Lomborg and the Africans

Bjorn Lomborg argues that we should focus our spending on immediate problems, such as ensuring Africans have access to clean water. For this he is vilified, attacked and has his livelihood threatened.

His critics wish to see money spent on climate change mitigation measures instead.

A tragedy for the Africans.

Comments

[TinyCO2]

About the same amount Greenpeace or many of the other charities and organisations set up to tell others what to do, spend on building power plants.

This is a very curious thread for warmists to lurk in. You're not trying to argue that Lomborg doesn't put clean water ahead of CO2 reduction for the Africans, so I'm guessing you disagree with that order of priority?

[golf charlie]

TinyCO2 curious that Eli should bring up money and Africa when so much aid money has already been used to lobby policy makers to stop aid for Africa and other areas of the world.

It was lucky that Eli was present to remind everybody, just how spiteful Green lobbyists are.

Where would undernourished Africans be if development aid had not been blocked by the Green Lobby?

[diogenes]

I found an Amazin review of Gardiner's Halpern-approved opus. It is a very succint
demolition job, worth quoting:

Gardiner rides a very high moral horse, but if the basic science is mistaken, he will look very silly indeed. One would have thought there are many more ethical issues in the world today without raising questionable topics like climate change. Perhaps Gardiner should examine war and terrorism first, an area where his own country, the USA, has a rather disreputable record in using torture against innocent people, and conducting wars against nations with criminal effects, as in Iraq and Afghanistan. To that problem one should add the corruption of the political system, corruption in the western banking system, the widespread poverty in the undeveloped world and the immoral attempts by western nations to stultify economic progress by unilaterally trying to foist carbon taxes on them (as the EU are trying at this moment in aviation). China and India in particular are pulling themselves out of poverty by their own efforts and with precious little help from the west, using cheap energy generated from abundant coal, attempts which the west is trying to inhibit by such iniquitous taxes: neo-colonialism or what? Gardiner should read Sextus Empiricus for its sceptical philosophy, and adopt a much more humble tone before he lectures the rest of us."

[Onbyaccident]

@ diogenes

I have no particular views on Gardiner at all (not read much of his stuff) but you pick this one random review off a sales website - why has this any relevance over any other review/blog?

[diogenes]

Onby

The answer is quite simple. Amazon is quite a widely-used website, you might even have heard of it or even used it yourself. This rather obscure philospher's book has received 2 reviews. One is of the kind that alarmists can draft at will to cover any situation. You find such outpourings all the time BTL at the Guardian and elsewhere. The other review showed knowledge of the book and dissected its line oif reasoning with great precision. I decided to go with that one. A google search shows that Gardiner's musings - it seems unkind to call them thought - have been discussed in other online forums, but most respondents appear to have swallowed the Halpernian kool-aid and hence can be ignored.

[Eli Rabett]

Ah, diogenes goes nut picking on amazon.co.uk and finds one, Now, some, not Eli to be sure, might drill down into the 15 comments about that review of Gardiner's Perfect Moral Storm, and find the review of the review which pretty much covers the typicall Bishop Hill fan fest

The summary of the field of climate science given by this reviewer is grossly missleading.

The tendentious verbage shows prior political beliefs and their is little evidence of engagement with the text.

I do not find this to be a useful review.

OTOH, you could mosey over to amazon. com and read the seven reviews there including this one

If there is a more important book on Amazon I don't know of it. Gardiner explains why we are doing so little about a potential climate change catastrophe, when 1% of global GDP could fix it (`so little we would hardly notice it'). The book, even by academic standards is rigorous, meticulous and exceedingly fair-minded but he suggests useful `skips' for the less technically minded. You don't need to be a moral philosopher to understand it.

He very swiftly summarises the scientific consensus - CO2 emissions are up 30% since 1990 and still rising, and we need a cut of 50% to 80% by 2050.

Until very recently average global temperatures have been constant, plus or minus half a degree, for 10,000 years. Depending in part on future emissions, global temperatures will rise this century by between 1.1 C and 6.4 C. There was a 5 C increase between the ice age and now. We are in danger of creating a different planet.

He uses the metaphor of a Perfect Moral Storm to explain why we seem paralysed in the headlights of this possible catastrophe. He argues there are three mutually reinforcing `moral storms'.

The Intergenerational Storm - in the face of conflicts of interest, we usually debate and compromise. But future generations can't talk. They are either not born yet, or are too young to defend themselves against our self-interest. No institution or individual represents future generations in climate talks for example, and governments have short time scales of a few decades at most. So each generation passes the problem on, in a more severe form, and with less time to deal with it.

The Global Storm - we aren't good at global governance, or at enforcing the few agreements we do make. The rich countries have released the CO2, but the poor countries will suffer most from a failure to deal with it.

The Theoretical Storm - We are not good at understanding scientific predictions, nor with risks and uncertainty. The decision making tool Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) often suggests we adapt to warming rather than try to stop it and using technological fixes. But CBA is useless for long term issues: experts differ by factors of 1000, and can conjure up constants for their equations to support whatever case they want to make. Technical fixes advocated by Bjorn Lomborg and others are often `shadow solutions' that do not survive Gardiner's withering analysis.

The combined effect of these three storms leads us into self-deception, moral corruption, and inaction. But if we understand these storms, and face up to their moral challenge, we can better avoid catastophic climate change. This is a stunning and vital book.</blockquote

[Eli Rabett]

The rather obscure philosopher, are there any other types, Stephen M. Gardiner, is holder of an endowed and named chair at the University of Washington, a rather small quaint school in the almost as wet as England state of Western Washington in the city of Seattle, which is, some say, rather well known in the area of Earth and Atmospheric Science.

Gardiner does well in the citation league.</a.

Now some, not Eli to be sure, might as why diogenes engages in obscuratism, but then again, Eli reads comments at Bishop Hill

[michael hart]

"..which is, some say, rather well known in the area of Earth and Atmospheric Science."

I used to walk past it every day into the adjacent building. Around the turn of the century they had a big poster hanging outside simply proclaiming "The coast is toast". It's still there. The coast, that is. At the time I wondered if they were predicting the imminent explosion of Mount Rainier.

Meanwhile the clearly less alarmed oceanographers constructed a new departmental building down on the waterfront.

[Eli Rabett]

Toasty nuff yet?