About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, September 13, 2010

Bjørn Lomborg was wrong, Lomborg (almost) says

By Massimo Pigliucci
I’ll be darned. Bjørn Lomborg, the author of the infamous The Skeptical Environmentalist, one of the most thoroughly debunked books of the past decade (and one that has given a bad connotation to the word “skeptic”), has just changed his mind! In his new book, Smart Solutions to Climate Change, Lomborg says that climate change is “undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world today ... a challenge humanity must confront.”
I could say “I told you so” (for instance in a chapter on global warming in my Nonsense on Stilts), but I’ll refrain — largely because I would be the last on a long list of scientists who have published detailed (negative) reviews of Lomborg’s first book in prestigious outlets such as Scientific American (volume 286, issue 1, 2002), Nature (8 November 2001, pp. 149-150) and Science (9 November 2001, pp. 1285-1286).
No, we need to give credit were credit is due. The man has changed his mind, and has come out publicly to say so. I can’t wait until Fox News has him over for an interview. Indeed, while I have been a harsh critic of Lomborg (largely on the ground that as an economist he really does not have the technical expertise to pronounce about global warming), I think some of the attacks against him were (and still are) ridiculous. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, famously compared Lomborg to Hitler — and you know that when one plays the H-card all rational argument goes out the window. Similarly, in a commentary on the new book, long-time Lomborg critic Howard Friel wrote: “If Lomborg were really looking for smart solutions, he would push for an end to perpetual and brutal war, which diverts scarce resources from nearly everything that Lomborg legitimately says needs more money.” Oh, c’mon, so unless one brings lasting peace to the world one cannot be taken seriously?
Still, it is interesting to look at some of the details of Lomborg’s change of heart. He claims it happened once a group of economists was asked what was the best way to spend $50 billion for humanity. Back in 2004 putting money into climate change ranked straight at the bottom of the list, but four years later the issue made it at least half the way through the rankings. Once Lomborg and his colleagues began to consider not just cutting carbon emissions, but a variety of other solutions to the problem, they began to appreciate that something not only had to be done, but could in fact be done.
(Notice, of course, that this is exactly the kind of question for which we need the expertise of economists: not to tell us whether climate change is happening or what its causes are, and not even to advance possible technological solutions, but to provide us with the best risk-benefit analysis in economic terms of an array of proposed solutions. Also notice that Lomborg claims that he didn’t really change his mind, because he has always maintained that climate change was real, just that it wasn’t “the end of the world.” While literally true, this seems a highly disingenuous reading of The Skeptical Environmentalist, and if it were accurate, it would make all the criticism of Lomborg’s early book utterly incomprehensible.)
Lomborg, of course, has not lost his techno-optimism. He thinks that “This is not about ‘we have all got to live with less, wear hair-shirts and cut our carbon emissions.’ It's about technologies, about realizing there’s a vast array of solutions ... Investing $100 billion annually would mean that we could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century.” Well, first of all, nobody ever said anything about wearing hair-shirts — I would be against it on aesthetic grounds alone. Second, once again Lomborg is crossing the line between what he has expertise to talk about (economics) to what he probably knows little about (new technologies and their efficacy). One of the recurring problems with techno-optimists is that they subscribe to the magic pill school of life, where if only we put our minds (and out money) to it, we’ll achieve it, whatever “it” is. Seems like a bit more caution and less hubris would not be an altogether bad thing.
Still, some of Lomborg’s suggestions are positively stunning, even for a skeptical economist. He is advising not only to pour money into research and development of cleaner energy sources such as wind, solar and nuclear (duh!), but recommending a global tax on carbon emissions, part of which would go for (gasp!) global healthcare! I wonder what Senator Inhofe would think of that.
And that’s not all. While acknowledging that most economists think that research and development is best done by the private sector (it’s not clear why, since the private sector is perfectly happy to take advantage of pre-development research funded by government agencies like NSF or NIH), he would actually make an exception for climate change related technologies. Lomborg draws a parallel here with government-sponsored research on computers during the 1950s, which laid the groundwork for the commercial version of the internet. But the real question is: can Sarah Palin get behind this obviously socialistic approach?
Seriously, though. Lomborg deserves credit for changing his mind and going public about it. His specific ideas still require critical analysis by a broad community of experts, not just in economics but also in the various technologies that he is advancing as possible solutions to the problem of climate change. Nonetheless, we now have another strong voice that clearly admits that there is a problem, and an urgent one at that. And as we all know, the first step toward a solution is to make that dramatic admission. Oh, and please no more H-comparisons, let’s reserve those for real evil bastards, of which the world will always provide plentiful examples.

56 comments:

  1. I have two differences of opinion with Massimo regarding this post:
    1. I do not think that Lomborg's books (two in fact, The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It) have been "thoroughly debunked". I think some mistakes were found in these books, but most of its contents, especially most of the figures, are still not refuted, not even throughly challenged in its mainly statistical content.
    2. It is not true that Lomborg was a denier of climate change, or a skeptical as regards the reality of anthropogenic influences on global warming. What he disputed most was the policy options, especially the policies arising from the Kyoto protocol. In the two books he has consistently said that he appreciates the importance of climate change, but just differs concerning the means to act about it.

    After his first book he led the Copenhagen discussions on global problems, including climate, and probably his recent saliency in this regards is a natural development after that.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Massimo writes: "Also notice that Lomborg claims that he didn’t really change his mind, because he has always maintained that climate change was real, just that it wasn’t “the end of the world.” While literally true, this seems a highly disingenuous reading of The Skeptical Environmentalist, and if it were accurate, it would make all the criticism of Lomborg’s early book utterly incomprehensible".
    Indeed true, and not very disingenous. The argument that "if that were true, then the criticisms would be incomprehensible" may be true: the criticisms were to his policy opinions, and also a reaction of outrage at his pointed criticisms of many commonly cited figures or (presumed) facts. Most of those figures remain unchallenged up to now (though a few mistakes or misrepresentations have been detected).

    But the argument itself is not logical; I had seen it used recently also in a climate context: A commission at the UPenn investigating the conduct of Dr Michael Mann of Hockey Stick fame opined (my paraphrase) that "He cannot be suspected of scientific misconduct; otherwise his appointments, his career and the praise poured upon him would be utterly incomprehensible". This is sort of an ad-hom argument, only upside down. Examine this other application of the same logic: "GW Bush cannot be regarded as a bad President, or his main policies considered to be wrong; otherwise, his having been elected twice for the office of President of the most powerful Nation on Earth would be utterly incomprehensible".

    ReplyDelete
  3. NPR recently did a story on Lomborg's new book, and from what I've heard of it so far, I have to agree with his critics, who were also interviewd in that story. For example, Jonathan Lash of the World Resources Institute said:

    It sounds like someone who did not think we should do anything about climate change now finding reasons why we shouldn't do very much.

    And, more specifically, Richard Tol (Research Professor, Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin) said:

    ...much of that new clean technology that Lomborg hopes for may not appear without a carbon tax. Green technologies already exist, but they won't take over until dirty energy gets more expensive.

    But I would agree that it's sufficient to criticize Lomborg's ideas, without attacking his motives.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Somewhat of a side note on the realms of authority of economists:

    To me it seems like an economist would actually be pretty well equipped to assess data in climate science - unlike for example many brands of non-climate chemists (who at a superficial glance seem better suited because they also deal with the physical stuff; atoms, molecules), economists are trained to deal with high-dimensional problems where sophisticated statistical techniques are needed. I would actually guess that the the economist's ability to deal with complex problems involving many degrees of freedom is a bigger advantage in climate science than the traditional chemist's ability to understand the nature of matter. At higher levels of organization, the physical details of matter can be abstracted into simpler rules, which can be extrapolated into complex multi-dimensional problems (similar to how a population geneticist can understand many complex evolutionary processes without knowing much about the structure and chemistry of DNA and proteins).

    And when it comes to the other topic mentioned in this context - new technologies - it seems to me again that an economist would be a pretty good person to address this topic. Not when it comes to specific technologies of course, but rather the overall technological trends of societies.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maybe I am just a cynic, but is it possible that the change of heart has anything to do with promoting a new book? What's better than to sell a book of a skeptic who changed his mind. Writing another book about why global warming isn't happening is an old news.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anders, interesting argument, but I think it amounts to "economists are possibly no worse equipped than many brands of non-climate chemists...", rather than "economists are pretty well equipped..."

    In other words, experience with studying complex, higher-order problems does seem like an analogous skill, and those who possess a talent for such study might (or might not) do well in either field - provided they have already "put in the time" (to paraphrase Massimo) required to gain expertise of that specific knowledge domain. [For example, I seem to recall that knowledge/skill transferability has been studied by cognitive psychology (e.g. to test the claims of business management schools, in one case), and the results tend to be negative, and suggests that a significant amount of domain-specific training is usually required.]

    But, in Lomborg's case, I suspect that the main problem is that he is using an unrealistic economic model to prescribe policy. According to some economists, like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, that's an occupational hazard in their field. It's always worrisome to hear that (given how important the subject is to our prosperity), but when the stakes are as high as they are with the climate change issue, these mistakes are harder to forgive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JCM, it is not only a problem with economic models: the whole field of climate change is built on models and simulations about the uncertain future.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I must say I dislike seeing atheists display a certainty about AGW that is, well, religious.

    My summary of the situation is that AGW is a good hypothesis that hasn't successfully passed any empirical tests, and has in fact failed at least two - the missing hotspot and the last ten years of unpredicted temperature stagnation. Empirical testing is what science is all about, and AGW is not doing well.

    I just don't see any evidence that man made CO2 is having a significant influence. Sure it's a greenhouse gas, but according to the IPCC itself, all CO2 can do on its own is 1.2 degrees of warming (most of which we supposedly already got). So what's the big deal? Well, the IPCC says that positive feedback will amplify the effects, but:

    a) they themselves say they don't understand feedback well - which also means they can't model it
    b) there is no good empirical evidence of positive feedback - in fact there are indications that it is negative (i.e. more CO2 causes cooling!)


    So could someone tell me what's wrong with this summary of mine? That I don't believe the "consensus"? If you atheists tell me this, I'll bang my head against the wall at least once.

    Also, condescendingly saying me that there is "a lot" of empirical evidence without actually giving any is not convincing - although I predict most of you will say just that.
    We don't have to go into details, just name and outline a piece of empirical evidence for AGW - I just mentioned two that seem to falsify it, and can outline them if you like. It's easy.

    By the way, melting icebergs and the like are evidence of warming, not of what CAUSED the warming.

    So what empirical evidence is there for AGW?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "what empirical evidence is there for AGW?"

      Rhetorical question?
      If not, perhaps do some homework --before you make claims in the face of overwhelming scientific empirical evidence.
      Sheesh.

      Delete
  9. http://www.skepticalscience.com/

    Go check it out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Stjepan, you wrote:

    "I must say I dislike seeing atheists display a certainty about AGW that is, well, religious."

    Thank you! For years I've been telling atheists the same thing about their relative certainty about the theory of evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Well, you weren't condescending at least :)

    A difference of opinion is a good thing, a chance for all to learn. But I dislike "arguing" by giving very general links. I could give you skeptical links too.
    However, that site is very, very good considering the extremely low standard of pro-AGW sites. No arguments from authority, for one, and direct talk of empirical evidence. Very nice.

    I do strongly disagree with some of the things they said (if only in the sense that these things are not certain at all), but we can ignore that. This is because what is said there is substantially the same as what I said in my summary:

    I said "Sure it's a greenhouse gas, but according to the IPCC itself, all CO2 can do on its own is 1.2 degrees of warming (most of which we supposedly already got)."

    Which is what they give evidence for. Basically, they prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that there is more of it.
    But this is not controversial - that on its own, doubling CO2 causes about 1.2 C of warming. What is at issue is feedback; it is the source of all the catastrophic predictions, and a major factor in the ACTUAL effect of CO2 in the atmosphere - if it is negative, it might actually cause cooling.

    To sum up, your link does not seem to disagree with me at all, and has certainly not given evidence that man made CO2 is causing more warming than 1.2 C.

    As this - - direct reply to one of the relevant articles on your site says:

    "Evidence for the direct effect of carbon is not evidence that positive feedback will amplify the results.
    ...
    [Skeptical science] claims there are multiple lines of evidence that show humans cause global warming. But they hide the minor amount of warming this evidence relates to. They don’t admit that there is no evidence for catastrophic warming. Sure there is evidence that man-made emissions might contribute (by the time CO2 doubles, and if you assume all the extra CO2 is due to man-made emissions[a pretty big assumption]) to as much as 1.2°C and no more."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. see "climate forcing and feedback:"
      - 1.5 million google hits
      - 150,000 scholarly science papers

      Delete
  12. Sorry, forgot to put in the link there at the end:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2010/07/the-unskeptical-guide-to-the-skeptics-handbook/


    You're welcome Michael :)

    It's very easy to stop thinking critically about something, happens even to the most critically minded people. And criticism is the life of science. So we should all be on our guard against unconscious dogmatism :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. http://www.skepticalscience.com/Empirical-evidence-for-positive-feedback.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. forgot to mention...

    [from SkepticalScience]: To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from (links to the full papers are provided whenever possible).

    ...good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  15. See, I can do that too:

    http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/links/#feedback


    I won't be replying to general links; my first reply was out of respect for Massimo and his great blog.

    Please make an argument and back it up with a link, don't use links as arguments.
    Especially not bad and vague links like this one.


    Look at a quick and simplistic example of how to do this, it's not hard:

    Climate models predicted the formation of a "hotspot" in the atmosphere due to warming (and positive feedback) from CO2, but it's not there. Hence, the models are wrong somewhere.

    See my last link for pictures and details.

    There.
    Do you feel that it would be proper and sufficient for a theist to simply give you a link to Augustine's De Civitate Dei in response to your questions?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Stjepan, your request would normally be perfectly reasonable. But I am tired to argue with global warming skeptics. As far as I am concerned, the best science says global warming is real and it is partially of anthropogenic cause. Period. I've looked into it on several occasions, the last one when I wrote an entire chapter on the topic in Nonsense on Stilts. The consensus has only gotten stronger since.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Massimo, there is little disagreement among skeptics (as opposed to fringe "deniers") that global warming is real and it is partially of anthropogenic cause". All the debates are about specifics:
    - Is it unprecedented?
    - Is it within/without natural ranges of variation?
    - Are the positive net feedbacks confirmed?
    - May climate models make some testable prediction or retrodiction on the debated issues?
    - Are the records straight? (instrumental records adj. for heat island around thermometers, uncertainties in paleoclimate reconstructions for the last millenium or so)
    - What the uncertainties about reconstructions of past records, either during instrumental times or before?
    - What are the uncertainties (as distinct from variation across models) about predictions for the future?

    One rapidly tires of debating with flat earthers, creationists and right-wing climate change deniers. But I do not tire of discussing the scientific details of climate science, where the devil always lurks.

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Massimo

    That's fair enough. Being tired of a debate is quite understandable - I can't say I was so keen on starting one here.
    The point I wanted to make is what I said about atheists being religiously certain of AGW and condescending towards AGW skeptics.
    Here we seem to be on the same page, seeing as how you acknowledge my "request" as perfectly reasonable, which implies that skepticism (or at least inquiry) about AGW is reasonable.

    Still, your mention of "consensus" makes my skepticism gland itch.
    After all, the worldwide consensus is that there is a god...


    But I just don't see why is it so hard to sum up in a few sentences the main points (of empirical evidence) that convince you of AGW. I can easily do this with the main points that make me skeptical:

    1. The missing hotspot that invalidates the models
    2. The lack of clear evidence for positive feedback, and the research indicating negative feedback, and the general huge uncertainties and lack of knowledge we have about climate
    3. The lack of historical data indicating that CO2 drives the climate
    4. The last decade in which temperature has stagnated while CO2 continues to grow

    Not so hard, right? And then if I say I don't want to get into a debate, at least it is clear I have put some thought into my convictions, even if I am wrong (which, of course, I could be - so I certainly won't bash on those who disagree with me simply for disagreeing).




    @Hector

    Exactly!
    Denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and will cause some warming and that there is more of it due (in some not-fully-known part) to humans is silly. Only crazies do this. Actually, I don't know a skeptic who does.

    But it's the "details" and "specifics" you mention that determine whether we will get a negligible 1.2 C of warming from CO2 in the next hundred or so years (this is assuming the IPCC's not-unquestionable formula is correct), or whether we will get the "catastrophic" 3 to 6 C everyone is getting worked up about.

    The latter is what the skeptic are skeptical about: whether CO2 is a major driver of climate. And as far as I can tell so far they seem to be in the right.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Stepjan,

    Your request is reasonable but you are arguing in bad faith. You want commentators on a blog to answer questions someone learned in the relevant fields can answer. I dunno the answers to your questions but that doesn't mean, you know, an actual climate scientist doesn't. Nor does it mean AGW isn't real or the field is invalidated.

    I wasn't using the link as an argument. I'm using the link to say that attacking me or anyone else other than the people producing the peer-reviewed work is a fool's game.

    And maybe your gland is itching because you don't know where to scratch. The consensus among most scientists is that there is no god. The consensus among most scientists is that AGW is real. Stop trying to conflate popular vs expert opinion to boost your (non)arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The consensus among most scientists is that there is no god." (Darek W)

    But scientists are not experts in the subject of God's existence! (I just couldn't help myself).

    You could say that most philosopher's think that God is a no show (that's true isn't it?), and that most scientists think AGW is real. Can theologians be considered experts in God's existence? What's the criteria for expertise again? Wait wait! I know what's bothering me:

    The question of God's existence challenges the presuppositions of an entire field of expertise (lets call it theology), while skepticism of AGW is not a challenge against the presuppositions of climate science in general; rather, AGW-doubters are skeptical of the conclusions drawn by climate scientists given the presuppositions that that underwrite this particular brand of science. Given this distinction, we should conclude that the question of God's existence lies within the domain of philosophical expertise, but outside of the theological domain (yes, I'm actually saying that Theologians are not qualified to be experts in questions of God's existence - except to the degree that they are philosophers); while conversely, skepticism of AGW is not a philosophical question because it does not question the underlying presuppositions of climate science. Hence why philosophers have little to say about it, except to say, hey, ask those guys with the thermometers and balloons.

    There. That was about something, I'm sure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Theologians can be experts in their god, but not any particular god's existence.

      Delete
  21. Oh dear. How can this really be discussed among ostensibly educated people at this stage? Forget for a moment all the climate models; forget the records of past temperatures and how much you think we can trust them; forget all the receding glaciers and the documented rise in sea levels.

    Forget all that and just consider these two points: (1) we are blowing insane amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate that have not been free for hundreds of million of years, and (2) CO2 is demonstrably and unquestionably a greenhouse gas. Connect the dots.

    You can argue back and forth what exactly will happen and to what degree, feedback loops or resilience of the system, blah blah, but is it any surprise that this can and must be interpreted as mere obfuscation in the face of what could happen? Would you not stop a quack blithely pumping a known carcinogen into a friend's body while arguing that we cannot really know what it will do because the human body is oh so complicated, and isn't oxygen also carcinogenic so it's just natural, and, you know, stopping the infusion would just be giving in to leftist fear-mongering?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Massimo,

    Well done for encouraging someone who is applying more reason to his beliefs! A lengthy 'I told you so' would've been superfluous and made you look like a smarmy jackass.

    Tangentially, but still salient, is why you used the term 'techno-optimist' to describe him. It's religious technological determinsim, same as transhumanism. Deus ex machina indeed.

    Which reminds me, I forgot to thank you for calling 'transhumanists' "fluffy thinkers," a couple podcasts back.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Ok. I guess I should have listened to the latest podcast before making another religion crack about transhumanists :-) In my defense, I have not used the term strictly literally because it would be an inappropriate analogue. I figured, incorrectly, that it could be more loosely applied without people mistaking my meaning.

    However, if you'll indulge me some less biting rhetoric, I would still consider transhumanism (and I'll respect your separation of it from singulatarianism) a form of 'salvation theory.'

    ReplyDelete
  24. James,

    I understand the contradiction there, but my point was more directed toward the blatant (undeserved) dismissal of a consensus of people trained and specialized in certain areas . Being a scientist doesn't prevent you from being wrong or stupid, but it does mean something in comparison to the passing observer who's interest (I suspect with all global warming 'skeptics' as with ID proponents) rests more toward political goals and means rather than scientific ones.

    For instance, I suspect if 'the left' didn't have the stereotypes it has with its positions on the environment than the 'issue' of global warming wouldn't be as politicized as it is and these 'skeptics' would be next to non-existence.

    ReplyDelete
  25. @Darek

    Ad hominem and argument from authority and consensus. I am ashamed to see this from a fellow atheist. Truly.

    And at the same time you call what I am saying (non)arguments, you say you can't answer my questions and that they should be addressed to experts.
    Well fine, but my point is not that you must be able to answer them, it's that you should be able to (at least at a layman's level) if you are going to disparage and condescendingly dismiss the criticism and opinions of people who disagree with you.

    A theist replying "I don't know" to the problem of evil is commendably sincere, but a theist saying "I don't know, you should ask St. Augustine" and then going on to call you an idiot using (non)arguments for not believing in god because of the problem of evil is, well, doing the same thing you are doing.




    @Alex SL

    You do understand that I and most skeptics completely agree with your points (1) and (2), right?

    (although we would phrase (1) somewhat more carefully)

    And you do see the difference between the nearly undetectable increase of 1.2 C over the next hundred or so years that CO2 gets us on it's own (that's according to the IPCC's approximations), and the "catastrophic" 3-6 that unproved positive feedback is supposed to create, right?

    Well it's the latter that is under contention by skeptics.

    Also, CO2 is plant food, not a carcinogen. It's healthy and tasty for mother earth. It might raise her temperature a tiny bit though. The question is whether it is a miniscule amount over a huge period that's nearly undetectable over other factors, or a more worrying, larger increase.

    It could well be the latter, but not giving any evidence and rabidly spouting nonsense ad hominems about those offering criticism (a vital thing in science) isn't making you sound very persuasive, or very rational and polite, for that matter.



    @James

    :)

    There is a consensus among theologians that god exists. Since the experts agree, we must accept their conclusions. Anyone who criticizes them is a non-expert quack with an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Henry C., you do not need to be much optimistic. Suppose that along this century developing countries as a whole would grow on average at a low rate, e.g. GDP growth (not per capita) of about 2.0%% (much less than in the latest 60, or 40, or 20 years, where average rates were between 3% and 5%). Existing population projections by the UN forecast that population in the developing world will be slowing down towards zero growth by mid century and then start a slow decline (they assume fertility to fall to 1.85 children per women worldwide, which is rather optimistic since it tends to fall further down). The average annual rate of growth of population would then be just about 0.2% to 0.3% per year for the whole century, as per current UN projections (which tend to err on the high side).

    With this modest assumptions, by 2100 the developing world as a whole would have a per capita income similar to the current per capita income of developed countries (in the range of 30,000 to 45,000 in purchasing-power-parity US dollars at today's prices). And this is not only a "China effect": it is true also for Africa or Latin America (though Africa would reach a lower level, and L. America a higher one, just because of their different starting points). Two percent per year means multiplying today's level of output by a factor of nearly six in 90 years, or more than seven in 100 years).

    Not that this reduced rate of income growth (2%)is likely to materialize: if anything, per capita income growth is accelerating in the developing world, in all regions. But I use that assumption just to be righteously pessimistic and thus have more fun and enjoy more social acceptance than naif optimists.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What does Lomborg think about this mess around is "second thoughts" moment?
    "After years of being accused of believing something I didn't believe—or, more accurately, not believing something I really did—I made headlines last month for changing my mind even though I hadn't.
    Confused? Imagine how I feel.
    It's worth explaining what happened to me because it tells us something important about why the global warming debate has produced so little in the way of results.
    First, a little background. Ever since 2001, when I published "The Skeptical Environmentalist"—a book in which I argued that the world's environmental problems were getting better—I've been wrongly accused of being a global warming denier.
    The fact that I've always asserted the reality of man-made climate change never seemed to make an impression on my critics. What mattered was that I had the temerity to question two key tenets of the received wisdom about global warming: I was skeptical of the idea that we were facing the apocalypse, and I didn't accept that the only solution was to mandate drastic cuts in carbon emissions."

    .... second thoughts? Sorry Massimo. Not really.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "There is a consensus among theologians that god exists. Since the experts agree, we must accept their conclusions. Anyone who criticizes them is a non-expert quack with an agenda." (Stjepan)

    Actually, theologians are not experts on that question. Their "field" depends on a presupposed answer to that question. This was my point. Philosopher's are experts on that particular question.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Stjepan,

    You do understand that I and most skeptics completely agree with your points (1) and (2), right?

    I do not understand why a denialist who thinks that an entire hightly trained research community is either dumber than they are or engaged in a vile conspiracy to needlessly damage their own society would be allowed to claim the mantle of "skeptic". You may want to look that word up again, it means that you only accept things as true based on the weight of evidence, and not that you can arbitrarily sweep the state of art of an entire field of science off the table because one of its thousands of researchers is a meanie, or another has exaggerated his results; but that just as an aside.

    And you do see the difference between the nearly undetectable increase of 1.2 C over the next hundred or so

    Are you aware that we are talking global average here, and that this best case scenario can actually already have severe consequences locally? And that the entire system of global climate reacts with a lag to how we poke it, or that some people may want to be born into a stable world even in 2500 CE, so that the problem does not miraculously end in the year 2100? Apart from that, my parable still holds: you are not justified in stopping the administration of a substance that has a known damaging effect (greenhouse effect, in this case) just because there is a certain unknown likelihood that only the best case scenario happens.

    Also, CO2 is plant food, not a carcinogen. It's healthy and tasty for mother earth.

    Now I know that we should not be dicks if we want to convince other people, but sorry, this is so idiotic that I wonder if you are just a troll or, if you are truly that simple, where you would get the hilarious idea that you are entitled to an opinion on any topic discussed by the grown-ups at all.

    Climate modeling is not my area of expertise (which is why I rely on what my colleagues in that area find out, unless, and this is important, someone can make a convincing case for them having an ulterior motive to propagate falsehood, and so far none has been made that goes beyond a Jewish world conspiracy level of credibility), but plants happen to be my area, so let me enlighten you a bit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Easy Alex.
      This argument comes from the expert, Sarah Palin.

      Delete
  30. (continued)

    Apart from CO2, plant growth depends on a large number of factors, but especially the availability of a surprisingly diverse array of nutrients, water, ambient temperature, seasonality etc. So if you just drop more CO2 into a system, chances are that the plants cannot make much use of it because they are limited, for example, by K-availability here, P-availability in that spot here, by low temperatures there, and by draught over there. In fact, there are essentially two situations in which plants have found themselves to be CO2-limited, albeit only very indirectly, as the real ultimate problem is water limitation/heat in both cases, forcing the plants to close their stomata and thus deprive themselves of the CO2 that is freely available around them*. For these two specific situations, which I will not elaborate on in detail, evolution has found two solutions, the CAM metabolism in succulents and C4 photosynthesis in tropical grasses. It stands to reason that if plants were significantly CO2-limited, these adaptations would be found in many more situations. It also stands to reason (and a recent study backs that up for the last decade) that global warming will counteract any hypothetical benefit from "CO2-fertilization" with increased heat and draught stress.

    But even if, for the sake of discussion, we grant the simpletonian assumption that CO2 is "tasty for mother earth", this does not solve any problems with global warming unless the plants actually deposit the CO2, unless they remove it from circulation. This, however, is a painfully slow process that in any significant quantities takes place only under special circumstances, as in a peat bog. Tropical rainforests, for example, can grow as fast as you want, the CO2 that passes through them will simply be freed again by herbivores and destruents. And that mechanism will also give positive feedback to global warming, as every increase in temperature allows mineralization processes of litter outside of the tropics to speed up, thus freeing more CO2 that would have been deposited in the soil for some time under the normal, lower temperatures.

    It could well be the latter, but not giving any evidence and rabidly spouting nonsense ad hominems about those offering criticism (a vital thing in science) isn't making you sound very persuasive, or very rational and polite, for that matter.

    It is not my job to provide evidence for that, we do pay climate scientists for this purpose. Check out the realclimate blog and hassle them. And it is not your job to offer criticism, as you are clearly not qualified to do so. If a creationist dentist comes to me offering criticism on cladistic analyses by telling me that the angiosperm flower is so complex that is must have been created, am I supposed to consider that helpful in my quest to understand the genealogical relationships of my study organisms? No, I would suggest he come to terms with the methodology and a veritable mountain of mutually butressing evidence first.

    *) Sorry to all other biologists, I am aware that I am cutting a lot of corners here.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ah, damn. Meant to say: "you are not justified in continuing the administration of a substance that has a known damaging effect", of course.

    ReplyDelete
  32. James:

    That's an important point. The problem is that Theology presupposes the existence of some general thing (God), and debates within it are generally, if they exist, about what traits God has. This is rather like arguing over the exact nature of unicorns. No discussion is necessary: there are no unicorns; who cares how they mate and how frequently?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Stjepan,

    Why bring up theology or god? You may as well speak of astrology to me in this context - they are not comparable in formulating an accurate description of the world (science and theology). You seem to get this, but string this false equivocation for logic's sake? Please.

    We're not talking about the same things here so these charges of logical fallacies are ridiculous. Yes, I think we shouldn't simply dismiss what scientists have to say with regard to their field - especially a majority of them. Questioning them alone doesn't make you a good skeptic. I also think a challenge to what they have to say isn't trying to stump non-scientists.

    Argument from authority? Look, if you think it's unreasonable for me to suggest you ask these questions to someone who might be better familiar with the science involved... I don't know what to tell you. Scientists are very accessible nowadays - look at this blog we're on. I don't understand what the fallacy is in such a suggestion, for one, and if you're so sure of yourself, than what's stopping you from doing so? You know where to find the peer-reviewed work, get an email address and blog about it; the results would be interesting I'm sure.

    Trying to stump the layman is great for the ego, but does little to say anything about climate science. I mean, even if you did convince *me* to doubt AGW, it would still say nothing about the science itself - that's not the kind of work that needs to be done for that to happen. Understand what I'm trying to say now? You've read many different things about the subject and some things aren't coming together easily (not to mention what vested motives you may or may not have) - that doesn't necessarily constitute a good 'aha!' moment or grounds to believe that, conveniently, its you who really has pieced together all the right answers.

    Personally, I find the proposition that man has had a detrimental effect on his environment - in this case his planet - actually quite intuitive. Especially with the development of industrialization. The fact that most climate scientists have come to the conclusions of AGW - all the better to know there are people out there doing the necessary work to confirm it so. Call that obeying authority if you want, but what can I say; I also don't feel the need to question my doctor every visit in spite of my dismissals of the anti-vaccination crowd...

    ReplyDelete
  34. Antonio Gimeno has it completely right about what Lomborg thinks and has been thinking about climate change. Anybody who reads his two relevant books (The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It) would agree.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "...Anybody who reads his two relevant books (The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It) would agree."

      Well, not anybody.

      Delete
  35. Strangely, my explanation on plants and CO2 has not made it through. Maybe I forgot to press the right button. Anyway, here goes again:

    (continued)

    Apart from CO2, plant growth depends on a large number of factors, but especially the availability of a surprisingly diverse array of nutrients, water, ambient temperature, seasonality etc. So if you just drop more CO2 into a system, chances are that the plants cannot make much use of it because they are limited, for example, by K-availability here, P-availability in that spot here, by low temperatures there, and by drought over there. In fact, there are essentially two situations in which plants have found themselves to be CO2-limited, albeit only very indirectly, as the real ultimate problem is water limitation/heat in both cases, forcing the plants to close their stomata and thus deprive themselves of the CO2 that is freely available around them*. For these two specific situations, which I will not elaborate on in detail, evolution has found two solutions, the CAM metabolism in succulents and C4 photosynthesis in tropical grasses. It stands to reason that if plants were significantly CO2-limited, these adaptations would be found in many more situations. It also stands to reason (and a recent study backs that up for the last decade) that global warming will counteract any hypothetical benefit from "CO2-fertilization" with increased heat and draught stress.

    But even if, for the sake of discussion, we grant the simpletonian assumption that CO2 is "tasty for mother earth", this does not solve any problems with global warming unless the plants actually deposit the CO2, unless they remove it from circulation. This, however, is a painfully slow process that in any significant quantities takes place only under special circumstances, as in a peat bog. Tropical rainforests, for example, can grow as fast as you want, the CO2 that passes through them will simply be freed again by herbivores and destruents. And that mechanism will also give positive feedback to global warming, as every increase in temperature allows mineralization processes of litter outside of the tropics to speed up, thus freeing more CO2 that would have been deposited in the soil for some time under the normal, lower temperatures.

    It could well be the latter, but not giving any evidence and rabidly spouting nonsense ad hominems about those offering criticism (a vital thing in science) isn't making you sound very persuasive, or very rational and polite, for that matter.

    It is not my job to provide evidence for that, we do pay climate scientists for this purpose. Check out the realclimate blog and hassle them. And it is not your job to offer criticism, as you are clearly not qualified to do so. If a creationist dentist comes to me offering criticism on cladistic analyses by telling me that the angiosperm flower is so complex that it must have been created, am I supposed to consider that helpful in my quest to understand the genealogical relationships of my study organisms? No, I would suggest he come to terms with the methodology and a veritable mountain of mutually buttressing evidence first.

    *) Sorry to all other biologists, I am aware that I am cutting a lot of corners here.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Alex,
    you are right that plant need other things beyond carbon. But if a plant is growing in a certain area, it is because those other elements are present in the soil, or being added through fertilisation. A doubling of CO2 is estimated by FACE experiments to increase yields by 20-40% in C3 crops (and by 0-20% in C4 crops, where the main benefit is economizing on water). This increase in harvested yields (say grain) is not equivalent to a similar increase in P, N or other soil components. But even if it were, plants will be affected only in places where the availability of these materials was already at top capacity, or farmers were not able to replenish the soil with additional supplies of nitrogen, phosphates or other elements. Notice that in many places, including rainfed agriculture in many developing countries, yields have gone up without needing additional supplies of trace elements, although in many places additional nitrogen is needed, and sometimes phosphates (nitrogen, by the way, is captured from the atmosphere by leguminous plants, normally used in rotation with cereals precisely for the purpose of restoring N to the soil). The net result of FACE experiments with increased atmospheric CO2, i.e. the increases in yield or economy of water mentioned below, take normally place WITHOUT any additional minerals being added to the soil. It is just possible that putting in more useful minerals through fertilisation would amplify that positive effect of CO2 on crops (I think actually some FACE trials included increased use of fertiliser, but cannot cite the source at the moment).
    But carry on. Never mind the experiments. Being pessimistic is in fashion. (Sorry, just joking, and the joke is not on you).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Hector M,
    When I read TSE (after feeling embarrassed by the articles some scientist published against him in Scientific American), I must confess that I got confused and somewhat disappointed because I thought that Lomborg was going to be much more critical against those who argued that global warming was caused mainly by man. What he did was criticize the alarmist litany. That is why scientists and environmentalists criticized him mercilessly. And he won the sympathy of those who believe that the debate is an essential element of science, especially when used as an argument for very expensive policies.
    Thanks !

    ReplyDelete
  38. The idea that Lomborg changed his mind is not true. He has never denied that warming is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hector:

    The difference may be that you are talking about crops all the time, while my reply to Stjepan addressed a "yummy for mother nature" claim. I do not doubt that adding CO2 may have a very nice effect on crops that are already grown well watered and (over-)fed with fertilizers, plus having all pathogens sprayed dead or otherwise removed. But under natural conditions, which was what Stjepan seemed to be thinking off, this is so unlikely as to be negligible. There are so many nutrients and other factors relevant for plant growth that the chance of CO2 being the one that is currently holding them back is minuscule, and of course many researchers have been studying that issue.

    Apart from that, what galls me most is how he dismisses all climate projections based on the awesome stumper that climate is oh so complicated, and then continues with the implicit argument that the entire ecosystem in its astonishing complexity is nothing but a box that says "dump CO2 here", simple as that. What Chutzpah!

    ReplyDelete
  40. Now, after a few dozen comments, I go back to Massimo's post and think: This guy is a skeptical thinker, but apparently he has a blind spot about all things climatical. On that area he is not skeptic at all; he does not put a shade of doubt on the pronouncements of the established science of the day.
    To my knowledge, it is not true that Lomborg has ever doubted anthropogenic global warming. Also, it is not true that his books (the first or the second) have been "throughly debunked". Not at all. In fact, practically nothing of substance he stated there has been even remotely refuted (just a few minor mistakes have been found, not altering the overall picture).
    What he criticizes in NOT that the climate is changing, nor that human activities (CO2 and other greenhouse gases emissions) have contributed to it.
    What he criticizes in this respect is the notion that "the end is nigh", and that proposed policies such as those in the Kyoto protocol make economic sense.
    In other respects, he has criticized specific claims by divers authors, not on ideological or theoretical grounds but with statistical data that nobody disputes. Example: he cites dire prophesies about acid rain from the 1970s, then quotes controlled experiments about the growth of trees under various levels of acidity, then uses some current observations of acidity in forestas and other places, and concludes that those fears about acid rain were unfounded, and that the scientific claims they based upon were wrong. Also, he revises claims that polar bears are going extinct, then reviews the evidence and concludes that polar bear population is happily expanding and has never ceased to --all to the same effect. And so on an on, with a large number of supposed facts or trends or prophesies that in the end have been proved false or lacking in scientific grounds. He has not retracted any of those claims, and he has not been shown wrong in any major claim, even after almost a decade.
    Please show me when and how he has been "thoroughly debunked" other than by throwing disrepute on him by means of ad hominem arguments. And check with your epistemological ophtalmologist about that very visible blind spot.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alex,
    agriculture is not a natural process, like the growth of wild vegetation. It is the outcome of an interaction of Man and Nature. There is no such thing as "natural" agriculture (in the sense of "wild" agriculture). All agriculture results from humans acting in very specific and purposeful ways upon soils, including incorporation of organic matter and minerals into the soil, and providing additional water if needed (from rivers, springs or diversion of rainfall). Existing analysis in this regard show that not only things have been going very well in these latest decades regarding agriculture, but also that even in the worst climate scenarios dreamed of by IPCC modelers, agriculture is set to prosper and be able to feed all the population expected in those scenarios, even the most implausible ones (like A2, with 15 billion people by 2100!!). Not only per capita output will be larger than now, but people not receiving the necessary nourishment will be rapidly vanishing. Water will also be sufficient, zone by zone, at each altitude, to have all those crops or pastures growing. Some specific spots in the planet will become unhospitable, others currently unfit for agriculture will become fit, but on the whole the problem can be safely said not to exist. If you need bibliography for this, there is plenty, and from the most serious scientific sources.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Talk about blind spots, did you not notice several specific references to Lomborg debunking right there in the main post?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Alex,
    may I add that increased CO2 will in general increase the growth of wild vegetation, including natural pasture but also forests, except in particular areas where other constraints are met. Notice that in wild vegetation most of the mineral content of soils returns to the soil by degradation of existing vegetation. Growing plants take them from the soil, fallen trees and rotten plants return them to the soil. In fact, it is with crops that minals risk exhaustion, since part of them goes away in the form of commercial products (grain or meat or whatever). In both cases, however, the modest growth induced by doubling CO2 (from 0 to 40%, say 20% average) will not cause trouble except in particular places where some other ingredient was been exploited at full capacity, which is not certainly the general case.
    This withdrawal of carbon and other elements from the soil in the form of agricultural produce is also the case with timber: the carbon and other chemical elements in tree trunks end up in your living room in the form of furniture, not emitted into the atmosphere but certainly not been restored to the forest soil. Furniture and roofbeams are actually a carbon sink.
    But on the other hand, secondary growth is not seen as hitting constraints in most wild forests been exploited for timber. And also planted trees make partially up for the loss, in the same or other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Massimo, I suppose you do not count those Scientific American, Nature and Science reviews as "debunking". Not a single figure in Lomborg's boopk was "debunked" there. Lomborg himself has written at length about that, especially about the tone and content of the Sc.American piece. I did not doubt a lot of ink has been devoted to writing about his book, especially TSE, but I meant actual debunking, showing him wrong on specific matters. To my knowledge, only very minor issues have been found wrong or debatable with his factual assertions and data, certainly far less than enough to talk about debunking. Of course one is free to debate on policy issues, but I am talking about factual assertions documented with data. I have read the three reviews you cite in the post, and found none.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hector,

    see, with your dismissive comment about SciAm, Nature and Science - arguably three of the top science publications in the world - you just lost your credibility. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I made no dismissive comment about those journals, for which I have the greatest respect. I just stated what I think is an observable fact: the reviews of Lomborg's first book on those journals, that you cite, did not actually refute (not even tried to refute) any of his factual claims. Nor did the subsequent brouhaha about that book in other media (other than pointing out a few minor mistakes or misleading phrases). There is even a website (anti Lomborg) devoted to the task of finding fault with his assertions, to little effect so far.
    This is not to say that his policy opinions are correct or not debatable; like any other policy opinion or choice they are open to debate and may be openly questioned by many. I limited my view to just his factual assertions.

    Far from me, either, the thought that one can refute an idea or the assertion of a fact by putting in disrepute the medium through which that idea has been expressed, or the personality of the person expressing it. Or thinking that the best way to make an argument is disputing the credibility of your opponent, instead of going to the trouble of discussing the propositions and facts involved.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I suspect you did not read the reviews. If they did not *even attempt* to refute him, what exactly where they doing?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Not specifically realted to Lomborg, but why can't the IPCC learn some better PR moves? If only the public had as much confidence in IPCC as they do in eBay seller reputation ratings...

    Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

    ReplyDelete
  49. Just a thought:

    The IPCC isn't the only scientific institution that desperately needs better public relations. The UN needs to recruit a small group of top PR geniuses to establish an international agency for science PR.

    The initial experts would in turn approach the top 500 PR experts on earth and recruit as many as possible to serve humanity by promoting public acceptance of science.

    These PR masterminds are not idiots and they care about the fate of their grandchildren. I suspect they just need to be approached in an intelligent way to be recruited.

    Poor Richard's Almanack 2010

    ReplyDelete
  50. Massimo, I actually think you're too generous toward Lomborg's alleged repentance, and not skeptical enough:

    http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/09/bjorn-lomborg-change-of-heart-or.html

    ReplyDelete
  51. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete