UPDATE: What an extraordinary moment. UWA has announced that due to the unexpected “passion” of the staff and students they have to cancel the Lomborg Consensus Centre (May 8th 2015). They give no rational reason — this is caving in to bullies. The government needs to fund this centre as an independent unit. Academia in Australia is beyond saving. “Lomborg commits the unforgivable sin of failing to feed friends of big-government.”
Bjorn Lomborg writes in The Australian reasonably often, so he is fairly well known amongst the thinking set in Australia.
The Consensus Centre is coming to UWA, my old alma mater, and former home of Steven Lewandowsky, and PhD candidate John Cook. Strange company indeed. It is promising that something rational will probably come forth from UWA for a change. It’s also promising that the Abbott government seems to recognise the need to break the monopoly in funding by a small amount. The choice of UWA might not be as outlandish as people think. It is as politically as pathetically correct as any university, but it doesn’t have a major climate gravy train. Their climate science courses page says it all — they only have a generic enviro-science major, and a bland “thesis” for postgrads. Their Climate Science page is (as wiki would say) a “stub article” in need of content. It links to the UnskepticalScience blog, Lewandowskys nearly dead blog, and one respectable twitter account. In other words, $4m would make a huge difference in UWA-climate-land, which is a vacuum. I don’t think there was any chance of Lomborg getting help from say, Uni NSW instead (where Sherwood, England, Pitman, “Deltoid” and the-man-who-got-stuck-in-Antarctic-ice, work.)
Punish the “contrarian” — even if he agrees with nearly everything
The news of this started doing the rounds a few weeks ago. Curiously, apart from tiny news stories, there was not much interest until The Guardian decided to expose the Abbott government “funding contrarians”, as if a government should only ever fund one opinion, and as if that crude descriptor fits Bjorn Lomborg, who agrees with the IPCC about the science, but not about how to solve the “crisis”. But just as with Roger Pielke Jnr, even borderline apostates must be punished. Such is the fear from the climate religion that their unscientific facade will crumble, they have to protest every grant outside the tribe. So Lenore Taylor, the author at The Guardian, didn’t miss the chance to discuss the potential, vague, undescribed “links” between the Consensus Centre and alleged fossil fuel funding. The Consensus Centre replied that it doesn’t accept any, and indeed, recommends “the elimination of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and increasing investment in RD&D for green energy technologies.” So why are we even talking about imagined possible “links” with fossil fuels? Because most well trained green-journalists can’t write an article without mentioning the “fossil fuel” ad hom. It’s reflexive.
And so the howling begins
UPDATE: The Climate Council hates the idea of an economist trying to make the environmental dollar effective “it’s an insult to Australia’s scientific community”. So we know the Consensus Centre must be useful. 😉
The Education Union calls for Pyne’s resignation, because apparently an elected government can’t just fund things, especially not foreigners:
The National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU) slammed the decision and called on Pyne to resign.
NTEU national president Jeannie Rea said: “These [Australian] researchers will understandably be furious that the Minister for Education has found a spare $4 million to establish a research centre that has not been required to go through any competitive process and seems to have arisen from discussions between UWA, the government and departmental officials.
There is already a petition at Change.org saying “Lomborg’s views are dangerous.”
It’s not about finding solutions about the climate, or making enviro-dollars useful, it’s about toeing the tribal line. Poor Clodagh Guildea, the petition founder, studied science at post-modern UWA, and thinks Lomborg is “entirely out of step with scientific consensus” which shows (1) how bad she is at research, because he buys the consensus all the way, and (2) how little she knows about science. Perhaps one day UWA will teach the scientific method again, instead of training parrots to mimic authority? For UWA’s sake Clodagh, pack away your unscientific petition and stop advertising how weak the science faculty is these days.
Lomborg, half believer, half skeptic
I like Lomborg when he writes about economics. I’m not enthused about his science views. In 2010 he was using the namecalling term “denier” and appeared to know nothing much about skeptic positions apart from what he’d been taught by Al Gore. I suspect he must have improved since then — he would have met some real skeptics — because he doesn’t seem to recite that litany with the same careless habit he did then.
As for The Consensus Centre — it’s not a good name, but Lomborg’s skill is to pick a position very close to his opponents — he presents a small target, and the choice of name reflects that. Strategically, there is a certain wisdom to it, and it appears to be his genuine position too, since he does not stray far from the path. That said, I wouldn’t use it in a science debate. But they appear to have used this name since 2004.
I wish him all the best. I imagine he will hit the UWA cultural scene like a hot potato. But closet skeptics will feel more inclined to speak up. Hopefully, the climate-crisis-tribe will overplay their hand with outrage as per usual. The more the better. Sensible people can see how ridiculous it is. Good luck to him.
I assume you meant “Lomborg” in the first line, not the “Lomborn” in Copenhagen.
—
Ta! Fixed. Jo
30
Well it should be Bjørn Lomborg with an ø. 😀
10
And once he’s exposed to some basic skeptic writing, he’ll be Bjørn-again as a scientist!
10
You may have fixed the name, but the rest needs updating too now. Sorry.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708
00
My reply http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/lomborgs-centre-cancelled-uwa-caves-in-to-bullies-who-fight-to-silence-debate/
The bullies win this round. It says a lot about our universities doesn’t it?
There is no saving them. The Lomborg Consensus centre has been axed in response to pure emotional hysteria. The Abbott government should immediately set up the centre anyway, make it independent from universities, which don’t deserve another cent.
Bjorn Lomborg, who believes the IPCC science, but disagrees with their economics, is too “dangerous” for UWA. Poor petals! He wants to get more environmental and human benefit from government spending — which is a disaster for the Green Gravy train. Lomborg commits the unforgivable sin of failing to feed friends of big-government.
There’s the real agenda isn’t it? Not about the environment. It’s about lining pockets and pandering to a tribal religion.
00
Crikey. Those guys need to change the record.
180
Be reasonable, see it our way!
100
In other terms:I reject your view of reality and substitute it with mine.
110
For anyone interested in what Tim Flannery’s Climate Council is all about, see
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2015/04/profits-doom/
50
Its good timing. I have noticed what seems to be a real tightening up on any voice who dare dissent on anything the powers that be have declared “un-challengable” ( spelling? ) across what seems to be all areas of society.
I am concerned what will happen if they try to tighten it any further. I guess the sheep will finally wake up to the huge open-air prison society is becoming at the behest of the leftist elites…..
60
Lomborg’s more moderate views are very dangerous. Just as after the fall of the DDR, the opening up of markets was dangerous to the State Industries. A little bit of competition will cripple the climate establishment. “Climate Science” is like the Trabant car. It was a poor design at its launch, was not developed over its 30 year life, did not function well and left a nasty odour wherever it went.
371
Totally agree. Hes like an intelligent design type, no one wins when you try to combine science with faith, in this sphere or that one.
41
It’s also (actual) toxic waste that will hang around for thousands of years unless broken down artificially (e.g. high-temperature incineration).
90
Bernd
I used to drive this thing and after a few beers we also burn them on regular basis, the black smoke and fumes where excruciating and once in flames it was I possible to extinguish.
20
No, it’s like carbon monoxide, which blocks oxygen from entering red blood cells, and thus the brain. But in the open air, it oxidizes to form the harmless plant food trace chemical CO2.
20
It’s a stroke of genius from the Hon Christopher Pyne, shows the left for what it is. The shrieks on Facebook are worse than absurd.
30
Jo: I don’t know what a consensus center is. Any brief explanation from those of us not in OZ?
60
Lomborg was director in Copenhagen, but a new left wing government cut funding, so he has spent the last couple of years in the US living off scraps.
Here’s the old school.
http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/
70
Thanks el Gordo and Yonniestone. That helps.
30
A consensus centre is what passes for a University in Australia these days, cheers.
190
A consensus centre is apparently a coterie that attempts to suppress free science, free speech, and academic freedom. Lysenko would be proud to be a member.
60
I like Lomborg’s common sense remarks about renewables (research them, but don’t build them until they become economic), but does such common sense really deserve $4 million?
I’ll change my mind if someone can point out a single worthwhile thing that has come from academic economists in the last 50 years.
113
Mikky,
Nothing worthwhile, but after wasting billions on nonsense for the last twenty years $4mil for a bit of common sense is well worth the risk – and probably represents two and a half less wind turbines.
271
Perhaps Austrian Economics can change your mind Mikky,
Austrian Economics ” can advance science and oppose evil with creativity and courage. Now the Austrian School enters a new millennium as the intellectual standard bearer for the free society”
60
Note that Frederich von Hayek (Austrian School economist) also introduced a method for data homogenistation which would be much better than the one that the BOM actually uses. Date 1974, just within the 50 year window.
Hat Tip to manicbeancounter.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/04/fewer-heatwaves-for-9-million-australians-in-sydney-darwin-hobart-melbourne-thank-co2/#comment-1701117
30
Peter C
Hayek did not introduce a method for data homogenistation. He instead said something much more fundamental that applies as much to temperature data as economic data. That is if you “make data homogenous” then aggregate it you lose site of much of the real-world data. But there is a difference. With temperature data if you had a Stevenson screen in every square kilometer across Australia with readings every hour for 200 years, you would get a very accurate picture of changes in temperature trends. But with economic data, the crucial bits are partly in people’s heads as tacit knowledge, and partly as signals that people respond to in different ways. In both cases, much fuller data, properly filtered for biases, may still not allow a complex theory that fits the data. Hayek was saying that use of economic data (and by inference Australian temperature data) is a pretense of knowledge. Hayek went on to say that in economics we can only make pattern predictions. In climate this is probably the case as well. So a couple of years of cold winters in North America does not disprove global warming theory. But when human CO2 emissions increase by 30% over a 15 year period and global temperatures stop rising the pattern prediction from climate models is falsified.
90
Kevin,
I’d like to follow up on a previous thread about profitable ways to reduce CO2. I dispute that zero CO2 can’t be reached that way.
If I use banana plantations that produce say 100T Dry weight per Ha ( Carbon of about 50T per Ha) that represents a CO2 input of 50×44/12 = 183Tonnes of CO2 per hectare sequestered. Now lets say each ha produces 19 Tonnes of bananas, which a well managed farm can acheive. SO we have sequestered 183 Tonnes of CO2 and at 19000 kg of bananas at say $2 per kg I also made $38000. If I converted small crop land (15Tonnes of Co2 Per hectare) then to offset Australia’s Emissions of 530MT I just need to create 530000000/168 or 3 Million Ha of Land out of 450 Million Hectares (0.6%)of total farmland. Mind you that’s 3 million Ha x 19 T/Ha = 57 Million Tonnes (104 Billion dollars worth)of bananas which might distort the banana market a tad.
Still even at 20c a kg I’d make 10.4 billion dollars while neutralising Australia’s CO2 footprint completely
Strangely the same thing can be done with a common Australian weed (The caster oil tree) tastes horrible as medicine but caster oil is a great feedstock to make biodiesel, and this weed grows just about anywhere there’s water.
30
Oh I missed a point Kev.
Let’s say we had an ETS – if I was to create a carbon fund, to which people could donate plantings of trees, and I could arrange through the farmers federation to get every farmer to forest just 1% of their land (with mythical bananas that grow in Victoria) and donate it to my fund I would have carbon credits (offsets) for about 1.8x Australia total CO2 output – if I then flood the market with my credits what is the price going to be? Now add in the CO2 from people in the city donating me their odd trees. If you can aggregate credits this would be a disaster – this is primarily the reason the European ETS is dust.
See what a folly this is when carbon offset can be created for nothing or at a profit – it’s economic madness.
40
Bobl
You are not talking about creating zero CO2 profitably, but a scheme where you make money out of a scheme that offsets others emissions through an ETS scheme. The zero emissions is a net figure.
It only works through an artificial but perfect market being created. The income you receive from sequestering CO2 comes from those who have to purchase the licences to “pollute”. You can do very nicely, but only at the expense of other Australians. It is still costly to offset CO2, with part of that cost going to you in profits as a sequestrator.
Now look at the banana plantation example. If you plant bananas where there is no vegetation, then there will be a net increase in CO2 absorption. I have never been to Australia, but where I have seen bananas growing in Southern Brazil, near Morretes, the plantations have replaced sub-tropical rain forest. As the plantations are less dense than the forest, a new banana plantation will mean less CO2 is sequestered.
Then suppose it took off. The supply of bananas would increase driving down prices. So existing growers would demand the right to sell offsets, or would switch to crops where they could produce offsets. Surplus bananas might be exported. The carbon credits are an effective subsidy, so other countries might accuse that Australia is “dumping” jeopardizing trade agreements.
20
I didn’t say it was perfect, but in response
1. Yes I am considering Nett, why would you do it any other way when you have 450 Million Ha of Farmland that is less than 30% utilised to use?
2. There is plenty of land devoted to small crops or cattle that can grow Bananas (Or another high sequestration crop)
3. This method does not necessarily disadvantage people overall – even with 0.6% of Just Farmland we increase sinking 550 Million Tonnes and provide 10 Billion in produce that people can eat. Because (incidentally) credits now outnumber emissions the CO2 Price collapses and the ETS cripples itself. We end up with
A). Cheap Bananas
B). Less CO2
C). No Carbon Price
D). More Oxygen
E). 10-100 Billion in revenue
Anyway, it’s just a simplified example, any high, mass, fast growing annual crop (Bananas, other palms, Caster oil, mango, Papaya) would work the same.
Couldn’t be accused of dumping if you’re “Saving the planet” surely.
The point here though Kevin is that the greenies solution of making money out of promises not to pollute is economically unsustainable it would only take an aggregator to obtain rights to 3 Million Ha of trees ( Actually my estimates are VERY LOW so they only need about 1 Million Ha )to depress the price to zero. If I just bought Strathmore station which is about 950,000 Ha (Just one property) I’d be able to do that myself (after half a Billion dollars worth of irrigation). Penalties like ETSen and Carbon Taxes are a totally inappropriate way to encourage this, they create an artificial price gap that forces prices UP, indeed for a time the consumer needs to pay for “The Tax”, The companies response to the tax (EG funding the changes to the company to provide relief from the tax) plus the overheads. Short term cost to the consumer ends up being about 3 times the imposed penalty. Tax relief or pump priming (co-investment)is a far better way to encourage profitable mitigation, it does not encourage mitigation that isn’t profitable like the subsidies do.
Frankly, I don’t care if they mitigate CO2 or not, I just care that I am being made to pay for something that can pay for itself.
If I was the government I could go to the owner of Stanbroke and say, we’ll spend a half Billion dollars and change on completely irrigating your property if you grow bananas on it, you get to keep the revenue from the bananas. (Substitute what ever viable tree crop for Banana)
Cost, 500 Million – remind me how much Australia has wasted on this rubbish so far?
30
Mods, while you are moderating please change references to Stanbroke to Strathmore – Stanbroke is a different entity
20
My mistake Kevin,
I picked up on your point that Virtual data eg homogenized temperatures should be attributed to virtual locations eg grid locations. Hence there would be no confusion with real temperature records from real locations where temperature records are made.
If that contribution did not come from Hayek then my apologies to all for misleading.
40
Much of his support for renewables reveals his belief in the basic proposition, that we are controlling the climate with CO2 and that redistributing money will redress that problem. (hand the man a straight jacket)
I had an epiphany on one of the basic warmist arguments the other day. Support for renewables is often coupled with the precautionary principle. “We don’t have another planet to experiment with”. Leading to “we need to take some pain now to avoid greater pain in the future” and the inevitable and poorly thought through comparison to home insurance.
In reality though this rationale could be described from the opposite perspective. You suspect at some stage in the future you may have a serious car accident, so you go and slam your vehicle into a tree and wreck it in order to avoid smashing it in a worse way later. You then ride a bike.
Basically this thinking is madness, its bed wetting, monster in the closet, dragon in the cave, madness. Its shrinking our economies, retarding our growth and condemning hundreds of millions of people in developing countries to further poverty and death because they cant get affordable power. While we discuss the relative merits of eating the paddock reared rump over the feed lot variety, because its more “sustainable”.
Its pathetic… really….
322
Yeah but I would label that whole warmist precautionary principle pure nonsense, as all it does is cater to the uninformed, who never bother to truly investigate the facts. So are in effect the bulk of the population are incapable of making an informed decision.
I guess this lack of understanding only panders to the leftist dominated dumbed down eduction system we have, or is more likely a direct product of it.
The best we can do is keep speaking the truth politely and calmly.
60
The climate Inquisition is coming to get you.
Only the holy writ of the true believers can be tolerated, all other thinking is heresy.
At least the Spanish Inquisition only killed a few tens of thousands of people. In comparison, the goal of the Climate Inquisition is to kill tens of, maybe hundreds of, millions through mandatory energy poverty in the name of ‘saving the planet.’
302
The genocidal example set by the fanatic Marxist Mao Tse-tung in the paradoxically named Cultural Revolution provides a template, indeed, a Satanic vision for the Eco-Marxist desperados of today, and their quest to rid Gaia of the parasitical burden of humanity through their Progressive policies of primitivisation, fuel poverty and blatant intellectual stranglehold.
As many doubtless know, Lomborg authored the excellent thesis, The ‘Skeptical Environmentalist – Measuring the Real State of the World’. It was originally published in Danish in 1998. Its academic and rigorous optimism was predictably pilloried by the Green skientific kollective. Neither a catastrophist nor obsessed by the Green fanaticism of the apocalypse Lomborg espouses intelligent and cost-effective adaptation.
Published in the era of ‘global warming’ (since falsified) the book presents a realistic interpretation of a wide variety of environmental data usually spun by Green ideolgues to predict catastrophe for their transparently ideological eco-marxist ends.
As we now know, ‘global warming’ is a pre-defined term since replaced by the Green Walking Dead as ‘klimate khange‘. Lomborg was skeptical of UN climate models and quite rightly so as has since been well documented. His chapter on ‘global warming’ was framed at a time when values for climate sensitivity were considered far higher than today. He considered the lower estimates of the time more likely, a position that has also been entirely vindicated, something guaranteed to enrage the Green acolytes of Malthus, one of whom is John Holdren, Obama’s ‘skience advisor’
Lomborg quotes the elegant truism expressed by Professor Julian Simon in the opening pages of his thesis – as follows below. This prose serves beautifully as an intelligent counterpoint to the melange of infantile putrid Green philosophy that is not only anchored in but dependent upon Schadenfreude
201
Excellent as usual Manfred. When Lomberg speaks like this, Im with him 100%, I worry deeply however that he seems to be affected by the company hes keeping at the time.
40
SG66, kind thanks.
Is Lomborg a ‘survivor’? Is he someone capable of giving the appearance of yielding to the tornado of ideological klimate korrectness necessary for political consensuality and vital for career survival while at the same time maintaining the underlying integrity consistent with his 1998 thesis? I look at the image of him smilingly shaking The Gourdo’s hand and wonder.
To my knowledge he has neither repudiated or retracted his earlier work, which has the added confrontational dimension for Green catastrophe ideologues and may provide a measure of reassurance?
‘The Consensus Centre’ may not be a ‘good name’. It sounds like the sort of place that would be run by Cook and Lewandowsky. Nonetheless, as a name it appears to be capable of being all things to all people and by the by, essentially nothing specific to anyone. It’s brilliant cover. Moreover, it may have the added advantage of rankling the konsensus adherents over at The Conversation and anywhere they have a penchant for klimate ‘konsensual’ activity.
50
Well said.
Perhaps we should spare a moment for that sad army of toiling bureaucrats, employed by government, NGOs and other esteemed organisations, that call themselves ‘climate scientists’.
They have families to feed, political masters to appease and their comfortable lifestyles would disappear if they dared speak the truth they well know by saying any of the following:
“Climate change is real, but it is mostly natural and has been occurring for many hundreds of millions of years. Sure, humans must have had an impact on climate, mostly at the local level, and it is impossible to quantify that impact, which does not appear to be serious; in fact it mostly appears to be beneficial.”
Or
“We know the climate models are almost useless in forecasting, that can be clearly seen by the events of the past 15-18 years. It is impossible to model something as chaotic and complex as global climate, but we keep being told to carry on and make the forecast even more scary if possible.”
Or
“I think most of us accept that if we double the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, then assuming there are no other factors involved, then global temperature will rise around one degree centigrade – so no big deal. However, to argue that this tiny increase would trigger further big rises in temperatures as feedbacks simply does not compute, as life could not exist on Earth today if that theory was even vaguely true.”
The result of making any of the above totally reasonable statements would be a quick exit through the employment door, as climate heresy is not tolerated by the Klimate Establishment, even it in its mildest form.
80
” Uni NSW instead (where Sherwood, England, Pitman, “Deltoid” and the-man-who-got-stuck-in-Antarctic-ice, work.)”
I’m not sure that, “Work” is the appropriate term.
192
If they’re anything like the academics at my university it means very little constructive work at all.Staff meetings discussing internal politics and sending e-mails.Smug and living in one big bubble.Deluded and out of touch with reality.
162
Glen, my definition of a University is a sheltered workshop for the mentally abled
81
….thinks Lomborg is “entirely out of step with scientific consensus”. Thank God for scientists who are out of step with scientific consensus! I have been watching some geology videos about Scotland and every episode shows how someone bucked the “scientific consensus of the day” and got to the right answer and we gained more understanding of the earth system.
140
I don’t think that Bjorn Lomborg sees any sense in taxpayers paying to subsidise so called renewables, just so that those same taxpayers can be charged more for the power those so called renewables provide. Nor does he see any sense in employing x employees to provide renewables when that will lead to 2.2X employees losing their jobs because of the increased cost of power from those same renewables.
Still wondering what’s happened to “The Griss”.
150
Yes. thoughts go out to The Griss, where ever he/she is. MIA.
100
Nor does he see any point in spending billions globally doing something that will make almost no measurable difference.
121
Yes, that has long been a theme of Lomborg’s. The people a few decades from now could be much wealthier than we are, if only we were to maintain our trajectory. Diverting oceans of money away from genuinely beneficial projects into speculative ones is only going to waste lives. I think Lomborg realised, quite a long time ago, that, for plenty of “greens”, that is basically the point.
Wasting lives, for them, is in no way a Bad Thing.
This next bit is OT, but I hope Jo will indulge me. I couldn’t think of suitable synonyms for “sustainable”, since it has been hijacked by the greenoids. Thesaurus.com gave me these gems:
“continual, feasible, imperishable, supportable, continuous, unceasing, lovable, unending, viable, green, renewable, worthwhile.”
It’s surprising, to say the least, to find that “continual” and “continuous” have supposedly been synonymous all this time, but a bit more alarming to see which other supposed “synonyms” the word “sustainable” has acquired: “lovable”, “green”, “worthwhile”…
Orwell, thou shouldst be living at this hour.
50
It will be interesting to see whether Lomborg maintains his existing views on climate change (what needs to be done), or whether that changes.
If the former, I’m certain the howling will become louder and the witch hunting more fervent.
71
Because he is a luke warmer I don’t expect to see much change in his thinking on climate change, but this may work to our advantage.
Abbott’s infrastructure ideas should get reinforcement from Lomborg, very fast trains emit less CO2 than cars and planes.
30
True, but fast trains run on electricity (lots of it), and although they carry a lot of passengers we still need those pesky environmentally unfriendly coal fired powered stations. The SNCF in France now has a total electrified railway system (bar a few country lines) and the nuclear power stations to run it.
It would make much more sense to build a TGV line Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne with later extensions to Brisbane and Adelaide instead of wasting the money on “Climate Change”.
80
It would be smarter to widen the Inland Rail corridor, Brisbane to Melbourne could be done in a snip. A hub at Parkes could connect with Sydney under the Blue Mountains.
Think Maglev, top speed 500 kph.
‘but fast trains run on electricity (lots of it)’
We are rich in energy resources, coal and uranium, so its only a matter of time and the political will. This may take a little while to come about, plenty of time for us to discredit the Klimatariat.
50
If the PM is going to be the infra-structure gentleman he’d better get cracking. I would agree that the inland route would be easier, not many hills to worry about and land aquisition easier. I don’t think many would dispute that it’s not in the national interest, but there would be a few and I hate to think of the bureaucratic procedures with three or four governments involved. Remember the different rail gauges of various state governments in our early years, though it would be either standard gauge, or maglev as you say. And I suppose one could put a cheaper airport (than Baggery Ck.) out west with a fast train to Sydneytown. Lateral thought is required.
30
Its reckoned Sydney’s second airport would cost around eight billion dollars, but instead of Badgery’s Creek it could be built between Bathurst and Orange (Whitlam’s white elephant) with a 15 minute fast rail to Sydney.
Lomborg would appreciate the economic rationale.
20
Or he could be using the luke warm label as intelligent camoflage….
20
I am no fan of Lomborg, who ‘believes’ carbon(sic) is evil and must be controlled.
It is a ‘look over there’ moment from Pyne.
A distraction and a feign to ‘skepticism’.
61
Yes, another ‘Tim Wilson moment’ for the ‘too gutless to govern’ Liberals.
31
See guys,
I have a different opinion. I think it is a great move. If Lomborg is a realist about the cost of mitigation aginst the cost of adaption and the cost of inefficient renewables against the benefits of efficient fossil fuels, then the majority of those that just go with the meme because someone in authority said the ‘science is settled’ – and there are a lot of them – will begin to think about the real issues if they are not governed by the fear mongering generated from the Klimate Khange Karpetbaggers.
171
Hi JB
“If Lomborg is a realist about the cost of mitigation aginst the cost of adaption …”
Published Friday, Apr. 17 2015 (theglobeandmail.com)
BJORN LOMBORG
It’s time to stop subsidizing fossil fuels
“It spends $1,250 per person to reduce the real cost of oil, gas and electricity by more than 92 per cent, costing it 10 per cent of its GDP. This drains the public budget, leaving less money to provide health and education services to the population.”
. . .
Note Lomborg doesn’t call for the subsidising of renewables/sustainables to stop.
Many times @jonova it has been discussed about the amount of money spent on renewable energy that could have been spent on health e.g: Abbott takes Jo’s plan: dumps renewables, pumps medical research
Lomborg calls for fossil fuels to be defunded, which have extended and increased the quality of human life to this point in time.
Lomborg would most probably agree that we continue with these type of murderous climate programmes like this: UK aid helps to fund forced sterilisation of India’s poor (theguardian)
“Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …”
If Lomborg is reading this, maybe he might let us know?
32
HJ,
I did write ‘If’ and now that he has a generous grant to fund his research he may well be able to look closely at the subsidisation of renewables as to whether they are economically viable.
40
Time for ‘shut-up’ demos.
20
I can’t understand the confusion regarding Lomborg. Lomborg does believe that there is some warming to come from human emissions of co2, but I don’t think he really believes it to be a BIG problem.
But he does believe that the mitigation of so called CAGW will not have much impact by 2100. Whatever we do. And he knows that nearly all future emissions will come from the the non OECD until 2040.
Remember 6 years ago he teamed up with Lord Lawson to debate Monbiot and the Canadian Greens leader before the Copenhagen conference and he has appeared before Congress alongside Judith Curry to take on the extremist nonsense.
Also he and Bolt laughed on the Bolt Report about the stupidity of claimed results from OZ and EU co2 reductions. And Bolt is the most hated sceptic in OZ.
IOW he is much happier appearing with so called sceptics than left wing nuts and extremists.
But please watch “Cool It” online or read the book. He is very bright and a top debater. I wish Jo and David would have a chin wag with him to try and better understand his views.
101
Not sure Neville, he was explicit on the subject a few months ago.
‘In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better. That doesn’t mean global warming is not a reality or not a problem. It definitely is. But the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism, which prevents us from focusing on smart solutions.’
Lomborg / WSJ
40
Yes EG, but he also told Bolt that the EU have agreed to spend 250 billion a year until 2100 to achieve ZIP impact on the earth’s temp.
But what’s a clueless waste of 21.5 trillion ( until 2100) to a mob of barking mad EU extremists? Just imagine if just a tiny fraction of that money could be spent on cancer research or perhaps new energy sources etc. Who knows what could be accomplished?
90
Yeah, we are aware of that, which is where Lomborg comes in.
Abbott has recruited him to give the government some long term projections, with climate change relegated to irrelevancy in Lomborg’s equation. And no hint of alarm.
50
if they spent just $20 billion a year they could end world hunger (UN estimates so they have actually looked at it)but hey who wants to end world hunger when you can gorge on renewable funding.
10
BTW here is the “Cool It” movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H79-s2fOLh4
And here is one of his appearances on the Bolt Report. At about 3 mins 40 seconds and he doesn’t look very uncomfortable appearing with OZ’s most hated sceptic does he? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16HiFQJmOto
60
MOD, I made a lengthy contribution regarding Bjorn Lomborg that oddly not only went into moderation but has since disappeared? Any reason?
(It is now visible) CTS
60
The term denier is so perjorative, given the connection to the Jewish holocaust. Even sceptic is used as a pseudo insult, despite being the core philosophy of all rational science, not true until proven. So off to the dictionary for synonyms for unbeliever, someone not in the Church of Climate Change (CCC).
Infidel, heretic, heathen, non-believer, atheist, non-theist, agnostic, pagan, nihilist, apostate, freethinker, dissenter, nonconformist; disbeliever, sceptic, cynic, doubter, doubting Thomas, questioner, scoffer; paynim; nullifidian
While paynim and nullifidian are wonderfully obscure, and scoffer appeals, being scientifically certain that the CO2 amount in the atmosphere is not produced by fossil fuel combustion makes me a heretic. Whether increasing CO2 level increases global temperature is irrelevant if we cannot change the CO2 level. The science fact is that the high C14 level proves there is almost no ancient fossil fuel in the air and saying so make me a heretic.
90
Its laughable really. I have always regarded Lomberg as the guy who rolls in to town just before the range war starts and sells guns to both sides. He’s a snake and a profiteer, no better than either Cooke or Lewy who at least you can respect for nailing their colours to the mast. He the worst kind of agnostic for my soon to be taxed and given to him money.
21
Meanwhile, over at Queensland Uni they are training people to sniff out ‘deniers’.
Why am I suddenly thinking of the 1930s, I wonder!
This is just beyond belief. There are so many things that need to be said about this, but I dare not say them as there are named individuals involved.
81
Maybe they are also students of history and didn’t want to miss an opportunity to revere like minded predecessors.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/mccarthy-army-hearings-begin
30
That Intro video, full of usual suspects, is churning my stomach already. Quick, pass the bucket
31
I’m with Neville. I think the CAGW alarmists have very much more to fear about a successful Lomborg project in Australia than do sceptics. How can one argue against diverting climate gravy towards research into developing energy solutions more efficient than those currently available? Even if he agrees that CO2 is something that needs to be managed, my understanding is that he is a realist in terms of global human priorities and views the long term when assessing economic policies.
Specifically, I think that countering the narrow religious views of Thermageddonites by supporting the development of alternate views (even if they are not completely aligned with one’s own) is critical to Australia’s future in research and education.
70
Would it be worth considering a counter petition supporting the planned Consensus Centre at UWA? Or, would that simply antagonise alarmists and bring on a huge media deluge against Lomborg? It certainly would stir things up even more on campus.
50
Relevant post from Bolta this morning. Warning: contains nauseating footage of John Cook.
61
Yes I watched the video and it was really horrible. I have signed up for the course but I have not been contacted about the start yet. I am not sure how long I will last.
31
That’s the word I was looking for. Thanks.
10
Good move for Bjorn Lomborg. Let’s face it, Perth’s climate is much nicer than that of Copenhagen. Bjorn will be experiencing warming which, based on my observations, is what most Scandinavians want. Hey do!
80
no protests, tho, when the good & kindly Mary throws the entire developing world to the CAGW wolves:
17 April: Guardian: Mary Robinson: Developing nations must move rapidly beyond fossil fuels
***Tackling climate change will require developing countries to move beyond fossil fuels far more quickly than the rich world has managed, the United Nations envoy on climate change has warned.
Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and ex-UN human rights chief, said: “It may seem contradictory, but to be fair all countries must be enabled to participate in the transition away from fossil fuels together and at the same time. If not, we will exceed the carbon budget and consign countries without the means to participate in the transition to renewable energy to a future based on expensive, obsolete and polluting fossil fuels.”
***The poorest countries, she added, must lead the way in that transition with financial assistance from the rich world.
***“They will need to meet their sustainable development goals without using fossil fuels. In other words, they will have to develop using a different model to that which made the industrialised countries wealthy. This is a different prospect than merely reducing emissions, and requires the absolute support of the international community.”
This would be a massive task, she made clear.
***“No country has developed without fossil fuels to date, so cooperation is key to providing the technology, finance, skills and systems to create an alternative way of developing.”…
Her remarks, at a lecture for the Grantham Institute at Imperial College in London on Thursday night, were a counterpoint to views from the coal industry and others that poor countries would need to proceed along a high-carbon path of development until they have emerged from poverty.
In an article in the Guardian on Thursday, former US vice president Al Gore blasted the coal industry for what he claimed was a campaign targeting developing countries, as their developed country markets have declined…
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/mary-robinson-developing-nations-must-move-rapidly-beyond-fossil-fuels
as for Gore trying to create a meme that developed countries are exploiting developing countries by selling them coal…well, that’s the kind of dishonesty one has come to expect from this man.
17 April: RTCC: Climate deals make 2015 ‘biggest year since 1945’, says UN envoy
Need to update development goals and finalise global CO2 pact make 2015 most important in 70 years, says Mary Robinson
It’s the year greenhouse gas emissions must peak to stay within humanity’s maximum allowance to stop temperatures rising 2C above pre industrial levels…
But plans afoot must be done in the context of sustainable development, respecting human rights and working to lessen poverty, Robinson urged at Imperial College London at the Grantham Institute annual lecture…
The task in hand rivalled the creation of the Bretton Woods institutions and Marshall Plan, which reshaped the global economy postwar…
***Climate finance, directing the world’s estimated $90 trillion of investment in the next 15 years to low carbon development, and leaving two-thirds of remaining fossil fuels in the ground, were all vital to rein in global warming.
Women’s education and better healthcare to lower infant mortality rates could hold down population growth, she added.
http://www.rtcc.org/2015/04/17/climate-deals-make-2015-biggest-year-since-1945-says-un-envoy/
***$90 trillion for the CAGW crowd now. won’t be long before we’re hearing quadrillion.
30
16 April: Guardian: Cheap coal is a lie – stand up to the industry’s cynical fightback
by Al Gore and David Blood (Blood & Gore)
Vested interests are pushing the dirtiest fossil fuel as the energy solution in poor nations. In fact, the argument for investing in solar is overwhelming.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid the reality that the days of coal as a source of energy are numbered…
This new economic and political reality is already being shaped by the fast-growing global support for the enforcement of a global “carbon budget”…
This exploitation of an urgent humanitarian need to promote more coal-burning in poor countries is extremely misleading…
Most developing countries face serious challenges that are already being exacerbated by climate change-related extreme weather events. They are being battered by stronger storms, more destructive floods, deeper and longer droughts and disruptive switches in the seasonal timing of rain. Think of the devastation wreaked by typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines, or the flooding in Kashmir last summer…
The true cost of coal cannot be calculated without including the so-called airpocalypse…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/apr/16/coal-isnt-solution-to-energy-poverty-solar-energy
15 April: Bloomberg: Rajesh Kumar Singh: India Poised to Overtake China as Biggest Thermal Coal Importer
India is set to overtake China as the biggest importer of power-station coal, emerging as the leader of a clutch of regional nations that miners including Glencore Plc and BHP Billiton Ltd. can tap for new orders.
Indian thermal-coal imports will surpass China’s by 2017 or sooner, Bloomberg Intelligence analysts William Foiles and Andrew Cosgrove said in a report. China, the world’s biggest energy consumer, is cutting down on coal use to fight pollution.
India and its regional peers including Indonesia, Vietnam, Japan and South Korea plan to increase their combined coal-fired generating capacity by more than 204 gigawatts, or 60 percent, through 2019, according to the report.
Still, that may not be enough to trigger a price rally…
State-run monopoly Coal India Ltd., which produces more than 80 percent of the nation’s coal, has said it will double output to about 1 billion metric tons in five years. That means almost doubling the pace of growth in its annual production.
India’s thermal-coal demand will probably increase 42 percent to 1 billion tons in the six years to 2020, according to the report.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-15/india-poised-to-overtake-china-as-biggest-thermal-coal-importer
30
I think Lomborg’s moniker Consensus Centre is brilliant. It gives room for Abbott to fund it, but still it’s a drop in the ocean compared to the deluge of funding the Klimatariat receives.
Climate science is full of misleading names.
Carbon dioxide: redundant term for the gas Carbon, a dangerous pollutant.
Carbon dioxide fertilization: This now debunked idea, which originated from research funded by the fossil fuel industry, posits that plant growth is enhanced by atmospheric CO2. It is used as part of a spurious argument against the scientific fact that the planet’s vegetative cover is declining.
Climate model: an empirical and quantitative way of measuring changes occuring in the Earth’s climate using powerful computers. Incorrectly described by deniers as ‘projections’. Models can be contrasted with inferior direct measurements, which have been proven to be unreliable due to human and instrumentation error, which then have to be adjusted to conform to the models’ results.
Co-benefit: recognition that climate change mitigation strategies have other advantages such as increased equity between wealthy and poor nations, sustainability, and economic development. Germany, under its Energiewende policy, is a shining example with consumers paying renewables subsidies worth 23 billion Euros a year.
Forcing mechanism: A scheme where recalcitrant energy consumers (RECs) are required to pay dollar value (through their elected government) to other compliant consumers who elect to install solar photo-voltaic panels on their property. The Small-scale Technology Certificates (STCs) are paid under the SRES scheme in Australia. Similarly the RECs, through their electricity bills, also pay for the feed-in-tariffs of their greener brethren’s solar panels.
Heat Island: higher temperatures in urban areas caused by development which absorbs more solar energy. This effect is utilised by climate scientists as an opportunity for adjusting the raw historical temperature record of non-urban sites downwards, and the raw recent temperature records upwards. See: Pasteurization.
Pastuerization: is a process invented by home brewer and Australian climate scientist Barry Pasteur during the late twentieth century. Just as in 1864 his ancestor Louis Pasteur discovered that heating (but not boiling) raw beverages like wine and beer just enough would kill most of the bacteria that caused spoilage, so his Antipodean descendant Barry found that minor adjustments to the raw temperature record would go unnoticed by the general public and politicians, but still produce the requisite global warming to “match” the “international data” produced by overseas colleagues using similar methods.
Cheers.
161
Consensus: Registered trade mark term, interchangeable with “dogma” when followed by the word “science”.
Neither Lomberg nor UWA have received official permission for use of the term on its own.
30
Klimate skience misleading names, continued:
Global Warming: The observation by klimate skientists that since the last ice age the planet has warmed for unknown reasons until the late twentieth century when suddenly the penny kollectively dropped.
Coal trains: Very long trains with coal wagons that have the co-benefit of being sustainably re-tasked to carry large numbers of dissenting klimate skeptics into the far distance over the horizon.
Climate change: An axiomatic term we all thought we understood until it was re-defined by the UN as klimate khange. The dinosaurs knew about it, as did all those still kicking about at the end of the last ice age. Even the pre-oxygen atmosphere, methane breathing bacteria know about it.
Weather: A word now used interchangeably with klimate and fully kontrolled at all times by the klimate orthodoxy and their MSM wing, the tele-klima-evangelists, colloquially known as ‘meteorologists’. Weather is by definition always ‘bad’, ‘disastrous’, ‘catastrophic’, ‘super’, ‘mega’, ‘giga’, ‘unprecedented’, ‘record’ and ‘ever’. It is always linked causally to anthropogenic activity. Weather reports are strictly kontrolled to stay on ideologic message at all times. Weather is cited extensively in all areas of human endeavour, including publik ‘health’ and policy, okkupational health and safety as the key causal variable for all observed events.
170
On the topic of Western Australia, why do we fund SBS to do this?
60
Was SBS under the impression it was being funny and/or clever? Tasteless and stupid more like.
90
Oxford & Harvard have basically told the “divest” mob to get lost; Yale & UMW tried a different approach (links can be found by searching headlines):
10 April: 19 Students Arrested by Yale Police at Fossil Fuel Divestment Sit-In
16 April: UPDATE: 3 arrested during Divest University of Mary Washington sit-in released
They have each been charged with a class-one misdemeanor for trespassing and have a hearing scheduled for 8:30 a..m on April 30 at the Fredericksburg General District Court…
now Hulme adds his voice to those who try to point out the bleeding obvious, that there’ll be buyers in the wings if the Unis do divest:
18 April: Guardian: Mike Hulme: Why fossil fuel divestment is a misguided tactic
A divestment campaign may raise awareness but this gesture politics does not constitute an effective policy to deal with the risks of climate change
Second, I do not believe divestment will bring about ‘action on climate change’ (whatever might be meant by ‘action’).
***There will be many other investors waiting to pick up any slack which results from modest investment withdrawals…
Third, and most decisively for me, the divestment campaign is driven by a single and simple climate change narrative in which global bads are linked to global temperature…
***But human influence on the climate system is not all about carbon fossil fuel, and the bads in the world cannot be indexed to global temperature or to trillions of tonnes of carbon dioxide. As we can see from the shortly-to-be-agreed sustainable development goals, there are many things that ‘people of conscience’ are rightly concerned with that have little to do with carbon…
Climate change is a so-called ‘wicked problem’ that is not amenable to single action strategies…
Whilst born of frustration – one detects a sense of panic even in Rusbridger’s language – targeting high profile investors for divestment from fossil fuel companies is “feel-good” campaigning. It is the latest stage in the symbolic politics of climate change, which too often has been wooed by apocalyptic imaginary and false deadlines and lost sight of the politics of pragmatism by which change in the world occurs.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/apr/17/why-fossil-fuel-divestment-is-a-misguided-tactic
and, whilst the MSM likes to play up a small drop in Chinese coal imports on occasion, due to oversupply and a drop in economic activity, these are figures which can’t be ignored:
16 Jan: Reuters: China coal output seen up 2.7 pct in 2014 – coal group
Chinese coal production is expected to grow 2.7 percent this year to around 3.8 billion tonnes, with demand also still rising despite a government campaign to cut air pollution, the China National Coal Association (CNCA) said on Thursday.
The association forecasts that despite efforts to restrict the import and use of low-quality coal, imports would also remain at around 300 million tonnes this year, with the price gap between domestic and overseas markets still attractive…
But total energy demand continues to soar and analysts still expect absolute coal demand to grow 2-3 percent a year over the next five years…
CNCA also said supply capacity was likely to reach around 4 billion tonnes in 2014, up from 3.7 billion tonnes in 2013.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/16/china-coal-idUSL3N0KQ1JY20140116
50
‘Dr Lomborg said his Perth-based Australia Concensus Centre would allow him to apply his economic modelling “to a rich country for the first time”.
‘He said that, as with most Western nations, policy discussions in Australia tended to focus on the few years of the election cycle.
“We’re going to look at long-term issues and their consequences: pension reform, infrastructure spending, what we should do with the environment, schooling, immigration and so on. Hopefully, our research will create helpful information for policymarkers.
“But, in the end, economists are not who’ll decide what happens in Australia or the world: we’re just putting the prices of the different options on the menu.”
Markus Mannheim / SMH
70
NTEU national president Jeannie Rea said: “These [Australian] researchers will understandably be furious that the Minister for Education has found a spare $4 million to establish a research centre that has not been required to go through any competitive process…”
$4 million?
Didn’t Flannery advise Australia to spend $70 billion on desalination plants, now mothballed at about $900,000 a week to stand idle? How about his geothermal experiment with a $90 million govt grant, seemingly plagued by technical problems and difficulties.
Cheers, (another Tim altogether.)
140
Besides Lomborg, others are already looking towards new policy directions. Here is Bob Carter in a guest post at Catalaxy.
‘What, then, needs to be done to improve the situation?
‘It is that individual nations return to the formerly clear separation that they recognized between energy policy and climate policy, and analyse and plan for each with respect to their own separate requirements and resources.
‘This means abandoning the woolly conflation of the two that has been so skilfully foisted on society by powerful vested interests over the last three decades. It also entails abandoning the monopoly IPCC advice about global warming and the use of fossil fuels, advice that engendered most of the confusion in the first place and continues to do so.’
140
On the nail.
Although I doubt Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change could be persuaded…..by anything less than a intellectual blunt force trauma to relinquish her eco-marxist missionary zeal to transform the ‘failed’ World economy into a low energy, low carbon dioxide, subsistence economy with the usual line-up of Green elite ideologues at the helm in the Ministry of Truth…..any time soon.
70
I’ve always liked Bob Carter’s comments.
After reading Al Gore’s silly book with its propaganda techniques and pictures worthy of a children’s school display board, Bob Carter’s ‘Climate – the Counter Consensus’ was the next book on the CO2/climate issue I read, and what a difference – climate for grown-ups, with reasoned arguments and all the scares discussed with plenty of references to follow up. Thank goodness he questioned it all and wrote the book – which will undoubtedly stand the test of time, unlike Gore’s science fiction.
80
As long as it is not a science consensus centre, there is no harm done. True science has never been about consensus.
70
Consensus always rings alarm bells in connection with climate change. So I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what comes of it.
In the meantime, since some on both sides of the “debate” eschew Lomborg, it has occurred to me that this might be an attempt to establish a middle ground around which to try to secure agreement of both sides. It seems doubtful. But that thought has been nagging at me since Jo posted this thread.
Any thoughts, anyone?
80
Yep.
20
Lomborg is half right – he is highlighting the lunacy of spending US$trillions on useless “decarbonisation programs” supposedly to save planet Earth from CAGW, which of course is ridiculous. Lomborg wants the US$trillions re-directed to help Earth’s poorer nations e.g those in Africa which make sense.
Lomborg is half wrong because he states that humans are having an impact on Earth’s climate e.g. AGW but I suspect that he is doing this so that he doesn’t become a complete AGW outcast. It is not fashionable to be a skeptic so Bjorn is effectively sitting on the fence but he needs to be careful, remember what happened to Humpty Dumpty.
60
OT: Tyndall Climate Research Centre founder Mike Hulme warns against coal divestment. in The Guardian.
Former UNFCCC Chief de Boer warns a giant coal divestment.
Indian Prime Minister Modi does U turn after getting fingers burnt following huge coal divestment.
Apart from the plain stupidity of the Guardian’s flagship campaign, De Boer knows that Coal is a huge potential source of tax revenues and that the Climate Agenda is nothing to do with climate and all about the money, while the naive Indian PM has been reminded of the essential role of coal to his country’s future.
The dim witted Guardian campaign threatens to derail the whole Climate Change scam, while bringing the Globalist sponsored UN plans at wealth accumulation by Global Governance into the gulch with it.
60
Did you get the Joke, btw ?
Even it’s advocates don’t take Fossil Fuel Divestment seriously. It’s just another cry for attention from the activists, according to this piece recommended by Roger Harrabin of the BBC in the Financial Times.
I guess the joke’s on The Guardian, and anyone that takes it seriously but I’m sure they’ll claim they were in on it too.
Harrabin’s Tweet
40
I disagree with Lomborg’s values. To the best of my knowledge, he’s swallowed almost all of the totalitarian green agenda. Anti mining, anti automobile, anti freedom. So what? He can equally profess his disagreement with my more libertarian and laissez faire values.
But- and here’s the important thing- when his beliefs and the data disagree, he goes with the data. And he’ll speak truth to power.
This is needed in the debate REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE DATA ARE WHAT I WANT TO BELIEVE. Or what Lomborg wants to believe, or Mann, Abbott, Gore or anybody else.
That’s the key difference between government science and political science.
That makes this the best expenditure on science the Government has made in years.
70
It would be great if Dr Lomborg was able to post on here occasionally and debate some of his views. It can only help his research along with the entertainment value of the left’s ‘hyperbowl’, or was that “howls and protests”.
30
I don’t understand your post Jo. Lomborg is very clearly a CAGW cultist. His use of logic is very poor eg. equating Venezuela’s socialist subsidy scheme of petroleum products (let us never forget they have a vast wealth of oil) with the market supply of and demand for petroleum products in the former western liberal democracies. His funding by the Abbott govt actually demonstrates that nothing has really changed from the nutty Labour political ideology. More of the same thing. We are governed in Australia by socialist ideologues. Please don’t fall into the trap of thinking ‘this time its different’. The British, I sincerely hope are awakening from that long, hazy sleep.
20
‘The British, I sincerely hope are awakening from that long, hazy sleep.’
I fear you maybe disappointed on that score.
‘His funding by the Abbott govt actually demonstrates that nothing has really changed from the nutty Labor political ideology.’
The Abbott government’s contribution is only a quarter of what is going in the pot, the hand of free enterprise is clearly visible. The government got rid of the carbon tax and scuttled the renewable industry, very different to the Labor/Green alliance.
‘Lomborg is very clearly a CAGW cultist.’
Most of us here are sceptical of Lomborg for that reason, but I think we can bring him around before Xmas and take him along to Paris to argue our case.
40
I rest my case.
10
The government got rid of the carbon tax????? The government scuttled the renewable industry??????
Correct me if I am wrong, but the government merely renamed the carbon tax. It is still spending billions on AGW driven schemes, and these are funded by the taxpayer. Similarly, the renewable industry is alive and well. I can see it every time I get my electricity bill; and drive down the road past all the bird choppers.
So forget TA and the rest of his spineless Labor Lite government; they were elected on a roar, and are going out in a whimper.
We are screwed. Maybe I might have I mentioned that before?
20
Hi all.
Let me begin by identifying myself.
I’m Leo Morgan, previously known as John-in-Oz. I am not the only person even on this site to use that Internet identifier.
Back when the Internet was all new and shiny, an editor applied the nom-de-plume of John-in-Oz to me.
I used that internet nickname online for years thereafter, until Anthony Watts outlined his case for going bravely and unashamed into cyberspace under our own identity. He inspired me to follow his example. Which I might not have done if he had mentioned the frauds against his reputation and his business that he had endured in consequence, but that didn’t come out until later.
Still, I have been going by my actual name for years. (Well mostly. It’s a long story and the details aren’t relevant.) Somebody else has since adopted the user name ‘John-in-Oz’, and more power to them, since I had abandoned it. Until I used a secondary laptop to post the above comment, had a brain-fade and used my old nic.
I apologise for posting under the name another person is using.
The next thing I’d like to say is that in my comment above, I hailed this funding as ‘the best expenditure on science the Government has made in years.’ I think I was negligently being a bit misleading.
The Copenhagen Consensus is not a science organisation per se. It’s about policy relevant facts. Those are the things I had naively assumed politicians would already be considering, because, you know it’s their job but though my naivety has curdled, the fact that they are paying others to do what should be their job is still less dissatisfying than the job not being done at all. I still endorse this financial support.
Thirdly, just as an amusing aside, did anyone notice Naomi Oreske’s “Merchants of Doubt” as a Kindle daily deal for 99 cents? Her work has not made her as famous as she wishes, at least in Amazon’s marketing, since they credited her as illustrator, and Erik Conway as author.
Finally, Tom Harley observed that It would be great if Dr Lomborg was able to post on here occasionally and debate some of his views. Dr Lomborg has his own blog, bjornlomborg.com , which has the tag-line “Get the facts straight”. He also publishes an email letter, and the Copenhagen Consensus updates their site regularly. They produce astonishing factoids, such as their recent observation about electric cars. Now, I have nothing against electric cars. I disapprove of subsidising them, and know their environmental marketing is false, but I had nothing against the cars themselves- if you want one, you buy one, and that’s your business. Until I read that electric cars kill twice as many people as standard cars. Now I have something against electric cars. Knowing the facts is important.
Check out the sites, sign up for the newsletter. Informed debate is better debate.
20
Arrgh.
After pontificating about the importance of facts, I’ve embarrassed myself.
I repeated the claim that electric vehicles kill twice as many people as conventional cars. This claim seemed plausible to me- they have the extra weight of the batteries and all, and the increased quietness that threatens pedestrians, so it sounded plausible.
But when I went to look at their evidence, I discovered that they base their claim on the ‘extra deaths’ caused by electricity generation via coal-powered stations rather than the internal combustion engine. Now I don’t know about that. I’m sceptical. For now, I don’t have a fact, I have a claim.
Sorry about that.
10
edX is sponsoring a course – Making Sense of Climate Science Denial
Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial.
University of Queensland
Starts April 28th, 2015
Enroll Now
Level: Introductory
Length: 7 weeks
Effort: 1-2 hours per week
Subject: Communication
Institution: UQx
Languages: English
Video Transcripts: English
Price: Free
The instructors make a good list of those to ignore on climate change.
John Cook
Daniel Bedford
Gavin Cawley
Kevin Cowtan
Sarah A. Green
Peter Jacobs
Scott Mandia
Dana Nuccitelli
Mark Richardson
Keah Schuenemann
Andy Skuce
Robert Way
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
10
I like Lomborg. I think he’s the only guy in the world who actually believes in global warming.
If you believe that something is really happening you try to figure out how extreme it’s going to be, and whether the effects are going to be good or bad or mixed. You don’t immediately run around yelling “The sky is falling! Give me all your money!”
31
Jo,
I think that there is an unfortunate misunderstanding
here. Despite the dozens of off topic comments on this
thread which are not even labeled as such, I posted an
on-topic suggestion i.e. you or David put your resumes
into the new institute to influence its future direction.
I then added a clearly labeled OT comment on the end
which was my attempt to try and be helpful by pointing
out that there are others on-line who are being insulting
to you and David. Google search is clearly biases the
searches of those on-line to direct them to these negative
reviews and articles.
10
Jo,
Here are a few examples of OT postings:
tony thomas April 18, 2015 at 6:51 pm – a link to Tim Flanery and the Climate Council which is not OT
Peter C April 18, 2015 at 2:41 pm – data homogenization and a link to an article on heat-waves which is also not OT
Turtle April 18, 2015 at 11:26 am · a link to an article about a University of Queensland course that encourages
students to attack skeptics.
The last of which is along the same lines of my OT posting that when people searched for information
about you and David, Google directs them to alarmist sites that attack and denigrate both of you.
10
Funny but when I just did a Google search for Joanne Nova the first item in the list was joannenova.com.au.
You need to remember that there are a whole lot of sites with an agenda dedicated, among other things, to discrediting Jo any way they can. The sites that are on the skeptic’s side of the fence do not regularly mention JoNova or Joanne Nova so there aren’t as many hits.
10
Ian, the course is something that i felt Jo should know about if she did not and to me not OT because i feel that the new Center will also be a propaganda vehicle. It was not a result from a search but from an invitation to take the course because I take other edX courses. I posted because we need to stop the AGW propaganda and the 97% consensus is one of the chief talking points that is used. I have even had it brought up to me in discussions here in Pennsylvania
10
Lawrence,
I have no trouble with your informative post nor those of the other two I have listed. Its just that when I did something similar, my post was rejected.
10
How can a University accept the establishment of a centre named “The Consensus Centre”?
I would expect that a University would avoid using this term, since “Argument by consensus” is one of the well known logical fallacies. Don´t universities teach scientific theory and logic anymore?
30
[…] …and then there’s physics (ATTP) joins in the hullabaloo about Bjorn Lomberg’s Consensus Centre is getting A$4m of funding to set up a branch at the […]
00