Comments on: Copenhagen review http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:41:15 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58132 John Quiggin Wed, 26 Jan 2005 00:24:21 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58132 Cline didn't really play by Lomborg's rules, since he evaluated costs and benefits over 200 years, without intrinsic discounting, which produces huge numbers (the panel wanted high discount rates, which reduce the benefits a lot). Annually, though he's talking numbers of the order of 1 per cent of Gross World Product, or about $300 billion, for a full-scale response to global warming. Cline didn’t really play by Lomborg’s rules, since he evaluated costs and benefits over 200 years, without intrinsic discounting, which produces huge numbers (the panel wanted high discount rates, which reduce the benefits a lot). Annually, though he’s talking numbers of the order of 1 per cent of Gross World Product, or about $300 billion, for a full-scale response to global warming.

]]> By: ed_finnerty http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58131 ed_finnerty Mon, 24 Jan 2005 16:22:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58131 I know this thread is long dead and gone never to be looked at again - It's so last saturday - but I just managed to revisit Clines paper. His three mitigation strategies ranged from a cost of $94 trillion up to a cost of $458 trillion. I don't know where the budget of $50 billion came from. It has nothing to do with the mitigation strategies examined by Mr. Cline. I know this thread is long dead and gone never to be looked at again – It’s so last saturday – but I just managed to revisit Clines paper. His three mitigation strategies ranged from a cost of $94 trillion up to a cost of $458 trillion. I don’t know where the budget of $50 billion came from. It has nothing to do with the mitigation strategies examined by Mr. Cline.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58130 John Quiggin Sun, 23 Jan 2005 07:36:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58130 Fair enough, bma, we'll agree to differ on this one. Fair enough, bma, we’ll agree to differ on this one.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58129 jet Sat, 22 Jan 2005 21:49:54 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58129 antoni, Your links did not work, but I did manage to track down 2 out of the 3 relevant articles. They took a novel approach to interpreting the data and came up with what they expected. How....fishy. I'll wait for the peer reviewed article in Science :) antoni, Your links did not work, but I did manage to track down 2 out of the 3 relevant articles. They took a novel approach to interpreting the data and came up with what they expected. How….fishy. I’ll wait for the peer reviewed article in Science :)

]]> By: BigMacAttak http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58128 BigMacAttak Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:47:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58128 In part my bad. Link provided a level down. I apologize. And maybe you are right. Just maybe. (For the record I really like Crooked Timber. DD^2 and Chris's recent posts on this Q guy were both really good and I like your posts.) But the info you provided, the article doesn't your support your insinuations(actually it is more than insinuations) regarding Bjorn and his 'faux' commitment to global poverty versus trashing global warming. That is my substantive claim. Worst case 3.5 to 1 isn't several sentences. And no it was merely rhetorical bull, when your insinuation, really accusations, are so strong that doesn't cut it. Look on the bright side. You may think I am troll but I am really just an American schmoe who likes an argument. The fact that I am offended by the accusation that Bjorn doesn't care about global poverty might just indicate that 'your' side is determining the playing field. PS 'More than half the article was devoted to the importance of not allocating significant resources to fighting climate change. None of the priority issues identified by the panel got more than a few sentences.' That sure as something doesn't match the title summary. Whatever. Enjoy. Keep up the nice work. In part my bad. Link provided a level down. I apologize. And maybe you are right. Just maybe. (For the record I really like Crooked Timber. DD^2 and Chris’s recent posts on this Q guy were both really good and I like your posts.) But the info you provided, the article doesn’t your support your insinuations(actually it is more than insinuations) regarding Bjorn and his ‘faux’ commitment to global poverty versus trashing global warming. That is my substantive claim. Worst case 3.5 to 1 isn’t several sentences. And no it was merely rhetorical bull, when your insinuation, really accusations, are so strong that doesn’t cut it. Look on the bright side. You may think I am troll but I am really just an American schmoe who likes an argument. The fact that I am offended by the accusation that Bjorn doesn’t care about global poverty might just indicate that ‘your’ side is determining the playing field. PS ‘More than half the article was devoted to the importance of not allocating significant resources to fighting climate change. None of the priority issues identified by the panel got more than a few sentences.’ That sure as something doesn’t match the title summary. Whatever. Enjoy. Keep up the nice work.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58127 John Quiggin Sat, 22 Jan 2005 20:02:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58127 Gary, this was a partial error on my part. I should have referred to the Millennium Declaration Account, announced in 2002 and yet to disburse any money. The source was an NYTImes editorial, <a href="http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?section=Opinion&OID=65675">reprinted here</a>. Some of the money separately allocated for AIDS has in fact been spent. The general, and valid, point that, when aid money focused on Lomborg's supposed priorities has been cut, he says nothing, but whenever criticism of Kyoto is called for, he's front and centre. Gary, this was a partial error on my part. I should have referred to the Millennium Declaration Account, announced in 2002 and yet to disburse any money. The source was an NYTImes editorial, reprinted here. Some of the money separately allocated for AIDS has in fact been spent. The general, and valid, point that, when aid money focused on Lomborg’s supposed priorities has been cut, he says nothing, but whenever criticism of Kyoto is called for, he’s front and centre.

]]> By: John Quiggin http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58126 John Quiggin Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:48:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58126 bigmacattack, this is a reprint from a newspaper review, hence lacks hyperlinks. But, as I indicated, I have already posted on most of the points I raised, with links. You can read my criticism of the Telegraph article, <a href="http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/002986.html">here</a> Your substantive claim is silly. The count by "g" is spot-on. The Tele subeditor titled the piece <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F12%2F12%2Fdo1202.xml&sSheet=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F12%2F12%2Fixopinion.html">Save the world, ignore global warming</a>, and this was a correct summary. bigmacattack, this is a reprint from a newspaper review, hence lacks hyperlinks. But, as I indicated, I have already posted on most of the points I raised, with links. You can read my criticism of the Telegraph article, here Your substantive claim is silly. The count by “g” is spot-on. The Tele subeditor titled the piece Save the world, ignore global warming, and this was a correct summary.

]]> By: BigmacAttack http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58125 BigmacAttack Sat, 22 Jan 2005 19:31:41 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58125 G, BS. Your numbers actually yield 6.5 to 3.5. My count was either 6 - 4 or 7 - 5. I would be happy to go over the scoring. But being generous and adjusting by your lame miscount, I was wrong, I would like to revise my statement - The whole article is only 3.5 X several sentences long. The poorman has a word for you and John. He doesn't have the guts or the intellectual integrity to use it but I can. And I just did. G, BS. Your numbers actually yield 6.5 to 3.5. My count was either 6 – 4 or 7 – 5. I would be happy to go over the scoring. But being generous and adjusting by your lame miscount, I was wrong, I would like to revise my statement – The whole article is only 3.5 X several sentences long. The poorman has a word for you and John. He doesn’t have the guts or the intellectual integrity to use it but I can. And I just did.

]]> By: Gary Farber http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58124 Gary Farber Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:54:47 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58124 "When it emerged, in December 2004, that none of the money promised by the Bush Administration for the fight against AIDS had actually been spent, he was silent." I've no disagreement with this; I've simply not followed the subject very closely. Might you have a cite or two to support this so I might learn more? (And might you clarify what precise "none of the money promised" you are referring to, specifically?) “When it emerged, in December 2004, that none of the money promised by the Bush Administration for the fight against AIDS had actually been spent, he was silent.” I’ve no disagreement with this; I’ve simply not followed the subject very closely. Might you have a cite or two to support this so I might learn more? (And might you clarify what precise “none of the money promised” you are referring to, specifically?)

]]> By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58123 Antoni Jaume Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:52:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58123 <a>National Academy Press</a> <a>SEPP</a> <a>The Blinne Blog</a> are three links with some references, I cannot vouch for any of them. DSW National Academy Press SEPP The Blinne Blog are three links with some references, I cannot vouch for any of them. DSW

]]> By: ed_finnerty http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58122 ed_finnerty Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:34:43 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58122 Jet - indeed the controversy rages on. I have posted a link to the results of a conference that tried to resolve the discrepancy. Obviously, if the sat temps are right the IPCC is basically irrelevant. With the huge stakes involved there have been some heated exchanges. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rvtt.html No conclusion yet. Also here is the link to the satellite data and a couple of climate skeptical websites http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html http://www.john-daly.com/ http://www.sepp.org/ Jet – indeed the controversy rages on. I have posted a link to the results of a conference that tried to resolve the discrepancy. Obviously, if the sat temps are right the IPCC is basically irrelevant. With the huge stakes involved there have been some heated exchanges. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/rvtt.html No conclusion yet. Also here is the link to the satellite data and a couple of climate skeptical websites http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html http://www.john-daly.com/ http://www.sepp.org/

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58121 jet Sat, 22 Jan 2005 18:15:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58121 "By contrast, Lomborg has repeatedly stressed the panel’s negative findings about climate change. A typical example is an article in The Australian, reprinted from The Telegraph. More than half the article was devoted to the importance of not allocating significant resources to fighting climate change." Maybe he, like many others, see nothing more arbitrarily dangerous to the welfare of the third world than the Kyoto treaty. Anything that harms the industrialized nations will have a compounded effect on third world nations. And nothing so arbitrarily decided and damaging to industrilized nations has ever been attempted before. And yet this is all based on scientific models that continue to seperate from reality as the data rolls in. “By contrast, Lomborg has repeatedly stressed the panel’s negative findings about climate change. A typical example is an article in The Australian, reprinted from The Telegraph. More than half the article was devoted to the importance of not allocating significant resources to fighting climate change.” Maybe he, like many others, see nothing more arbitrarily dangerous to the welfare of the third world than the Kyoto treaty. Anything that harms the industrialized nations will have a compounded effect on third world nations. And nothing so arbitrarily decided and damaging to industrilized nations has ever been attempted before. And yet this is all based on scientific models that continue to seperate from reality as the data rolls in.

]]> By: jet http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58120 jet Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:58:01 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58120 Antoni, You got a source? Google has let me down while attempting to track down this wonderous discovery that firmly puts to sleep the question of global warming. I would be most excited to learn of a reputable source describing this finding in more detail. Antoni, You got a source? Google has let me down while attempting to track down this wonderous discovery that firmly puts to sleep the question of global warming. I would be most excited to learn of a reputable source describing this finding in more detail.

]]> By: Antoni Jaume http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58119 Antoni Jaume Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:39:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58119 IIRC the satellite data were found to be in agreement with IPCC prevision once they were corrected to take in account that with time their orbits get lower, so they scanned a minor area than expected. DSW IIRC the satellite data were found to be in agreement with IPCC prevision once they were corrected to take in account that with time their orbits get lower, so they scanned a minor area than expected. DSW

]]> By: eudoxis http://crookedtimber.org/2005/01/22/copenhagen-review/comment-page-1/#comment-58118 eudoxis Sat, 22 Jan 2005 17:00:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=2781#comment-58118 <i>When it emerged, in December 2004, that none of the money promised by the Bush Administration for the fight against AIDS had actually been spent, he was silent.</i><p> According to <a HREF="http://www.avert.org/pepfar.htm"> Avert</a> a total of 850 million on top of previously existing AIDS programs were spent in 2004 as part of the initiative to fight AIDS in Africa. The US government lists distributions also. Is there better information that shows that these monies were not spent?</p> When it emerged, in December 2004, that none of the money promised by the Bush Administration for the fight against AIDS had actually been spent, he was silent.

According to Avert a total of 850 million on top of previously existing AIDS programs were spent in 2004 as part of the initiative to fight AIDS in Africa. The US government lists distributions also. Is there better information that shows that these monies were not spent?

]]>