A Balanced View of Climate Change

[Crick]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.

Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'

Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

Where did you get the idea that this was a "balanced look at climate change"?

 

[Foxfyre]

Where did you get the idea that this was a "balanced look at climate change"?

Looks balanced to me. Where do you see anything in the article that isn't?

 

[Crick]

Looks balanced to me. Where do you see anything in the article that isn't?

There is no discussion of global warming, only a selection of mitigation measures. And that those measures are ill-advised is assumed from the get-go. Nothing there is "balanced" or concerning climate change.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no discussion of global warming, only a selection of mitigation measures. And that those measures are ill-advised is assumed from the get-go. Nothing there is "balanced" or concerning climate change.

For those not demanding a specific perspective, I believe it is entirely balanced concerning climate change.

 

[Crick]

For those not demanding a specific perspective, I believe it is entirely balanced concerning climate change.

How about a quote from your article that assumes global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.

 

[Foxfyre]

How about a quote from your article that assumes global warming is real and is being caused primarily by human emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.

I can no longer access the article behind the WSJ paywall which sucks because it was an excellent article. I wish now I had posted the whole thing.

But he definitely conceded in the article, at least for the purposes of argument, that AGW exists. He did not in any way deny it or even discredit it. His point was that EVEN THOUGH IT EXISTS and will cause problems, it is not the catastrophic problem that the AGW religionists preach and the current policies and initiatives to somehow stop it will be far more harmful to humankind than what will happen by the end of the century if that in fact happens.

And he proposes that we rethink those policies and initiatives so that we do not increase the harm instead of alleviate it.

EDIT: Okay I found the article in another source without a paywall:

‘Follow the Science’ Leads to Ruin

Climate policy needs to take into account the costs of draconian measures, which are enormous. By Bjorn Lomborg March 13, 2024 at 2:59 pm ETResize ILLUSTRATION: MARTIN KOZLOWSKI More tha…

peckford42.wordpress.com

And I see the 'money' paragraphs here:

". . .Man-made climate change exists, but what societies do in response is still a matter of choice. When politicians tell us we must “follow the science” toward extreme climate policies, they are really trying to shut down the discussion of enormous, unsustainable costs. We shouldn’t let them.

Climate change is a real problem but isn’t the imminent existential crisis of which the media and activist politicians breathlessly warn. They run headlines and give speeches about extreme weather events, though the United Nations’ panel of climate scientists hasn’t been able to document evidence of most of them worsening. The data show that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods and fires have declined by more than 97% over the last century, from nearly 500,000 annually to fewer than 15,000 in the 2020s. That’s a real human cost but far from cataclysmic. More people die in traffic accidents in an average week.

Yet pervasive environmental fear-mongering has encouraged anxious protesters across the world’s wealthiest nations to proclaim that we “just stop oil,” along with coal and gas. That’s as ludicrous as trying to end traffic deaths by setting speed limits to near zero worldwide. Their demands would prevent some deaths but also destroy life as we know it. . .

. . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address. . . ."

 

[Leo123]

Paraphrased from my source for this thread: more than a million people are killed and multi millions injured in traffic accidents every year that goes by. We could reduce that carnage to near zero if we just reduced traffic speeds to 3 miles an hour. Anybody willing to agree to that to save all those lives? I think 99.9% of people world wide would think that an unreasonable remedy for the problem.

So let's look at unreasonable 'remedies' for the climate change problem.

I have long argued that whether human activity is the driving force behind climate change or not, human kind is here to stay for now. The world's population has expanded from one billion people at the beginning of the industrial revolution to more than eight billion people now. And there is no realistic way to convince eight billion people that, for our foreseeable future, living in a fossil fuel free world is either desirable or even possible unless they are clueless re the facts and the cost.

Instead of confiscating so much of the world's financial resources to 'combat climate change' that obviously isn't combating climate change, a much better approach would be to find ways for humans to constructively adapt to inevitable climate change.

Bjorn Lomborg, President of the Copenhagen Consensus, presents the reality of how governments deal with climate change and, while he does not deny that climate change is occurring and will continue to occur, he has a much more realistic and honest approach to how the world should 'follow the science.'

Emphasis in the quoted material is mine:
". . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address.

Our goal in forming climate policy should be the same we bring to traffic laws and any other political question: achieve more benefits than costs to society. A richer world is much more resilient against weather extremes. In the short term, therefore, policymakers should focus on lifting the billions of people still in poverty out of it, both because it will make them more resilient against extreme weather and because it will do so much good in a myriad of other ways. For the longer term, governments and companies should invest in green-energy research and development to drive down the costs and increase the reliability of fossil-fuel alternatives.

Careful science can inform us about the problem of climate change, but it can’t tell us how to solve it. Sensible public debate requires all the facts, including about the costs of our choices. Some of the most popular climate policies will have costs far greater than climate change itself. When politicians try to shut down discussion with claims that they’re “following the science,” don’t let them.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/follow-the-science-leads-to-ruin-climate-environment-policy-3f427c05?mod=opinion_lead_pos5

”

IMO there should be no 'climate policy' in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

IMO there should be no 'climate policy' in the first place.

I gently disagree Leo. But the policy should be to learn and promote the general welfare by teaching the people how best to adapt to whatever climate changes there are.

We should be constantly studying the Earth we live on and the universe it is part of. And that includes the climate and its variations over time. But instead of trying to change the climate which from all observations so far is going to continue to change no matter WHAT we do short of creating a nuclear winter, we should direct reasonable resources to teach people how to conserve and produce water, how to develop plants that do well in a different climate, etc. And as all our resources are finite, space exploration should continue to be a priority with the possibility of mining other planets and moons and such.

 

[Leo123]

I gently disagree Leo. But the policy should be to learn and promote the general welfare by teaching the people how best to adapt to whatever climate changes there are.

We should be constantly studying the Earth we live on and the universe it is part of. And that includes the climate and its variations over time. But instead of trying to change the climate which from all observations so far is going to continue to change no matter WHAT we do short of creating a nuclear winter, we should direct reasonable resources to teach people how to conserve and produce water, how to develop plants that do well in a different climate, etc. And as all our resources are finite, space exploration should continue to be a priority with the possibility of mining other planets and moons and such.

Sorry, I disagree with that because it assumes the government has to intercede in something we really have no control over. To me, that's just another black hole into which our tax dollars disappear. Earth science can be supported without these false climate doomsday proclamations by government funded quasi 'climate scientists.' The use of water, plants, resources and even space can all be handled without government interference.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, I disagree with that because it assumes the government has to intercede in something we really have no control over. To me, that's just another black hole into which our tax dollars disappear. Earth science can be supported without these false climate doomsday proclamations by government funded quasi 'climate scientists.' The use of water, plants, resources and even space can all be handled without government interference.

The government does not intercede in exploration of space. It is a legitimate function of government both for the general welfare (meaning EVERYBODY'S welfare) and it ensures our security because we do not turn control of space over to other countries who will not have our best interests in their intentions. And the government is not interceding in researching our environment and climate and studying ways again to promote--that's promote not provide--everybody's general welfare. The whole premise of the OP is to get away from the ridiculous doomsday predictions and even more ridiculous concepts to prevent a doomsday that will not happen and instead for ALL of us to focus on ways to advance our civilization in productive and useful ways.

 

[Leo123]

The government does not intercede in exploration of space. It is a legitimate function of government both for the general welfare (meaning EVERYBODY'S welfare) and it ensures our security because we do not turn control of space over to other countries who will not have our best interests in their intentions. And the government is not interceding in researching our environment and climate and studying ways again to promote--that's promote not provide--everybody's general welfare. The whole premise of the OP is to get away from the ridiculous doomsday predictions and even more ridiculous concepts to prevent a doomsday that will not happen and instead for ALL of us to focus on ways to advance our civilization in productive and useful ways.

I'm not advocating to drop our defenses, in fact we must (IMO) invest more in that direction it's just that I'm afraid there is no real protection from well, who knows what? The climate will do what the climate has always done, surprise the shit out of us!! It's natural.

 

[Sunsettommy]

No. I mean all of those oscillations between glacial and interglacial periods.

Please stop wasting my time with this nonsense. The ocean affects on the planet's climate has been well established even if the AGW is distracting from it.

Agreed as it is well known that it the Sun/Ocean dynamo that dominates the weather processes of the planet.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Looks balanced to me. Where do you see anything in the article that isn't?

Mamooth, Crick, Flopper haven't once addressed the post one article, they haven't provided a counterpoint to Lomborg's reasonable essay.

That is why they have nothing to show.

 

[Foxfyre]

Mamooth, Crick, Flopper haven't once addressed the post one article, they haven't provided a counterpoint to Lomborg's reasonable essay.

That is why they have nothing to show.

At least he gives me an excuse to keep making my point.

I simply can find nothing to fault in the article. The AGW religionists of course are horrified that anything other than the administration's unsupportable reckless and destructive policies would even be considered. Those who believe there is zero evidence of AGW or any other warming probably don't like it either. But the fact is there are seven billion more people on Earth now than there were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and I can concede that this will affect the environment they are living in.

I just think we have to point out that the current policies aren't changing anything other than fueling inflation, making life harder for people, wasting time,. energy and resources that could be put to much better use with much less harm.

 

[Sunsettommy]

At least he gives me an excuse to keep making my point.

I simply can find nothing to fault in the article. The AGW religionists of course are horrified that anything other than the administration's unsupportable reckless and destructive policies would even be considered. Those who believe there is zero evidence of AGW or any other warming probably don't like it either. But the fact is there are seven billion more people on Earth now than there were at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution and I can concede that this will affect the environment they are living in.

I just think we have to point out that the current policies aren't changing anything other than fueling inflation, making life harder for people, wasting time,. energy and resources that could be put to much better use with much less harm.

We commonly waste power on street lighting poorly designed homes and buildings that rely too much on electricity when other means can mitigate a significant portion of the electricity that we use don't grow some of the food ourselves with all that space we waste on giant lawns.


The list can grow long over how wasteful we are......

 

[Foxfyre]

We commonly waste power on street lighting poorly designed homes and buildings that rely too much on electricity when other means can mitigate a significant portion of the electricity that we use don't grow some of the food ourselves with all that space we waste on giant lawns.


The list can grow long over how wasteful we are......

So we should appeal to people's better nature to conserve, recycle, etc. but the economy runs on offering new appealing products and services that people will buy. And that allows everybody with the integrity and work ethic to prosper more. Those who prosper are far more likely to promote good environmental policies than are those who are just trying to survive.

And we do need to be aware of what future needs will be.

Which is why I am a strong hawk on, among other things, space exploration and development because all our resources are finite on Planet Earth. Most especially the metals that go into those lithium batteries for electric cars which are likely to be depleted far more quickly than the world's oil reserves if everybody is forced to go all electric.

I want us to develop warp speeds for space travel to cut travel time down to days, instead of months or years as we could likely need resources from other unpopulated planets and moons sometime in the future. God gifted humankind with incredible intelligence, curiosity, initiative, creativity, innovation and resolve. We never know what we can accomplish unless we try.

But when it is obvious that what we are 'trying' is doing more harm than good, it is time to try something else.

 

[Crick]

I can no longer access the article behind the WSJ paywall which sucks because it was an excellent article. I wish now I had posted the whole thing.

But he definitely conceded in the article, at least for the purposes of argument, that AGW exists. He did not in any way deny it or even discredit it. His point was that EVEN THOUGH IT EXISTS and will cause problems, it is not the catastrophic problem that the AGW religionists preach and the current policies and initiatives to somehow stop it will be far more harmful to humankind than what will happen by the end of the century if that in fact happens.

And he proposes that we rethink those policies and initiatives so that we do not increase the harm instead of alleviate it.

EDIT: Okay I found the article in another source without a paywall:

‘Follow the Science’ Leads to Ruin

Climate policy needs to take into account the costs of draconian measures, which are enormous. By Bjorn Lomborg March 13, 2024 at 2:59 pm ETResize ILLUSTRATION: MARTIN KOZLOWSKI More tha…

peckford42.wordpress.com

And I see the 'money' paragraphs here:

". . .Man-made climate change exists, but what societies do in response is still a matter of choice. When politicians tell us we must “follow the science” toward extreme climate policies, they are really trying to shut down the discussion of enormous, unsustainable costs. We shouldn’t let them.

Climate change is a real problem but isn’t the imminent existential crisis of which the media and activist politicians breathlessly warn. They run headlines and give speeches about extreme weather events, though the United Nations’ panel of climate scientists hasn’t been able to document evidence of most of them worsening. The data show that climate-related deaths from droughts, storms, floods and fires have declined by more than 97% over the last century, from nearly 500,000 annually to fewer than 15,000 in the 2020s. That’s a real human cost but far from cataclysmic. More people die in traffic accidents in an average week.

Yet pervasive environmental fear-mongering has encouraged anxious protesters across the world’s wealthiest nations to proclaim that we “just stop oil,” along with coal and gas. That’s as ludicrous as trying to end traffic deaths by setting speed limits to near zero worldwide. Their demands would prevent some deaths but also destroy life as we know it. . .

. . .A new peer-reviewed study of all the scientific estimates of climate-change effects shows the most likely cost of global warming averaged across the century will be about 1% of global gross domestic product, reaching 2% by the end of the century. This is a very long way from global extinction.

Draconian net-zero climate policies, on the other hand, will be prohibitively costly. The latest peer-reviewed climate-economic research shows the total cost will average $27 trillion each year across the century, reaching $60 trillion a year in 2100. Net zero is more than seven times as costly as the climate problem it tries to address. . . ."

Much obliged for the unrestricted link. In your article, written by well-known global warming denier Bjorn Lomborg, we find the following comments:

"The Biden administration has set the goal of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. President Biden has pushed costly yet ineffectiveprograms such as the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce U.S. emissions."

The link leads to another WSJ opinion piece giving Bjorn Lomborg's unreviewed conclusions about the Inflation Reduction Act. That is not a balanced analysis. That is Lomborg providing his own opinion to substantiate another of his opinions.

"Climate change is a real problem but isn’t the imminent existential crisis of which the media and activist politicians breathlessly warn."

Yet the only evidence to support this claim is that climate related deaths have declined according to an unreviewed tweet by - again - Bjorn Lomborg.

"Yet pervasive environmental fear-mongering has encouraged anxious protesters across the world’s wealthiest nations to proclaim that we “just stop oil,” along with coal and gas. That’s as ludicrous as trying to end traffic deaths by setting speed limits to near zero worldwide. Their demands would prevent some deaths but also destroy life as we know it."

As he states, "Just Stop Oil" is a private protest group. The author provides not a single comment by ANY representative of ANY government advocating for the immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. Yet that is what he spends the rest of the article arguing they should not do.

The link in the next paragraph concerning the cost of global warming leads us to peer-reviewed article by Richard Tol, another well known global warming denier, an economist who has spent most of his career minimizing the impact of warming.

If this indeed were a balanced article, it would not be written by a consistent AGW denier who actually has no climate science qualifications. It would include the views of both sides of these issues. It would reference the peer reviewed work of scientists on all sides. It fails to accomplish any of these things.

I believe you may actually believe this was a balanced article as Lomborg tried to make it seem that way. But, if so, you have been taken in.

 

[Foxfyre]

Much obliged for the unrestricted link. In your article, written by well-known global warming denier Bjorn Lomborg, we find the following comments:

"The Biden administration has set the goal of achieving a net-zero emissions economy by no later than 2050. President Biden has pushed costly yet ineffectiveprograms such as the Inflation Reduction Act to reduce U.S. emissions."

The link leads to another WSJ opinion piece giving Bjorn Lomborg's unreviewed conclusions about the Inflation Reduction Act. That is not a balanced analysis. That is Lomborg providing his own opinion to substantiate another of his opinions.

"Climate change is a real problem but isn’t the imminent existential crisis of which the media and activist politicians breathlessly warn."

Yet the only evidence to support this claim is that climate related deaths have declined according to an unreviewed tweet by - again - Bjorn Lomborg.

"Yet pervasive environmental fear-mongering has encouraged anxious protesters across the world’s wealthiest nations to proclaim that we “just stop oil,” along with coal and gas. That’s as ludicrous as trying to end traffic deaths by setting speed limits to near zero worldwide. Their demands would prevent some deaths but also destroy life as we know it."

As he states, "Just Stop Oil" is a private protest group. The author provides not a single comment by ANY representative of ANY government advocating for the immediate cessation of fossil fuel use. Yet that is what he spends the rest of the article arguing they should not do.

The link in the next paragraph concerning the cost of global warming leads us to peer-reviewed article by Richard Tol, another well known global warming denier, an economist who has spent most of his career minimizing the impact of warming.

If this indeed were a balanced article, it would not be written by a consistent AGW denier who actually has no climate science qualifications. It would include the views of both sides of these issues. It would reference the peer reviewed work of scientists on all sides. It fails to accomplish any of these things.

I believe you may actually believe this was a balanced article as Lomborg tried to make it seem that way. But, if so, you have been taken in.

You are most welcome to provide any 'evidence' you might have to refute ANYTHING Lomborg said in the article. Please do not cite 'evidence' from anybody whose livelihood or a substantial part of their income comes from those who demand that AGW is such settled science that nobody should be allowed to question it or object to any of the government remedies to address it.

 

[Foxfyre]

This short essay I wrote and posted came up in my Facebook memories from two years ago and is so pertinent to the thesis of this thread I thought I would repost it here. So few are willing to even look at the ramifications of millions and millions more lithium batteries to power electric cars. But intellectual honesty requires that it be considered.

Sometimes the best of intentions do replace the devil we know with a much worse one:

". . . I am not at all opposed to electric cars, wind turbines, solar, or any of the green energy technology and I am strongly environmentalist. All I ask is that we use come common sense and be aware of the real costs/impact/effects of this green energy and whether it is practical for everybody as it exists now.

Yes we should be looking forward to better and wiser ways of doing things. But let's be realistic about the here and now too. Batteries do not produce electricity but store it, and building and recharging batteries at this time requires resources that include very little green energy.
We should evaluate whether the push for 'green energy', however well intended and whatever environmental benefits, has far too many unintended negative consequences.

For example, an electric car battery weighs 1000+ pounds--some for bigger vehicles weigh in at a whopping 6000 pounds--and the smaller contain twenty-five pounds of lithium, sixty pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, 200 pounds of copper and 400 pounds of aluminum, steel and plastic. The photos here are of a typical lithium, nickel, copper, cobalt mine, manganese mine--and none are mined using green energy. And the charging stations for electric cars/trucks are manufactured using mostly non-green energy and the electricity they use is mostly from non green energy sources. And bear in mind that only 3% of the cars on the road now are electric. What environmental impact will there be if most cars are electric?

Lithium mine:

Nickel mine

Copper mine

Cobalt mine

Manganese mine

 

[Crick]

You are most welcome to provide any 'evidence' you might have to refute ANYTHING Lomborg said in the article. Please do not cite 'evidence' from anybody whose livelihood or a substantial part of their income comes from those who demand that AGW is such settled science that nobody should be allowed to question it or object to any of the government remedies to address it.

Science has never even attempted to assert that questions regarding AGW are unallowed. It takes place every day all across the planet. That the views of deniers have failed to take hold among climate scientists is not the fault of censorship but of the quality of the science. AGW is still a subject of intense research and no one has ever claimed that all is known on the topic. This argument reminds me of those who questioned evolution. It is a complex topic about which complex conversations take place. Anyone advocating a binary, simplistic, take it or leave it approach has simply identified themselves as purveyors of pseudoscience.

And no one prevents anyone, in THIS country at least, from objecting to government remedies to address it. Write your senators and representatives, post your opinions to the newspapers and flood the internet. But remember that those who may disagree with you possess the same freedoms. Freedom of speech is not freedom from being criticized.