tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post2823700074953645422..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Bjørn Lomborg was wrong, Lomborg (almost) saysUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger56125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54557347186210092302013-10-27T01:42:36.200-04:002013-10-27T01:42:36.200-04:00"...Anybody who reads his two relevant books ..."...Anybody who reads his two relevant books (The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It) would agree."<br /><br />Well, not anybody.Robbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952162856704367943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-18806541628500809922013-10-27T01:40:11.300-04:002013-10-27T01:40:11.300-04:00Easy Alex.
This argument comes from the expert, Sa...Easy Alex.<br />This argument comes from the expert, Sarah Palin.Robbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952162856704367943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59109946906779927912013-10-27T01:32:02.489-04:002013-10-27T01:32:02.489-04:00Theologians can be experts in their god, but not a...Theologians can be experts in their god, but not any particular god's existence.Robbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952162856704367943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-45872720640320457572013-10-27T01:26:15.623-04:002013-10-27T01:26:15.623-04:00see "climate forcing and feedback:"
- 1....see "climate forcing and feedback:"<br />- 1.5 million google hits<br />- 150,000 scholarly science papersRobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952162856704367943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-11809052259157634782013-10-27T01:17:12.346-04:002013-10-27T01:17:12.346-04:00"what empirical evidence is there for AGW?&qu..."what empirical evidence is there for AGW?"<br /><br />Rhetorical question?<br />If not, perhaps do some homework --before you make claims in the face of overwhelming scientific empirical evidence. <br />Sheesh.Robbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16952162856704367943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40771180605493582432012-03-27T00:42:57.083-04:002012-03-27T00:42:57.083-04:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04517561752065575460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39307039383351017312010-09-21T18:15:53.085-04:002010-09-21T18:15:53.085-04:00Massimo, I actually think you're too generous ...Massimo, I actually think you're too generous toward Lomborg's alleged repentance, and not skeptical enough: <br /><br />http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2010/09/bjorn-lomborg-change-of-heart-or.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-10844299870517608702010-09-18T00:13:03.341-04:002010-09-18T00:13:03.341-04:00Just a thought:
The IPCC isn't the only scien...Just a thought:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-59631605586031647322010-09-17T23:36:07.735-04:002010-09-17T23:36:07.735-04:00Not specifically realted to Lomborg, but why can&#...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...<br /><br /><a href="http://almanac2010.wordpress.com/" rel="nofollow">Poor Richard's Almanack 2010</a>Poor Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00780183195105651583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42369444705231050732010-09-17T19:03:22.382-04:002010-09-17T19:03:22.382-04:00I suspect you did not read the reviews. If they di...I suspect you did not read the reviews. If they did not *even attempt* to refute him, what exactly where they doing?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-15754566473682126302010-09-17T19:01:52.784-04:002010-09-17T19:01:52.784-04:00I made no dismissive comment about those journals,...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. <br />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.<br /><br />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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67888625154271303312010-09-17T18:51:56.086-04:002010-09-17T18:51:56.086-04:00Hector,
see, with your dismissive comment about S...Hector,<br /><br />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.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-34468770612050501642010-09-17T13:01:46.829-04:002010-09-17T13:01:46.829-04:00Massimo, I suppose you do not count those Scientif...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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21354683207394958792010-09-17T12:56:33.160-04:002010-09-17T12:56:33.160-04:00Alex,
may I add that increased CO2 will in general...Alex,<br />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.<br />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. <br />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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26732456750072692362010-09-17T12:53:24.244-04:002010-09-17T12:53:24.244-04:00Talk about blind spots, did you not notice several...Talk about blind spots, did you not notice several specific references to Lomborg debunking right there in the main post?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19154484863613417772010-09-17T12:40:00.005-04:002010-09-17T12:40:00.005-04:00Alex,
agriculture is not a natural process, like t...Alex,<br />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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-21414516744761736242010-09-17T12:32:29.370-04:002010-09-17T12:32:29.370-04:00Now, after a few dozen comments, I go back to Mass...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. <br />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). <br />What he criticizes in NOT that the climate is changing, nor that human activities (CO2 and other greenhouse gases emissions) have contributed to it. <br />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. <br />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. <br />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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69159170393445798782010-09-17T00:38:05.868-04:002010-09-17T00:38:05.868-04:00Hector:
The difference may be that you are talkin...Hector:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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!Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-14536722864445642872010-09-16T22:22:15.923-04:002010-09-16T22:22:15.923-04:00The idea that Lomborg changed his mind is not true...The idea that Lomborg changed his mind is <a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/09/16/lomborg-denies-global-warming" rel="nofollow">not true</a>. He has never denied that warming is happening.Seth Goldinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04125262627675298959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82968663675697259332010-09-16T16:05:36.311-04:002010-09-16T16:05:36.311-04:00Hector M,
When I read TSE (after feeling embarrass...Hector M,<br />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. <br />Thanks !Antonio Gimenohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12502706990323810377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-20532391736558802202010-09-16T11:44:34.702-04:002010-09-16T11:44:34.702-04:00Alex,
you are right that plant need other things b...Alex,<br />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).<br />But carry on. Never mind the experiments. Being pessimistic is in fashion. (Sorry, just joking, and the joke is not on you).Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67267875143132697852010-09-16T02:38:26.785-04:002010-09-16T02:38:26.785-04:00Strangely, my explanation on plants and CO2 has no...Strangely, my explanation on plants and CO2 has not made it through. Maybe I forgot to press the right button. Anyway, here goes again:<br /><br />(continued)<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />*) Sorry to all other biologists, I am aware that I am cutting a lot of corners here.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-42221167150129572342010-09-16T02:23:28.687-04:002010-09-16T02:23:28.687-04:00Antonio Gimeno has it completely right about what ...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.Hector M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10008738285159771679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54880127996675523102010-09-16T00:28:16.822-04:002010-09-16T00:28:16.822-04:00Stjepan,
Why bring up theology or god? You may a...Stjepan,<br /> <br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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...Darek Whttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037047693722842169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79720666254282037532010-09-15T22:43:26.642-04:002010-09-15T22:43:26.642-04:00James:
That's an important point. The problem...James:<br /><br />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?Ritchie the Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10249784344018510589noreply@blogger.com