Bjorn Lomborg writes:
Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator’s Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel.” The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore’s response: “Never heard of him — is he a denier?” Then he asked the journalist, “Are you a denier?”
When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn’t know how big, Gore declared, “You are a denier.”
I was recently on the receiving end of a similar rebuff from Chile’s environment minister. I’d written an op-ed for a Chilean newspaper that, among other things, quoted UN findings on how little the Paris climate treaty would achieve and argued that vast investment in green energy research and development is a better policy. Marcelo Mena proclaimed, “There is no room for your climate-denying rhetoric in Chile.”
Something odd — and dangerous — is happening when even people who accept the reality of man-made climate change are labeled “deniers.” The unwillingness to discuss which policies work best means we end up with worse choices.
Consider the case of Roger Pielke, Jr, a political scientist who worked extensively on climate change. He believes that climate change is real, human emissions of greenhouse gases justify action and there should be a carbon tax.
But he drew the ire of climate campaigners because his research has shown that the increasing costs from hurricane damage is not caused by storms made more intense by climate-change but by more and pricier property built in vulnerable areas. He took issue with the UN’s influential International Panel for Climate Change over a chart in its 2007 report that seemed to imply causation when there was only circumstantial evidence.
Pielke was proven right, and the IPCC’s subsequent outputs mostly accepted his arguments. Yet, he was the target of a years-long campaign, including a massive but baseless takedown that later turned out to have been coordinated by a climate-campaigning think tank funded by a green billionaire, alongside an investigation launched by a congressman.
Pielke left climate change for other fields where “no one is trying to get me fired.” And sidelining him has made it easier for climate-campaigners to use hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria to argue for carbon-cut policies, even though these will do very little to prevent future hurricane damage.
Pielke finds that we should make relatively cheap investments to reduce vulnerability, like limiting floodplain construction and increasing porous surfaces. Ignoring this means more harm.
Leaving out dissention echoes the worst of the leaked “ClimateGate” e-mails. In 2004, the head of a leading climate-research organization wrote about two inconvenient papers: “Kevin and I will keep them out [of the IPCC report] somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Journalists also ensure debate “purity.” In Scientific American, climate writer and former CNN producer Peter Dykstra stated baldly that “climate denial extends beyond rejecting climate science,” comparing policy questioners to Holocaust deniers and dismissing my own decade of advocacy for a green energy R&D fund as “minimization.”
This intolerance for discussion is alarming. Believe in climate change but wonder how bad it will be? You’re a “denier,” says Gore. Believe, but argue that today’s policies aren’t the best response? You’re a denier, says Chile’s environment minister. Believe, but point out problematic findings or media reporting? There’s no room for you, say the self-appointed gatekeepers of debate.
When examining apparently irrational behaviour, such as the absolute refusal of many politicians and academics to even consider the possibility that there is anything to be debated about climate change, it always pays to consider the old adage: follow the money.
The real source of money for the climate change industry is the wind and solar energy industries ($3 trillion dollars since 2000, and counting). The industries are sustained in their turn by the privileged grid access that politicians have obtained for them; whenever the wind blows or the sun shines, grids must accept their energy output, regardless of whether cheaper energy sources are available.
Protesters in the US used to complain about the military/industrial complex during the Cold War. Methinks it’s high time we started to make a fuss about the green energy/political complex which is making money hand over fist for a few privileged insiders while sucking money out of the rest of us.
Roger Graves
Better the devil………….
the military/industrial complex is almost dead in the US. The green climate change campaign is on the way out, so what’s next?
As for this attack on anyone who dissents.
It’s called collectivism Bjorn, can you not smell the marxism, and anyone not in the collective has to be destroyed to “save the collective”
Every different idea is a threat.
From St Gore, no surprise at al.
For the true believer it is not enough to have ‘faith ‘ what matter is that it is off the right ‘type ‘ and unquestioning. Heretics are traditional always had a much hard time from religions, than those that do not believe at all. Why should AGW, given its addiction to ‘faith ‘ be any different?
I agree, Climate change having a huge impact of historical trends. We can see it in half of the world’s coral reefs bleaching. We can see it in losing nearly half of the Arctic Ice in 40 years. If you say you believe it’s a problem, but only acknowledge it as a small problem, then you might as well be a denier.
Half the world’s reefs aren’t bleaching.
The ones that were bleaching were due to the super El Nino, they always bleach during El Ninos.
The ones that did bleach are recovering.
We did not lose half the arctic ice over the last 40 years.
Regardless, 40 years ago arctic ice was the highest it’s been in the last 100 years or so.
Arctic ice has been recovering for the last 5 years.
Even if both of your lies were true, you still haven’t proven it’s a problem, much less a big one.
Please justify your claim. At its peak in March every year, the Arctic sea ice is only 7% below its supposed 30 year “average” (1979-2009) values, and – at -1.0 Mkm^2 anomaly – right in the middle of every recent 10 year sea ice extent. Now, at Arctic sea ice minimums, when there is only 4.0 Mkm^2 of sea, that same -1.0 Mkm^2 anomaly “seems” much greater by playing with the yearly minimum value, but it isn’t “losing nearly half” either. (By the way, for 7 months of the year, less sea ice means greater cooling and more heat released from the Arctic Ocean to space. )
Your recently fired ex-president once threatened his opponents as “bringing a knife to a gunfight.” Please don’t bring mindless CAGW-alarmist claims to a skeptical audience.
Gracen, made a number of UNSUPPORTED claims.
She says:
” Climate change having a huge impact of historical trends.”
No evidence provided,a vague statement that can be misconstrued.
“We can see it in half of the world’s coral reefs bleaching.”
No evidence provided,a misleading claim since CO2 do not promote bleaching.
“We can see it in losing nearly half of the Arctic Ice in 40 years.”
No evidence provided, not relevant to the AGW conjecture because there were far less early in the Holocene,while CO2 levels were around 250 ppm.
” If you say you believe it’s a problem, but only acknowledge it as a small problem, then you might as well be a denier.”
No evidence provided that it is a problem, you then say that disputing YOUR unsupported assertions will make me be a denier. How pathetic can you be, to be castigating people who are not going to accept your evidence free claims?
So far you have made no case to support your claims at all. I doubt you will come back to answer anyone,since your comment has the feel of a drive by, which indicate you have no learning or love of free speech.
I am regretful Chile was slighted in the article. I have been to the country and have visited the majority of its length, from Arica to Punta Arenas.
They are a bunch of lefties, however. I cocked some eyebrows when I said I was not a huge believer in the myth.
Fair disclosure: my girlfriend lives in downtown Santiago, around the corner from Universidad Catolica.
Chile is of course a country where they cancelled planned coal power plants and are installing solar power on a large scale…
They could have very easily had a hydro dam capable of supplying 40% of their needs, griff- but your side scuppered it.
Chile is of course a country that did not subsidize solar and did not waste billions on large-scale demonstration projects or too much rooftop solar. It did the right and obvious thing with privately developed utility scale solar in one of the best insolation locations on earth plus wind projects. They just had to manage the developments in context with transmission planning.
TR,
My wife is a nurse in Valparaiso. Much of Chile is indeed infested with Leftism, but one of the most beautiful parts of the country, Region 9 (capital Temuco), is the only region which voted Yes to retain the Pinochet government. Too bad it’s so rainy in winter. Worse than western Oregon and Washington.
Otter,
Correct. Environmentalists stopped the hydro project. For a country without oil or gas, which it must buy from Bolivia and Argentina, it was idiotic.
Resource Guy,
An American engineer buddy of mine worked on the Atacama project, and it is as you say. Yet, still it has environmental costs which IMO rival those of the cancelled hydro project in the south.
In Region 9, however, the Mapuches are on the war path, setting forest and house fires, killing loggers, farmers and ranchers and blocking Ruta 5 with burning tires. The socialist regime of Bitchelet won’t let the carabineros do anything about the lawlessness.
The unwillingness to engage in thoughtful discussion and exchanges of ideas, and intolerance of dissent is totally characteristic of politics, religion, and other faith-based social belief systems, and is totally inconsistent with science.
What do we expect from these “political scientists” but polemics and constant attempts to stamp out heresy?
Like the scorpion who stings the frog, drowning them both in the raging river, it’s in their nature. That so many lay people are buffaloed by the religiosity of the True Believers is what is forever astounding, but I suppose should not be … because it’s in the nature of tribalistic humans to believe in “us vs. them.”. We see this every day in politics, both left and right, and religion, and all sorts of other social organizations (sports, lifestyle, etc.) and any other mental system based on maintaining the faith rather than willingness to consider that we do not have all the answers to life’s questions..
He should be tested for Hepatic Encephalopathy. Too much of something is causing him to byte the hand that feeds him.
The Gore response is typical of political figures who stake territorial claims on issues that they craft and defend. That includes defense against any new facts, figures, research, data, etc. The same can be seen in Hillary behavior.
Anthony’s piece starts “Bjorn Lomborg writes…” and continues in the first person (presumably Lomborg). Could someone supply a link to the original Lomborg article? Thank you.
http://nypost.com/2017/10/12/now-even-climate-change-believers-count-as-deniers/
Tip for future: Cut a line from the article. Paste into Google or search engine of choice. Hit search. YMMV.
Yes, I have a long standing gentleman’s agreement with Bjorn to use his essays.
Wonder if Gore has taken any precautions against EMP attack? His scam will have been worthless if he hasn’t.
So who are the real den1ers here? Those that think the climate always changes and CO2 is a small player; or those who think they can stop climate change by controlling a minor GHG?
Jim
It’s all a hoax, tax grab.
Maybe we should just start conversing with Gore, or others like him, with the simple question – “Are you a believer?”
What amazes me is that so many people live on a world whose surface is composed of over 70% water, and somehow only a few of these people are able to rule by “logic” that Earth’s climate is dominated and controlled by a gas composing only 0.04% of the atmosphere.
And when you try to point this out, your critics ignore these basic numbers and try to turn your attention to complicated confabulations of numbers that are supposed to impress you as somehow more convincing than the simpler numbers, simply because confabulations appear to be visually more impressive.
Sun — oceans — water phase changes — convection — heat redistribution by convection — mediation by those phase changes — CO2 mostly along for the ride.
Sorry, no mathemagical confabulations today.
the BBC’s very climate concerned environment analyst Roger Harrabin had this treatment by Gore, over a decade ago… Roger expressed some concerns about the Inconvenient Truth in 2007
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7040370.stm
which resulted in..
“And after the interview he [Gore] and his assistant stood over me shouting that my questions had been scurrilous, and implying that I was some sort of climate-sceptic traitor.” BBC- Roger Harrabin, 10 Oct 2007
Oh, I forgot to ask Al, … “Are you a liar?”
Leading with such questions as, “Are you a denier?”, is a passive aggressive ad hominem.
… which should be met with an equally passive aggressive counter-question, such as the one I posed, … “Are you a liar?”
Trying to play nice just makes you play into the attack without addressing it. I would have said, “Let me stop your right there, Al. I will proceed no further in any discussion with you, if you continue to attack me with labels, either directly in declarative sentences or implicitly in suggestive questions that scream your close-mindedness in resounding tones.”
Denier? I barely even know her!
That’s where we are…they don’t have to prove their assertion and any resistance to them is both anti-science and a great moral failing. It’s deem and do.
I’ll just leave this here:
In retrospect, I sure am glad that Al Gore lost the 2000 election. His utter arrogance on AGW climate change issues probably arises from his hostility to losing that election. That arrogance now manifests itself as really fuelling the skeptic debate, and one that he is losing as evidenced by his lashing out now in the death throes of the cult movement he helped establish. It may take 20+ years of a pause in no statistical warming of the planet for the rest of the world to come around to common sense, but I think he knows the jig is up, hence his lashing out at anyone not toeing the line in his presence. A good sign I would say. Keep it up Big Al, we need more of this desperation from the lunatic CAGW movement to prove how unhinged this religion has become.
No, the frat boy arrogance goes farther back and it’s amazing Tipper Gore lasted so long with him.
It’s just a marketing scheme to try to sell the product.
A good example is television commercials. Sponsors that pay for time to advertise, use gimmicks and convincing sounding/looking strategies to plant ideas into the heads of viewers……..which causes them to remember a certain product or think about that product in a way that results in a decision to spend money on it.
Research shows that they are not flushing that money down the toilet because it works. This is well known and used in many fields. A car salesman, for instance is not going to tell you that they will take an offer $1,000 less than what he says is the bottom line…………or real estate agent selling a house.
They are selling something and depending on how honest (or desperate) (or biased) they are, will use everything in their bag of tricks to do it.
With climate science agenda, you have all 3 working in tandem.
1. Dishonesty
2. Bias
3. Desperation
The lack of skill in predicting temperature in global climate models(too warm) can’t be acknowledged and adjusted downward because it would be a major blow to selling the product………..dangerous man made global warming.
Recognizing the complete lack of skill in predicting regional weather in climate models would be a devastating blow.
Instead, insisting that the science is settled, 97% of real climate scientists agree on it and anybody that disagrees is a flat earther, denier that has some underlying motive(ties to big oil) and are doing their best to sabotage the effort of all the Mother Theresa’s trying to save the planet for life and our grandchildren.
Ironically, the last 4 decades have featured the best weather/climate for life on this planet that is massively greening up BECAUSE OF the very thing, increasing beneficial CO2, that their marketing scheme is selling as pollution.
Trillions of dollars worth of agricultural benefits alone in fertilization!!
It would be as if you just won 10 million dollars in the lottery and I tried to convince you that taking it would cause you to go bankrupt.
Fossil fuels, besides being cheap, reliable and abundant, have the added benefit of CO2 emissions that are causing bin busting crops and a greening of the planet.
Is global warming real? Yes, and probably humans are causing around half(we can’t know for sure). The atmosphere holds a tiny bit more moisture and heavy rain events have increased slightly. Heat waves have also increased slightly. Some hurricanes might get a bit stronger…..no trend yet.
However, the coldest places have warmed the most. Violent tornadoes are down. Global drought is down slightly and no, extreme weather has NOT increased, other than heavy rains.
The positives outweigh the negatives by 10 to 1.
Take away 100 parts per million CO2(go back to 305 ppm) and see how many people on this planet starve to death. Billions would have much less food and prices would skyrocket…….that’s the science of photosynthesis and the key role of CO2.
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/
“Global food prices fall in August as cereal output heads for record high – UN”
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2017/09/global-food-prices-fall-in-august-as-cereal-output-heads-for-record-high-un/
So we have been bombarded the last 2 years with news about the hottest global temperatures ever, along with CO2 soaring to the highest ever.
What we are not hearing about have been the massive benefits to (record smashing) crops based on the real world empirical data above.
Not despite climate change but BECAUSE OF it.
Crop models projected crop growing adversity from drought and heat would offset gains from increasing CO2 over the past decade. They were exactly wrong. They are busted. Time to reconcile the models to reality, not the other way around. Simulations of the atmosphere on a computer using flawed equations, projecting to 2100 that have been wrong for 20 years are still the main selling point and marketing tool to sell this agenda.
“This intolerance for discussion is alarming. ”
Yes. The modern form of socialist fascism is indeed alarming.
What I find incredible is Lomborg’s steadfast insistence that CAGW is real, in spite of the attacks on him and others who Believe, but don’t necessarily toe the line with every aspect of the Belief system. It defies all logic.
The progressive political goal has never really been “stopping climate change”. The goal has been to use climate change as a tool to implement policies that further the interests of “borderless, centrally controlled, one-world-socialism”. Pielke Jr. was attacked, not for denying the tool, but for dulling its cutting edge.
Gore and other alarmists view human prosperity (except their own) as original sin. Here is proof:
1) Virtually all the same claims and demands were made on the first Earth Day (too many people, too much use of fossil fuels, destroying Gaia) in 1970, well before global warming was even an issue.
2) Hydro and nuclear, obvious ways to reduce emissions, are never supported
3) Biofuel is good then bad
4) Oil palm plantations are good then bad
5) The same people rail against capitalism, as if socialist countries (typically dirtier than capitalist) were run on rainbows.
6) Fracking, which reduces both emissions and pollution compared to coal, is always opposed.
7) They oppose development, gentrification, cars, and making money.
You left out craft breweries as their main economic development strategy.