Global warming will devastate world economy

[bradco]

"Because of the potential for long term adverse effects"

I dont think we can argue that the effects are only potential. Whether or not its man made or natural global warming will have very large effects on our world. In BC we are already getting hit by the pine beetle which has destroyed forests about the size of Ireland and showing no signs of slowing. This is going to be a pretty tough hit for the BC economy.

[geoffrey]

"Because of the potential for long term adverse effects"

I dont think we can argue that the effects are only potential. Whether or not its man made or natural global warming will have very large effects on our world. In BC we are already getting hit by the pine beetle which has destroyed forests about the size of Ireland and showing no signs of slowing. This is going to be a pretty tough hit for the BC economy.

They are tasty in soup.... ok maybe not.

And the dinosaurs went extinct, a massive creature that ruled the world. Not everything is blamed on the humans (well, maybe the Creationists believe it can be?)...

Global warming, climate change, whatever you what to call it... CO2 emissions have something to do with humans. From my personal understanding of the environment is that if you shit all over something, eventually it looks like shit. Cutting CO2 makes sense, but there are many other important issues.

That's like spending billions curing a rare disease that affects 5 Canadians a year while many millions die of cancer.

[scribblet]

Well, this Wall St. Journal piece is very skeptical about the report, says the numbers are 'dodgy'

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

The review correctly points out that climate change is a real problem, and that it is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions. Little else is right, however, and the report seems hastily put-together, with many sloppy errors. As an example, the cost of hurricanes in the U.S. is said to be both 0.13% of U.S. GDP and 10 times that figure.

The review is also one-sided, focusing almost exclusively on carbon-emission cuts as the solution to the problem of climate change. Mr. Stern sees increasing hurricane damage in the U.S. as a powerful argument for carbon controls. However, hurricane damage is increasing predominantly because there are more people with more goods to be damaged, settling in ever more risky habitats. Even if global warming does significantly increase the power of hurricanes, it is estimated that 95% to 98% of the increased damage will be due to demographics. The review acknowledges that simple initiatives like bracing and securing roof trusses and walls can cheaply reduce damage by more than 80%; yet its policy recommendations on expensive carbon reductions promise to cut the damages by 1% to 2% at best. That is a bad deal.

Mr. Stern is also selective, often seeming to cherry-pick statistics to fit an argu

[jdobbin]

Well, this Wall St. Journal piece is very skeptical about the report, says the numbers are 'dodgy'

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

The writer of this article Bjørn Lomborg has been accused by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of:

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;

2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

5. Plagiarism;

6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

[cybercoma]

Well, this Wall St. Journal piece is very skeptical about the report, says the numbers are 'dodgy'

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

Unfortunately, this claim falls apart when one actually reads the 700-page tome. Despite using many good references, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is selective and its conclusion flawed. Its fear-mongering arguments have been sensationalized, which is ultimately only likely to make the world worse off.

The writer of this article Bjørn Lomborg has been accused by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation of:

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

1. Fabrication of data;

2. Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);

3. Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;

4. Distorted interpretation of conclusions;

5. Plagiarism;

6. Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

Too bad scriblett wasn't citing Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." Like August said in another thread...play the ball, not the person.

[cybercoma]

Instead of calling Lomborg a liar and a fraud...dispute this:

[The Stern Report's] argument hinges on three very problematic assumptions.

First, it assumes that if we act, we will not still have to pay. But this is not so--Mr. Stern actually tells us that his solution is "already associated with significant risks." Second, it requires the cost of action to be as cheap as he tells us--and on this front his numbers are at best overly optimistic. Third, and most importantly, it requires the cost of doing nothing to be a realistic assumption: But the 20% of GDP figure is inflated by an unrealistically pessimistic vision of the 22nd century, and by an extreme and unrealistically low discount rate. According to the background numbers in Mr. Stern's own report, climate change will cost us 0% now and 3% of GDP in 2100, a much more informative number than the 20% now and forever.

In other words: Given reasonable inputs, most cost-benefit models show that dramatic and early carbon reductions cost more than the good they do. Mr. Stern's attempt to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions.

[jdobbin]

Too bad scriblett wasn't citing Lomborg's book "The Skeptical Environmentalist." Like August said in another thread...play the ball, not the person.

In this case, the issue goes to the credibility of the commentator.

In other words, I don't trust the interpretations of the writer. He has a reputation of distorting figures and for being dishonest.

[cybercoma]

In this case, the issue goes to the credibility of the commentator.

In other words, I don't trust the interpretations of the writer. He has a reputation of distorting figures and for being dishonest.

Can you show where in this article he is distorting figures or being dishonest?

[jdobbin]

Can you show where in this article he is distorting figures or being dishonest?

Can you cite where he is correct?

[cybercoma]

Can you cite where he is correct?

You're claiming he's a liar and a fraud, therefore this article should be dismissed. Your claim is against a book that he wrote, but not this particular piece. We're talking about The Stern Report and Lomborg's reaction to that, if there's a flaw in Lomborg's argument against the Stern Report I would like you to show it. Instead, you're relying on something said about a completely unrelated piece of work.

[jdobbin]

You're claiming he's a liar and a fraud, therefore this article should be dismissed. Your claim is against a book that he wrote, but not this particular piece. We're talking about The Stern Report and Lomborg's reaction to that, if there's a flaw in Lomborg's argument against the Stern Report I would like you to show it. Instead, you're relying on something said about a completely unrelated piece of work.

Where shall we begin? Lomberg's cherry picks the hurricane data. It was one small part of a large report. Stern didn't assert this was evidence in and of itself.

Lomberg's cites estimated demographics as a source of hurricane problems. Source?

Lomberg says that Stern indicated the worst case scenario if nothing was done. This was the objective of the report and he used this as a criticism?

Lomberg says that economists were surprised that Stern extrapolated the Nordhaus numbers? Source? Which economists? This was also an objective of the report to begin with. Extrapolate numbers.

Lomberg says that Stern attempts to challenge that understanding is based on a chain of unlikely assumptions. Unlikely to who? Scientific source please.

Lomberg says it is naive to assume that science can implement his plan. Naive to whom? Source?

Given that Lomberg is known to cherry pick his data and plagiarize other people's work as well as being intellectually dishonest, I doubt very much that we will get answers to the questions I ask. He can't cite sources or other economists who agree with him.

[jdobbin]

Harper will be avoiding the EU summit. He has cancelled at the last minute.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

The European press has reported that is is because he doesn't want to answer questions on his environmental program.

[cybercoma]

Lomberg says that Stern indicated the worst case scenario if nothing was done. This was the objective of the report and he used this as a criticism?

So, the entire report is useless because things are obviously being done. People are concerned about global warming and alternatively fuels are much more affordable now than they have ever been.

The whole point of the report was to exaggerate the effects of global warming...a lot of good that does.

[jdobbin]

So, the entire report is useless because things are obviously being done. People are concerned about global warming and alternatively fuels are much more affordable now than they have ever been.

The whole point of the report was to exaggerate the effects of global warming...a lot of good that does.

It's a fairly broad assertion that you are making. You say exaggerate and he says extrapolate. Most economic models are some form of extrapolation.

I obviously don't see anything of particular note from Lomberg's one page rip of a 700 page report.

Show something from an economist or climate expert of some note before submitting a paper by a guy accused of poor science, poor research and dishonesty.

It's like asking someone to comment on the accuracy of the Hitler diaries when you know the person responsible for finding them is a known forger and fraud artist.

[cybercoma]

It's a fairly broad assertion that you are making. You say exaggerate and he says extrapolate. Most economic models are some form of extrapolation.

I obviously don't see anything of particular note from Lomberg's one page rip of a 700 page report.

Show something from an economist or climate expert of some note before submitting a paper by a guy accused of poor science, poor research and dishonesty.

It's like asking someone to comment on the accuracy of the Hitler diaries when you know the person responsible for finding them is a known forger and fraud artist.

Lomborg aside...

I say exaggerate because it was an absolute worst case scenario that the economist was using. If that's the case...the whole report is pointless because the findings are not realistic.

[jdobbin]

Lomborg aside...

I say exaggerate because it was an absolute worst case scenario that the economist was using. If that's the case...the whole report is pointless because the findings are not realistic.

The report gives several versions of what could happen based on what is being done now and what could be done. He also did one based on doing nothing. Pick your poison, I guess.

Stern is a respected economist not given to hysteria. If the right wing believes this report is wrong, they should provide a report based on science from another respected economist.