Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
The current climate models are running way too hot.
Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)
This should make us greet the next climate panel report somewhat smarter. Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world.
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.
Here is my latest Project Syndicate column: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg
Off topic but topical:
JAXA arctic sea ice extent seems to have turned the corner, with minimum 5.00M on September 12th. Wot no thread on this yet?
Rich.
more soylent green! says:
September 16, 2013 at 11:33 am
So what’s the next big thing going to be? Can we use some Google se
Heck, if we catch it just right, we could take a minor issue and make it into the next big thing. Being a prophet can be very profitable.
——————————————————–
What about a campaign to change every street or monument named after an aggressive, warlike leader into one named after a civil rights leader or a gay person ?? It could culminate in having Elton John (I mean a statue of course) atop Nelson’s Column, and so on and so forth. It could also cost $10 trillion, but it would keep them busy for another 20 years without doing quite so much damage to humanity.
It also fits nicely into the concept of digging ditches and filling them in. They like that kind of stuff (as long as they’re getting paid for it, and can tell their peers and grannies how nice they are).
Let’s fix that problem without the fear.
richardscourtney, Jeremy, et al – Who here denies it would be good for the world if we were to reduce atmospheric pollution? I lived in Los Angeles in the early 1950s and remember well the choking smog. We’ve cleaned that up to a degree. We have more to do around the world to bring those places up to what is only now becoming tolerable in California. I live in Seattle now where pollution is not a factor but that can’t be said for much of India, Eastern Europe, and China, for starters.
Don’t presume I mean to see this done with the same idiocy the alarmists are bringing to the table. I’m for death to wind turbines, no food for fuel, and the UK needs to stop burning our trees to keep warm. Let’s get some clean fuels (gas, for instance) and nuclear power going as alternates for coal. We can do this without destroying economies, draconian regulations, and forced societal behavior modification, and certainly without scams like cap and trade. In fact we already are doing this in some parts of the world.
You surely cannot be against a rational program to minimize the damage we do to our world. I do anticipate finding politicians who are capable of accepting rational programs vs the tax schemes being proposed, but a guy can hope. Hell, even the IPCC is backing down. There are surprises left in the world.
I have jusr read that the EU Climate Change commissioner, one Ms Connie Hedegaard, has jsut stated that it doesn’t matter if the science is wrong, the EU should continue with their current decarbonisation policies and push for renewables because the world is on the point of running out of fossil fuel. What on Earth can one say? (Except leave the EU).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
Ms. Hedegaard is one of those nutters we’re never going to be rid of.
dp:
I am replying to your post September 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm.
Everybody here wants “to reduce atmospheric pollution” and would oppose doing “damage” to “our world”. But that is NOT what you suggested.
You said it would be good to “reduce burning fossil fuels”, and I asked you what would be good about it. You have not told me anything good about it. In fact, you have said the opposite!
Your reply says we should use gas. But gas IS a fossil fuel.
And you say you want to reduce “pollution” and “damage”. But reducing use of fossil fuels would increase both of those. The reason for this is that fossil fuels provide cheap energy..
The use of fossil fuels reduces fuel poverty so increases riches. People demand sewers and a clean environment when they can afford them. Poor people cannot afford them.
And people who are fuel poor burn forests and dung for fuel. So, you are arguing for forests to be damaged.
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And part of that benefit is a cleaner, healthier environment.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
dp,
Thanks for the comment.
Actually I was making fun of the GAIA worshipers who populate Environmental Studies Programs at every university.
It is the fossil fixation syndrome.
John
I suppose that I should have read the Project Syndicate article first, before liking this article.
You note that the warming at the end of the seventies was a natural cycle and that it has now stopped. I fully agree with that. Then you finish that statement by saying “” but that has slowed or stopped global warming now.””. What has slowed or stopped global warming? Are you saying that the natural warming slowed or stopped global warming? This is mildly confusing.
You then finish with “” Global warming is real, but it has probably been exaggerated in the past, just as it is being underestimated now.””. I am curious. Who exaggerated global warming in the past and who is underestimating the warming now? I do not remember ever reading about a proof that co2 is over 50% of the overall warming. I would think that something like that would have been discussed here on WUWT.
richardscourtney – I never mentioned fossil anything. I’m advocating least polluting fuels some of which are fossil fuels. In my first post on this I simply quoted in whole the OP’s comment. I’ve differentiated (I thought) myself from the complete post by advocating going to cleaner fossil fuels. Fossil fuels as used by the OP is too broad a brush. I think we can all agree there are very dirty fossil fuels and less dirty fossil fuels, and I’m a big fan of the cleanest fossil fuels our economies can accept. You have read too much into what the OP said and too little of what I said.
Read carefully.
@ur momisugly Bjorn Lomborg…renewable energy will be a wonderful tool once someone figures out how to store the energy efficiently and cheaply.
dp:
You begin your post at September 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm saying
and you end it saying
Say what !!!?
Your statement at September 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm that I disputed said
I asked you WHY “it would be inherently good to” “reduce burning fossil fuels”.
Think carefully.
Richard
Tez says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:44 am
It is the models that are the problem that needs fixing, politicians should decide whether it is worth throwing billions to do this or spend the money on something useful.
—————————————————————————————
There is a strong probability that it is the politicians that need to be ‘fixed’. The models can be thrown away or scavenged for any useable data, if any.
@dp, pollution is a separate issue, having absolutely nothing to do with the “global warming” issue. It is a red herring, and one that the Warmists love to throw out to confuse things. Being against coal may make you feel good but the fact is that we still need it, and will for many years hence. The EPA in its’ infinite wisdom wants to punish coal because of CO2, which they consider “pollution”. Fancy that.
Richard – I will ask a question as a test of reasonability. Can you think of any common fossil fuels that are harming our environment and which we can replace with less polluting fossil fuels and which would not break the bank to do so? If not we have not point continuing this conversation and can agree to disagree.
btw, this:
was not my statement – I quoted it. It was written up page by John as part of a joke involving Gaia.
dp:
re your weasel words addressed to me at September 16, 2013 at 3:02 pm.
No! That will not do!
1.
You said “we should just reduce burning fossil fuels anyway because it would be inherently good to do so for important non-climate reasons”was true.
2.
I asked you to justify that outrageous statement.
3.
You replied with a ridiculous load of nonsense.
4.
I explained it was nonsense.
5.
You now claim you did not say what you did and you try to change the subject.
Enough! I shall ignore anything more you write about this.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
Jeremy,
Although I was just poking fun at the many environmental program professors who are closet GAIA acolytes by those words, the idea is sometimes part of some lukewarmers’ positions.
Another thought separate from lukewarmerism, I vaguely recall hearing Roger A. Pielke Jr express thoughts similar to my words. Maybe I am wrong. Does anyone remember him doing so?
John
Years ago, I thought that Lomborg was intelligent and an impartial observer. Hhowever I soon realized that he was hiding his Warmist beliefs in a thin veneer of scepticism. He has now emerged as a full-blown Warmista and makes ridiculous statements about fixing global warming. Lomborg is just another CAGW gravy trainer
Time to turn up the heat and intense scrutiny of the enriched circumstances of those that have supported and encouraged this scare promotion, for these will be the people that will be and should be linked to the fraudulent use of science as an activist tool to destroy the economic base of the very countries who do more to alleviate the suffering of others worldwide than the handful of fellow travellers that latched onto this meme. In doing so we must be careful to be objective rather than vengeful, the truth needs to be sheeted home to the individuals, they made it, they wear it, there is no room for apologists and mealy mouthed excuses. IMHO!
ntesdorf says. “Lomborg is just another CAGW gravy trainer”
Absolutely! Lomborg just says anything that he thinks will make him be perceived as a wise sage – blustering what he thinks is wisdom but is in fact total nonsense. He is just talking through his hat. Lomborg clearly has no idea what he is talking about when he recommends we should just “fix global warming”.
The problem with any and all “fixing” prescribed to date is that if it is effective at all, it may well be exacerbating the “problem”, which is now looking likely to be excessive cooling.
Elegant, cheap and simple. Let’s do it.
Hmm. This is a truly unfortunate shift of position from Lomborg’s proclaimed objectives in “Cool It”. See,a discussion of his “Feel Good (e.g. Kyoto) Vs. Do Good” chart.by NY Times columnist John Tierney here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/science/earth/11tiern.html?_r=0
My take-away from that book was that the precautionary principal does not translate to global warming very well; more to the point,,there are common-sense adaptations for helping humanity overcome the same problems which are less costly and much more effective.
In my opinion, even if there is warming related to CO2, it is minuscule, and there are known benefits to both CO2 as well as a warmer climate. This piece makes clear that Lomborg has abandoned this point in favor of the more facile effort to mollify alarmists with wishy-washy language which adopts their position. Sad.
Bill Parsons;
Not to worry. The fundamental “Adaptation” sequence is 1) Get wealthier 2) Cope with whatever comes.
This utterly derails the Precautionary Take-Over agenda.
Great comment