Here's an uninformed article on EV's. Not one mention of Tesla or solar generated power for charging. Mainstream America just doesn't get it.
Author Bjorn Lomborg discredited liar.
After the release of Lomborg's "deeply flawed" book The Skeptical Environmentalist, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science remarked that Lomborg's work was a testament to the "vulnerability of the scientific process ... to outright misrepresentation and distortion." One researcher decided to fact-check Lomborg's claims and had so much material that Yale published it as a book: The Lomborg Deception. In the book, Lomborg's many sloppy citations and misleading myths are thoroughly debunked, but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same general arguments in years since. When it comes to climate, he insists over and over: Don't worry; be deceived.
In this major assessment of leading climate-change skeptic Bjørn Lomborg, Howard Friel meticulously deconstructs the Danish statistician’s claim that global warming is “no catastrophe” by exposing the systematic misrepresentations and partial accounting that are at the core of climate skepticism. His detailed analysis serves not only as a guide to reading the global warming skeptics, but also as a model for assessing the state of climate science. With attention to the complexities of climate-related phenomena across a range of areas—from Arctic sea ice to the Antarctic ice sheet—The Lomborg Deception also offers readers an enlightening review of some of today’s most urgent climate concerns.
Friel’s book is the first to respond directly to Lomborg’s controversial research as published in The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001) and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2007). His close reading of Lomborg’s textual claims and supporting footnotes reveals a lengthy list of findings that will rock climate skeptics and their allies in the government and news media, demonstrating that the published peer-reviewed climate science, as assessed mainly by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has had it mostly right—even if somewhat conservatively right—all along. Friel’s able defense of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth against Lomborg’s repeated attacks is by itself worth an attentive reading.
Combating "climate change" is about as stupid a misuse and squandering of financial and scientific resources as can be imagined. Lomberg has it right.
Once again Brian has shown the real reason he loiters and infects this site. Too agree with and expand misinformation.
@ Tom P. (February 19, 2015)
<< Here's an uninformed article on EV's. Not one mention of Tesla .... >>
Well, Tesla is, in fact, mentioned from the outset, in the 4th paragraph.
What matters though is that neither global warming, nor tailpipe emission, nor the idiotic attribution of responsibility for the death of millions is relevant to BEV-ICEV comparisons. It is sufficient to note the waste of energy implied by burning gasoline in ICE's for propulsive purposes.
Indeed, refining crude oil in order to produce one gallon of gasoline consumes between 4 and 7.5 kWh, never mind the energy used to extract and transport the oil, and the tailpipe emissions.
An average EV can go some 16 miles on 4 kWh and 20 miles on 7.5 kWh.
It clearly makes more sense to use the energy directly for propulsion, rather than waste it first by producing the fuel to burn in an ICE in order to produce the same amount of propulsive energy.
@ Dwdnjck@ca (February 19, 2015)
<< Once again Brian has shown the real reason he loiters and infects this site. Too agree with and expand misinformation. >>
You seem to be ready to reach out and behead someone. They have job offers for your ilk. They spread the right info as well, straight from God.
Have you applied yet?
SamO, you really should note when your entire post consists of a cut-and-paste. But be that as it may...
I read the cited article, and then I read the "Life Cycle Air Quality Impacts of Conventional and Alternative Light Duty Transportation in the United States", in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that Lomborg cites in turn.
Here's the summary of the findings of that article:
Our assessment of the life cycle air quality impacts on human health of 10 alternatives to conventional gasoline vehicles finds that electric vehicles (EVs) powered by electricity from natural gas or wind, water, or solar power are best for im- proving air quality, whereas vehicles powered by corn ethanol and EVs powered by coal are the worst.
So the climate benefit of a BEV largely depends on where you get your power. This is hardly controversial; heck, the Tesla presentation I attended in Eugene, Oregon before buying my car made the same point, noting that owners in West Virginia wouldn't be doing much to help the climate with their cars.
And no, PV panels on your roof don't help. It's not as if the power company has a giant dial controlling output that they turn down just a little bit when you get them installed. Even Solar City (the last time I got an estimate, anyway) doesn't say a word about environmental advantages of PV-- it's all about cost and home value.
Lomborg's article is full of clickable links for almost every fact he argues. The claim that 25 years from now we'll only increase renewable energy's share of the market by 3%? Check, by administration figures. Ditto his assertions on the cost of carbon, et cetera.
Yeah, adding the Mod S does change his figures a bit-- I leave the math as an exercise for the motivated. However, I see no error in the calculations he's cited.
(Personally, I don't care: I love my Mod S for the driving experience.)
World daily consumption of crude oil is about 90 million barrels per day. How can burning the
Majority of that not have an impact on the environment?
I don't need to do original research on the TM boards to refute someone in the employ of big carbon.
Everything written by Lomborg is intended to obfuscate the real nature of the threat unfettered release of carbon.
The rest is window dressing for the rubes.
As @Remnant above wrote "refining crude oil in order to produce one gallon of gasoline consumes between 4 and 7.5 kWh"
That means you and I can drive between 12 and 25 miles on the energy needed to refine a single gallon of gas.
What else is there left?
Lomborg gets battery life WRONG. 50,000 miles? I have that already on my Model S60 and I've lost less than 5% range.
Each supposition is piled on another. Each wrong if you don't know any better, but clearly disconnected from reality of owning the Model S.
Solar will never work until battery backups are common.
Anyone know of a company using just such a system?
*cough* SOLAR CITY *cough* TESLA MOTORS *cough*
Dramsey quoted Lomberg quoting Chris Tessum's paper "Life Cycle Air Quality Impacts of Conventional and Alternative Light Duty Transportation in the United States":
" vehicles powered by corn ethanol and EVs powered by coal are the worst."
I read through a large portion (but not all) of the paper when it came out.
The key take aways are
1) This is about death directly connected to what comes out of coal mining and power generation, vs death connected to what comes out of US drilling/refining oil and using in a car.
2) It only counts the pollutants created inside the USA, drilling for oil outside the US counts as nothing, because the particulate matter that causes near-term health problems isn't significant over long distances.
3) It uses future standards of filters on diesel cars etc, but current standards of filters on coal power.
4) errors in longevity of battery pack, recycling etc.
5) The energy used to refine gasoline is ignored entirely. (Besides not mentioning it anywhere, another indicator of this is that if it did then a gasoline car would have to show at least half the pollutants of an EV, based on at least half the energy use).
Mostly the article is about the little particles of carcinogenic crap (not the technical term!) that burning and mining coal puts into our air, that we breath every day especially if living near a coal power plant. Modern ICE cars don't put out much of that microscopic soot.
Basically the whole paper should have a clear opening proviso saying
"If long term man made climate change is not real, then the short term deaths caused by pollution from coal should be our focus!". Coal pollution is important, and if it stepped out of the AGW debate at the onset then the report would be much more realistically impactful - because it shows some real problems! - instead it's become mixed in with AGW arguments and then argued about.
I don't need to do original research on the TM boards to refute someone in the employ of big carbon.
Who? Lomborg? Why do you say he's "in the employ of big carbon"? As far as I can determine (i.e. a 5 minute Google search), they don't even give him or his think tank any money. Is this one of those conspiracy theory things?
Lomborg gets battery life WRONG. 50,000 miles? I have that already on my Model S60 and I've lost less than 5% range.
Lomborg never mentioned battery life in his article. Not once. So it seems odd to claim he got battery life wrong. And while you have a good point re the amount of energy to refine a gallon of gas (but note that that energy also produces other petroleum products), Lomborg also made no claims about energy efficiency in the article.
Solar will never work until battery backups are common.
Depends on what you mean by "works", I guess. If you mean "going off-grid", I'd agree. But it's going to be a LONG time before such systems are "common".
Am I cknfusing the battery life comment from something else? If so my apologies, I'll do a search.
Wow, are people really still having this debate? I don't much care to engage in it these days. Too busy enjoying my Tesla, which is powered by the 100% wind energy I have been on for the past eight years.
The Lomborg article just indicates that the environment is not the number one reason for owning an electric car. I have an MS60 because it is the most incredible motor vehicle I've owned in my life.
@rmitchell108 ... that's definitely the message Tesla wants to send.
It goes without saying that you should really read more carefully (from the original article) . . .
"Moreover, because the Nissan gives you only 84 miles on a charge, most people buy it as a second car for shorter trips. If such a second car goes only 50,000 miles, it will actually end up emitting more CO2."
And his "think tank" the Copenhagen Consensus Center has deep roots (including funding) from the conservative movement.
SamO, I'm not sure how to reply. But I'll try. You say I should "read more carefully" and then reprint a statement that says nothing whatsoever about battery life. Specifically:
If such a second car goes only 50,000 miles, it will actually end up emitting more CO2.
You're inferring that Lomborg is saying that the car's battery life is 50K miles. But that's not what he said. He's saying that in some cases the car might only rack up 50K during its service life, presumably before being sold or junked. I think this would be an outlier (which is why he used the word "if") but since Nissan themselves only warrant the battery pack for 60K miles, it doesn't seem outside the range of possibility.
Yeah, conservatives, right? We're all shat directly from Satan's asshole. But you didn't say Lomborg was receiving "funding...from the conservative movement", you said that he was in the "employ of big carbon". However, you've offered zero evidence to support this contention; in other words, you made it up. I know a lot of progressives go in for zero-evidence ad hominem attacks but I expect better from my fellow Mod S owners, whatever their political leanings may be.
Let me clue you in how to respond. Apologize for being wrong. That's how to start.
You wrote "Lomborg never mentioned battery life in his article. Not once. So it seems odd to claim he got battery life wrong."
Of course he got it wrong. And you got it wrong again trying to hide what he wrote. The conservative mind at work.
You also wrote "Yeah, conservatives, right? We're all shat directly from Satan's asshole. But you didn't say Lomborg was receiving "funding...from the conservative movement", you said that he was in the "employ of big carbon". However, you've offered zero evidence to support this contention; in other words, you made it up. I know a lot of progressives go in for zero-evidence ad hominem attacks but I expect better from my fellow Mod S owners, whatever their political leanings may be"
It makes sense you didn't actually read the link to what I wrote. Conservatives are not "from Satan's Asshole" but they have been in the employ of big carbon for a long time. It's not a slur to point out that CONSERVATIVES have been really bad at understanding science when it comes to climate.
But allow me to quote from the linked article you must have only "skimmed".
The only income for the CCC in its first year in the US came in the form of a $120,000 grant from the New York-based Randolph Foundation.
The foundation, seeded by money from the Richardson family’s sale of the Vick Chemical Company in 1985, gave CCC another $50,000 in 2012.
The main trustee at Randolph is Heather Higgins, the president and CEO of Independent Women’s Voice and the chairman of its sister organisation Independent Women’s Forum. Higgins is the daughter of R. Randolph Richardson, a member of the family that sold Vick Chemical Company to Procter & Gamble for $1.2 billion.
Staff writers of both organisations regularly express scepticism about the science of human-caused climate change and cite Lomborg’s views approvingly.
A recent article from IWF senior fellow Vicki Alger claimed “a majority of scientists believe that global warming is largely nature-made” — ignoring several studies that show the vast majority of research from scientists studying climate change believe exactly the opposite.
IWF funders include the Claude R. Lambe Foundation, controlled by Charles Koch, and Donors Trust, a fund for conservative philanthropists that has pushed millions into organisations promoting climate science denial and fighting laws to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Higgins is also board member at the Philanthropy Roundtable, another route for conservative philanthropy which shares two members of personnel with Donors Trust or its partner organisation Donors Capital Fund.
Also on the board of trustees at Randolph is Polly Freiss, the daughter-in-law of conservative Christian businessman Foster Freiss.
Foster Freiss put more than $2 million into Republican Senator Rick Santorum’s 2012 run for his party’s nomination for the presidency. Freiss also bankrolled conservative news outlet The Daily Caller, which regularly publishes articles supporting the views of climate science denialists.
On his personal web page, Freiss promotes climate science denial sources including Climate Depot and The Heartland Institute. Friess’s website has also promoted Lomborg’s views.
The tax records of the Kansas-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation indicate it has given the CCC two $150,000 grants — one in 2011 and another in 2012.
The foundation is the legacy of pharmaceutical entrepreneur Ewing Kauffman and currently holds $1.89 billion in assets.
DeSmog’s analysis of the tax records of not-for-profit groups and foundations donating to CCC accounts for only $520,000 of the total $4.3 million income of the CCC since it was launched in the US. The center’s new website makes no mention of its funding.
When so little is known about the funding for CCC, it is hard for anyone to know if Lomborg’s hope to find “unassailable” donors has come true.
So in case you can't follow the ball:
Kochs fund IWF
IWF funds Lomborg
Everyone pretends what the Kochs have nothing to do with Lomborg.
Randolph funds Lomborg.
Randolph and Kochs run/fund IWF
Corporations are people my friend, thus no hanky panky and clearly no impropriety.
@ SamO | February 20, 2015
Corporations are people my friend
Corporations are created by people filing bureaucratic forms with state government officials.
I thought there was a scientific consensus that you and I were NOT created by some such bureaucratic mumbo jumbo.
Of course, to the radical SCOTUS, bureaucratic stuff is equivalent to human procreation whenever that suits their purposes.
As mentioned in my post of yesterday, the use of gasoline is both wasteful and unnecessary, because the energy required to produce a certain amount of gasoline to power an ICEV can be used to drive a BEV for roughly the same distance. This is a cool fact, not speculation on thousand year models of global temperatures.
It would of course be relevant to have a conversation about generating electricity by capturing renewable energy, but the infestation of this thread with AGW issues is as wasteful and unnecessary as the ICEV use of gasoline, as well as disrespectful of the other participants, especially in view of the existence of other Tesla Forum threads that have been dealing with AGW in the most repetitive and nerve-wrecking mutual disdain and with unjustified claims of absolute knowledge.
Please, pro & con AGW addicts, move your wares to the the AGW threads and leave us alone here. Thank you.
It's interesting how we can both read the same article and come to such stunningly different conclusions.
Moreover, because the Nissan gives you only 84 miles on a charge, most people buy it as a second car for shorter trips. If such a second car goes only 50,000 miles, it will actually end up emitting more CO2.
You think Lomborg is OBVIOUSLY saying that the battery will only last 50K miles. To me, he's saying that if the car is only used for in-city transport and wounds up being sold or scrapped after only 50K miles. I would point out, again, that he doesn't mention battery life anywhere in the article. I think you're assuming that this is what he means because that would make him look like an idiot.
It's not a slur to point out that CONSERVATIVES have been really bad at understanding science when it comes to climate.
So? And liberals are really bad at understanding science when it comes to GMOs and vaccines.
And yet oddly enough, I don't assume every liberal i meet is an idiot who doesn't understand basic science. I guess I'm just exceptionally tolerant.
Nope. Read the whole thing. Then read your reposting of it. And still, there's not a single thing there that indicates that Lomborg is "in the employ of Big Carbon". Your reasoning here seems to be that the Koch Brothers contributed money to someone who then in term funded Lomborg. And since the Kochs have investments in oil companies, taking money from someone who they invested in is precisely the same as being on the payroll at Exxon-Mobil.
I suppose I could screen "George Soros! Tom Steyer!" as my response to liberal arguments, but I prefer to deal with the facts. You seem so consumed with antipathy towards CONSERVATIVES that you're literally unaware that you're making stuff up, and seem surprised when this is pointed out. Since rational argument doesn't seem to be an option here, I shall just bow out.
You may have the last word.
Remnant, I totally agree with you, I have only been on this forum for a few days and all this talk about the weather is tedious. We can't accurately predict what the weather will be next week but they want us to believe they can predict what will happen 50 years from now. I want the Tesla because it is the coolest car on the planet. I know it won't save be any money and anyone that thinks paying over a $100,000 for a car will save them money is nuts. I would love to own one just to be able to see the look on the face of a owner of a muscle car when I smoke him at a traffic light. The only thing that concerns me is the fact that people are beginning to learn that this car is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Someone already stated this much better than I could, and that that this car can be sold on it's own merits without bringing greenness into it. A lot of people that classify themselves as conservatives will not buy this car if it becomes classified mainly a green car. All this talk about how green it is will turn people off and probably cost sales. Having discussions about the weather makes as much sense as going on a gun forum devoted to self defense and bringing up what bullet is least harmful to the environment
Um, well, not really. No. Refining gasoline is really, really necessary, unless you're a big fan of the collapse of Western civilization.
That's not to say we should be working to transition away from ICE vehicles. But you're assuming that the 4 to 7.5kW used to refine a gallon of gasoline is in the form of electricity that could be directly used to charge a BEV.
That's not necessarily the case. "Watts" is a measure of work, not just electrical energy. Specifically, it's one newton-meter per second.
Now, I don't know anything about how energy is used in oil refining. But I'd guess a lot of it is produced by burning petroleum in some way. Even if it's all electric, it's likely the electricity used is produced by burning petroleum.
And of course gasoline is a much better storage and transport medium for every than are batteries, so there are advantages there as well.
So while recognizing the BEVs are overall better, it's still probably best not to make absolutist statements like this.
I have only been on this forum for a few days and all this talk about the weather is tedious.
It's how we amuse ourselves. We all agree the Mod S is God's own chariot delivered to us mortals; and almost nothing ever goes wrong with the car, so there's little to discuss there.
But we can always argue about climate change, green energy, and so forth. There's no nuance here, for that would be tedious. Instead on one side we have people like me, who consider AGW to be largely unproven and its proponents prone to hysteria. Call us the "Coal Rollers".
On the other side are those who believe that people like me should be killed in a ritual fashion and our entrails used to fertilize organize farms. Call them "Gaia's Children".
There are others: the Perpetual Motion Misfits and the Teleportation Is Possible If Only We Wish Hard Enough whackos, for example. Dive right in! You'll get used to the water quickly.
@ragtopday wrote "Remnant, I totally agree with you, I have only been on this forum for a few days and all this talk about the weather is tedious. We can't accurately predict what the weather will be next week but they want us to believe they can predict what will happen 50 years from now.”
This kinda gave me a laugh. You can’t ask people to stop talking about AGW while at the same time giving your side and an argument. If you want it to stop then it starts while you’re typing - with the one concession I personally believe in of “lets go to X thread (link)”.
@Remnant wrote: "the use of gasoline is both wasteful and unnecessary, because the energy required to produce a certain amount of gasoline to power an ICEV can be used to drive a BEV for roughly the same distance. This is a cool fact, not speculation on thousand year models of global temperatures.”
It’s a fact that the Model S uses less electricity than the electricity used to refine the petrol in my 5 yo Subaru station wagon. But the latest cars are getting some great fuel efficiencies, so I think it’s okay in a good argument to say it uses “half”.
The graphs in the recent research put petrol cars at much less than half as bad as the EV, which is why I looked for a reference to electricity used in refining (and it’s not there).
@Dramsey wrote: ”I'd guess a lot of it is produced by burning petroleum in some way. Even if it's all electric, it's likely the electricity used is produced by burning petroleum.”
Yes, the 4-7.5kW is often produced by petrol generators. They refine their gasoline then use the refined gasoline to generate power to refine more gasoline. Obviously it must work out cheaper (“wholesale”) than buying the electricity from the coal generators, but it raises the question of why we don’t use gasoline generators widely for power, and I don’t know the reasons..
@Remnant continued: "Please, pro & con AGW addicts, move your wares to the the AGW threads and leave us alone here. Thank you.”
I agree, but obviously the article brings up these things with people in our collective mindset. I WOULD rather leave the argument over AGW aside and move that to the other thread, but this thread still should discuss how it relates to AGW.
Deaths from pollution ARE much worse from coal power plants than petrol cars.
I don’t mind the underlying research giving data that doesn’t factor in CO2 and AGW - what I don’t like is that it doesn’t say that explicitly in the opening, and how it’s thus misleading.
AGW is simply not part of the calculation here, this is death from pollution. People don’t die from tiny rises in CO2 - there’s no argument about that … though AGW and indirect death from AGW is a related issue.
@Dramsey wrote: "But we can always argue about climate change, green energy, and so forth. There's no nuance here, for that would be tedious. “
True, but for me the AGW argument is a back and forth that could go on for years between us. So I don’t like it creeping into multiple threads which sometimes loses the thread itself.
What my logic tells me is that we are responsible for global warming, although we are not bringing it on. We are just increasing the speed of the cycle. The earth goes through natural cycles of heating and cooling. Hence, the ice age, and the big melt down (which did not only happen once but repeatedly over millions of years.)
A few people buying electric cars will not really make a difference, but even if we say that global warming is a myth, which is not the case, there are many pollutants in the are that are bad for anything that needs to breathe air. It is great not to have to breathe in exhaust fumes in the morning. Not burning fossil fuels will not stop global warming. It is a natural cycle, but perhaps fewer emissions will slow the process down a little.
Dramsey, I did try to lighten things up by describing a Perpetual Motion machine in a thread I stared. I assume one person thought I was serious because they gave me a serious answer and told me that you can not tow a Tesla (I guess that with all the people coming up with crazy ideas such as putting a wind turbine in the grill to generate electricity my insane suggestion to tow one Tesla behind the other to charge it does not seem all that crazy when you compare it to other threads. Unfortunately when I tried to inject a little humor I got this response "Another idiot topic that was posted".
The car is great, I want one because I want the coolest car on the planet, I do not care about it saving mosey on gas because I am retired and only drive a few thousand miles a year, I don't care about tax credits because my retirement income income is not high enough for me to be eligible
I believe that we all (or most of us) have one thing in common which is our love of the Tesla. It should not matter why we love this car, the important thing is that we do love it. I would suggest that we focus on how wonderful this car is instead of getting side tracked on talking discussing the weather.
It seems to me like a situation where you have people that survived a plane crash and are stranded in the desert and they wind up bickering over they should use a glass or a paper cup.
Here we go again...
@ Dramsey (February 20, 2015)
<< Refining gasoline is really, really necessary, unless you're a big fan of the collapse of Western civilization. >>
We cannot do truncated debates, Dramsey. Quoting, or responding, out of context is a classical fallacy.
Refining gasoline is necessary, IF we are bound to the survival needs of our current addiction to extracted oil, just like another dose of dope is "necessary" to the dope heads to avoid the pains and dangers of withdrawal.
But refining gasoline is unnecessary and wasteful, IF we have successfully designed and pursued an alternative, more economical, use of energy, such as to drive electrical motors, AND we have prudently phased out the gasoline addiction of the morons who couldn't figure out their predicament.
So, it very much looks like you have outsmarted yourself by trying to defend a losing position in the debate ICEV v. BEV.
.... I thought "Refining gasoline is really, really necessary" was a very strange and irrelevant thing to say.
Blimey! Am I glad I don't live in the US where I might get to bump into some of the above dickheads at a supercharger.
But for those more temperate souls that might be interested in a thoughtful piece by a UK EV-angelist, try this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQpX-9OyEr4
@ Dramsey | February 20, 2015
We all agree the Mod S is God's own chariot delivered to us mortals
Sorry, but no: We don't all agree on anything.
I suppose it would look like that, had I ever said a thing about ICEV v. BEV. You'd think that fact that I'm a Mod S owner would clarify my position in that debate. Apparently not.
See, here's what frustrates me: Lomborgh writes an article saying that the environmental benefits of BEVs aren't as great as some claim. He backs up this assertion with dozens of links citing original research and claims, some from governmental organizations.
Rather than arguing his claims on the merits, people lie about what he said, and attribute to him dark (and unproven) fiscal relationships with Big Oil. He's a liar, they scream: anything he says is false, and we don't have to listen to him.
Hey, I can relate. if a politician said that water was wet, I wouldn't believe him.
But that's political stuff. I'd like to think that here on the forums, we're rational, and can argue positions based on their merits. And I'd like to think that we could maintain a respectful attitude when doing so-- well, except for the perpetual motion/teleportation folks, who deserve all the opprobrium we can heap upon their tiny heads.
Lomberg was the Greenie GAIA hero till he crunched the numbers. Same conclusion as the Google engineers were forced to accept. 1 + 1 ≠ 3.
@Dramsey wrote "See, here's what frustrates me: Lomborgh writes an article saying that the environmental benefits of BEVs aren't as great as some claim. He backs up this assertion with dozens of links citing original research and claims, some from governmental organizations."
Can I check if you disagree with me...?
Tessum's research wasn't about environmental benefits at all, it was about death by pollution. This seems to be the main research Lomberg cites. CO2 isn't pollution and doesn't cause death, but it is a greenhouse gas - meaning that if AGW doesn't exist, the CO2 output doesn't matter, but if it does then it does matter.
That temporarily side steps the other problems of arguing whether the research missed things. Just want to check if you disagree, and if so find out what you base that on.
Lomberg avers that there are actual useful things to address that will save lives. Demonizing and focussing in CO2 diverts resources and attention from real issues that can actually be addressed. This diversion means pointless energy cost increases worldwide -- a reduction of living standards in the developed world, and widespread mortality in the developing. (Greens applaud both, and have said so in print, often.)
And US and EU "carbon reductions" are a sneeze in a hurricane compared to Chinese and Indian growth. (And neither reductions or increases have any perceptible climate effect.) The winners are the rent-seekers; the losers are energy users world-wide.
@BrianH, hmmm, I thought you were answering my question to DRamsey, but I think you might have skipped that?
Most of your answer directly goes into a debate about AGW ("Pointless", "useful", "Demonizing" etc etc, it's definitely an emotional subject). But the research supporting Lomberg's argument isn't AGW research, it's Tessum's "death by pollution" research pulled into the AGW argument.
Does Lomberg cite AGW research or is it mostly Tessum's coal vs gasoline death research?
Just doing some quick rereading. In my mind I've oversimplified Tessum's report when I tried to get down to the nuts and bolts of what the report found. While its big claims are on the Coal pollution side, it does talk about CO2 too. It just sort of merges and swings between them in a way that doesn't help make clear what it's actually saying.
Apologies for my mistake.
I find myself (again) agreeing with most of what's written because it's true, but it only tells selected parts of the story. An easy example is even raising the concept that some cars will only be driven 50,000 miles in their lifetime. (My agreement, however, is that one of our cars only gets refilled every month now - and it's better to keep a petrol car for such a low-ranger).
Much pollution reduction is tail chasing anyhow. Those near coal plants, or downwind, have no measurable Hg contamination. Those in line of onshore sea breezes do, and those in arid areas with local sources of mineral dust. No elevation of related deaths can be detected. Invalid linear extrapolations by epidemiologists are flaunted as "evidence" against coal, though.
Burning wood chips and other biofuels is far worse; their generation and production and delivery uses as much fossil fuel as they "replace", and then their own combustion emissions are added on! Double jeopardy.
"Kochs fund IWF
IWF funds Lomborg"
mitchell108 would say people will get the results the people who pay them want.
So the governments get the "hobgoblin" results they want.
One midwest gov't offered a ~$50,000 grant for a study to quantify natural influences on climate and temperature. Many were interested, but didn't dare apply because they knew they would be ostracized and lose their jobs, just for being associated with such heresy. The grant was cancelled; no takers.
Observe the power of group-think.
Makes no sense Brian. Quantifying the natural influences is valuable regardless of stance.
True, but no one dared the petty wrath of the Believers who feared revelation that the Null Hypothesis (only natural variation is involved) is true, or cannot be falsified/disproven, as is necessary before even hypothesizing other influences.
Another instance: Lennart Bengtsson, retired Swedish professor with hundreds of published papers, several in submission and review now, volunteered to consult and sit on the advisory board with sceptic non-profit GWPF to facilitate dialogue. He was flooded with threats, and co-authors withdrew.http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. – Lennart Bengtsson
It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.
The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.
Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson. His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.
Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
The text of Bengtsson’s resignation letter:
Dear Professor Henderson,
I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.
I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.
With my best regards
AGW Believers are vicious idiots from Lord of the Flies, apparently.
Of the 7.5 billion people on Earth, perhaps 4.5 billion of them are female. Of those, if I'm lucky, one of them might be the perfect person for me to share the rest of my life. From a skeptical point of view, odds of 1:4,500,000,000 is statistically so close to zero percentage as to be considered nonexistent.
In a world where Tesla Motors might build as many as 700,000 vehicles during 2020, when perhaps 100,000,000 vehicles are sold worldwide, that 0.7% potential market share stands as a resounding beacon to EV Naysayers who retort that it does nothing, saves no one, serves no purpose, and isn't worth the effort to build electric cars.
When I listen to Sade, I believe in love.
When I listen to Elon Musk, I believe in the future of electric transportation.
Naysayers and 'The Odds' be damned.