Global Warming

PDN

I've already expressed my opinion in other threads that Global Warming is a spiritual issue. Christians are supposed to care for God's creation, and it is the poor who suffer most from climate change.

However, my job requires a lot of air travel - over 100,000 miles per year. Therefore I have been delighted to discover that KLM offer a scheme that calculates the amount of carbon emissions created by your being on a flight and allows you to purchase carbon credits (investment in clean energy projects) that offsets your carbon footprint. http://http://klm.com/travel/ie_en/travel_tools/co2/index.htm

What amazes me is how inexpensive this is - just €9.31 to offset the environmental impact of last week's return travel from Dublin to Cameroon (that's less than 1% of the cost of my ticket). I would much prefer it if airlines were forced by law to make such a scheme an obligatory surcharge on travel, but as it is I am happy to do my bit voluntarily.

Fanny Cradock

The link is broken :pac: it think you have one too many http://

http://klm.com/travel/ie_en/about/co2/index.htm

It sounds like a fantastic idea. I wish that Christians and their organisations - especially those in the US - would take a more proactive role in the area of environmentalism, instilling the idea of responsible stewardship of the earth among fellow believers. I wonder will we see people subscribing to schemes like the one you mentioned as they would to charities like Goal or Concern?

AtomicHorror

PDN wrote: »

I've already expressed my opinion in other threads that Global Warming is a spiritual issue. Christians are supposed to care for God's creation, and it is the poor who suffer most from climate change.

However, my job requires a lot of air travel - over 100,000 miles per year. Therefore I have been delighted to discover that KLM offer a scheme that calculates the amount of carbon emissions created by your being on a flight and allows you to purchase carbon credits (investment in clean energy projects) that offsets your carbon footprint. http://http://klm.com/travel/ie_en/travel_tools/co2/index.htm

What amazes me is how inexpensive this is - just €9.31 to offset the environmental impact of last week's return travel from Dublin to Cameroon (that's less than 1% of the cost of my ticket). I would much prefer it if airlines were forced by law to make such a scheme an obligatory surcharge on travel, but as it is I am happy to do my bit voluntarily.

Surprisingly cheap... think I'll give that a shot next time I fly. Assuming I finish my studies this century.

Akrasia

I would be very careful about accepting 'carbon offsetting' calculations employed by the marketing department of an Airline company.

Greenwashing is an established mechanism in the PR industry, and it's entirely about deception and manipulation (like 100% of all PR)

Tim Robbins

Read "Cool It", by Bjorn Lomborg, it is absolutely excellent.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214835434&sr=8-1

He accepts global warming is happening but questions solutions and conventional thinking about how to tackle it.

For example, suppose for every 1 person that could die from global warming, 50 die from HIV AIDS, 80 from Malaria (note figures not exact) and we have X amount of money how do we philosophically decide how much money to spend on each problem?

He makes extremly strong arguments that if we really want to help people, we would be better off diverting money from global warming into other problems.

So in your case PDN, that 10 euro you gave up, is it better you did that or would it better to give it so some kids in Ethiopia get a well to drink water?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Read "Cool It", by Bjorn Lomborg, it is absolutely excellent.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214835434&sr=8-1

He accepts global warming is happening but questions solutions and conventional thinking about how to tackle it.

For example, suppose for every 1 person that could die from global warming, 50 die from HIV AIDS, 80 from Malaria (note figures not exact) and we have X amount of money how do we philosophically decide how much money to spend on each problem?

He makes extremly strong arguments that if we really want to help people, we would be better off diverting money from global warming into other problems.

By that argument we should only pay money towards the worst problem of all. In that case we should totally ignore the AIDS problem and put every available penny into the worse problem of malaria. You might think that makes sense, Tim, but I think we need to tackle a range of problems rather than just concentrating on one.

Also, the global warming issue is also one of personal responsibility. If my air travel is making the problem worse then I have a personal responsibility to do what I can to fix the damage my actions have caused.

So in your case PDN, that 10 euro you gave up, is it better you did that or would it better to give it so some kids in Ethiopia get a well to drink water?

So far this year I have raised money for, and supervised the digging of, seven wells in African villages. Just a drop in the ocean, I know, and nothing to boast of, but do you really think you are in a position to lecture me about how I spend my money?

Dades

PDN wrote: »

So far this year I have raised money for, and supervised the digging of, seven wells in African villages. Just a drop in the ocean, I know, and nothing to boast of, but do you really think you are in a position to lecture me about how I spend my money?

I read Tim's question as a hypothetical one regarding how best to allocate charitable funds, rather than a lecture on the folly of your personal mission.

Though I would be somewhat skeptical as to how KLM comes up with those conscience-easing figures.

Minder

Carbon credits - junk economics, no different to the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which saw prices collapse after industry lobbied government to allocate huge permits to the most polluting industries in the first round. Free market economics suggests that flexibility and efficiency of the market will ensure that carbon is reduced as quickly and as effectively as possible, when experience has shown that lack of firm regulation tends to create environmental problems rather than solve them. Why? Because it is not a free market.

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Read "Cool It", by Bjorn Lomborg, it is absolutely excellent.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cool-Skeptical-Environmentalists-Global-Warming/dp/0462099121/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214835434&sr=8-1

For example, suppose for every 1 person that could die from global warming, 50 die from HIV AIDS, 80 from Malaria (note figures not exact) and we have X amount of money how do we philosophically decide how much money to spend on each problem?

Ah the false dichotomy. My favourite logical fallacy.

Not spending money on Global warming does not mean we will spend it on malaria research, conversely, spending money on global warming doesn't mean we won't have any left to spend on medical and public health programs.

He makes extremly strong arguments that if we really want to help people, we would be better off diverting money from global warming into other problems.

Lomberg would be much better exercised in campaigning against the Iraq war considering the vast vast sums of money that are totally wasted and lost to corruption. At least ending that occupation would be a good in itself even if the money ended up being wasted in other ways.

So in your case PDN, that 10 euro you gave up, is it better you did that or would it better to give it so some kids in Ethiopia get a well to drink water?

considering the fact that global warming is going to lead to massive water shortages in some of the poorest places in the world, thats a kind of ironic example.

For the cost of one years military spending, we could provide clean drinking water to every child on earth and still have money left over to tackle environmental destruction.

Plus, spending money on green issues also provides positive outcomes in terms of cleaner technology, reduced pollution, more biodiversity and a nicer world to live in (if its done right)

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

By that argument we should only pay money towards the worst problem of all.

No we put money to where it will do greatest good. Which we are currently not.

You might think that makes sense, Tim, but I think we need to tackle a range of problems rather than just concentrating on one.

Exactly. 100% agree. That's why I think you'll like that book.

Also, the global warming issue is also one of personal responsibility. If my air travel is making the problem worse then I have a personal responsibility to do what I can to fix the damage my actions have caused.

So far this year I have raised money for, and supervised the digging of, seven wells in African villages. Just a drop in the ocean, I know, and nothing to boast of, but do you really think you are in a position to lecture me about how I spend my money?

Wasn't trying to lecture you. It's not about you at all actually. It's about the big picture and overall policy on how we solve world problems.

Right now, global warming is getting huge media focus. Look at the media attention Kyoto got, but even if that was fully implemented it would only slow down global warming by 5 years over a 100 year period.

Now all that money, media attention, guilt tripping and time wasting from Kyoto when so much more could be done, if the same amount of money, media attention and guilt tripping was put to other problems.

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

Ah the false dichotomy. My favourite logical fallacy.

Not spending money on Global warming does not mean we will spend it on malaria research, conversely, spending money on global warming doesn't mean we won't have any left to spend on medical and public health programs.
Lomberg would be much better exercised in campaigning against the Iraq war considering the vast vast sums of money that are totally wasted and lost to corruption. At least ending that occupation would be a good in itself even if the money ended up being wasted in other ways.

considering the fact that global warming is going to lead to massive water shortages in some of the poorest places in the world, thats a kind of ironic example.

For the cost of one years military spending, we could provide clean drinking water to every child on earth and still have money left over to tackle environmental destruction.

Plus, spending money on green issues also provides positive outcomes in terms of cleaner technology, reduced pollution, more biodiversity and a nicer world to live in (if its done right)

Well that's just very naive. Yes it would be really nice to sort out every problem, but the reality is we never do. We never did and we never will. So if we can acknowledge reality, that we are not going to sort out every problem, surely it is important to prioritise. How do we prioritise? Well two simple yardsticks would be:
1. How many people does this problem actually effect?
2. How much can be achieved for a certain amount of money on this problem compared to a similar problem?
For example, 10 quid could safe someone's life for malaria but won't make sod all difference for global warming.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

Also, the global warming issue is also one of personal responsibility. If my air travel is making the problem worse then I have a personal responsibility to do what I can to fix the damage my actions have caused.

The problem about "personal responsibility" is where the line for responsibility begins and ends. If the I can give my neighbour a mosquito net but don't and he dies, how responsible are my? Well, what if my neighbour lives 15,000 miles away?

What Lomborg argues really well, is the problem of personal feelings.
The problem is right now, climate change is a very emotive issue. People feel stronger about it than they do about HIV and malaria. Even, though these diseaes kill far more and we could do much more but instead that gets divereted to climate change.

He poses the question, what's important we do good or feel good?

PS Peter's Singer's "One World" is a must read.
It's from the Terry Lectures series - a christian organisation who try to confront world issues by inviting leading intellectuals, who don't even have to be christian to discuss.

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well that's just very naive. Yes it would be really nice to sort out every problem, but the reality is we never do. So if we are not going to sort out every problem, surely it is important to prioritise. How do we prioritise? Well two simple yardsticks would be:
1. How many people does this problem actually effect?
2. How much can be achieved for certain amount of money on this problem compared to a similar problem?
For example, 10 quid could safe someone's life for malaria but won't make sod all difference for global warming.

thats a bit like saying we shouldn't write off Africa's debt because it would take billions of quid, we should buy people mosquito nets for a tenner each instead.

Global warming is a long term problem. The only cost to prevent it is to forgo our 'right' to destroy the environment. The other costs involve protecting ourselves against the consequences of global warming. Are you seriously suggesting that London will decide to not build better flood defenses and put all that money into poverty eradication in africa instead?

Are you suggesting that we should accept that sea waters are bound to rise, but consider it better to see the entire nation of Bangladesh destroyed by flooding than to cause short term pain to our economies in the transition from an oil to a renewables based economy?

I am in favour of sustainable development. I don't support the 'carbon offsetting' plans because I recognise them to be easily corruptable, but they are one step along the way to awareness and eventual effective action.

We need to keep putting pressure on governments and corporations and ourselves to address this issue. Lomberg is no more an environmentalist than Milton Friedman is a socialist.

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

thats a bit like saying we shouldn't write off Africa's debt because it would take billions of quid, we should buy people mosquito nets for a tenner each instead.

Well that's a bit dumbed down, but if you could deconstruct that argument with 300 pages, with about 3,000 references, I might take it a bit more seriously.

Global warming is a long term problem. The only cost to prevent it is to forgo our 'right' to destroy the environment. The other costs involve protecting ourselves against the consequences of global warming. Are you seriously suggesting that London will decide to not build better flood defenses and put all that money into poverty eradication in africa instead?

Again, you are dumbing down the argument. You should just read the book. There are many ways and many angles to all this. From carbon tax, to investing to R&D, to meaningless and useless agreements such as Kyoto.

Are you suggesting that we should accept that sea waters are bound to rise, but consider it better to see the entire nation of Bangladesh destroyed by flooding than to cause short term pain to our economies in the transition from an oil to a renewables based economy?

I don't know where you are getting your facts from. But consider one very simple case of Burma recently. What had that got to do with global warming? What had the Tsunami got to do with it? Millions die from all sorts of disasters and problems.
It all comes down, to what you want to achieve and how best to achieve that.

You can work you were through all that, or you can live with sensationalist, highly emotive arguments.

Lomberg is no more an environmentalist than Milton Friedman is a socialist.

Have you read any of his books?

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Have you read any of his books?

nope but I've heard him speak on numerous occasions and I don't agree with his analysis.
First of all, he's an economic libertarian. He believes free trade is the panacea. This colours all of his arguments.

Secondly, he's only concerned with economic costs, ie, the value per dollar.

He wants to spend billions more fighting malaria because it's efficient on a case by case basis, and he's opposed to the big resource intensive activities like education, healthcare and public health infrastructure (sewage, water treatment etc)

His analysis is flawed because he is using a specific measure of outcomes. It is universally accepted that education is the single most important tool we can use to control population growth, reduce poverty and improve outcomes. If we save millions from malaria but don't invest in poverty reduction, we're just preventing them from dying from malaria at that period of time, but they'll still be living in conditions of rampant disease and poverty where they might not be a whole lot better off.

Using economic targets to solve social issues has a very bad track record because economics is not equipped to calculate all of the variables, especially including human factors that don't fit in with their econometric models.

It is heart wrenching to see people die of preventable disease and those who work to prevent it are doing an amazing job. But thats treatment of a symptom and will never make a big difference if the causes are not addressed, and even Lomborg acknowledges that climate change will be devastating for the poorest people in the long term.

One of the biggest problems facing mankind is the elephant in the room. We are living beyond our means. Lomborg ignores this and insists that through free markets, global incomes can soar and we'll lift billions out of poverty (there simply aren't enough natural resources on this planet to achieve this without drastic changes to our wasteful economies)

AtomicHorror

Dades wrote: »

I read Tim's question as a hypothetical one regarding how best to allocate charitable funds, rather than a lecture on the folly of your personal mission.

He did ask if PDN's 10 euros might be better spent. That's not really fair since PDN could in theory be giving proportionally the right amounts to all causes besides his 10 euros.

PDN wrote: »

By that argument we should only pay money towards the worst problem of all. In that case we should totally ignore the AIDS problem and put every available penny into the worse problem of malaria.

Sheer malnutrition is the biggest killer of all- it allows in whatever diseases happen to just show up. A revolting reality in the modern world. In terms of disease though, malaria is the big one alright. And so very treatable.

Akrasia wrote: »

His analysis is flawed because he is using a specific measure of outcomes. It is universally accepted that education is the single most important tool we can use to control population growth, reduce poverty and improve outcomes. If we save millions from malaria but don't invest in poverty reduction, we're just preventing them from dying from malaria at that period of time, but they'll still be living in conditions of rampant disease and poverty where they might not be a whole lot better off.

Agreed, though education is something that works on such a grander timescale... I guess that's the problem.

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

nope but I've heard him speak on numerous occasions and I don't agree with his analysis.

The best logical fallacy of them of all: ignorance.
I was speaking specifically about a book, with specific arguments.

First of all, he's an economic libertarian. He believes free trade is the panacea. This colours all of his arguments.

Read some of his books.

Secondly, he's only concerned with economic costs, ie, the value per dollar.

Ok that's it I have had enough. You are simplfying, misunderstanding to the point of straw manning his arguments. This discussion is pointless.

I can't understand someone who thinks they are in a position to argue something they couldn't even be bothered reading or understanding.

Several times Lomborg has been on the media, including RTE and Matt Coooper, he was debating people who hadn't read any his books, completly misunderstood his arguments and pretty much did the same as what you did. They hear the words "skeptical enviromentalists" and they have a field day.

I suggest you read his book "Cool It". It's only about 240 pages. By all means, then argue it.

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The best logical fallacy of them of all: ignorance.
I was speaking specifically about a book, with specific arguments.


Read some of his books.


Ok that's it I have had enough. You are simplfying, misunderstanding to the point of straw manning his arguments. This discussion is pointless.

I can't understand someone who thinks they are in a position to argue something they couldn't even be bothered reading or understanding.

Several times Lomborg has been on the media, including RTE and Matt Coooper, he was debating people who hadn't read any his books, completly misunderstood his arguments and pretty much did the same as what you did. They hear the words "skeptical enviromentalists" and they have a field day.

I suggest you read his book "Cool It". It's only about 240 pages. By all means, then argue it.

I'm not talking about interviews on RTE, I'm talking about his lectures that are available online.

like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figJ1nrjUSk

Its Lomborg talking about 'Cool It' for about an hour. If he can't explain himself properly in that length of time then I have no interest in wasting my time and money reading his book

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not talking about interviews on RTE, I'm talking about his lectures that are available online.

like this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=figJ1nrjUSk

Its Lomborg talking about 'Cool It' for about an hour. If he can't explain himself properly in that length of time then I have no interest in wasting my time and money reading his book

Well what you should do then is debate that particular lecture, not his book.

Dades

AtomicHorror wrote: »

He did ask if PDN's 10 euros might be better spent. That's not really fair since PDN could in theory be giving proportionally the right amounts to all causes besides his 10 euros.

The point is, it wasn't a 'lecture'.
It was a question regarding what is "proportionally the right amount".

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For example, suppose for every 1 person that could die from global warming, 50 die from HIV AIDS, 80 from Malaria (note figures not exact) and we have X amount of money how do we philosophically decide how much money to spend on each problem?

Incredibly short sighted. Ignoring the possibibllity that malaria and other diseases could increase as a direct result of global warming, what happens in 30, 40 or 50 years when the number of people dying from global warming increases to overtake the current numbers dying from malaria/Aids, which it will if no-one does anything about it. Why wait for the problem to be as big as Aids before you try to fix it. How much harder/more expensive will it be to fix global warming if nothing is done about it for 50 years?
Also, these problems aren't even indirectly seperate: as spending money to deal with these other problems increases more medicines/materials will need to be produced, with these needing to be shipped all over the world, requiring more and more fossil fuels to be burnt to make up the energy, thus increasing global warming.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Read some of his books

Try reading this. Here he suggests that rising the temperature of Europe by 2 celsius will prevent more "cold "deaths than the "heat" deaths it would cause, thus implying global warming is good for Europe. However this completely ignores the fact that Europe is not indoors, you can't just increase the temperature of Europe without increasing the temperature of the rest of the world, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that the number of "heat" deaths will increase faster the number of "cold" deaths in the Third World.

The Mad Hatter

I haven't read any of Lomborg's books. I have, however, seen some of George Monbiot's refutations of his writing on his blog.

And climate change doesn't just mean every country gets warmer (though this will be the case for much of Europe). See here.

AtomicHorror

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

And climate change doesn't just mean every country gets warmer (though this will be the case for much of Europe). See here.

Which is why the term "global warming" is being used less these days in favour of climate change.

JimiTime

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which is why the term "global warming" is being used less these days in favour of climate change.

i always remember Jimmy Carr at Live Earth saying, 'if you want people on these islands to do something, don't call it Global Warming. They'll be leaving the kettle on for months, and buying sunfactor and beach towels. Call it Impending Doom, that should do it'

Anyway, sorry for that interruption. Continue:)

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Incredibly short sighted.

Could you just clarify which of his books you have read?
Thank you.

Akrasia

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Could you just clarify which of his books you have read?
Thank you.

Are you suggesting that the material in his books is fundamentally different from the information he gives in his essays and lectures?

It is possible to form an informed opinion on someone's views without having read everything they have ever written.

You have read his books, you should be able to refute the points we are making if they are false with reference to examples

Tim Robbins

Akrasia wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the material in his books is fundamentally different from the information he gives in his essays and lectures?

It is possible to form an informed opinion on someone's views without having read everything they have ever written.

You have read his books, you should be able to refute the points we are making if they are false with reference to examples

I am suggesting that some people here think they have rebuttals but there are in fact dealt with in the book. In fact, that's what makes it so obvious they haven't been read.

It's a bit like a Christian giving out about Richard Dawkins when talking about the God Delusion and saying something like, Dawkins can't say where morality comes from. Christianity can.

[Note to all my favourite posters that's an example, not an analogy :-)].

Now I could pick up the book and preach from that. But it's not so simple. These are quite complex arguments, which require references to scientific papers and succint writing. For that reason, I would refer someone directly to the book. What's the problem with that?

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote: »

[Note to all my favourite posters that's an example, not an analogy :-)].

That was sooo an analogy.

Tim Robbins

Dades wrote: »

That was sooo an analogy.

Well in the God Delusion, Dawkins does gives very good reasons of where morality comes from i.e. evolution, reciprocal altruism and group selection, he rarely does into that details when he is public speaking.

In a similar way, Lomborg does not go in the same level of detail when speaking. Where the analogy falls apart is that Lomborg goes into more details has more references!

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Could you just clarify which of his books you have read?
Thank you.

None, but I wasn't referring to any books, I was talking about your analogy.

AtomicHorror

JimiTime wrote: »

i always remember Jimmy Carr at Live Earth saying, 'if you want people on these islands to do something, don't call it Global Warming. They'll be leaving the kettle on for months, and buying sunfactor and beach towels. Call it Impending Doom, that should do it'

So true!

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

None, but I wasn't referring to any books, I was talking about your analogy.

My argument contained no analogy. It wasn't even my argument. It's Lomborgs which I suggest you read the full version off before attempting to rebutt.

Anyway, its absolutely laughable hearing someone argue about climate change that voted no to lisbon and is so adamant about it.

Article 174 of the Treaty gave a legal basis for combating climate change. This was the first time any European treaty explicitly referred to the matter.

Our state isn't even a member of CERN, you'd think that any citizen here who had an iota interest in Science would be pro - Europe.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

My argument contained no analogy. It wasn't even my argument. It's Lomborgs which I suggest you read the full version off before attempting to rebutt.

I suggest you stop bringing in other peoples points into your own arguments if you are unwilling or incapable to argue for them yourself. If you are incapable of arguing for Lomborgs points yourself, then you don't really understand them.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Anyway, its absolutely laughable hearing someone argue about climate change that voted no to lisbon and is so adamant about it.

Article 174 of the Treaty gave a legal basis for combating climate change. This was the first time any European treaty explicitly referred to the matter.

Yes and any other articles I don't agree with should be completely forgotten if I see one article that might have benefits:rolleyes:.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Our state isn't even a member of CERN, you'd think that any citizen here who had an iota interest in Science would be pro - Europe.

You should do your homework, Europe isn't a member of CERN, the Europe Comission is only classed as an observer (along with USA, UNESCO, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Isreal and India). Any one who knows anything about scientists knows that nationality is irrelevent, my boss is German, my immediate coworkers are Japanese and Malaysian and there are people from all over the world working in my building.

djpbarry

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Read "Cool It", by Bjorn Lomborg, it is absolutely excellent.

This is the same guy who's previous book in the same area (The Sceptical Environmentalist) was found to be "scientifically dishonest" by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty?

In "Cool It", Lomborg has been accused of plagiarism, inaccurately transcribing quotations and using unrelated references to support his claims:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolit.htm

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I suggest you stop bringing in other peoples points into your own arguments if you are unwilling or incapable to argue for them yourself.

Oh what a load of nonsense. It started out as a book recommendation. Then a brief elaboration. Then posters who thought they could counter argue arguments from a book they hadn't even bother reading jumped in.
Then I suggested they and you read the book. What do you want me to: recite the book because you're too lazy to pay a trip to your library!!!!

The book has a huge amount of references in it. It goes into quite some detail. This is something I think you don't appreciate, judging by your posts. I would be extremly surprised if anyone who had read the book would write what you and other posters had written and for that reason I wasn't surprised to find out you hadn't.

If you are incapable of arguing for Lomborgs points yourself, then you don't really understand them.

Rubbish. I understand the logic. It is just simple utilitarian and consequentialism. Have you even got that part yet?

The evidence is another thing. There are over 1,000 references in "Cool It". The evidence is crucial in any argument, especially any scientific argument.

How objective Lomborg has used the evidence is the crucial question. He could have done a brilliant job cutting through emotive and sometimes hysterial irrational thinking or he could be committing acts of omission by cherry picking his 1,000 papers. That's the nub of a very complicated subject matter. Now you'd want to have done a good bit of research to really to begin to counter argue. But you haven't even read his book and it is ridiculous, you are short cutting your way to conclusions.

Doesn't mean his right and your wrong, just means, he's is a lot more thought out and convincing and yours just looks slapdash and vacuous.

Yes and any other articles I don't agree with should be completely forgotten if I see one article that might have benefits:rolleyes:.

Well you were incapable of articulating problems with the treaty by rejecting it you have forfeited an opportunity for something to be done that you are now trying to argue is important.

I can't take anyone seriously who claims to take the environment seriously who voted no to lisbon. As I have said in other threads, we have to spend time now sorting out a political mess, when that time could have been put in place to tackle climate change. We've lost an opportunity. Thanks to ignorance.

You should do your homework, Europe isn't a member of CERN, the Europe Comission is only classed as an observer (along with USA, UNESCO, Russia, Japan, Turkey, Isreal and India). Any one who knows anything about scientists knows that nationality is irrelevent, my boss is German, my immediate coworkers are Japanese and Malaysian and there are people from all over the world working in my building.

More rubbish. I never said Europe was a member. I never said nationality was relevant. What I did say was that anyone who was interested in Science would be pro - Europe, because what is important is policy of governments.

European countries and the European project have been good for Science. Again, they are a friendly reminder to many backward and insular Irish people,
that there are more sophisticated ways of living, solving problems and thinking about things.

For example, the EU has drafted a paper outlining the folly and absurdity of creationism.

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm

Can't see Liberatas, Sinn Fein, Corr, Youth Defense, any of the 70% who voted No and thought a treaty would be easy to negotiate, any of the 40% who voted No because they didn't understand it, or any freaky group having the where-with-all or the intelligence to do that.

Tim Robbins

djpbarry wrote: »

This is the same guy who's previous book in the same area (The Sceptical Environmentalist) was found to be "scientifically dishonest" by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bjorn_Lomborg#Accusations_of_scientific_dishonesty wrote:

On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision, with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which has oversight over the DSCD.

On December 17, 2003, the Ministry annulled the decision made by DCSD. In doing so, MSTI cited several procedural errors, including:

The DCSD did not use a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;[citation needed]
The DCSD's definition of "objective scientific dishonesty" was not clear about whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;[citation needed]
The DCSD had not properly documented that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors. On this point the MSTI stated "the DCSD has not documented where [Dr Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and ... the ruling is completely void of argumentation for why the DCSD find that the complainants are right in their criticisms of [his] working methods. It is not sufficient that the criticisms of a researcher's working methods exist; the DCSD must consider the criticisms and take a position on whether or not the criticisms are justified, and why."[5]
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid.[6][7] The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.

In "Cool It", Lomborg has been accused of plagiarism, inaccurately transcribing quotations and using unrelated references to support his claims:

http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolit.htm

As I said in a previous post, the evidence is crucial. If Lomborg is committing acts of omission or has deliberately twisted evidence in Cool It, it begins to fall apart, otherwise it has some very very very serious points that need to be taken seriously.

Have you read it?

The Mad Hatter

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Which is why the term "global warming" is being used less these days in favour of climate change.

Yup. Hence my use of it in that very post.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Then I suggested they and you read the book. What do you want me to: recite the book because you're too lazy to pay a trip to your library!!!!

Do you need to read all 240 pages for it to make sense? Is his book a list of observations and consequences that only make sense right at the end, and only if read all the together.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The book has a huge amount of references in it. It goes into quite some detail. This is something I think you don't appreciate, judging by your posts. I would be extremly surprised if anyone who had read the book would write what you and other posters had written and for that reason I wasn't surprised to find out you hadn't.

Well his article I referenced in post 21 is pretty detailed. Its also complete nonsense.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Rubbish. I understand the logic. It is just simple utilitarian and consequentialism. Have you even got that part yet?

Well no, because you seem to be incapable of explaining this "simple utilitarian and consequentialism" here.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The evidence is another thing. There are over 1,000 references in "Cool It". The evidence is crucial in any argument, especially any scientific argument.

The interpretation of the evidence is what is important.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How objective Lomborg has used the evidence is the crucial question. He could have done a brilliant job cutting through emotive and sometimes hysterial irrational thinking or he could be committing acts of omission by cherry picking his 1,000 papers. That's the nub of a very complicated subject matter. Now you'd want to have done a good bit of research to really to begin to counter argue. But you haven't even read his book and it is ridiculous, you are short cutting your way to conclusions.

Doesn't mean his right and your wrong, just means, he's is a lot more thought out and convincing and yours just looks slapdash and vacuous.

OR that my answer very simply shows that he's talking nonsense, while he's trying to over complicate his argument to hide that fact.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well you were incapable of articulating problems with the treaty by rejecting it you have forfeited an opportunity for something to be done that you are now trying to argue is important.

So since the treaty was rejected, we now have no more opportunities to do anything about climate change, the world is now doomed all thanks to the "no" voters:eek:. Stop going off topic and bringing other arguments from other forums into here.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I can't take anyone seriously who claims to take the environment seriously who voted no to lisbon. As I have said in other threads, we have to spend time now sorting out a political mess, when that time could have been put in place to tackle climate change. We've lost an opportunity. Thanks to ignorance.

Relevence to this thread, in this forum?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

For example, the EU has drafted a paper outlining the folly and absurdity of creationism.

http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11297.htm

Can't see Liberatas, Sinn Fein, Corr, Youth Defense, any of the 70% who voted No and thought a treaty would be easy to negotiate, any of the 40% who voted No because they didn't understand it, or any freaky group having the where-with-all or the intelligence to do that.

And obviously by not doing that, Liberatas, Sinn Fein, Corr, Youth Defense, any of the 70% who voted No and thought a treaty would be easy to negotiate, any of the 40% who voted No because they didn't understand it, all support Creationism:rolleyes:.
For someone who whinged at me for using "rhetoric", you use enough of it yourself.

djpbarry

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If Lomborg is committing acts of omission or has deliberately twisted evidence in Cool It, it begins to fall apart, otherwise it has some very very very serious points that need to be taken seriously.

So which is it? Have you checked his sources?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Have you read it?

No, I have not. Why? Well, first of all, he's not a scientist. I would be very careful in my interpretation of scientific material from non-scientists, as they often (sometimes innocently) misinterpret scientific findings. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, he has a rather questionable track record. Finally, I have read articles of his and most of them, such as that linked to by Mark Hamill, are utter nonsense.

Tim Robbins

djpbarry wrote: »

So which is it? Have you checked his sources?

1 hour checking each of 1,000 references would mean I would be out of a job.

Why? Well, first of all, he's not a scientist. I would be very careful in my interpretation of scientific material from non-scientists, as they often (sometimes innocently) misinterpret scientific findings. Secondly, as I have already pointed out, he has a rather questionable track record. Finally, I have read articles of his and most of them, such as that linked to by Mark Hamill, are utter nonsense.

He's not arguing the science, he's arguing the political and economic approaches. It's mainly cost / benefit analysis.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Do you need to read all 240 pages for it to make sense?

To be able to offer an opinion on the book yes.

Is his book a list of observations and consequences that only make sense right at the end, and only if read all the together.

In several cases yes.

Well no, because you seem to be incapable of explaining this "simple utilitarian and consequentialism" here.

It's very simple. How do we do the most good. Most sane people would subscribe to that principle.

So since the treaty was rejected, we now have no more opportunities to do anything about climate change, the world is now doomed all thanks to the "no" voters:eek:. Stop going off topic and bringing other arguments from other forums into here.

You are twisting what I say.
No voters blew a very good opportunity for Europe to move on this issue.
Yes this opportunity might come up again, but will they blow it again? Some of them seem to happy to work under Nice, e.g. Vincent Browne which don't make any mention to climate change.

Relevence to this thread, in this forum?

You.

And obviously by not doing that, Liberatas, Sinn Fein, Corr, Youth Defense, any of the 70% who voted No and thought a treaty would be easy to negotiate, any of the 40% who voted No because they didn't understand it, all support Creationism:rolleyes:.
For someone who whinged at me for using "rhetoric", you use enough of it yourself.

Again you misunderstand.
No I would argue the listed have little or no interest in nipping creationist propaganda in the bud. Just like our own government. Further evidence the EU is good. And further evidence you can't realise that.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

To be able to offer an opinion on the book yes.

Well, forget about the book for a moment. I've offered an opinion on the article from the discover magazine (its actually an excerpt from the book) where he argues that that rising the temperature of Europe by 2 celsius will prevent more "cold "deaths than the "heat" deaths it would cause, thus implying global warming is good for Europe. However this completely ignores the fact that Europe is not indoors, you can't just increase the temperature of Europe without increasing the temperature of the rest of the world, and it doesn't seem to occur to him that the number of "heat" deaths will increase faster the number of "cold" deaths in the Third World. (copied from 2nd paragraph of post 21, which you seemed to have ignored)
Now unless, during the rest of the book, he has come up with a way to heat up Europe without heating up the rest of the world, its pretty obvious that he's talking crap.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's very simple. How do we do the most good. Most sane people would subscribe to that principle.

yes, but then you have to ask, should we do the most good here and now, or do we aim to do the most over the next 30/40 years? Sure concentrating on one problem now might save a million people, but ignoring another, continuously worsening problem over the next few years might kill millions more.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You are twisting what I say.
No voters blew a very good opportunity for Europe to move on this issue.
Yes this opportunity might come up again, but will they blow it again? Some of them seem to happy to work under Nice, e.g. Vincent Browne which don't make any mention to climate change.

you seem to be making the assertion that anyone who voted yes to treaty, did so purely for climate change. Stop dragging arguments from other threads in other forums to bolster this failing one Tim.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You.

Making it personal, eh? Besides, I thought that you where supposed to ignore the identity of the arguer? You've made that point before to me and even linked to an article about why you shouldn't do it . All these "rules" you keep bandying about in your arguments just nonsense you throw out to try to make your arguments seem stronger even thpough its not. You're one step up from someone who points out bad grammer and spelling as reasons why someones arguments are invalid.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Again you misunderstand.
No I would argue the listed have little or no interest in nipping creationist propaganda in the bud. Just like our own government. Further evidence the EU is good. And further evidence you can't realise that.

And Hilter supported evolution. Evolution is good, so therefore Hitler is good?

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Well, forget about the book for a moment. I've offered an opinion on the article from the discover magazine (its actually an excerpt from the book) where he argues that that rising the temperature of Europe by 2 celsius will prevent more "cold "deaths than the "heat" deaths it would cause, thus implying global warming is good for Europe.

He deals with that better in his book. You should read it.

Now unless, during the rest of the book, he has come up with a way to heat up Europe without heating up the rest of the world, its pretty obvious that he's talking crap.

No offense, you get a lot of notions in your head and you don't really seem eager to challenge them. I am quite pro the enviroment, I try to live my life that way and went to great degrees to never buy or use a car and instead cycling or using public transport for a very very long time, until I had to buy a car because I had to.

I read Lomborg because where he is coming from is another angle, I read it to challenge me, my beliefs and opinions. If you are not interesting in challenging yourself. fine. Live in your little cave. But don't give out to any Christian or Creationist for doing that.

yes, but then you have to ask, should we do the most good here and now, or do we aim to do the most over the next 30/40 years? Sure concentrating on one problem now might save a million people, but ignoring another, continuously worsening problem over the next few years might kill millions more.

See book.

you seem to be making the assertion that anyone who voted yes to treaty, did so purely for climate change. Stop dragging arguments from other threads in other forums to bolster this failing one Tim.

Incorrect. I just think it's absolutely laughable that someone tried to take a enviromental stance that voted no to that treaty.

Making it personal, eh? Besides, I thought that you where supposed to ignore the identity of the arguer? You've made that point before to me and even linked to an article about why you shouldn't do it . All these "rules" you keep bandying about in your arguments just nonsense you throw out to try to make your arguments seem stronger even thpough its not. You're one step up from someone who points out bad grammer and spelling as reasons why someones arguments are invalid.

Well the contradiction in your stance, can certainly be ignored as it doesn't invalid either stance, it just makes you seem bizarre. And like someone who hasn't thought their opinions through.

And Hilter supported evolution. Evolution is good, so therefore Hitler is good?

Irrelevant non - sequitor.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He deals with that better in his book. You should read it.

<snip>

I read Lomborg because where he is coming from is another angle, I read it to challenge me, my beliefs and opinions. If you are not interesting in challenging yourself. fine. Live in your little cave. But don't give out to any Christian or Creationist for doing that.

I read his article in the paper, and there was no need to challenge my opinion as I could see he was talkling crap.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect. I just think it's absolutely laughable that someone tried to take a enviromental stance that voted no to that treaty.

Okay, so you are making the assertion that anyone who voted no did so to spite the enviroment? Do you think that the enviroment was the only issue in Lisbon?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Well the contradiction in your stance, can certainly be ignored as it doesn't invalid either stance, it just makes you seem bizarre. And like someone who hasn't thought their opinions through.

What contradiction? I pointed out your hypocracy for arguing the identity of the arguer even though you have said before it shouldn't be done. You are breaking your own rules, so it is you who are contradicting yourself. If you realise that you are doing this then you are a hypocrite, if you don't realise this then you are an idiot.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Irrelevant non - sequitor.

I make the same conclusion on the same evidence as you:
Europe says Creationism wrong (=> evolution right) => Europe good,
Hitler says Evolution right(=> creationsim wrong) => Hitler good.
I agree its a load of crap, but its no more a load of crap than your assertion.

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I read his article in the paper, and there was no need to challenge my opinion as I could see he was talkling crap.

Deep.

Okay, so you are making the assertion that anyone who voted no did so to spite the enviroment? Do you think that the enviroment was the only issue in Lisbon?

Incorrect. Why do you keep twisting everything I say and then argue that.

What contradiction?

Lisbon first major treaty to mention climate change !=
Vote No with no good reason and claim to be interested in climate change.

I pointed out your hypocracy for arguing the identity of the arguer even though you have said before it shouldn't be done. You are breaking your own rules, so it is you who are contradicting yourself.

No I admitted the contradiction didn't invalidate either of your arguments. They just make you look like a turncoat.

I make the same conclusion on the same evidence as you:
Europe says Creationism wrong (=> evolution right) => Europe good,
Hitler says Evolution right(=> creationsim wrong) => Hitler good.
I agree its a load of crap, but its no more a load of crap than your assertion.

You missed my point and try to rebutt with an analogy which was absolutely stupid because the acts of omission are so glaringly obvious.

Our government has done nothing to nip creationism in the bud.
Repeat nothing. Repeat again nothing. It probably wouldn't be interested in doing anything.

So if you think it's important to do something about stopping creationism lies and propaganda, then you wold naturally think kudos should go to institutions who try to do that. Perhaps we should support them rather then give them
non sensical political impasses that are exceptionally difficult to sort out.

The EU are trying to increase scientific thinking, not create a master race and wip out the Jewish race. But if you have to reduce things to that nonsense, you really are missing some brain cells.

Mark Hamill

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Incorrect. Why do you keep twisting everything I say and then argue that.

I'm not. I'm trying to figure out your reasoning in thinking that everyone who voted no to the treaty is a hypocrite for caring about the enviroment.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Lisbon first major treaty to mention climate change !=
Vote No with no good reason and claim to be interested in climate change.

Not only did I have a good reason, but you actually agreed that my reason had merit (see here, the part about article N of the old treaty).
Tim have you read the treaty? it only covers the enviroment for about 1 page (article 191), the rest of the 152 pages of articles cover different issues, if you haven't copped on to that yet then there is no argument here, as you're too simple minded to make sensible points.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No I admitted the contradiction didn't invalidate either of your arguments. They just make you look like a turncoat.

Tim, you claim to support a treaty which says: "Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the
diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.", while at the same time supporting a guy who believes that climate change should be ignored until it becomes a worse problem than AIDS. The contradiction is all yours.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Our government has done nothing to nip creationism in the bud.
Repeat nothing. Repeat again nothing. It probably wouldn't be interested in doing anything.

Tim, you obviously hate this goverment and the people of this land, why don't you move abroad.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

So if you think it's important to do something about stopping creationism lies and propaganda, then you wold naturally think kudos should go to institutions who try to do that. Perhaps we should support them rather then give them
non sensical political impasses that are exceptionally difficult to sort out.

Support them in nipping Creationist lies in the bud, not blindly support them in everything.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

The EU are trying to increase scientific thinking, not create a master race and wip out the Jewish race. But if you have to reduce things to that nonsense, you really are missing some brain cells.

I'm only following your reasoning, that if a society refutes creationism then its automatically good, regardless of anything else it does that you don't like.But you're right, you would need to be missing some brain cells for that to make sense:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I'm not. I'm trying to figure out your reasoning in thinking that everyone who voted no to the treaty is a hypocrite for caring about the enviroment.

I find it hard to believe that when a treaty comes along with a major provision for climate change in it for all European states, they reject it for wishy washy reasons, create a major political impasse and still claim to care about the environment.

Not only did I have a good reason, but you actually agreed that my reason had merit (see here, the part about article N of the old treaty).

Incorrect. That was not a reason for voting no, that was a point you made about could they create another treaty the same lisbon without us.

Tim have you read the treaty? it only covers the enviroment for about 1 page (article 191), the rest of the 152 pages of articles cover different issues, if you haven't copped on to that yet then there is no argument here, as you're too simple minded to make sensible points.

Extremly sloppy logic. Very much of the Libertas ilk as I recall Ganley making the very same point. It was the first European Treaty to mention climate change. It doesn't matter whether that's half a page or 15 pages, gravitas was given to it by it being in a major European treaty.
Immediately, that shows two things:
1. Climate change is happening, and is not just a myth.
2. The European Union will attempt to this mater seriously.

Obviously the section on climate change was not going to be large because of the nature of the climate change problem. We still do not know the best way of dealing with it. You might appreciate the complexity if you read 'cool it'.

Tim, you claim to support a treaty which says: "Union policy on the environment shall aim at a high level of protection taking into account the
diversity of situations in the various regions of the Union. It shall be based on the precautionary principle and on the principles that preventive action should be taken, that environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay.", while at the same time supporting a guy who believes that climate change should be ignored until it becomes a worse problem than AIDS. The contradiction is all yours.

Well you are straw manning me and Lomborg there. In fact, if you read 'Cool It' you'd see Lomborg also discusses the polluter pays principle.

Tim, you obviously hate this goverment and the people of this land, why don't you move abroad.

From the bizarre to the ridiculous.

I'm only following your reasoning, that if a society refutes creationism then its automatically good, regardless of anything else it does that you don't like.But you're right, you would need to be missing some brain cells for that to make sense:rolleyes:

I didn't say society, again another straw man.

You are swimming in ignorance, delusions and incapable of offering anything intelligent or constructive to this debate. I am beginning to think you are a troll.

Why not read the book and come back and discuss it when you have.
You'd have read the first chapter in the same time you have put into this thread.

The Mad Hatter

Tim, it seems quite clear that you have mastered the latest internet debating trend of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of an array of logical fallacies. That doesn't make you right.

Anyway, I haven't read Lomborg's book, and am not particularly in the mood to debate it now. However, a page or two ago, I posted a link to a response to it by a prominent environmental scientist and writer who has read it. If you don't like the responses in this thread, perhaps you could consider reading Monbiot's response. If you disagree with him, I believe he usually replies to correspondence.

If I remember correctly, he makes a more detailed rebuttal of some of Lomborg's points in his book Heat.

PDN

So now it is apparently necessary to read all of a book in order to be able to criticise it? Does this mean that only those atheists who have read the Bible from cover to cover will now be presumed qualified enough to criticise it?

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Does this mean that only those atheists who have read the Bible from cover to cover will now be presumed qualified enough to criticise it?

In the same way that you're only a real christian if you've read the bible from cover to cover, and believed it all too?

Can't imagine which of these tasks is the more difficult

.

Akrasia

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Tim, it seems quite clear that you have mastered the latest internet debating trend of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of an array of logical fallacies. That doesn't make you right.

Anyway, I haven't read Lomborg's book, and am not particularly in the mood to debate it now. However, a page or two ago, I posted a link to a response to it by a prominent environmental scientist and writer who has read it. If you don't like the responses in this thread, perhaps you could consider reading Monbiot's response. If you disagree with him, I believe he usually replies to correspondence.

If I remember correctly, he makes a more detailed rebuttal of some of Lomborg's points in his book Heat.

There's also a number of websites dedicated to exposing the mistakes misrepresentations and deliberate lies in the 'facts' that Lomborg references in his books.

This page is specifically dedicated to the book 'Cool It'
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/coolit.htm