Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. Paris COP21 commitments [by the EU] will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100
Bjorn Lomborg wrote to tell me yesterday about a new paper he has published in the Global Policy journal, titled: Impact of Current Climate Proposals. It shows the futility of the COP21 meeting which is essentially going to be “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Abstract:
This article investigates the temperature reduction impact of major climate policy proposals implemented by 2030, using the standard MAGICC climate model. Even optimistically assuming that promised emission cuts are maintained throughout the century, the impacts are generally small. The impact of the US Clean Power Plan (USCPP) is a reduction in temperature rise by 0.013°C by 2100. The full US promise for the COP21 climate conference in Paris, its so-called Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC) will reduce temperature rise by 0.031°C. The EU 20-20 policy has an impact of 0.026°C, the EU INDC 0.053°C, and China INDC 0.048°C. All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100. These impact estimates are robust to different calibrations of climate sensitivity, carbon cycling and different climate scenarios. Current climate policy promises will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades.
From his press release:
A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit.
Governments have publicly outlined their post-2020 climate commitments in the build-up to the December’s meeting. These promises are known as “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDCs).
Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals:
- The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- Even if we assume that these promises would be extended for another 70 years, there is still little impact: if every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, and continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and there is no ‘CO₂ leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rises by just 0.17°C (0.306°F) by 2100.
- US climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.031°C (0.057°F) by 2100.
- EU climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.053°C (0.096°F) by 2100.
- China climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.
- The rest of the world’s climate policies, in the most optimistic circumstances, fully achieved and adhered to throughout the century, will reduce global temperatures by 0.036°C (0.064°F) by 2100.
Overview in Celsius and Fahrenheit by the year 2100
The global temperature change from pre-industrial, for the Do Nothing (RCP8.5) scenario, for the global promises for Paris and for Paris extended for 70 more years, as run on MAGICC.
Comments from Dr. Bjorn Lomborg
What does this mean for the Paris Summit?
Dr. Lomborg said: “Paris is being sold as the summit where we can help ‘heal the planet’ and ‘save the world’. It is no such thing. If all nations keep all their promises, temperatures will be cut by just 0.05°C (0.09°F). Even if every government on the planet not only keeps every Paris promise, reduces all emissions by 2030, and shifts no emissions to other countries, but also keeps these emission reductions throughout the rest of the century, temperatures will be reduced by just 0.17°C (0.3°F) by the year 2100.
And let’s be clear, that is very optimistic. Consider the Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, never ratified by the US, and eventually abandoned by Canada and Russia and Japan. After several renegotiations, the Kyoto Protocol had been weakened to the point that the hot air left from the collapse of the Soviet Union exceeded the entire promised reductions, leaving the treaty essentially toothless.
The only reason Kyoto goals were almost achieved was the global 2008 recession. Moreover, emissions were shifted from one country to another. The EU, the most climate-engaged bloc, saw an increase in its emission imports from China alone equaling its entire domestic CO₂ reductions. In total, 40% of all emissions were likely shifted away from the areas that made promises.
Negotiators in Paris are trying to tackle global warming in the same way that has failed for 30 years: by making promises that are individually expensive, will have little impact even in a hundred years and that many governments will try to shirk from.
This didn’t work in Kyoto, it didn’t work in Copenhagen, it hasn’t worked in the 18 other climate conferences or countless more international gatherings. The suggestion that it will make a large difference in Paris is wishful thinking.”
What should countries do instead?
Dr. Lomborg said: “Instead of trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that no one wants them – which will never work – we should make green energy so cheap everybody will shift to it.
The Copenhagen Consensus on Climate project gathered 27 of the world’s top climate economists and three Nobel Laureates, who found that the smartest, long-term climate policy is to invest in green R&D, to push down the price of green energy.
Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C.
Copenhagen Consensus has consistently argued for a R&D-driven approach. Fortunately, more people are recognizing that this approach is cheaper and much more likely to succeed –including the Global Apollo Program which includes Sir David King, Lord Nicholas Stern, Lord Adair Turner and Lord John Browne.
You describe a 0.05°C reduction, but the UN Climate Chief, Christina Figueres, said Paris could lead to a 2.7°C rise instead of 4°C or 5°C. Why?
Christiana Figueres quote: “The INDCs have the capability of limiting the forecast temperature rise to around 2.7 degrees Celsius by 2100, by no means enough but a lot lower than the estimated four, five, or more degrees of warming projected by many prior to the INDCs.”
Dr. Lomborg said: “That entirely misrepresents the world’s options. The 2.7°C comes from the International Energy Agency and essentially assumes that if governments do little in Paris and then right after 2030 embark on incredibly ambitious climate reductions, we could get to 2.7°C.
That way of thinking is similar to telling the deeply indebted Greeks that just making the first repayment on their most pressing loans will put them on an easy pathway to becoming debt-free. It completely misses the point.
Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced – or about 100 times more than the Paris commitments (see figure below). That is not optimism; it is wishful thinking.
Source: press release
Lomborg’s analysis essentially finds that if we look at the climate impact of all the [EU] Paris promises, they will in total reduce the temperature increase by the end of the century by a whopping 0.05°C (0.086°F)
Lomborg notes this to me:
Even if we extend the Paris promises for another 70 years, essentially cutting emissions all the way through the century, we will see temperature rise just 0.17°C less by the end of the century (0.306°F).
You might find it interesting to see, that the EU promises for Paris, which will cost $300-600 billion annually, will by themselves reduce temperature by just 0.017°C (0.031°F). And the much-touted Clean Power Plan will reduce temperatures by just 0.007°F.
Shouldn’t that be “could possibly reduce the temperature increase if my model analysis is correct?”
“…their impact will be undetectable for many decades”.
Bjorn, I’m sure you meant only the impact of CO2 pledges, not the impact of the $300-600B/yr cost!!! I’m also sure you are using the idea of making renewables the cheapest option as clever rhetoric. But yes, it goes without saying, let’s use the cheapest (reliable) source – it’s what we have always done until the present age of unhinged reason.
Anyway another, so far unrecognized, looming reality (unrecognized because of head-in-sand disorder) will kill the EU/UN crafted CAGW before 2050. Unfortunately it will also kill Euro democracy, freedom, culture, art, civilization, justice system…by facilitating a demography that will relegate ‘heritage’ Europeans to a minority by 2050. I wonder if the hysterical and unreasonable fixation on CAGW in this patch of earth isn’t a symptom of psychological transference or diversion of some kind by it’s rulers.
Is it even possible to reliably measure the global average temperature down to the 100ths of a degree?
Is the margin of error on the .05 degree presumption a big part or most of it?
I’m not understanding something about this – maybe it’s the timeframes, or I’m misremembering the relevant carbon cycle volumes, or my math is wrong (always a real possibility). Regarding this: “Figueres’ own organization estimates the Paris promises will reduce emissions by 33Gt CO₂ in total. To limit rises to 2.7°C, about 3,000Gt CO₂ would need to be reduced…”. I assume they mean over the next 15 years to 2030? But we’re only producing something like ~30Gt of CO2 a year (compared to roughly ~750Gt from natural sources), so between now and 2030 (at the current rate) we’ll only add 450-500Gt. So why is anyone talking about a reduction 6x greater than our total contribution? Sorry to be dense, but can someone make this clearer? Thanks.
It’s not that you’re dense, it’s that Lomborg is a non-scientist and so isn’t very careful about not comparing apples with unicorns. Who knows what he’s on about with his “3,000”? Well done for being sceptical!
This is why it’s often better to read original sources rather than dodgy 2nd-hand nonsense from suspect characters with no expertise in economics:
“For a 50 per cent probability of staying below 2 °C, the AR5 (see table 2.2 of the Synthesis Report,
available at ) indicates
cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,300 Gt CO2 after 2011. Considering the aggregate effect of the
INDCs, global cumulative CO2 emissions are expected to equal 42 (40–43) per cent by 2025 and 58
(56–59) per cent by 2030 of that 1,300 Gt CO2.”
http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/07.pdf
In other words, cumulative emissions of 1300Gt for the 89 years leading up to 2100 is a good figure to aim at coming in well below.
For some bizarre reason, Lomborg has completely ignored some of the emissions reduction targets implemented in some countries when doing his high-school-level maths, so that’s probably how he came up with this “3,000” number to confuse people.
One day, a long, long time from now, a large number of former environmentalists are going to be ever-so-slightly cross with one Albert Gore for leading them to their current state of poverty lacking food, shelter, and healthcare.
They will tell their children stories of how wonderful it was when they had full tummies and hot baths and iPhones and electricity on demand. And how much fun in was to drive an automobile to the mall, or bowling alley, or ice cream store!
Wrong I reckon. Greenies will always be happy just looking for something bad about the human race to justify condemning it. Just enjoying life itself is self indulgent in their eyes and deserves disdain.
Nah, they will still be superior and more noble. It won’t be their fault, of course. But they like their creature comforts and they won’t have any problem throwing AlGore under the bus in a heartbeat.
My nightmare scenario: The Paris COP gets big, economy-destroying pledges, and we get man-made data-manipulated cooling of the terrestrial data sets, while the satellite series all show near-flat temps with occasional step changes. The politicians all declare success and destroy the rest of the economies of the world leading to 5 billion+ dead, mostly-poor, people around the world.
Don’t worry – renewables don’t destroy anybody’s economy.
Austria is now 75% renewable, they import far less energy than they used to, and the energy industry now employs far more people.
Additionally, their economy is now insulated from energy price-shocks.
All in all, renewables have been very good for the economy in Austria, the rest of the world needs to follow ASAP.
Vince, which two countries have invested the most in renewables per capita ? Hint: the two countries where electricity is most expensive in the world: Germany and Denmark. And guess what ? No reductions in CO2 emissions. Why ? Because reliable back-up power is required when renewables don’t generate anything.
Ask the British about this. Their green power has impoverished the economy and the power grid. They just now had to shut down factories to provide enough electricity for homes in one sector of the grid. Operators are now expressing concern that if they are having problems this early, when real winter hits they will be having total shutdowns of industry to keep people from freezing to death. Meanwhile, the very workers that are forced to stay home wont be earning money to pay for the expensive green power, if its available. The government actually give money to the factories to offset the down time. Debt will just keep piling up.
“vincewhirlwind
November 10, 2015 at 5:00 pm
Don’t worry – renewables don’t destroy anybody’s economy.”
You go ask anyone (Not involved in that industry) in Adelaide, South Australia about that. You will get a different opinion. And when oil runs out for Norway, ask how will they pay for their very generous welfare state.
Not quite.
According to Austrian Environment Minister Nikolaus Berlakovich Austria has a target of 34% renewable energy by 2020 and 100% self-sufficiency in energy by 2050.
And they have a lot of Hydro – don’t need backup for that 🙂
In Denmark we have no hydro and no sun. And no nuclear. Only a hell of a lot of Bird-choppers!
I can tell by looking at my electricity bill 🙁
Henrik
You are being stuffed, just like the turkey this Christmas.
A good job that you have the Norwegians for neighbours, at least they have some natural resources, but then again, I have seen that they sometimes charge the Danes to take the excess energy when the wind is blowing too strongly and which would damage the Danish grid if it could not be dumped. That is no doubt a win win situation for Norway since they probably use that energy for pumped hydro storage, and can then later sell that energy back to the Danes when the wind is not blowing.
‘Me thinks’, the Danish government have come up with a good energy policy. A good job that Denmark has other charms, or life would be miserable.
Re: “Austria is now 75% renewable”
Austria only has installed capacity in 2014 of :
771 MW peak Solar PV.
2,095 MW nameplate wind.
Less than Romania in both cases!!!
I bet that you didn’t know that.
You can look this up on wikipedia.
They DO have high renewables consumption.
Truth is that they have a massive hydroelectric generation capacity and this counts towards their renewables target.
So – is that why the green left are obsessively resisting expansion of hydroelectric.
Hydroelectric power – the only renewable that gets fiercely resisted by the greens.
The figures are easily obtained from pages such as this.
It’s worth checking before you believe the hype:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union
Texas, Cape Cod, and Denmark Wind Power
Texas generates more electricity from Wind Turbine Generators (WTG) than any other state in the Union. The question is: How much does that help Texas utilities ease the burden on their traditional power plants? Robert Bryce, the author of the acclaimed book POWER HUNGRY, plotted the Texas utilities data, and I am presenting here the pertinent part of the analysis, the electricity flow during the hot summer days of 2011.
With a slight variation from day to day, the overall electricity flow was 65 GW during the hottest hours, of which wind-mills provided 1 GW, or 1.5 %, on the average. The WTGs output varied from near zero to 2 GW.
The small percentage of the wind derived electricity and its variability illustrates that the WTGs were irrelevant if their purpose was to replace any of the traditional plants, or to lower the number of new ones that have to be built to cover the ever-increasing demand. Although the above 1.5 % is already almost negligible, the fact that winds may and do stop completely, sometimes for days in a row, is a reason enough to not count on the WTG’s output, particularly when it is needed most (winds die in hot weather).
But there must be savings for the 1.5 % wind-made electricity, some argue. In this respect, there are several things to consider. The first is – how to handle the variability of the wind-made electricity? Traditional plants
cannot, of course, be shut down when not needed temporarily because restarting takes too long. Texas has no appreciable hydro power, a source of electricity that can be switched on and off quickly. Thus Texas utilities must keep more spinning reserve (e.g., gas turbines) to be ready to pitch in as the demand increases. Therefore the saving due to the wind energy, tiny as it is, is not realized to the extent claimed.
There are also additional costs. Insurance premiums are higher for power plants that run on a cycling rather than steady load, and the cycling plants wear out faster. Similarly, the plant personnel cannot be sent home without pay just because the wind picked up. Thus the cost per kWh from the traditional plants with the WTGs in existence is higher than without them.
But the far greater problem with wind-made electricity is the associated capital cost. WTGs are the second most expensive way to build and operate power plants, right after direct solar. Their electricity is three to ten times more expensive than from traditional plants, which is far from the popular perception of being “free.” And the CO2 debt accrued in building and operating the mills, a debt which includes the CO2 generated in manufacture, concrete foundation, erection, operation, maintenance, repair, and the eventual demolition, is unlikely to be recovered in their useful life. Only subsidies, tax breaks, and similar incentives provided by Federal and State Governments from the tax- and ratepayers’ money enable the utilization of wind for electricity generation to feed into the grid.
Cape Cod:
Such discouraging statistics may be one of the reasons for the endless delays in the start-up of the Cape Cod wind farm project. The farm’s WTGs are to provide 2 GW (by 2020 as of now). Experiences gained in over twenty years of ocean-located WTGs indicate the name plate cost to be about 5 $/W, and the actual output to be a third of the rated figure yielding 15 $/W for the actual investment cost.
For comparison, nuclear plants cost also 5 $/W name plate but their actual output is close to their rated figure yielding 5.5 $/W, almost three times less than wind farms. Plus they last three times longer and produce heat energy in addition to electricity. Natural gas-turbine plants cost one twentieth of the WTG figure. But this fossil fuel costs money and causes pollution, is the usual argument. Yes, but the fuel cost amounts to only about 15 % on the residential bill, and it is negligible in nuclear plants, a source of energy cleaner and greener than wind mills.
Now, the high cost is what we are used to with “green” projects, and so it cannot be a serious obstacle under current policies. The delays have been due to something more fundamental. The wind-derived electricity is projected to cost 24 ¢/kWh. That is what a distributor would have to pay to buy the electricity. And then to distribute and sell it at, yes, you guessed it, the usual rate of under 10 ¢/kWh. “Buy high and sell low” – it is a rare business that would do that voluntarily. The Cape Cod project will be decided politically as most green projects have been.
Tax- and ratepayers everywhere pay for their WTGs twice: first for their high investment cost ($/W), and then for the high cost of the wind derived electricity ($/kWh). So, if you see your electricity bill double in the future, it may be because ignorant politicians opted for the (free!) wind generated energy. That goes along with our past Energy Czar’s reminding us that we need energy to be expensive because THEN renewable plants will become feasible.
For over a century, the U.S. led the world in producing cheap energy that was available in abundance 24/7. It also developed a new source of “green” energy – the nuclear power plant. Those policies and inventions made manufacturing, service, and transportation here more economical than anywhere in the world. Unfortunately today, there are politicians, contractors, and activists who want the opposite, perhaps even understanding and accepting the adverse consequences. That would explain why they do not embrace generating electricity (and hydrogen) cheaply and pollution free via nuclear energy. Electricity or hydrogen powered cars could have been a reality half a century ago. Instead, we are opting to become “like Denmark.”
Denmark:
Denmark is viewed by many as the country successfully powering itself with WTGs. In fact, their actual output covers only 20 % of electricity (not of all energy – more about that later) generation in that country. Furthermore, less than half, and sometimes as little as one fifth, of the wind electricity is consumed there.
Compared to Texas, Denmark does have the option to keep its thermal power plants going steady for it has the hydro-plants that can be switched on and off quickly – in Norway and elsewhere. Norway, having numerous small hydro-plants, buys Denmark’s surplus electricity paying very little for it as anyone who does not need it would. On the other hand, when the wind doesn’t blow and Denmark needs more electricity, it buys it at the going rate be it from France, Germany or Norway. Denmark’s electricity is the dearest among industrial nations, Norway’s among the cheapest. Undoubtedly, erecting rows upon rows of their own turbines was Denmark’s way to advertise their industry and generate revenue when it manufactured the lion’s share of the turbines in the world.
Denmark is also a country boasting of no importation of oil, a fact erroneously understood by some as being the consequence of the wind power utilization. Denmark owns and exploits enough territory (at home and in the North Sea) to cover its oil and gas needs fully. With zero fossil fuel imports (except coal – that is all imported), Denmark is in the same position the U.S. was a century ago when it was also self-sufficient, and when its population was one quarter of the present. Today, Danes endure the highest gasoline prices and, unlike the U.S., Denmark’s population exhibits a minuscule growth.
To provide the whole energy picture in Denmark, the utilized wind electricity amounts to near 1 % of the primary energy in that country. While that is an almost negligible percentile, it is impressive nevertheless when compared to the 0.35 % in the U.S. The majority of Denmark’s electricity is generated from burning fossil fuels as in most nations.
All this aside, we may want to become like this extraordinary country after all, for the Danes are said to be the happiest among all nationalities. Now that, not the energy policies, should attract us to being “like Denmark.”
To summarize, I quote here the conclusion of an Australian study: “Wind does not reduce the capital investment in generating plants. Wind is simply an additional capital investment.”
An alternative estimate is provided in a paper by Boyd, Turner and Ward (BTW) of the LSE Grantham Institute, published at the end of October.
They state
The MAGICC climate model used by both Lomborg & the IPCC predicts warming of about 4.7°C under BAU, implying up to a 1.35°C difference from the INDCs, compared to the 0.17°C maximum assumed calculated by Lomborg, 8 times the amount. Lomborg says this is contingent on no CO2 leakage. That is exporting jobs from policy countries (e.g. UK) to non-policy countries (e.g. China). Even worse, Lomborg refers to the August Edition of BTW. So why the difference? There is apparent no indication in BTW as they do not mention any estimates beyond 2030.
This is where the eminent brain surgeons and Nobel-Prize winning rocket scientists among the readership will need to concentrate to achieve the penetrating analytical powers of a lesser climate scientist.
From the text, the hypothetical business as usual (BAU) scenario for 2030 is 68 GtCO2e. The most optimistic scenario for emissions from the INDCs (and pessimistic for economic growth in the emerging economies) us that 2030 emissions will be 52 GtCO2e. The sophisticated climate projection models have whispered in code to the climate scientists that to be on target for the limit of 2.0°C, 2030 emissions show be not more than 36 GtCO2e. Now 52 is exactly halfway between 36 and 68. This is the difficult bit. I have just spent the last half hour in the shed manically cranking the handle on my patent beancounter extrapolator machine to get this result. By extrapolating this halfway result for the forecast period 2010-2030 through to 2100 we find that the INDCs are halfway to solving the 2.0°C limit.
As Bob Ward will no doubt point out in his forthcoming rebuttal of Bjorn Lomborg’s paper, it is only true climate scientists who can reach such levels of analysis and understanding.
Lomborg’s calculation seems to omit China, Australia, Canada, and a host of other countries from his calculation. (His given reason for omitting China is frankly bizarre).
So that’s why his calculation is so wrong compared to what the genuine economists are coming up with.
I hope all readers here are fully aware of ‘Agenda 21’ and the clandestine push for a World Government.
The Paris Christmas party is no more than an ‘Agenda 21’ Intellectual Brothel where they trade Ideas for cash.
What?
Google Agenda 21 and close the gaping mouth. However, the next step, Agenda 2030 is now floating around the U.N. as a replacement.
Let’s all just agree that the math in this climate modeling is all wrong and move on to something else…like whether Kate Middleton needs to rethink her hair style.
I wonder if “vincewhirlwind” has any financial interests in wind power, seems to be push if hard here? I can tell “vince” one thing, he does not know real poverty. I can assure “vince” that most people struck with poverty are interested in staying warm, by any means which usually results in environmental decay, and finding enough to eat. These people usually have to burn wood, dung etc to stay warm and cook.
I wondered the same thing.
But, he seems to be ill-informed if he does.
In the comments just above, he presents Austria as “75% renewable energy”, which is a massive exaggeration BUT – notable Austria only has a tiny amount of wind and solar. Less than Bulgaria in both cases.
If we want to copy Austria then the world needs to invest in Hydropower and Biomass. NOT WIND!!!
Ironically Hydropower receives no subsidies and is resisted violently by the starry-eyed subisidy junkie green eco-left and their best friends – the rich liberal bureaucratic junket and expenses loving elite masters.
Apologies, “notable Austria” should read “notably Austria”.
And that is the reason why Ethiopia is building the largest hydro plant in Africa.
And what a massive surprise.
The usual eco-warrior sustainability tribe have been very busy trying to discredit and resist the project:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110728064145/http://www.stopgibe3.org/pages/promoting.php
Everytime a new topic comes up shredding the AGW mongers’ beliefs, do you notice that one new sock puppet will appear magically with nonsense talking points, refusing to answer anything and posting nonsense, trying to side track or derail the thread? For this thread it seems to be vincewhirlwind.
Vince. My sympathies regarding your understanding of climate and power generation. Maybe some day you will catch up.
See the worst deal in history:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/10/cost-climate-change-1-5-trillion-year-reduce-global-warming-0-048c/
they had a joly good time
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-ca
It would be cheaper to just find a way to push the earths orbit out a little farther from the sun to prevent global warming rather than trying to reduce to CO2 levels.
Anthony, it may have been more accurate to give the whole quote from Macbeth. “Told by an idiot. Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
Bjorn Lomborg is a believer in global warming, he just thinks it is a very low-priority problem. Fighting global warming harms people in the real world.
Me? I say cold kills. Warmer is better.