25 November 2013

Critique of comments on recent USA Today article by Bjorn Lomborg


This is a critique of comments on the recent USA Today article by Bjorn Lomborg, mostly from warmists critical of him:


I'm not on FaceBook so I couldn't comment there so I thought I'd critique them here. The comments of others are in red my writing is in black. Bold highlights in comments are mine.

The first two comments come from Lynn Goldfarb.

Lynn Goldfarb · Paris, France

Wow! Where to begin? Everything about your article is wrong, except for your appeal for immediate aid for the Phillipines. A recent article in Nature, one...

...Con't.) Nature, one of the two premier scientific journals in the world, said that Hayian was the strongest story ever and that MIT researcher had published data showing that tropical storms will increase both in intensity and frequency. There is much else wrong with this article but his is just a sample. get your facts straight and use scientific peer-reviewed journals for your sources!

    Reply · 2 ·    · November 21 at 8:40am

So "everything" is wrong with this article, but the one example you give is that tropical storms will increase...maybe...at some point in the future. Another example of someone who doesn't get science. The prediction of a climate scientist trumps the actual observation, which as Bjorn Lomborg points out, is that hurricanes are down in the western Pacific in recent years, despite global warming.
 
 Typhoons in Western, North Pacific. More here. Global warming makes bad weather better, because it's about temperature differences not magnitudes.

There's plenty of reason to think that a warmer world will have better weather, because there's less difference between the temperature at the poles and the equator. Here's an example of how global warming could lead to less tornadoes:
The Midwest Tornadoes Weren't Caused By Global Warming

 
More here

The fact that a climate scientist had their study of speculation of the effects of global warming published in Nature, and that Nature is one of the two premier scientific journals in the world is like, wow, really impressive to her. It's just another appeal to authority. Who cares if Nature publishes a scary prediction? The fact that it's published in Nature doesn't make it true.

This woman has no conception of how science is actually done.  This statement puzzles me: "... said that Hayian was the strongest story ever..."  Strongest story?..oh I get it strongest storm ever, the "y" is meant to be a "m". Strongest "story" ever would not be very convincing. In fact it was the seventh strongest to hit the Philippines:


From here

It's only the seventh strongest there since the limited observation period that only goes back a few decades. But I'm sure this woman feels comfortable believing that in 4.5 billion years of earth's history, that was the worst storm EVAHHHHHHHHH!!! Whatever, stupid lady.
Also see:

Typhoon Haiyan: similar unspectacular cyclones arrive every 2-3 years
 
 
Eli Rabett · Top Commenter

Stephan Gardiner in his book Climate Change the Perfect Moral Storm Nails the full Lomborg the base of Lomborgianism is the false choice between helping the poor inhabitants of poor countries or their rich descendants later.

To Gardiner, this is already swallowing a large bunny foot without sauce, because there is no guarantee that climate change does not threaten anyone or anything besides the poor....

I won't bother quoting the rest of this. I haven't read Lomborg's book so I can't comment, but really, I don't expect Lomborg argues that climate change will only affect the poor. Lomborg is a luke warmist who basically argues that it's better to spend the billions on helping the poor to get richer, to adapt to climate change, rather than spending those billions (trillions) curbing emissions by an insignificant amount in the first world.

Milton Rice · Top Commenter

Nah, it's not about climate change. It's about an angry vengeful god. ;)

A pot shot at people who object to the AGW theory on religious grounds. I suppose some people do object to AGW on religious grounds, but that's a side issue. Lomborg is not arguing against linking Typhoon Haiyan with climate change on religious grounds, so the statement is an unproductive red herring.

Shelby Rogers · Top Commenter · University of Utah

What? All weather disasters are due to global warming! Cold weather and hot weather are due to climate change. Earth quakes and sunspots are caused by global warming. Migraines and nymphomania are global warming side effects.

Ahh Refreshing! The one skeptical comment on there out of about 17.

Kevin Tucker · Teacher/Coach at Forest Grove High School

I agree Lynn. What's is hurt by focusing on global warming and curbing practices that destroy our planet? Only good can come from that effort... Great message this article sends to future generations Bjorn...

This argument is precisely the one that Lomborg is expert at. Lomborg and others such as Lord Monckton, say that money is better spent on improving living standards as the best and most economically prudent way to deal with climate change.

As CFACT recently said at the climate conference in Warsaw, "coal is the moral choice". Fossil fuels increase living standards and therefore people and the economy's ability to deal with bad weather:

 Link to video

Jan Freed · Top Commenter · Los Angeles, California

The author is a well-known denier; he doesn't deny climate change itself (which would be sheer nonsense). But everything else he writes is 'hey, it ain't so bad.. just relax, keep burning that oil/coal"

He is intelligent. What is missing is compassion and integrity.

Reply · 1 ·· November 22 at 4:38am

OK, this is a troll wind-up comment and I'll bite. Compassion and integrity? What about the effects biofuels have on the price of food in the third world? Higher food prices kills people in poor countries. Stopping poor people from developing fossil fuels condemns them to burn wood and manure indoors to cook their food, and they die from that pollution. Electricity increases life spans by years or decades.

In rich countries the elderly die from cold because all the subsidies for useless renewable energy schemes. Windmills that kill birds and bats. Action on climate change is barbaric.

It's the global warming people who are the cruel anti-human hate mongers. Being against the industrial revolution, powered largely by fossil fuels,  that has brought so much benefit and long life to so many people, is the amoral choice in my opinion. The stupidity and ignorance of stupid greenies like this woman kills people now!

Jenny Monson-Miller · Law Clerk at Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

If you pick and choose scientific data, you can "prove" anything. The majority of smart, informed, and rational people in this world believe that storms like Haiyan will increase in intensity and frequency as climate change continues to intensify. Choosing to alleviate poverty in places like the Philippines without moving to stop climate change will be pretty pointless, since they'll all be under water before too long. Mitigation and adaptation measures are sorely needed by the people of the Philippines and by the rest of us, and those measures are not mutually exclusive from measures to bring people out of poverty.

Reply ·· Yesterday at 10:36am
Why would an informed person not be informed of the fact that tropical cyclones are not increasing? CO2 has risen by 40% but global warming makes hurricanes less frequent.

Modernising the Philippines would save countless lives every time a typhoon hits. Spend as much as you like curbing carbon dioxide, bad weather will still happen. Humans don't control the climate.  She says that mitigation and adaptation are  not mutually exclusive from bringing people out of poverty.

Yes it is. Action on climate change that stops poor people from utilising fossil fuels will stop them from getting out of poverty. Thus, mitigation and moderisation are mutually exclusive. First world countries already have adaptation measures due to the wealth of those countries. Moving to useless renewables would weaken the energy supply and wealth of those rich countries, making them less able to respond to bad weather, bad weather which will happen no matter the mitigation of carbon dioxide.

She is a Law Clerk at Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy? I guess ignorance is the criterion to work at such a place.

Peter Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts University

why does USA Today give a platform to this lunatic? His arguments are not even worth reading.

Reply · 1 ·· Yesterday at 4:19pm

And here we see the real face of warmism: control and suppression of free speech. If it's for a good cause, human rights can be sacrificed. These people have no idea how cruel and insane they are. What a bunch of callous, cold hearted, ignorant rotten bastards. That's why I hate these people.

    Ian Borsuk · Toronto, Ontario

    I wont click and risk giving them any ad revenue from my visit. But hasn't USA Today always been the worst? That's always been my understanding of the paper.

    Reply ·    · Yesterday at 4:25pm

My God, USA Today has been among the shrillest of the global warming shills. One single article that's only mildly luke-warm instead of full-on alarmist and these stupid greenies are up in arms. Suppression and control. Greenies are a bunch of would-be Hitler, Nazi, control freaks.

    Peter Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts University

    It seems so. I've never really followed it. But good lord The Hill (a conservative news outlet?) has some really fricking crazy nutbag commentators.

    Reply ·    · Yesterday at 4:27pm

More lame ad hominem attacks, jee you never hear ad hominem attacks from warmists!!

    Albert Engel · University of Maryland, College Park

    It seems to me that not reading any arguments that one doesn't agree with is not a very way to be scientifically literate...

    Reply ·    · Yesterday at 5:09pm

I know Albert Engel.  It's really frustrating the way warmists and their websites, like the inaptly named SkepticalScience, have such a one sided point of view. They should look at all sides like skeptics do. Oh wait, you were talking about skeptics there, oh.

Well that's odd. A warmist so retarded that they project their own sins onto their enemies.  Jee, I've never seen a warmist project their own failings and limitations onto others. Mostly warmists are sane, rational, smart people, who are well-grounded, and look at all sides of an argument. LOL.

    Peter Ciurczak · MA Candidate at Tufts University

    Here's the problem with Bjorn. For one, he's an opportunist. He's the go-to guy for misinformation and false compassion. I've followed him for awhile, actually, and his arguments always muddy the issue. His goal is not poverty alleviation, its maintaining the status quo of oil and gas extraction. Has been for awhile. He cloaks it in this false sincerity, but the guy's a complete tool of the industry, and is paid well for it. Moreover, one of the major problems we have is giving space to these people who advocate the status quo and pooh pooh efforts to address climate change. Make no mistake, this hurricane was about the interaction of climate change and poverty, but Bjorn's agenda is anything but.

    Reply · 1 ·    · Yesterday at 7:23pm

The ability of greentard warmists to twist the truth never ceases to amaze me. How do they all get this stupid? Do they have to pass a stupidity test before they are allowed in to the global warming fraternity? Or is it just that smart people think for themselves and therefore don't buy any old claptrap they hear?

Status quo of gas and oil? I think Lomborg thinks that it's better for humanity as a whole if poorer nations are allowed to exploit fossil fuels. The increase in standard of living would outweigh the alleged detriments of climate change by orders of magnitude. Lomborg is a Professor at a University, not in the pay of big oil.

And again the call to silence their critics. Hitler control freaks.

The last comment was mostly incoherent drivel so I give you a few choice highlights:

Jernst Zondel · Bewunderung Universitat

Ziz is too much....The Filipinos won world war 2 for America because they stood up in Bataan it was mainly the Philippine Scouts with MacArthur...

Um, Bataan was a lost battle for the allies. It's wasn't an easy battle for the Japanese to be sure. Americans and their allies caused trouble for the Japanese. But the Japanese won, and the Philippines was Japanese territory for 3 years or so after that battle. How does that loss win the war for the Americans? Oh silly me I thought this was a logical person of normal intelligence, not a greentard.

.. You fail to heed the warnings of Katrina, Sandy, and the new equatorial super hurricane phenomena like Haiyan which not only portends to risen water levels at the equator but tell tale magnetic pole shift. God bless America!

Reply · 1 ·· 23 hours ago

New super hurricane phenomena? The hurricane activity in the west Pacific and in the world is down. What the link of those storms to rising sea levels is, really perplexes me. Sounds like this person has heard a few warmist talking points, of rising sea levels and rising storms, and then draws their own links and conclusions that no scientist, even a climate scientist, would agree with.


Tropical cyclones not getting worse. None of the IPCC's predictions have worked out.
 
Time and again I see warmists making up stuff that even climate scientists would not admit too. For example on this thread the green people commenting appear ignorant of the fact that sea level rise has been steady for 3,000 years, and say that recently there has been an acceleration, or even that sea level rise is an entirely new phenomenon.

There's no evidence for this acceleration.



In fact there is evidence that sea level rise is decelerating:

 

1 comment:

  1. You might qualify for a new solar energy rebate program.
    Click here to find out if you qualify now!

    ReplyDelete