Bjorn Lomborg

Climate Progress' Resident Hysteric Attacks Lomborg Study of the Inefficacy of Paris Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pledges

Cites MIT "expert" who has apparently not read the work of his colleagues who agree with Lomborg



Climate Progress' resident climate hysteric, Joe Romm*, has predictably enough cobbled together an attack on the new study by Bjorn Lomborg, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. In his peer-reviewed study published in the journal Global Policy, Lomborg adds up all of the pledges to rein in greenhouse gas emissions made by the world's nations in advance of the big Paris climate change conference that convenes later this month. As I reported earlier today, Lomborg finds that if the Paris pledges are faithfully sustained for the rest of the century, they would reduce future man-made global warming by about -0.17 degrees Celsius below what they would otherwise have been.

Romm does a lot hand-waving in an effort to suggest mendacity by Lomborg (and, of course adds a ritual denunciation of the Kochs), but a fair reading of Lomborg's article would find no dishonesty. It is possible to disagree with some his assumptions, but Lomborg is not hiding anything.

In any case, Romm particularly cites John Sterman, Professor at MIT's Sloan School of Management and Director of MIT's System Dynamics Group as a Lomborg critic. Sterman told Climate Progress:

Dr. Lomborg sets out to show that the INDCs are useless. To do so he grossly misrepresents the pledges. He constructs an incomplete accounting of the pledges that omits the pledges of many nations, ignores China's pledge to cap its emissions by 2030, and assumes that the [European Union countries] abandon their commitment to emissions reductions as soon as their pledges are fulfilled."

Grossly misrepresents? Perhaps Professor Sterman should take a look at the 2015 Energy and Climate Outlook Report by his academic colleagues at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The folks at the Joint Program parse the pledges made by mid-August which include those by the U.S., China, and the E.U.—basically the major ones included in Lomborg's analysis. So what do they find? From the report:

Assuming the proposed cuts are extended through 2100 but not deepened further, they result in about 0.2°C less warming by the end of the century compared with our estimates, under similar assumptions, for Copenhagen–Cancun. Other adjustments in our economic projections resulted in another 0.2°C reduction in warming…

As highlighted in the summary of major findings and Box 2, the additional mitigation by major emitting countries (based on the INDCs proposed ahead of the COP21) have lowered our estimate of future warming by about 0.2°C. Recalibration of the climate model and our economic model over the past year have had offsetting effects, with the climate recalibration adding 0.2°C by 2100, and the recalibration of the economic model lowering the 2100 temperature by the same amount. By accurately separating recalibration and the impacts of policy, we can see the contribution of additionalmeasures proposed in the INDCs, assuming those policies are implemented and maintained through the end of the century.

This basically the same thing that Lomborg did in his analysis. Lomborg found a reduction of -0.17 degrees Celsius and the MIT folks report a -0.2 degree reduction. I await Romm's denunciation of the "nonsense" being perpetrated by the "confusionists" at MIT's Joint Center.

*For background on Romm, go here.

NEXT: Mizzou Madness Continues, Trump Declares War on Starbucks, Another GOP Debate: P.M. Links

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. ROFL!!!!!!!!

    For the religious, the facts mean nothing!!!!!

    They only need their faith to sustain them.

  2. Jesus, did Reason just do a blog dump? Someone going on vacation?

    1. Clearing the decks for the debate coverage.

  3. and, of course adds a ritual denunciation of the Kochs

    Could someone on the left explain to me they this is done?

    Do people on the left really believe that everything that’s wrong in the world is due to the Kochs? Is there an equivalent on the GOP side of the aisle?

    1. *why* this is done?

      I mean, if I were going to complain about the weather, what would my ritual denunciation be?

    2. George Soros comes the closest to the Kochs.

      1. The funny thing is Soros actually does what the left accuses the Kochs of doing. He got rich in currency speculation for chrissakes.

        1. but he supports the Lightbringer and hates the Rs, so it’s all good.

        2. Yeah. He made money off the misery of nations.

          1. I don’t begrudge anyone making money from others’ misfortune. It’s not like he caused the nations misery. He just saw an opportunity and took it. If I were in his position, I would too.

      2. Do we bitch about Soros here though? Do we crowbar it into every statement about what’s wrong with the world?

        1. We’re too busy blaming all the world’s ills on Obama and Hillary.

          1. To be fair, Obama and Hillary have a measurable impact on domestic policy– at least until 2020. For instance, who here brings up that lying sonofabitch Johnson every other statement?

        2. A lot of conservaderps do though.

          1. Funny how I haven’t seen a Soros reference in quite some time but I see Koch references pretty much every time I cast my eyes on the internet or television.

            Shit, there was a Global warming special on Vice (like all the other global warming specials on Vice) and they’re talking about all the glaciers melting while the camera pans ominously over a Koch Industries sign.

            It’s like preachers talking about the devil. It’s everywhere.

            1. Well, it wouldn’t be much of a religion without its antichrist, would it?

            2. If the Koch brothers would just suddenly change their rhetoric, if they would come out tomorrow and say that global warming is the greatest threat in human history and they are going to get fully behind green technologies and abandon the oil industry, and start giving money to Democrats, the left would instantly hail them the greatest heroes of all time.

              It’s all about the team, gotta support the team.

        3. Do we crowbar it into every statement about what’s wrong with the world?

          In all fairness; the Soros/sorrows puns are all convoluted and depressing, while the Koch puns practically write themselves.

        4. No. Because we’re not insane.

          Classless. Yes. Immature. Sure. Vulgar. Guilty.

          But not insane.

          I think.

          1. I saw a post by Postrel somewhere last night, I can’t remember where it was. I started to reply to it with something really snarky, but then I thought it would just satisfy her smug air of righteousness about the commentariat here.

            1. She’s still taking shots at us?

              Someone needs a real job.

              1. Nah, she wasn’t actually taking a shot at us. She was making a lame attempt at some sarc of her own, but no one, including me, really got it. It was lame. Maybe that’s why she’s so mad, she actually wants to be like us, but she can’t.

    3. They do the same thing with the NRA “buying” gun policy. Or even when the Mormons bought the Gay marriage vote.

      There seems to be some cognitive dissonance where they can’t accept they are not “the people” fighting the man. It has to be some powerful shadowy figure.

      It appears it’s necessary for their psyche to reject the notion that lots of people think their ideas are stupid, and lots of them think they’re stupid for free.

    4. The Left complains about the Koch brothers for the same reason Bowser complains about the Mario brothers.


  4. Odd that Lomborg is saying all the stuff they’re pledging to do is still not nearly enough to make a dent in the problem – and the exact same people squawking that we aren’t doing nearly enough to even make a dent in the problem are calling him a big fat lying piece of shit.

    1. They believe in a ‘ratchet’ – have people do a little, then when that doesn’t work, demand they do more. Then when that doesn’t work, demand they do more, etc., etc., etc. His statement could undermine that process, as it might be seen as a call to abandon the process.

    2. By saying it won’t make a dent, it gives people the chance to say we are better off doing nothing than agreeing to higher taxes and energy prices. And if they said we need to do much more, people won’t be able to afford the higher taxes and energy prices and will say nothing should be done.

      1. That’s what scares them. It’s not much of an extrapolation to demonstrate that “doing nothing” is not much different than shutting down all human activity.

    3. He’s a Presbyterian in a Baptist church.

  5. Romm should change his first name to Ernst.

    1. All his shirts are brown.

    2. Dude, it’s R?hm.

  6. ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030

    China won’t come within 10,000 miles of capping its emissions by 2030. Or is it the pledge that counts?

    1. As long as we get our Warm Fuzzy Feels for Doing Something and have ample opportunity for virtue signalling in the future, isn’t that all that matters?

  7. He … ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030…

    You don’t say. Could that be because only a functional idiot actually believes China will keep this pledge?

      1. Paul – email me @

    1. If they got serious about fracking it wouldn’t be totally outrageous. China’s energy industry is SOE dominated and therefore suck.

      1. Special Operations Executive?

        1. Sony Online Entertainment

          but it’s now DGC dominated

      2. From what I’ve read, China has greater logistical problems regarding fracking than is the case in the United States.

        Fracking requires the use of a lot of water and in China there are not many sources of water in the places where the shale deposits suitable for fracking are.

  8. Oh, watched Dawn of the Planet of the Apes last night.

    So I guess after the apocalypse, wind and solar aren’t viable sources of energy. Who’da thunk?

    1. Well, duh. It’s not going to work with all those damn dirty apes hanging on the blades and flinging poop on the panels.

  9. This guy and those like him-‘mainstream’ climate agitators-are always spewing shit. Always. If they could make their point honestly, I am pretty sure they would. This more or less tells you all you need to know about them.

    1. Are you suggesting it’s dishonest to remind people Lomborg is a dirty Kochsucker while at the same time forgetting to remind people the people you’re touting as experts are funded by the green-friendly folks who made their money through Alcoa and Standard Oil?

      1. Who are they for Alcoa and Standard oil?

        1. Look at the funders of the climateinteractive site the guy cites – two Rockefeller funds, the Roy Hunt fund, a couple other billionaire charitable funds. Their billionaires are of course the good kind of billionaires and not the evil kind. (I assume billionaires have a switch built into their backs that can be flipped from ‘good’ to ‘evil’ and these ones have minders that make sure the switch stays flipped to the left.)

  10. “Lomborg found a reduction of -0.17 degrees Celsius and the MIT folks report a -0.2 degree reduction.”

    Does anyone else with experience in real-world temperature measurement think it weird that people are forecasting “the Earth’s temperature” decades ahead to an accuracy of .01C?

    1. They have very sophisticated computer models that can gauge atmospheric temperature more accurately than any mere measurement can ever hope to do.

      1. Not with the Kochs interfering with actual measurement using their deadly mind rays.

      2. Does the computer model speak with a sophisticated British accent while sporting a monocle?

        1. No no, British accent means high culture or Romans, or possibly Nazis. Science speaks with a Swiss accent.

          1. Sometimes when I am conjuring up a really sarcastic comment, I sometimes hear it in a British accent. I think I’m just conjuring up the good ol days when the Brits seemed to be the kings of snark, before they all turned into giant pussies.

            1. The interesting thing is that for the British speech is a very important social signal.

              I find it extremely funny that Americans think that all English accents are “posh”. Many of the actors that Americans find smart or classy are those who the English consider the dregs of their society.

              1. I had a British prof who was teaching one of my compsci classes. He was a database guy. He was a total sarcastic smartass and as non PC as you can imagine. He would say things like ‘The first mistake you stupid American made was to let women vote!’. He would say stuff like this all of the time, totally unapologetic about it. He was funny as hell too, we would all be laughing pretty much every class. He told us that he ran a data center in Liverpool and that back then for the nightly backup, you just needed someone to change the tapes. So they would get these drunks off the street and give them a bottle of liquor to change the tapes. Bloody tape monkeys! Good times.

          2. Or Imperial Officers in the Star Wars universe.

          3. “Science speaks with a Swiss accent.”

            Ja. Nat?rlich!

    2. Maybe you’re being a little harsh.

      They predicted rain here last weekend and it rained.

      So there’s that.

    3. I don’t find that part weird. They are merely estimating the relative effects of 2 future emissions scenarios.

      What I find weird is that anyone thinks the climate change which has been under discussion for the last several decades is a “problem” of any significance.

    4. No. Weird is not the word I would use.

  11. Now Jackass Ace has a sad.

    1. Oops, no. See my answer to Ronald below. It is he who engages in hysterics.

      1. Jackand Ace|11.10.15 @ 9:07PM|#
        “Oops, no. See my answer to Ronald below. It is he who engages in hysterics.”

        Oops, yes. Your ‘answer’ ignores the claims and amounts to cherry picking by a lefty ignoramus.

  12. Is this Copenhagen thing our last chance again? Just asking, I want to know how much booze to stock up on.

    1. Yes. I have it on good authority (NPR) that this one really is the last chance this time.

      1. Well, ok, time to close out my retirement account and buy booze and an apocalypse bunker to store it in. Thank god for the NPR.

  13. Perfidy, thy name is Podesta.

    He works for Hlilary , and Romm works for him.

  14. Who cares what Stanley Tucci thinks?

    1. I’m glad I scrolled down because I was going to say the same thing but worser.

  15. All scientists are part of a global conspiracy to enrich Al Gore. Let’s listen to nonscientist Bjorn Lomborg instead.

    1. Did you miss the part where scientists agree with Lomborg’s assessment? I understand though; this sort of reflexive defensiveness is common among religious zealots.

      1. tony is a scientist now? last time he said he was not.

        1. I suspect that Tony’s definition of ‘scientist’ excludes a lot of guys doing science, and includes a lot of guys that haven’t done science in a very long time, if ever.

          1. next you’ll say that the sexy lady who “blinded me with science” back in the 80s was not really a scientist

            1. honorary degree, so, *shrug*

          2. My brother is an EE PhD doing work with laser guidance systems – he thinks all this “scientific certainty” regarding global warming is a pretty good indication the science is shit because he has some grasp of just how freaking complicated systems can be and how tiny little changes in the input can have ginormous effects on the output. Since he is skeptical these people really know what the hell they’re talking about with any high degree of certainty, he is obviously not a scientist.

            1. Absolutely.

              I’m pretty sure that no one with actual knowledge of measurement considers that anything like daily temperature records averaged to the hundredth of a degree means anything except to indicate highly generalized trends.

              Which is exactly what the actual scientists working in the IPCC seem to have done. It is the staffers writing executive summaries of findings and the generally scientifically illiterate press that are giving all the alarmist projections.

            2. he is obviously not a scientist

              Right. He’s an engineer.

    2. The current U.S. carbon emissions levels are completely legal, so therefore they must be OK, since they are in compliance with laws written by democratically elected representatives, right?

    3. Re: Tony the Marxian,

      All scientists are part of a global conspiracy to enrich Al Gore.

      Not all. Actually, not that many. In reality, it is a lie that 97% of them agree with the assertion that humans are changing the climate.

      French Mathematicians Blast UN’s ‘Costly & Pointless Crusade’ Against Global Warming

      “There is not a single fact, figure?[or] observation that leads us to conclude the world’s climate is in any way ‘disturbed,” the paper states. “It is variable, as it has always been. ? Modern methods are far from being able to accurately measure the planet’s overall temperature even today, so measurements made 50 or 100 years ago are even less reliable.”

      Noting that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have “always” varied, the French mathematicians also said that after processing the raw data on hurricanes themselves, they verified that “they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.”

      Their full report here:….._24_EN.pdf

      1. That was my point here.

        The fact is that the general public has a lot more faith in “science” than actual scientists, engineers and technologists do themselves. Much of the the problem has to do with what we mean when we say “this is true”. Most of us with a modicum of a scientific education (researchers, engineers, technologists etc) mean “all our models indicate hat this is as close to the truth as we can get at this time.” And for thr most part this is what the members of the IPCC have said n their detailed reports. the problem is that the technical writing staffers, for the most part English majors with little training in either science or the precision of measurement take speculative statements as literal and start to extrapolate fanciful solutios to the crisis that they have inferred from those statements and then journalists with even less training in either science or the precision of measurement take those inferences as fact.

        Noting that concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) have “always” varied, the French mathematicians also said that after processing the raw data on hurricanes themselves, they verified that “they are no more frequent now than they have been in the past.

        This is probably why no authority on hurricanes will have anything to do with the IPCC.

        1. The fact is that the general public has a lot more faith in “science” than actual scientists…

          This is why shows about forensic “science”, (Bones my favorite dirty little pleasure, one of the most blatantly authoritarian shows on TV, next to NCIS another of my dirty little pleasures) for example, are so popular. They give the plebs moral certainty that there are “good guys” who against all odds are going to get the goods on the “bad guys.”

          Never mind that the “good guys” never know anything with the amount of certainty depicted, not that the “bad guys” are never so omnipotent as they are depicted as being. Also, apparently government agencies are always suffering from draconian budget cuts that require them to have bake sales to raise money, 🙂

    4. What scientist has proven or demonstrated that politicians can stabilize the global climate?

      1. Of course, none. But like I mentioned in another post, Marxians like Tony and Jackass Ass couldn’t care less about the viability of their solutions, only that Climate Change brings a great justification to leverage their ideology as a solution. Since socialism has proven time and time again not to bring the touted material benefit, now it is being peddled as a way to lower our impact on the planet. You know, by starving us.

        1. You’re too harsh. What do you expect talentless blowhards do to get an equal chance in life? They can’t do it through their talents, they have none. They can’t do it through hard work, they’re lazy.

          So basically all you are seeing here the natural struggle for survival. Some will choose the role of parasite, because it’s all they have.

          1. Oh, but they’re tolerant parasites and they’re concerned about the minorities who agree with them.

    5. Hey Tony, Bill Nye agrees with you. Did you hear about that? What do you think about Bill Nye?

    6. All scientists are part of a global conspiracy to enrich Al Gore.

      Well, Gore has made about $200 million from his climate crusade. Any of those dollars come from you?

  16. “ignores China’s pledge to cap its emissions by 2030

    The same china who has *no idea what its emissions levels are*?

    “getting a better grasp of the right numbers is particularly crucial in the case of China, which is widely assumed to be the world’s largest carbon emitter. China’s energy use is so great that even minute errors in data can translate into a difference of millions of tonnes of emissions.

    No one currently knows how many tonnes of carbon China emits each year. Its emissions are estimates based on how much raw energy is consumed, and calculations are derived from proxy data consisting mostly of energy consumption as well as industry, agriculture, land use changes and waste.

    Many outside observers view the accuracy of those figures with skepticism.

    “China’s contribution (to the global climate plan in Paris) is based on CO2 emissions but China doesn’t publish CO2 emissions,” said Glen Peters, senior researcher at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research ..experts say the statistical uncertainty is so great that forecasts on what that peak means can vary from 11 to 20 billion tonnes a year.

    That margin is greater than the entire annual carbon footprint of Europe””

    1. Yeah, the whole “this is mow many tons of carbon a nation of hundreds of millions emits” is bullshit.

      I agree that you can probably come up with a realistic minimum- ie, a “not less than”, but getting the actual amount is probably impossible. Then, once you add politics into the mix, you have so much double-counting, not to mention triple or quadruple counting– and then there are probably things that emit carbon that are never counted.

      The whole thing is assumptions built on guestimates, with averages being averaged and re-averaged.

      1. Garbage in, garbage published and treated as gospel.

    2. “That margin is greater than the entire annual carbon footprint of Europe”

      I think the phrase we’re looking for here is ’rounding error’.

  17. Climate Progress‘ Resident Hysteric Attacks Lomborg Study of the Inefficacy of Paris Greenhouse Gas Emissions Pledges

    Well, any person should quickly realize one is treading on shaky ground the moment the musings from a place called “Climate Progress” ?as absurd a name for an organization as would be ‘Solar Progress’ or ‘Gravity Progress’.

    1. ‘Gravity Progress’ aka Orbits and Stellar Evolution.

  18. Climate change guy looks angry. Why do all leftists look angry all of the time?

  19. Am I missing something or is 0.17?C really significant? I mean really, is it worth all this cost and strife to maybe reduce average temps by such a small, almost immeasurable amount? Does the grass really know the difference? Can I tell the difference? The answer to all of these is NO.

    These idiots don’t even understand that just because you can calculate a number to dozens of significant figures with a computer, doesn’t mean the precision is real. So the bermuda grass goes dormant 2 minutes sooner than the year before–what difference will that really make in the grand scheme? And this change is over a century!! Damn! Why should I take anything they say seriously?

    1. It’s insignificant, of course.

      Damn! Why should I take anything they say seriously?

      Well, you shouldn’t because they’re disingenuous opportunists. I don’t think I’ve ever seen any group of people ever lose the argument so badly and still keep on clinging to their failed ideas. Oh wait, somethings coming to me… oh yes, the leftists, that’s who are exactly like this, imagine that!

    2. Ron’s post from earlier this very day has Lomborg concluding that 0.17?C ain’t shit.

      1. Especially since the numbers represent averages of measurements that were not all that accurate to begin with, and have been taken at different locations than those originally taken, or have been taken at locations that have completely changed since the original readings were made (say rural locations are now urban etc).

        Of course, in a proper study these things are taken into account, and we supposedly have everyone’s assurance that that has happened here. The problem is that such adjustments are based on any number of assumptions and I’m afraid that for my part I’m not entirely certain that the people making those assumptions in this case are entirely disinterested in the finally outcome.

    3. “what difference will that really make…”

      Trigger warning please.

  20. Mandated flatulence suppressors – to rein in greenhouse gas emissions

    1. I will sell carbon-scrubbing undergarments to all!

    2. As much fun as it is for all the twelve year olds (of which I am one when occasion arises) it must be noted that it is not cow farts but cow burps that cause methane addition to the atmosphere.

      Methane is produced in the first stage of digestion by ruminants, a class of animals that includes cattle, deer, elk, moose etc as a result of the digestive process by which they convert cellulose into sugar (ie turning grass and leaves etc into carbohydrates). The first stage of this process takes place in the first stomach of the ruminant and the methane is expelled when the contents of that stomach is regurgitated for the next stage (chewing the cud). While cattle do indeed fart they do so at later stages in the digestive process and while these farts do contain some methane they don’t contain that much more than humans produce.

      Contrary to “natural” food types, fattening with corn does not increase methane, in fact, since corn has a higher sugar content emissions are less likely just as they are with very young grass (of the type likely to be produced by pastures that have been treated with applications of “unnatural” fertilizers like superphosphates).

      In fact I am told by a person with a degree in agricultural science that “organic” is bullshit. He tells me that the molecules contained in organic fertilizers are too big for plants to absorb so they have to break them down to the size of the ones the plants would get from “unnatural fertilizers” he buys from his supplier.

  21. “(and, of course adds a ritual denunciation of the Kochs)”

    Lefties gonna lefty.

  22. I love how the computer models say that if you have the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that we have now, the temperature should have gone up X degrees Celsius. Well, it hasn’t so far.

    So obviously if you take out Y tons of CO2 per year, that’ll result in a definite decrease in global average temperature by Z degrees. I guess the computers are right about that part, just nothing else.

  23. I’d also like to see what they’re smoking down at the MIT Joint Center.

  24. I think the hysterics are all yours, Ronald.

    You say yourself that one can disagree with the assumptions Lomborg makes, and that is all Sterman does. In fact, I dare say he would probably disagree with those of his fellows at MIT.

    And why would that be? Because they assume pledges won’t continue past 2030. I will let Climate Tracker explain it to you when they highlighted their own differences with Energy Outlook.

    “The higher MIT warming estimate is principally due to its assumption that government effort is effectively frozen post-2030, whereas the CAT takes into account governments’ 2050 targets and, for all others and for the post-2030 period, assumes a continuation of the 2020-2030 “level of effort” implied by the INDCs. Consequently, post-2030 emissions in the MIT approach are much higher than the CAT’s post-2030 INDC pathway, and are quite close to CAT’s “current policy projections” (currently implemented policies in countries) which leads to 3.6?C warming by 2100.”


    Hate to break this to you, but the assumption that both Sterman and Climate Tracker make are probably closer to pledge reality than Lomborg’s.

    1. J&A: What is it that you, Romm, and Sterman fail to understand? What MIT Joint Program and Lomborg are trying to do is to simply show how very much steeper (perhaps even draconian?) future emissions cuts will have to be than those being agreed to at Paris if the goal of keeping future increases below 2 C is to be achieved?

      1. Oh I understand. In fact I said that to you in your first post about Lomborg. I said if you all are saying more needs to be done, welcome aboard. Even Sterman makes that clear.

        But if the point is which assumptions are more reliable, I would say it clearly is Sterman and Climate Tracker. Surely you don’t suggest that the year 2030 will end pledges? In fact, all the models, including Lomborg’s (as you yourself say), indicate that things will only be worse. I doubt pledges will end. In fact, they probably will become even more rigorous.

        Here is what to me is problematic with all this. Read the comments here. What is the take away most adhere to from this? “Why do anything…it won’t matter anyway.” I get that Lomborg isn’t quite saying that, but that is what so many skeptics now cling to.

        But thanks for even responding to me. You’re a gentleman.

        1. Governments used to work hard to make roads suitable for hydrocarbon fueled cars/trucks and lower the price of electricity and make the distribution wider (Rural Electrification) to improve the lives of their citizens.

          Now the effort is to make the cost of electricity go up and supplies to become intermittent to make the lives of their citizens worse.

          Maybe (like libertarians say) government is the problem.

        2. “But thanks for even responding to me. You’re a gentleman.”
          But, Jack, plenty of people respond to you in exactly the manner you deserve………..
          Fucking ignoramus.

        3. BTW, here’s a comment from Jack’s link:
          “The CAT approach is aimed at ensuring that the post-2030 emissions are as consistent as possible with the shorter-term action, pledges and/or INDCs by accounting for the inertia of near-term actions. On the other hand, the MIT Outlook scenario effectively assumes that the overall level of effort worldwide will dissipate over time post-2030.”
          So Jack is basing his claims on, oh the sort of honesty that politicos deliver when they budget a new program’ the sort of honesty that fucking ignoramuses take as fact.
          Jack, that would be you.

    2. Hate to break this to you, but the assumption that both Sterman and Climate Tracker make are probably closer to pledge reality than Lomborg’s.

      .03?C difference is rounding error.

      1. You’re not comparing the proper numbers. Climate Tracker suggests pledges will lead to 2.7 C degree increase by 2100. Energy Outlook (the MIT study Ronald points to) indicates 3.7. It’s a difference of one degree, not .03. Read the link I cited.

        1. Picking cherries again, Jack?
          Please tell us about the fracking earthquakes no one can feel! That’s a good example of your stupidity!
          How about the MONSTER storm that really wasn’t an collapsed before anyone was harmed, pretty much like most of your claims. I enjoyed that!
          When is the RAPTURE, Jack? Did mud-momma tell you yet?
          What a fucking ignoramus…

  25. “…they would reduce future man-made global warming by about -0.17 degrees Celsius below what they would otherwise have been.”

    No, they won’t.

  26. Why Romm’s drama queen bull shit?

    1. Lomborg is playing by the accepted rules of climate modeling. He impolitely shows that the bottom line temperature results of what are considered realistic mitigation efforts are trivially low, even if one believes that the models are without uncertainty.

    2. People familiar with big simulation models and scenario projections know that, if you can get the sign of the outcome right, you’re an adept, and if you can get the order of magnitude right, you’re a Magister Ludi. Scientists who think about this for about a minute will conclude that there is no difference between 0.2 and 0.17, or likely 1.00 or 0.00.

    3. Even if one intensifies the emissions-reduction commitments (China’s really caps, and other fantasies), even if you got to a 0.5 simulated reduction in global average temperature by 2100, the number is economically – and practically in any other sense – trivial. The scandalous dirty secret Lomborg is so crass to mention with a straight face is that these numbers, based on any plausible scenario, are both so low and so far off in the future that they are just sputteringly stupid. Without shutting down African, Indian and Chinese growth, or without a magical mass conversion to nuclear power, or let’s just say without magic, period, the numbers are always going to be practically trivial.

    3. Adapted quip: How do you know climate modelers have a sense of humor? – They report decimals.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.