Saturday, 24 October 2009

The SMART way to deal with Climate Change. Video.

If you believe in man made climate change or not, you must watch the following four videos. All governmental leaders around the world should sit down, pin their ears back, and listen to some real common sense from Bjorn Lomborg. Please take the time to watch these videos, it will take you about 35 minutes, and you will learn a great deal about how we could deal with climate change in a smarter and cheaper way.







32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Common sense?

You know fuck all about the science of climate change so when did you get the right to have an opinion?

You're a very mouthy, very poorly-informed man. Go away, read the scientific journals, come back and apologise, and we'll start again.

The Boiling Frog said...

Hilarious that an anonymous troll accuses someone else of being mouthy.

Still, at least Steve has the courage to put his name to his opinions.

Prodicus said...

But that would defeat the whole point, wouldn't it? The point is political and nothing to do with science.

If it were to to do with science, scepticism and sceptics would be welcomed, in the way they were (after a struggle not unlike the present one) when we finally became sceptical about illness being caused by evil spirits and decided to try medicines instead.

Yes. I know that argument can cut both ways. It just happens that only the sceptics accept it. The enforcers are in the position of the mediaeval inquisitors, preferring their lucrative faith in indulgences - sorry, I mean flawed computer models - which cannot predict weather let alone climate, to the sanity of a scepticism which threatens their privileges. They are politicians - and political pawns.

Nick Harrington said...

Excellent post Steve. A calm, rational & intelligent challenge to the climate change propaganda peddled by the UK and other governments. Do you think Millitwat Jnr. has seen this?

Man in a Shed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Man in a Shed said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Daily Referendum said...

Amazing isn't it? I post videos of a man saying that climate change is real, and I still get abuse. I wonder if Anon even bothered to watch them?

Daily Referendum said...

MIAS, Keep trying mate:)

Man in a Shed said...

The more the Trolls attack you personally the more you know how weak their argument is. week their argument is.

Alex Cull said...

Good post, Steve. I think all of us have "the right to an opinion" on this subject, given the likelihood that the present government is committing us to hefty "eco-taxes" in the name of climate change.

I think Bjorn Lomborg's views on climate change are very sensible, whichever way average temperatures go in the next few decades.

Man in a Shed said...

I'm on a very dodgy mobile connection and getting defeated by the text guessing feature....

Got there in the end - will watch the vid when back from weekend camping trip.

Daily Referendum said...

Alex,

Wouldn't it be great if our leaders actually sat down and listened to Bjorn?

Daily Referendum said...

MIAS,

Please do mate. It's a real eye opener.

English Guy said...

Steve,
As we have a bit of a community checking this thread - is it time for a repeat of our last lunchtime Blogger rendezvous, opposite the place where they-who-work-for-us trough? Just thought a pre-Christmas (Christ, birth of, =! Wintervall) bash would lift our spirits for the final push to 6 May, 2010.
Nick

Man in a Shed said...

Right of up the garden for a new cup of coffee and to give time for the restriction I have on video's to work through to the DNS server ( to keep the kids off ).

About to sit down and watch in 5 mins.

Man in a Shed said...

Rational not fashionable - yes he's very good.

Of course this stuff is so obvious that you have to assume that people have thought of it - but have other reasons to push the economic destruction of the western capitalist world.

I see Limburgh as the second part of the argument gaainst the Copenhagen madness.

1) Man made global warming is unproven and many published and respectable scientist's argue it isn't true. ( Especially those with Earth science backgrounds ).

2) Even if it is true what is being proposed makes no rational sense.

Therefore to understand those who push extra burdens on society for no reward you have to look at their political motivations.

Remember before last week those who suggested Labour ran a stealth mass immigration for political reasons were dismissed as nuts and racists. We now hear that it was the case !

Man in a Shed said...

PS Yes the pub before Christmas or even after to cheer up January would be very much welcomed.

Anonymous said...

I saw this and liked it:
“My best advice to global warming deniers is: Go to http://www.realclimate.com and read the stuff from Gavin Schmidt et al. This is where the actual science gets discussed. Be warned: It takes some intelligence and perseverance to understand it all. I challenge every denier to visit the site and to read the background stuff on the site. If, after reading this, you then have some points of scientific clarification you need answered, then, post a question on the website. If after doing all this, you still think you are cleverer than the world’s best climate scientists or have insights way beyond their ken, then by all means strut your stuff for the world to see. Chances are quite remote that you’ll be proved correct but this is THE place to make your points.”

Anonymous said...

and here's damning with faint praise:

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, charged that Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions.

On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question

Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty... the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

How tragic do you want to get? Following a man who made up data and deliberately lied about the science but it was found that it wasn't actually his "fault" as he's not that intelligent really.

Priceless.

stanners said...

Hello there anonymous... if you are the same anonymous as previously conversed with? I assume you are as you yet again represent realclimate. Did you lose interest or just not wish to respond to a sensible post? Go to the previous conversation we had about climate change elsewhere on this blog. And why don't you post with your ID so you can actually join in a discussion and educate all us fools who dare to question the the ideology, sorry there I go again, I meant science as opposed to just jumping in with a rant about us not being allowed opinions?

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

I could have swore you were describing yourself following Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth:-)

Gore is now a joke, meanwhile Lomborg is still being invited to speak at major conventions.

Q: Wasn't Bjorn Lomborg proved scientifically dishonest?

A: No. Using a critique written by Lomborg's critics in the Scientific American (January 2002), the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) found that The Skeptical Environmentalist was objectively scientifically dishonest on January 7 2003. However, on December 17 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation completely rescinded this finding. It released a 70-page evaluation criticizing at least 13 points in the DCSD report, three of which individually would have led to it being rescinded.

It found the DCSD verdict "dissatisfactory", "deserving [of] criticism" and "emotional." Most importantly, the Ministry found "that the DCSD has not documented where [Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the [DCSD] ruling is completely void of argumentation." The case was finally dropped by DCSD March 12 2004.

While Lomborg's critics continue to quote the DCSD's 2003 verdict, it has been rescinded and found to be "dissatisfactory," "emotional" and "completely void of argumentation." An independent Dutch group of scientists analyzed the DCSD verdict and found that the comittee "delivered an almost totally political verdict."

Priceless!

stanners said...

Sorry there anonymous, I just read your last post and thought you'd finally got a sense of objectivity. I then re-read it and realised you were talking about Lomborg, not the IPCC reports. Sorry.

stanners said...

Oh Steve, now you've gone and wasted Anonymous' partypoppers. There'll be streamers all over the floor for no goshdarn reason now.

Daily Referendum said...

Anon,

Never mind. At least you posted that anonymously so no one knows what a tit you made of yourself:-)

Daily Referendum said...

Gents,

I'll try and come up with a few dates for a get together, and pass them by you. I think before Crimbo would be good though.

Anonymous said...

Mr Lomborg is thoroughly discredited in scientific circles.

From the UCS:
Union of Concerned Scientists examines The Skeptical Environmentalist
These separately written expert reviews unequivocally demonstrate that on closer inspection, Lomborg’s book is seriously flawed and fails to meet basic standards of credible scientific analysis. The authors note how Lomborg consistently misuses, misrepresents or misinterprets data to greatly underestimate rates of species extinction, ignore evidence that billions of people lack access to clean water and sanitation, and minimize the extent and impacts of global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels and other human-caused emissions of heat-trapping gases. Time and again, these experts find that Lomborg’s assertions and analyses are marred by flawed logic, inappropriate use of statistics and hidden value judgments. He uncritically and selectively cites literature -- often not peer-reviewed -- that supports his assertions, while ignoring or misinterpreting scientific evidence that does not. His consistently flawed use of scientific data is, in Peter Gleick’s words "unexpected and disturbing in a statistician".

Anonymous said...

BYW the DCDS battering of Lomborg was only 'invalid' due to procedural errors. The scientific criticisms stand and the ministry were not commenting (nor could they) on this matter.

Lomborg even has a website dedicated ot his errors - quite an achievement:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

Why is it essential to point out the errors?
First, because in the handling of errors, Lomborg is not a normal person. A normal person would apologize or be ashamed if concrete, factual errors or misunderstandings were pointed out - and would correct the errors at the first opportunity given. Lomborg does not do that. For example, when The Skeptical Environmentalist was heavily criticized in a review in Nature, Lomborg´s reaction was: "If I really am so wrong, why don´t you just document that?" - and then, when this was documented, he ignored the facts.
Second, because you cannot evaluate Lomborg´s books just by reading them and thinking of what you read. For every piece of information in the books, you have to check if it is true and if the presentation is balanced. If the concrete information given by Lomborg is correct and balanced, then it follows that his main conclusions are also correct. But if the information is flawed, then the main conclusions are biased or wrong. Therefore, in principle, you can only evaluate the books after having checked all footnotes, read all references, and checked alternative sources.

Anonymous said...

when there's this much info pointing outn you don't know what you're doing, then just maybe you DON'T know what you're doing...

http://info-pollution.com/lomborg.htm

Man in a Shed said...

Anon.

There doesn't seem, to be much apologising for falsifying the hockey stick data or other more recent studies - eg the Siberian tree core scandal.

Nobody in the Warmist camp seems to have predicted the current global cooling - but there are plenty of them willing to adjust their models to claim they now understand this.

The rest of us call this curve fitting. Its not a great basis for blowing trillions of dollars of money and cutting the throat of the economy.

The problem is you warmists have invested faith in your beliefs, to the extent that some warmists have to fix the results so they are "right" and even go and hack down trees which show that sea levels aren't rising.

The underlying problem is that scientists just aren't good at forecasting, computer modelling and other practical applications ( that why we have Engineers for things that matter ).

Not so long ago the climate was much warmer than it was today and people thrived - it was the cooling that lead to all the death and misery. These facts are backed by a very large amount of geological and archaeological evidence.

PS Having a web site dedicated to rubbishing someone proves nothing except there's someone upset enough about what that person said to spend the time putting a web site up.

We've not going to be intimidated or impressed by such stuff.

We are impressed by the fraud we were told was warmist truth a few years ago and the failure to predict the current climate state.

Anonymous said...

yawn
yawn

Here's the rub. I'm not a leftie. I'm not a Green. I don't support New Labour. I'm not saying you should actually DO anything.

All I'm doing is showing you what the science says. There is no getting away from that. The arguments ARE over as far as that is concerned. The climate is changing and we are having a directly observable effect. I have no agenda. What you wish to do with the info is entirely up to you. FWIW I can't stand being hectored by Greens and 'liberals' about my consumption of this, that or the other. I fly a fair bit and by food with air miles etc and all that stuff. But to deny the facts of the situation, on the basis of a very poor scientific understanding, while making up all manner of plain old garbage, is what gets my goat.

Man in a Shed said...

Anon - science says very little indeed, except for the geological and archaeological records that say we used to live in a far warmer world than we do today and it was fine - better even.

The science doesn't say that man's industrial activity is the cause of global warming. It really doesn't.

Some scientists say so, some don't. Lots of politicos support the scientist who call for global industrial suicide - they have their own agendas.

The world is getting colder - as those who study solar and galactic influences on our weather have predicted, but those who tell stories about man made global warming didn't.

Lomborg argues that even of you accept the unproven hypothesis of man made global warming then you wouldn't spend your money on CO2 limits, but on better technology and flood defences. The Dutch understand this. The differences being discussed in Kyoto etc as so small and so easily cheated on that they are totally ineffective anyway. Lomborg argues the case for technology to offer the best solution without government control and restriction. His approach might work - the intergovernmental one certainly won't - if your worried about it.

The green politicos know this - but then they aren't really bothered about the stated outcome.

You may not have a political agenda - but most of the green movement most certainly does. They have been unable to argue for a socialist system of government in the open, so they try to achieve those ends using the hypothesis of man made global warming as a trojan horse to establish the controls and limits, quotas and government control and patronage they were unable to achieve by open argument.

Anonymous said...

Lomborg's points may be valid. They sound reaosnable. BUT in terms of the science, he's a charlatan.

I'm at a loss as to your cooling scenario? I presume it's the meme circualting in the popular press of late?

a flat period / cooling trend over the last 11 or so years is nothing special and has happened repeatedly before (1987-1996) Short-term natural variability is very similar (i.e. ~0.2 ºC) and compensates for the anthropogenic effects. But the warming trend keeps rising at the same time that natural variations oscillate irregularly. Over a longer time period warming 'wins' and natural variability cancels out.

there is even debate as to whether the cooling is even real. In the Hadley Data there's a reduced warming trend but the GISS data of the last ten years show ten-year trends close to or above the expected anthropogenic trend. For example (1999-2008) was equal to 0.19 ºC per decade – just as predicted by IPCC.

This is good but difficult:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/12/2008-temperature-summaries-and-spin/