In Bjørn Lomborg’s latest oped: Global Warming’s Upside-Down Narrative Lomborg points out the following:
- The IPCC says unmitigated climate change will cost 0.2-2% GDP/year in 2070.
- The IPCC says climate policies in 2070 will cost more than 3.4% and likely much more than that.
This is why climate mitigation makes no economic sense: the cure costs more than the disease.
But, wait, “Skeptical Science” tank driver Dana Nuccitelli has an op-ed today in Guardian where he claims the IPCC uses only a select range of measures: the 0.2-2% is expressed in “annual global economic losses”, while the other is expressed “as a slightly slowed global consumption growth.”.
He only achieves that by cutting out the actual quote from IPCC report, as you can see in the screen cap helpfully provided by Lomborg in his Twitter feed that compares texts. Note the ellipsis:
Source: [ https://twitter.com/BjornLomborg/status/458628793825890305 ]
And that’s why we label the Dana Nuccitelli/John Cook “skeptical science” enterprise in our blogroll as a category all their own, “Unreliable”.
Nuccitelli eliminated the full text of that section of the third IPCC report so he could bolster his headline claim “preventing global warming is the cheap option”.
Imagine the screaming if any climate skeptic did something like that in an MSM venue.
Meanwhile Lomborg in his op-ed points out what is really worth worrying about, and it isn’t the beloved global warming “crisis” of the Skeptical Science Kids.
We live in a world where one in six deaths are caused by easily curable infectious diseases; one in eight deaths stem from air pollution, mostly from cooking indoors with dung and twigs; and billions of people live in abject poverty, with no electricity and little food. We ought never to have entertained the notion that the world’s greatest challenge could be to reduce temperature rises in our generation by a fraction of a degree.
Lomborg makes more humanistic sense than Nuccitelli, and he doesn’t have to make lies of omission to get his point across.
Is anyone really surprised by this?
Unreliable? Aren’t they reliably steadfast?
But….but…Dana left 97% of the quote intact.
You are known by the company you keep. And cook is flocking with some fowl birds.
Jay Currie says:
April 22, 2014 at 5:03 pm
But….but…Dana left 97% of the quote intact.
Sooo…. I guess it is settled then ?? I am soooo relieved I can now sleep at night.
But Lomborg doesn’t fit the Malthusian meme of overpopulation will destroy the planet, so he must be discredited.
Remember that the original scare was the “runaway greenhouse effect”. Today we know that was all in their minds. But without that boogie man, they wouldn’t be in the political driver’s seat like they are. We mustn’t forget those original lies, they need to called out for them over and over again, chased with them relentlessly. Since they lied then, therefore they’re lying now, and if not, why not?
NZ Willy says:
Since they lied then, therefore they’re lying now…
Lie once, and no one will trust you. Keep lying, and it’s the boy who cried “Wolf!”
They lie constantly. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
Lie is a strong word. But in this case… “lie” is understating the deliberateness of Nuccitelli’s deception.
You know what they say about a “free lunch”. There’s no such thing. It’s only free to those at the trough.
“2. The IPCC says climate policies in 2070 will cost more than 3.4% and likely much more than that.”
But the text quoted from the IPCC report mentions median losses of 3.4% in 2050, not 2070. I checked Lomborg’s essay and couldn’t find any reference to the year 2070. The closest text I could find to the above quote is the following:
“The third installment of the IPCC report showed that strong climate policies would be more expensive than claimed as well – costing upwards of 4% of GDP in 2030, 6% in 2050, and 11% by 2100. And the real cost will likely be much higher…”
Okay, I see now that the “2070” wasn’t from a quote, just a summary point. So perhaps the year 2070 comes from the mid range year (rounded down to the nearest decade) in the following quote:
“The second IPCC installment showed that the temperature rise that we are expected to see sometime around 2055-2080 will create a net cost of 0.2-2% of GDP…”
:>
My all time running favorite of Dana’s is here, where he sets up and knocks down the amazing straw man of projections Lindzen never made, openly acknowledges that he’s refuting projections that Lindzen never made, but could have made, if he’d only made them, and declares victory.
He’ll top that someday, but until then that’s my snickerdoodle. 🙂
It’s probable that more people will read that Nutticelli piece here than at the Guardian.
But on the other hand Warmists detest scrutiny…so let’s keep the microscope trained on them!
Anthony, perhaps you should rename your SKS category from “Unreliable” to “Lieable”
Isn’t Dana Nuccitelli paid to make this sort of editorial statement? Doesn’t he also rigorously edit any skeptical points of view from the Guardian’s comment threads? Doesn’t this make him a paid propagandist? As such, isn’t his veracity completely questionable? The words “meretricious mendacity” come to mind.
========================================================
😎
But, as it says, “Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”
Alan!
Are you questioning the integrity of Drillbit Dana?!?
/sarc 🙂
Yeah, I know. I’m not nice when it comes to Dana. It’s a strange quirk of mine that I hold grudges when people snip my responses in discussions. Go figure.
He’s a propagandist and an incompetent one at that.
RE: Alan Robertson says:
April 22, 2014 at 7:08 pm
I wonder the same thing, but is there proof?
This fellow’s behavior is reaching a level of putrid disregard for civil procedure that makes even jackasses refuse to share the same stall. Why would anyone persist in acting such a way?
In normal circles such behavior makes you poor. This gives you reason to pause, and you then reappraise your approach to life. However, if he is paid, perhaps he thinks he has a reason to persist in behaving in a way repellent to even donkeys.
EBSFDNC
I think we should start a call for next Earth Day, namely, all those still spouting cAGW shall heat and cook in-home for the day using only twigs and dried animal dung. For a small charge equal to the cost of just 1% of 1 gigantic wind turbine I will ship 100 pounds of this highly desirable fuel to Dana Nuccitelli. He should have to collect his own supply but being I nice guy I offer to accommodate his needs.
Dana fibs for the greater good, so it is all OK. And we are evil to point this fib out.
VIDEO: 22 April: CTV: Josh Elliott: Make climate change matter, or else, author argues
The planet is slowly heating up, says Canadian author Tom Rand, and we need to wake up before the climate change gets worse.
That’s the message behind Rand’s new book, “Waking the Frog.” Rand uses the old story of a frog swimming in a slowly-warming pot of water to illustrate the dangers of climate change, and the need to adopt new measures like a carbon tax…
“People don’t react to numbers and rational arguments,” he told CTV’s Canada AM on Earth Day. “You can’t just throw numbers at people because it will just scare them into submission, or they simply won’t let it in.”
The threat of climate change makes people uncomfortable, Rand said. That’s why the narrative needs to shift from a scientific one to a market-driven one…
Rand sees the cost of a carbon tax as a kind of climate insurance that everyone could buy into…
“We can solve this problem,” Rand said. “We live on the cusp of the 21st century, but if we don’t solve this problem, most of our civic structures will crumble this century.”
Rand said the financial strain of a carbon tax would be temporary as society shifts to a more sustainable energy model based on solar, wind, geothermal and next-generation nuclear technologies.
“You need to tell a story about hope,” he said.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/make-climate-change-matter-or-else-author-argues-1.1786746
CTV’s headline – “AUTHOR” argues? VENTURE CAPITALIST is more like it:
Carbon Talks: Tom Rand, Cleantech Investor & Advisor
Tom Rand is a successful cleantech venture capitalist, inventor of the Green Bond, cofounder of North America’s greenest Hostel, Planet Traveler, and the author of 10 Clean Technologies to save our World. Tom is also Lead Cleantech Advisor at the MaRS Discovery District, Canada’s largest innovation center in Toronto that helps entrepreneurs by providing advice and acting as a catalyst to generate economic activity from promising intellectual property.
It’s hard to keep pace with Tom Rand. When he speaks it’s like a tsunami of ideas surging forward, leveling pessimism and apathy in its wake. Rand is a big thinker and he is happy to share his views with anybody who wants to make a real difference in the low- carbon economy.
Unlike many who believe it is impossible for the world to wean itself off of fossil fuel, Rand disagrees. Rand not only believes that it is possible to de-carbonize the world’s economy, he’s written a book about it…
“It is not rocket science,” Rand commented, “the technologies have been proven and their economic benefits are clear. All we need are courageous leaders and imaginative Chief Financial Officers to drive this change.” All we need, it would appear, are more Tom Rands.
http://www.carbontalks.ca/innovator-profiles/tomrand
There’s a difference between statement 1 and statement 2. Can you spot it?
3 cheers for Lomborg ! Everyone should have to experience / visit life in a third world country to understand what a real problem is – no electricity, no sanitation, no food ! To suggest that a minor change in temperature is our biggest problem is to admit that you have no experience in the real world.