[swansont]

Pangloss said:

Exactly. And a disturbing trend from that important institution.

It's a tactic that's being used by some dodgy folks to quash criticism, and Sci Am shouldn't have to resort to that. But it turns out this isn't the case:
http://legalminds.lp...h/msg02803.html

The notion that a publishing company would object to any and all infringement as a matter of policy isn't all that surprising or unreasonable to me.

Like that note said, they offered to host the whole thing on their web site, and it's available there; the original article, Lomborg's responses (the short one published in SciAm and a longer pdf file) and responses to the responses.

Note that Lomborg's "detailed" response is dated Feb 2002, and the web site date is April 2002, which is well before the Jan 2003 date of Crichton's speech, but he never makes mention of this. Selective omission of data to bolster your case is bad scientific practice.

[Glider]

Mr Skeptic said:

They say that ideas change because the people who believed the old ideas eventually die out :D

There's a lot of truth in that :-)

[Pangloss]

John Rennie isn't objectively qualified to determine whether Scientific American is crossing that line, swansont. If they've done so, he's the perpetrator. That's the price you pay when you decide to enter a fight on one side or the other. So what you've posted isn't a refutation, it's a countering opinion. There is a huge difference.

Besides, you're talking about the man who invented the term "global warming deniers", which is all about having an agenda and putting opposition in its place. (Or at least popularized it; I mean what the hell is the editor of an ostensibly objective and scientific magazine doing pushing an agenda?)

Rennie should have held his institution above the fray. Instead he's chosen to place it right in the middle of the fight. Frankly SciAm is spending its reputation like it's an actual budget item instead of a resource you keep tucked away for a rainy day. They have enough "income" to keep it going, but they would be better served following an honest pattern of scientific objectivity along the lines of Nova or Nature, instead of getting down and dirty in the trenches.

From which I surmise that they've just never seen YT2095's signature. :D

[swansont]

Pangloss said:

John Rennie isn't objectively qualified to determine whether Scientific American is crossing that line, swansont. If they've done so, he's the perpetrator. That's the price you pay when you decide to enter a fight on one side or the other. So what you've posted isn't a refutation, it's a countering opinion. There is a huge difference.

I was pointing out that Crichton didn't tell the whole story. The fact of the matter is that you can read all of it on the SciAm website; that's not an opinion. Rennie stated SciAm's policy and gave his account of what happened. Now it's entirely possible that there were ulterior motives, but it's still a fact that you can read all of the material on their website — there is no weight to the argument that they were trying to censor the rebuttal. (Lomborg would have been free to post his rebuttal in any case, it was just a question of how much of the original article he was quoting)

Pangloss said:

Besides, you're talking about the man who invented the term "global warming deniers", which is all about having an agenda and putting opposition in its place. (Or at least popularized it; I mean what the hell is the editor of an ostensibly objective and scientific magazine doing pushing an agenda?)

Rennie should have held his institution above the fray. Instead he's chosen to place it right in the middle of the fight. Frankly SciAm is spending its reputation like it's an actual budget item instead of a resource you keep tucked away for a rainy day. They have enough "income" to keep it going, but they would be better served following an honest pattern of scientific objectivity along the lines of Nova or Nature, instead of getting down and dirty in the trenches.

I haven't read the material in question, so I don't know if you're referring to that or the more general situation.

Not all of global warming is political — there is underlying science. And there is no "other side" in this case; the science is pretty clear to those who do that work for a living. There are those who use political and rhetorical tactics rather than basing their arguments on science, but denialism shuld not be confused with debate. A scientific magazine should have a duty of exposing bad science and antiscience, and that has nothing to do with pushing an agenda.

[SkepticLance]

Chrichton is a suspect source of information. However, Lomborg is not. His Skeptical Environmentalist book is a carefully compiled mass of objectively derived data. SciAm did not like the results, but that shows their shortcoming, not Lomborg's. I bought a copy of Lomborg's book and read it cover to cover. Even now, some years later, I have found very little that could be pointed to and called wrong.

The Drake Equation may or may not be called scientific. I would think of it more as scientific speculation. Sagan and Drake applied their best guesses to fit values for the equation, and came up with a result of one million alien civilisations in our galaxy. SETI may not have achieved very much, but it makes this result seem seriously unlikely. If there are a million advanced civilisations, what are the chances that none use any communication method that SETI can detect?

[Chris C]

Lomborg doesn't really seem to know what would happen in the world got 3 C hotter...his expertise in "economics" and "cost-benefit" is cute, and a lot of expertise in this area is needed, but the view that there is little benefit to stopping climate change is wrong.

[SkepticLance]

To Chris C

I don't think Lomborg ever said that we should do nothing to better manage climate change.

He is more against the ridiculous and 'heroic' measures that some idiots are advocating. What is needed to better manage climate change is a blend of new technology (eg. Hydrogen fuel cell cars. New generation nuclear power), better environmental management (stop Indonesia chopping down forest and converting peat bogs to CO2), and a degree of adaptation on our own part to the inevitable climate change that will remain after taking reasonable steps.

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future. We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

[bascule]

The Copenhagen Concensus is bullshit.

RealClimate had an interesting reaction:

http://www.realclima...agen-consensus/

Here's the facts: In 1990 there were 131 million people without access to safe drinking water. By 2025 that number will rise to 817 million (Douglas et al. 2005, Natural Hazards)

Water vulnerability is an important issue that threatens the lives of millions of people. The root causes in the hydrologic cycle, and ultimately the climate system, need to be addressed.

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future.

Hi Lance - Do you have a citation to support this?

Also, I have two IMPORTANT questions:
1) Over what years was this per decade warming average calculated?
2) Can you explain why your comment mysteriously ignores the fact that the increase is not linear, but is increasing more quickly with time?


This has some pretty significant ramifications on your projection of future increase. Thanks.

[Mr Skeptic]

Continuous functions look linear for a small enough section of them.

[Chris C]

SkepticLance said:

To Chris C

I don't think Lomborg ever said that we should do nothing to better manage climate change.

He is more against the ridiculous and 'heroic' measures that some idiots are advocating. What is needed to better manage climate change is a blend of new technology (eg. Hydrogen fuel cell cars. New generation nuclear power), better environmental management (stop Indonesia chopping down forest and converting peat bogs to CO2), and a degree of adaptation on our own part to the inevitable climate change that will remain after taking reasonable steps.

The world is currently warming at an average rate of 0.15 to 0.2 Celsius per decade. An increase of 3 Celsius is unlikely in the near future. We have time to implement sensible measures - not idiotic measures that will drastically reduce the standard of living of all people and drive the poorest into starvation.

Actually, a 3 C rise is the most likely scenario keeping the way we do things. And if we don't do things, "by 2100" will be worse than "2x pre-ind CO2." Obviously sensible application from economic and scientific angles is required, but Lomberg doesn't really have AGW scenarios in perspective.

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

The period I refer to for the 0.15 to 0.2 C increase per decade is the past 30 years. If the increase were linear, I would not need to present the data as a range. However, the last set of figures I looked at were still below 0.2.

I do not know how the warming will go over the next 30 years. In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one does. It may increase or not. Much will depend on nations such as China. However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen. We already have hybrid petrol/electric cars. The research is already underway to further develop transport that uses far less fossil fuels, and electricity generation that is based on non carbon emitting methods. I have no doubt that the ability to achieve this will be with us within, say 20 years.

The third leg of the anti-CO2 tripod is to combat deforestation. Or rather, to make sure reafforestation exceed deforestation. We have already achieved this in the western world, and it just requires the spread of this philosophy and practise into the third world.

[bombus]

Quote

The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was "rife with careless mistakes."

Nine factual errors is rather a lot! Maybe it took eleven pages to satisfactorily destroy these nine of Lomborg's arguments. If they'd addressed every error there'd have been no room for the adverts!

Lomborg is just an attention seeker.

[SkepticLance]

bombus

Have your read Lomborg's book? You need to. I recommend it.

The thing is that he offended the delicate sensibilities of those people who firmly believe that everything humans do is destructive. Those people needed a solid kick in the fundamentus. Sadly, presenting truth does not mean truth is accepted, and most people still think with their gonads.

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

To iNow

The period I refer to for the 0.15 to 0.2 C increase per decade is the past 30 years. If the increase were linear, I would not need to present the data as a range. However, the last set of figures I looked at were still below 0.2.

I do not know how the warming will go over the next 30 years. In spite of some naive people's total faith in computer models, no-one does. It may increase or not. Much will depend on nations such as China. However, an increase by 3 Celsius is still seriously unlikely in the near future, meaning anything less than 100 years.

If we can develop new technologies and implement them globally in the next 50 years, the 3 Celsius rise will simply not happen. We already have hybrid petrol/electric cars. The research is already underway to further develop transport that uses far less fossil fuels, and electricity generation that is based on non carbon emitting methods. I have no doubt that the ability to achieve this will be with us within, say 20 years.

The third leg of the anti-CO2 tripod is to combat deforestation. Or rather, to make sure reafforestation exceed deforestation. We have already achieved this in the western world, and it just requires the spread of this philosophy and practise into the third world.

You completely ignored the whole purpose of my post.


Do you have a source? Once you share it, I will begin countering your faulty and unsupported assumptions (of which there are several).

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

I am a bit puzzled. When you ask "Do you have a source, are you referring to my statement that warming over the past 30 years has averaged 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade globally? If you are, it leaves me wondering. This data is available bloody near everywhere!

For example : the Wiki article on global warming

http://en.wikipedia..../Global_warming

which shows a warming of 0.5 C over 30 years. Allowing for error factors, say 0.4 to 0.6 C over 30 years, and divide by 3 for warming per decade.

I am not a great fan of Wiki, but the same information can be picked up from numerous web sites.

[iNow]

SkepticLance said:

When you ask "Do you have a source, are you referring to my statement that warming over the past 30 years has averaged 0.15 to 0.2 C per decade globally?

Yes.

SkepticLance said:

I am not a great fan of Wiki, but the same information can be picked up from numerous web sites.

So, if it's so easy, why have you now made me ask you a third time?

[Pangloss]

I think it's unfortunate to see Lomborg casually dismissed in this thread. He clearly does not deserve the Official Scientific American Global Warming Denier Badge™(©2007 SciAm Inc All Rights Reserved).

And it looks like the SFN Politically Correct Talking Points Memo has been distributed on Bjorn Lomborg. No further discussion allowed, nothing to see here, move along.

[iNow]

Discuss it all you want. The data shows it's relevance (or, lack thereof).

[SkepticLance]

To iNow

What now?
Are you dismissing Lomborg? Have you read him?

I read both Lomborg and the SciAm scandalously incompetent and biased tirade against him. The editor of SciAm should have been sacked over that. Scientific American is supposed to be an unbiased scientific magazine. Instead, he made it a vehicle for politically correct morons.

So he found 9 errors. Wow! I have my copy of The Skeptical Environmentalist in front of me, and there are 352 pages of text; 81 pages of explanatory notes, and 70 pages of bibliography. 9 errors out of that lot is such a small amount as to constitute a total bloody miracle!!
I would be struggling to write 20 pages without making at least 9 errors.

Basically Lomborg wrote an extraordinarily competent and thoroughly researched book, but touched a raw nerve, and exposed a whole lot of mistakes that the environmental lobbies were making. The reaction was similar to throwing Potassium metal into water.