4 ms·

Well, first of all the "world's most high-profile climate change" label is extremely dubious. Unlike the opposing view, skepticism doesn't have established inst

by zeteo 16y ago

Well, first of all the "world's most high-profile climate change" label is extremely dubious. Unlike the opposing view, skepticism doesn't have established institutions, and a multitude of "leaders". When I read that title, the only person I could think of was actually Steve McIntyre from climateaudit.org. Second, U turn?! Let's be serious. Bjørn Lomborg has always believed that global warming is one of the top global problems, but that it's too expensive to tackle it and we should spend our money on other issues instead (e.g., in his 2007 TED talk http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_prioritie...). The only difference is that now he appears to believe that global warming can be stopped with less than 0.5% of the US Federal Budget.

anigbrowl 16y ago
Ah, Bjorn Lomborg gained global fame for a book published in 2001 disputing claims of climate change's long-term significance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
- zeteo 16y ago
  Right, so the Wikipedia summary that you link to verifies what I said about his previous position: "Lomborg's main contention involves not the science of global warming [...] He [argues] that the economic cost of the restrictions [...] is impractically high [...].He proposes that the importance of global warming in terms of policy priority may be low compared to other policy issues such as fighting poverty and disease [...]."
  - anigbrowl 16y ago
    If you had been following the issue back then, you would recall that Lomborg spent a good part of his book disputing the significance and credibility of 'climate change,' essentially suggesting that many adherents of the the theory preferred doom-mongering to solving any present problems. He and his book were extremely popular among skeptics at the time; I got tired of being (metaphorically) beaten over the head with it. Look at the media articles archived at the bottom of the wiki article for a list of contemporary articles documenting his popularity among skeptics. By 2007 he had moderated this position substantially, but still held to the view that climate change was such a large-scale issue it was beyond our economic scope to really mitigate, and we should instead follow strategies of adaption. This latest news is noteworthy in that he is now saying that it can be mitigated, it's important enough to be mitigated, and that it won't be all that expensive to do so. But hey, don't believe me. take it from Lomborg himself: The Skeptical Environmentalist In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources. and Cool it - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns [...] http://www.lomborg.com/publications/ http://www.lomborg.com/publications/ The top headline on his news page is from the Guardian: 'Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune.'
    - zeteo 16y ago
      "In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse." Yes, but that refers to deforestation, pollution and loss of biodiversity, not global warming. I haven't read the book myself (much less beaten anyone over the head with it), but I trust Wikipedia when it says that "Lomborg 'accepts the reality of man-made global warming' though he refers to a number of uncertainties in the computer simulations of global warming and some aspects of data collection".
      - anigbrowl 16y ago
        Well, see for yourself - you can read most of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptical+environmentalist&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1geCTIXLNYmasAOl25n3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptic... He does indeed open the chapter with the statement you quote and then goes on to spend the next 60 pages disputing the predictability, degree, significance, cost or negative outcomes of climate change. To me that seems like no more than lip service, especially given that he misused a lot of data in making his argument; ad the argument follows a well-worn pattern that sounds very much like every other challenge to the concept. I don't actually have my hair on fire about global warming (ie I think it's a serious problem but one that is solvable with a mix of thrift and technology), and I think the IPCC badly needs to overhaul its process and be more transparent about its methods. However, I feel that a majority of the skeptical arguments are rhetorical rather than substantive, and that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Strangely, many of the same skeptics who question the predictive power of science in this area and ridiculed believers in climate change as apocalyptic Chicken Littles see no irony in pronouncing the inevitability of economic doom that will result from envirocentric policymaking. Lomborg is exceptional in that he's revised his views as more data has become available, but many have not; if anything, they've become more partisan about it. Those folk seem far more certain of their economic opinions than any climate scientist has ever been about temperatures.

by zeteo 16y ago

anigbrowl 16y ago

Ah, Bjorn Lomborg gained global fame for a book published in 2001 disputing claims of climate change's long-term significance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist

zeteo 16y ago
Right, so the Wikipedia summary that you link to verifies what I said about his previous position: "Lomborg's main contention involves not the science of global warming [...] He [argues] that the economic cost of the restrictions [...] is impractically high [...].He proposes that the importance of global warming in terms of policy priority may be low compared to other policy issues such as fighting poverty and disease [...]."
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  If you had been following the issue back then, you would recall that Lomborg spent a good part of his book disputing the significance and credibility of 'climate change,' essentially suggesting that many adherents of the the theory preferred doom-mongering to solving any present problems. He and his book were extremely popular among skeptics at the time; I got tired of being (metaphorically) beaten over the head with it. Look at the media articles archived at the bottom of the wiki article for a list of contemporary articles documenting his popularity among skeptics. By 2007 he had moderated this position substantially, but still held to the view that climate change was such a large-scale issue it was beyond our economic scope to really mitigate, and we should instead follow strategies of adaption. This latest news is noteworthy in that he is now saying that it can be mitigated, it's important enough to be mitigated, and that it won't be all that expensive to do so. But hey, don't believe me. take it from Lomborg himself: The Skeptical Environmentalist In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse. Using statistical information from internationally recognized research institutes, Lomborg systematically examines a range of major environmental issues and documents that the global environment has actually improved. He supports his argument with over 2900 footnotes, allowing discerning readers to check his sources. and Cool it - The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide To Global Warming A groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and expensive actions now being considered to stop global warming will cost hundreds of billions of dollars, are often based on emotional rather than strictly scientific assumptions, and may very well have little impact on the world's temperature for hundreds of years. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns [...] http://www.lomborg.com/publications/ http://www.lomborg.com/publications/ The top headline on his news page is from the Guardian: 'Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune.'
  - zeteo 16y ago
    "In The Skeptical Environmentalist Bjørn Lomborg challenges widely held beliefs that the global environment is progressively getting worse." Yes, but that refers to deforestation, pollution and loss of biodiversity, not global warming. I haven't read the book myself (much less beaten anyone over the head with it), but I trust Wikipedia when it says that "Lomborg 'accepts the reality of man-made global warming' though he refers to a number of uncertainties in the computer simulations of global warming and some aspects of data collection".
    - anigbrowl 16y ago
      Well, see for yourself - you can read most of it at http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptical+environmentalist&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1geCTIXLNYmasAOl25n3Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=JuLko8USApwC&dq=skeptic... He does indeed open the chapter with the statement you quote and then goes on to spend the next 60 pages disputing the predictability, degree, significance, cost or negative outcomes of climate change. To me that seems like no more than lip service, especially given that he misused a lot of data in making his argument; ad the argument follows a well-worn pattern that sounds very much like every other challenge to the concept. I don't actually have my hair on fire about global warming (ie I think it's a serious problem but one that is solvable with a mix of thrift and technology), and I think the IPCC badly needs to overhaul its process and be more transparent about its methods. However, I feel that a majority of the skeptical arguments are rhetorical rather than substantive, and that no amount of evidence will ever be enough. Strangely, many of the same skeptics who question the predictive power of science in this area and ridiculed believers in climate change as apocalyptic Chicken Littles see no irony in pronouncing the inevitability of economic doom that will result from envirocentric policymaking. Lomborg is exceptional in that he's revised his views as more data has become available, but many have not; if anything, they've become more partisan about it. Those folk seem far more certain of their economic opinions than any climate scientist has ever been about temperatures.