money involved:

"A World Bank study ... found that, in the absence of any regulatory framework, the dollar volume of over-the-counter [carbon trading] transactions has already surpassed $100 million. Furthermore, The Economist magazine projects an annual volume of trading ranging from $60 billion to $1 trillion"

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/environment/

With this pot of gold at issue, is it not highly probable that a small percentage of this is devoted to "encouraging" the opinions of an array of scientists in the desired direction?

And in the other corner, we have another few billions at risk in carbon-dependent industries such as oil. Would they too not divert a couple of bucks to the scientists of their choice, to ensure their particular views were aired?

As I said earlier, when and if there emerges a consensus that does not depend upon tainted money, reputational enhancement or blind ideology, I will - and most non-scientists will - find it a lot easier to reach informed conclusions, and vote accordingly.

But in this world where spin is regarded as a prerequisite to any public pronouncement, I'm not holding my breath.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 8:33:29 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
We are getting a little out of hand on this. My comments originally occured because many contributors were coming out with technical statements which they presented as facts but without backing. They gave us no indication of their credentials but insisted that they were right.

We must have non scientific types involved in the debate but not in providing the base premises. And the technologists should be involved in the discussion.

Ideally I think a rounded education should include a scientific as well as a humanist understanding.
Posted by logic, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 4:32:31 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. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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