I think you are right that you can't win a debate, not only about climate change, but about any reasonably complex scientific issue, with someone who knows what they're doing.  I believe, for example, that it is unlikely life would be found on any planet orbiting a red dwarf star, because I have no reason to distrust the vast majority of astronomers.  At the moment this particular scientific majority opinion is politically uncontroversial; but if some industry group were to find itself threatened by it and invested huge amounts of money in poking holes in tiny details of astronomy papers, accusing astronomers who talk about starspots of fearmongering and conspiracy, etc., I'd soon find myself out of my depth and unable to win the argument.  So it's essentially a debate about trust in scientific authority, not about the science itself.

But I digress. I'm wondering what your take is on Lomborg's motivation.  Does he just enjoy stirring up controversy and being a maverick?  Or is he genuinely convinced that deflecting concern about climate change will lead to an outpouring of funding for malaria research and water treatment plants?

Nature 449, 143-144 (13 September 2007) | doi:10.1038/449143a; Published online 12 September 2007

"Unfortunately, Lomborg's thesis is built on a deep misconception of Earth's system and of economics when applied to that system. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is now 380 p.p.m., a figure that ice cores in Antarctica have revealed to be in excess of the maximum reached during the past 600,000 years. If there is one truth about Earth we all should know, it's that the system is driven by interlocking, nonlinear processes running at different speeds. The transition to Lomborg's recommended concentration of 560 p.p.m. would involve crossing an unknown number of tipping points (or separatrices) in the global climate system. We have no data on the consequences if Earth were to cross those tipping points. They could be good, or they could be disastrous. Even if we did have data, they would probably be of little value because nature's processes are irreversible. One implication of the Earth system's deep nonlinearities is that estimates of climatic parameters based on observations from the recent past are unreliable for making forecasts about the state of the world at CO2 concentrations of 560 p.p.m. or higher. Moreover, the nonlinearities mean that doing more of a bad deal (Kyoto) may well be very good."

I see no reason to assume that this shill is anything but an highly talented advocate for the fossil status quo.

That he is gifted with sufficient intellect to argue very effectively
means only that he's entirely aware of, and is intentionally ignoring,
the case for prudence, that, were IPCC either correct or understating the risk,
inaction will generate an unprecedented scale of  genocide,
lead by the US, in coming decades.

The simplest means of dealing with one as callous, and as dangerous, as Lomborg,
involves a tree and a rope.

Any better suggestions ?

Regards,

Bill

Do me a favor and don't talk about murdering your ideological opponents, at least not here. Not even in jest.

grist.org

I do agree with Lomborg's point that if we're serious about wanting to save polar bears, we need to stop trophy hunting them.  We concentrate so much on complex climate change policies that we're overlooking the more simple, short-term solutions to helping them, one of which is to stop this senseless killing by mainly American sport hunters. Same goes for the harp and hooded seals which are still commercially slaughtered for their fur in Canada while the ice needed for their nurseries is melting so quickly.

Why does Lomborg cast efforts to combat global warming as the enemy of assistance to Third World countries?  If we are looking for money to fund anti-malaria efforts, aren't bloated military budgets a better place to look?  

One would think that working against climate change and staving off disease in third-world countries could work symbiotically. If the rainforests in Africa and South America were restored and healthy, they would bring more diversity in life and water to the regions. This in turn can help keep down pathogenic creatures like mosquitos and therefore diseases like malaria. By restoring large lakes to their former glory, you would increase the numbers of fish that would not only be a local food source but would again feed on the mosquitos and their larva. Fresh clean water would reduce the occurence of dysentary and other waterborne illness. Sustainable crop land would provide healthier food for the indigenous people so they are less likely to get sick. Restoring natural habitats would increase bird and bat populations and would further reduce the spread of pathogens.

To me it seems that both are interconnected. By destroying our ecosystems, we increase the amount of global warming and disease. By restoring them, we can decrease both.

Yes, AMC, Bjorn-baby makes a good point about how desirable it would be to ban the trophy hunting of polar bears (as I wrote a few days ago in the "Battling the Borg" thread).  In fact he presents us with an extensive wish-list of very desirable goals.

The questions that are being asked here include:

Does he genuinely, sincerely believe in those causes himself?  If so, he has chosen a bizarre way to promote them.  That his attention is scattered among causes of different kinds looks mighty fishy.

Does he genuinely believe that we can EITHER take effective action for those causes, OR do something about global warming and climate change, but not both?  (INFP's observation about "bloated military budgets" being a much better place to look for funds to be re-directed than whatever is going toward climate-change mitigation is excellent.)

Might not Billhook be correct, that Bjorn is a "shill" for the fossil-fuels interests, with the implication that Bjorn's kind of argumentation represents a diabolically ingenious new tactic?  (Billhook seems to be playing the part of Mad-Eye Moody -- who is disquietingly eccentric in taking precautions, but is usually found to have been prudent and foresighted.)

Actually, I would not mind taking Bjorn out for a drink, in the hope of finding some answers.  He gave such a pathetic, high-strung, frantic, nerd-o-rama performance in his tete-a-tete with Stephen Colbert, that I could only conclude: What a sorry waste of pretty blond hair!; perhaps the lad comes off better in a more tranquil context.

Chickens are our cousins! So are other sensitive animals! Enough is enough! No more factory farms!

You have to realize that there are different strategies to delay or weaken activity thats tackling an issue.

The first strategy is denial
The second strategy is to delay any judgment
The third strategy is to blunt the impact of the change

What Lomborg is suggesting is classic that we should blunt the impact of any change dealing with global warming by defunding it.

Or more specifically by funding various unrelated or unrealistic projects with that same pile of money.

_

This is much in the same way that you have Oil/Car companies championing BioFuels and Hydrogen.  

Because they know that the best way to slow down and blunt the impact of change is to divide the efforts of those causing change. By hyping the fake solutions, and downplaying the real solutions.

This is why you hear very little being said about Electric Cars, and Fuel Economy.  And all the hype being placed on "Alternative Fuels".

If we were to focus all that attention on simply raising Fuel Economy.  Then you might actually have change.  

And for many companies who are reaping huge profits from business-as-usual; Change is a horrible thing.

Ask Lomborg if people wouldn't have more money to give to poor people if they didn't buy his book and what the hell is he doing letting poor people starve!

Ask Lomborg which tax is more costly to the people being taxed, property, sales, income, social security, value added or carbon tax.  Then if there not a big difference, then how would a carbon tax which would reduce fossil fuel use and help reduce global warming be bad for poor people in poor countries, but other taxes would be not commented on?

The reason Lomborg can get away with what he says is making the false choices, if you do something about Global Warming, kids in poor countries will stave since it cost money to fight Global warming.  

Ask Lomborg about bottled water.  I understand that 100 billion dollars a year world wide is spent of bottled water.   Also, one sixth of that could give clean water to everybody left in the world who doesn't have it.  Why the disconnect?   Shouldn't the money spent on bottled water be spent of fresh water for people without it?

Ask Lomborg about all the other things that he makes a disconnect on.    Did he fly to America or swim?   Wouldn't the fuel used for that help heat some family in poverty somewhere?   What the hell was he thinking?  

George Bush does the same thing, but that's another web site post.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"  

Upton Sinclair

Many progressives need to have this quote tattoed somewhere prominent.