Klimaat of milieu

Klimaat is in het nieuws. Klimaat is in mijn ogen echter maar een onderdeel van deze planeet. Klimaat is tegelijk een controversieel onderwerp. Volgens sommigen is klimaatprobleem kleiner dan het in de media lijkt. Zoals op https://clintel.nl/klacht-n-a-v-nos-npo-klimaatberichtgeving/, of HAN, Groene Rekenkamer (https://groene-rekenkamer.nl/han/), Björn Lomborg (https://www.lomborg.com/) en Michael Crichton (https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf).

Lomborg gaf met allerlei statistiek aan dat het steeds beter ging met de wereld. Hij had het verhaal van Julian Simon die destijds een weddenschap had gewonnen van Paul Ehrlich, willen falsificeren, maar kwam er juist achter dat het verhaal van de milieubeweging onjuist was. Hij noemde dat net zoals Julian Simon al deed de litanie. Crichton is tijdens onderzoek voor een roman daar ook achter gekomen en heeft de roman Prey en State of Fear geschreven. Terwijl zijn meeste romans gaan over angst voor (onjuist gebruik van) wetenschap en techniek, zoals Jurassic Park (economisch gewin bij DNAtechnieken) of Prey (economisch gewon bij nanotechnologie), gaat hij er bij een aantal lezingen en de roman State of Fear duidelijk op in. 

Crichton lijkt zelfs een stap verder te gaan door klimaatwetenschap niet eens wetenschap te willen noemen? De filosoof Popper had hetzelfde met milieu! 

Maar met Popper komen we er niet: Why Popper can’t resolve the debate over global warming: Problems with the uses of philosophy of science in the media and public framing of the science of global warming David Mercer https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963662516645040?journalCode=pusa& 

Popper’s falsifiability principle implies that, contrary to popular misunderstanding, there is no such thing as scientific ‘proof’. The best status that even the best scientific theory can attain is ‘not-yet-disproven’. Even the most durable and revered laws, such as Newton’s laws of motion, may find extreme conditions where they no longer apply. (This does not necessarily mean that the old law is completely overthrown, but rather that its area of application becomes circumscribed.) This absence of final, definitive proof creates a paradox: science, which we rightly regard as the most certain form of knowledge of the world, exists in a continuous state of uncertainty. In their daily lives scientists are perfectly happy with this uncertainty, not least because each new research paper can truthfully be concluded “More research is needed” – hopefully ensuring a continued supply of funding, and certainly ensuring a continued arena in which they can exercise their curiosity. The paradox of science can be exploited in the media by opponents of any scientific case, who are able to challenge unwelcome scientific knowledge by saying, “Prove it to me! There you are, you see, you cannot!” The scientist can put forward his evidence; but unfortunately most scientists are trained to be meticulous, and meticulous exposition does not sit easily with the standard two minute popular media discussion. ... Philosophy has revealed the means to resolve this problem. Science may not do proof, but it certainly does do disproof. So although it may not be possible for climatologists to prove their case conclusively, it is possible to look at the contrary hypothesis and refute it. And the contrarians do have a hypothesis: it is that man-made carbon dioxide will not have a severe effect on global climate. This angle transforms the debate into a question about the degree to which the global climate will change given the known increase in greenhouse gases. ... Journalists may not be able to understand science or the philosophy of science to any great depth, but they can understand the concept of ‘disproven’, and climate scientists can indeed disprove the contrarian hypothesis that greenhouse gases will have no significant effect on the global climate. © Dr Richard Lawson 2014 (https://philosophynow.org/issues/104/Climate_Science_and_Falsifiability)

@Drux Popper himself. He admitted that original falsificationism does not account for evolutionary biology, "Darwinian evolutionary theory failed to satisfy that criterion so it was not a scientific theory but only a metaphysical research programme". Indeed it does not work very well outside of physics, "it excludes not just evolutionary biology but also historical geology and much of astronomy". ncse.com/ncser/13/4/popper-evolution And even in physics Lakatos had to dilute falsificationism to make it minimally tenable. –  Conifold Jun 12 '15 at 22:51 (https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/24429/what-is-wrong-with-poppers-theory-of-falsification)

Alhoewel...

For Popper, science should attempt to disprove a theory, rather than attempt to continually support theoretical hypotheses....According to Popper, scientific theory should make predictions which can be tested, and the theory rejected if these predictions are shown not to be correct.  He argued that science would best progress using deductive reasoning as its primary emphasis, known as critical rationalism. ... Karl Popper was also critical of the naive empiricist view that we objectively observe the world. Popper argued that all observation is from a point of view, and indeed that all observation is colored by our understanding. The world appears to us in the context of theories we already hold: it is 'theory-laden'.... For Popper the scientist should attempt to disprove his/her theory rather than attempt to continually prove it. Popper does think that science can help us progressively approach the truth but we can never be certain that we have the final explanation.... The history of science shows that sometimes it is best to ’stick to one’s guns’. For example, "In the early years of its life, Newton’s gravitational theory was falsified by observations of the moon’s orbit" Also, one observation does not falsify a theory. The experiment may have been badly designed, data could be incorrect. Quine states that a theory is not a single statement; it is a complex network (a collection of statements). You might falsify one statement (e.g. all swans are white) in the network, but this should not mean you should reject the whole complex theory. Critics of Karl Popper, chiefly Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Imre Lakatos, rejected the idea that there exists a single method that applies to all science and could account for its progress. (McLeod, S. A. (2020, May 01). Karl popper - theory of falsification. Simply Psychology. https://www.simplypsychology.org/Karl-Popper.html)

Popper volgend zou je zeggen dat het proberen om een theorie te ontkrachten echte wetenschap is.

Clintel en andere critici krijgen echter een hoop kritiek: https://www.ftm.nl/artikelen/clintel-klimaatsceptici-fossiele-industrie, https://pointer.kro-ncrv.nl/klimaattwijfel-zaaien-met-hulp-van-oliegeld-en-populistisch-rechts-netwerk 

"Die "tabaksstrategie" komt in het kort hierop neer: je huurt een gerenommeerd wetenschapper in en laat hem onwelgevallig wetenschappelijk onderzoek aanvallen met zogenaamd eigen "onderzoek". Daarnaast laat je hem in de media veelvuldig zeggen dat het wetenschappelijk bewijs niet klopt, de wetenschap er nog niet uit is, of de situatie te complex is om te begrijpen. Dat alles om twijfel te zaaien en waarheidsvinding te ondermijnen. Je laat die wetenschapper een "instituut" oprichten met een betrouwbaar klinkende naam en doet alsof dat "instituut" de belangen van het volk vertegenwoordigd. Door veel publiciteit te genereren voor dit "andere geluid", lijkt het alsof er een debat over het onderwerp gaande is en er meer wetenschappelijk onderzoek moet worden gedaan. Effectief om nieuwe wetgeving tegen te houden of op z’n minst flink te vertragen." (https://pointer.kro-ncrv.nl/klimaattwijfel-zaaien-met-hulp-van-oliegeld-en-populistisch-rechts-netwerk)

Frits Böttcher was betrokken bij het Heidelberg Appeal Nederland, een organisatie die zich tussen 1993 en 2008 bezighield met het tegenwerken van Nederlands milieubeleid. Die organisatie is opgegaan in De Groene Rekenkamer, waarmee Berkhout (en dus Clintel) nu samenwerkt.... Het verbindende element tussen toen en nu is gepensioneerd econoom Hans Labohm, Nederlands bekendste klimaatscepticus en drijvende kracht achter website Climategate. ... Dankzij die contacten vindt Clintel snel aansluiting bij internationale klimaatsceptische organisaties zoals het Heartland Institute, het Canadese Friends of Science (een door de olie-industrie gefinancierde denktank) en het European Climate Realist Network. In korte tijd weten Berkhout en Crok een internationaal podium te creëren dat ze veel media-aandacht en gesprekken met Europese politici weet op te leveren....Binnen Nederland zijn het blogs als Climategate, Klimaatgek, De Staat van het Klimaat en De Groene Rekenkamer die het geluid van Clintel versterken. En ook omroep in oprichting Ongehoord Nederland, waar Crok blogs voor schrijft, en De Telegraaf zijn een echokamer voor de klimaatsceptici. Daarnaast zorgen Forum voor Democratie, de PVV en de VVD ervoor dat Berkhout en Crok gehoord worden in de Tweede Kamer en ook daar voet aan de grond krijgen (Crok is al sinds 2011 adviseur van Thierry Baudet op het gebied van klimaatverandering).(https://pointer.kro-ncrv.nl/klimaattwijfel-zaaien-met-hulp-van-oliegeld-en-populistisch-rechts-netwerk)

Dat rechts en olieindustrie een hun welgevallig geluid financieren kan ik wel begrijpen, maar het geeft wel dat klimaatsceptici zelf ook als rechts worden gezien.  Crichton heeft de entourage van de milieuwetenschap weergegeven. Ook bij De Groene Rekenkamer is een rapport over het WNF te vinden wat die beschrijvingen onderschrijft.   

Nou zal het IPCC dat al ruim 25 jaar bezig is met klimaat niet ineens hun verhaal gaan aanpassen. Ze zijn padafhankelijk en daarmee niet onafhankelijk. Nou gaat het mij niet om klimaat als welles-nietes-verhaal, maar om prioriteiten. Er zijn veel milieuproblemen, zoals plastic soep, zwerfafval, ZZS, vervuiling van onze leefomgeving (milieu; bodem, water en lucht), etc.

Hoe kunnen we die problemen oplossen?

Tim Hofman onderzoekt en confronteert de machtige mensen en bedrijven van onze samenleving. Hij neemt het plasticprobleem onder de loep. Wiens schuld is het dat we onze wereld steeds meer vervuilen met plastic en wie is verantwoordelijk voor de oplossing? https://www.bnnvara.nl/pakdemacht/videos/562419 

Zelf of de bedrijven? Of allemaal en beetje? En hoe kunnen we het aanpakken, zonder te vervallen in welles-nietes-spelletjes? 

Zondag met Lubach(en Lomborg)

Arjen Lubach had een pleidooi voorkernenergie. En meteen daarna kwam onze populaire VVD-coryfee 'ben je bang om doodgeschoten te worden? Ja, dus?' Klaas Dijkhof (zie https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaas_Dijkhoff, https://www.hpdetijd.nl/2018-11-03/klaas-dijkhoff-is-veranderd-klaas-dijkhoff-karikatuur/) met het voorstel voor kernenergie:

Kernenergie zou volgens VVD-fractievoorzitter Klaas Dijkhoff een goede manier zijn voor Nederland om de klimaatdoelen te halen. ,,Wat mij betreft gaan we snel beginnen'', zei VVD-fractievoorzitter Klaas Dijkhoff in Nieuwsuur. ,,Ik hoop dat we er rationeel naar kijken''.
De uitstoot van broeikasgassen moet de komende jaren verder omlaag. Hierbij is meer opwekken van duurzame energie een van de belangrijkste doelstellingen. De VVD wil kernenergie gaan opwekken in combinatie met zon- en windenergie om de klimaatdoelstellingen te behalen.
(https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Coalitiepartner D66 ziet niets in het plan. D66-leider Rob Jetten zei serieus naar de voorstellen te willen kijken, maar hij denkt dat er ook nieuwe en betere technieken mogelijk zijn dan kernenergie. Ook GroenLinks ziet het niet zitten. ,,Het is een van de inmiddels befaamde Klaasballonnetjes: iets zeggen wat totaal onrealistisch is, om maar een VVD-standpunt in het nieuws te krijgen. Veel herrie, maar aan het eind van de dag is er niets veranderd'' zegt GroenLinks-leider Jesse Klaver op Twitter.
Het bouwen van meer kerncentrales zal op korte termijn weinig veranderen aan de CO2-uitstoot in Nederland. Deze centrales kosten een hoop geld en zijn niet over een paar jaar klaar. Geschat wordt dat het bouwen van een moderne kerncentrale tussen de 11 en 14 jaar zal duren. Ze zullen dus pas na 2030 operationeel zijn, mochten ze er komen. (https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Nederland heeft van oudsher in vergelijking met andere landen vrij weinig kerncentrales. De enige operationele kerncentrale van ons land staat in het Zeeuwse Borselle en is vrij bescheiden van omvang. Hij werd in 1973 opgeleverd en staat op de nominatie om gesloten te worden, in 2033 zou de sloop moeten beginnen. (https://www.metronieuws.nl/in-het-nieuws/2018/11/klaas-dijkhoff-wil-meer-kerncentrales-in-nederland)

Volgens mij is er ook een centrale in Petten:

De kernreactoren Petten zijn twee kleine kernreactoren in Nederland, nabij Petten (Noord-Holland). Ze zijn sinds het begin van de jaren zestig in gebruik en zijn bedoeld voor onderzoek en voor het produceren van radionucliden voor medisch gebruik.
Op het terrein van het Gemeenschappelijk Centrum voor Onderzoek van de Europese Commissie, naast het Energieonderzoek Centrum Nederland (ECN) staan twee onderzoeksreactoren: de hogefluxreactor en de lagefluxreactor. De hogefluxreactor is eigendom van de Europese Commissie.[1] De lagefluxreactor is eigendom van NRG.[2] NRG is een dochteronderneming van ECN.[3]
De lagefluxreactor is sinds 1960 in gebruik, de hogefluxreactor sinds 1961. Beide reactoren worden door NRG beheerd. Het thermisch vermogen van de hogefluxreactor (HFR) is 45 MW, dat van de lagefluxreactor (LFR) is 30 kW, vergelijkbaar met een cv-installatie. In de hogefluxreactor worden onder meer radioactieve isotopen geproduceerd, die na chemische bewerkingen in een speciale productiefaciliteit in Petten, aan ziekenhuizen worden geleverd voor diagnostiek en voor de bestrijding van kanker (radiotherapie). De reactor in Petten produceert een derde van de medische isotopen wereldwijd.[4] De medische activiteiten gebruiken ongeveer de helft van de capaciteit van de HFR. De andere helft wordt gebruikt voor onderzoek. Dit onderzoek betreft tegenwoordig onder meer het gedrag van materialen onder invloed van ioniserende straling, wat van belang is voor de veiligheid en betrouwbaarheid van nucleaire installaties.
De lagefluxreactor werd gebruikt voor opleidings- en trainingsdoeleinden, en voor materiaalkundig onderzoek. Per december 2010 zijn de bedrijfsactiviteiten van de LFR gestopt. Het besluit van NRG om de bedrijfsvoering van de LFR te beëindigen is genomen na een bedrijfseconomische evaluatie van het gebruik van deze installatie. Vanwege een lage gebruiksfrequentie werden de investeringen die gemaakt zouden moeten worden voor de conversie van hoogverrijkt uranium (highly enriched uranium, HEU) naar laagverrijkt uranium (low-enriched uranium, LEU) niet rendabel geacht. Het aanbrengen van de benodigde aanpassingen aan de LFR wordt dan ook niet meer overwogen.[5] (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernreactoren_Petten)

Kernenergie is een antwoord op klimaatverandering. Logisch want volgens de legende was het de Britse premier Margaret Thatcher (https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher), als scheikundiggeschoolde politicus die wees op klimaatverandering en het belang van kernenergie ten koste van de kolenmijnen die ze sloot. De stakingen kon ze daardoor breken. Ze schaftte dus niet enkel de schoolmelk af, maar ook de kolen. Nu bijna 40 jaar later wordt het argument weer gebruikt.

Dus is die discutabele theorie waar?

Earth's temperature is rising, and it isn't just in the air around us. More than 90 percent of the excess heat trapped by greenhouse gas emissions has been absorbed into the oceans that cover two-thirds of the planet's surface. Their temperature is rising, too, and it tells a story of how humans are changing the planet. (https://insideclimatenews.org/news/03102017/infographic-ocean-heat-powerful-climate-change-evidence-global-warming)

The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other natural changes in paleoclimate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect first identified. In the late 19th century, scientists first argued that human emissions of greenhouse gases could change the climate. Many other theories of climate change were advanced, involving forces from volcanism to solar variation. In the 1960s, the warming effect of carbon dioxide gas became increasingly convincing. Some scientists also pointed out that human activities that generated atmospheric aerosols (e.g., "pollution") could have cooling effects as well. During the 1970s, scientific opinion increasingly favored the warming viewpoint. By the 1990s, as a result of improving fidelity of computer models and observational work confirming the Milankovitch theory of the ice ages, a consensus position formed: greenhouse gases were deeply involved in most climate changes and human-caused emissions were bringing discernible global warming. Since the 1990s, scientific research on climate change has included multiple disciplines and has expanded. Research has expanded our understanding of causal relations, links with historic data and ability to model climate change numerically. Research during this period has been summarized in the Assessment Reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science)

1800-1870
Level of carbon dioxide gas (CO2) in the atmosphere, as later measured in ancient ice, is about 290 ppm (parts per million).
Mean global temperature (1850-1890) is roughly 13.7°C.
First Industrial Revolution. Coal, railroads, and land clearing speed up greenhouse gas emission, while better agriculture and sanitation speed up population growth.
1824
Fourier calculates that the Earth would be far colder if it lacked an atmosphere.
...
1879
International Meteorological Organization begins to compile and standardize global weather data, including temperature.
1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.
...
1938
Callendar argues that CO2 greenhouse global warming is underway, reviving interest in the question.
...
1960
Mitchell reports downturn of global temperatures since the early 1940s.
Keeling accurately measures CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and detects an annual rise.
The level is 315 ppm. Mean global temperature (five-year average) is 13.9°C.
...
1965
Boulder, Colorado meeting on causes of climate change: Lorenz and others point out the chaotic nature of climate system and the possibility of sudden shifts.
...
1974
Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists doubt all theories as journalists talk of a new ice age.
...
1977
Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in the next century.
...
1981
Election of Reagan brings backlash against environmental movement to power. Political conservatism is linked to skepticism about global warming. ... Hansen and others show that sulfate aerosols can significantly cool the climate, raising confidence in models that incorporate aerosols and show future greenhouse warming.
Some scientists predict greenhouse warming "signal" should become visible around the year 2000.
...
1988
News media coverage of global warming leaps upward following record heat and droughts plus statements by Hansen.
...
1990
First IPCC report says world has been warming and future warming seems likely.
...
1992
Conference in Rio de Janeiro produces UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, but US blocks calls for serious action.
...
1995
Second IPCC report detects "signature" of human-caused greenhouse effect warming, declares that serious warming is likely in the coming century.
...
1997
...
International conference produces Kyoto Protocol, setting targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if enough nations sign onto a treaty ...
...
1999
Criticism that satellite measurements show no warming are dismissed by National Academy Panel.
Ramanathan detects massive "brown cloud" of aerosols from South Asia.
...
2001
Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since the end of the last ice age, is "very likely," with highly damaging future impacts ... Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets.
...
2002
Studies find surprisingly strong "global dimming," due to pollution, has retarded arrival of greenhouse warming, but dimming is now decreasing.
...
2006
In longstanding "hockey stick" controversy, scientists conclude post-1980 global warming was unprecedented for centuries or more.
...
2007
Fourth IPCC report warns that serious effects of warming have become evident; cost of reducing emissions would be far less than the damage they will cause.
...
2012
Controversial "attribution" studies find recent disastrous heat waves, droughts, extremes of precipitation, and floods were made worse by global warming.
2013
An apparent pause or "hiatus" in global warming of the atmosphere since 1998 is explained; the world is still warming (as the next three record-breaking years would confirm).
(https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm)
Volgens mij een wat gekleurde tijdlijn?

Scientists claim DEFINITIVE PROOF that global warming is man-made and getting WORSE
GLOBAL warming is caused by humans who are increasing the rate at which hot temperature records are being broken around the world, a team of scientists have concluded.
By JON ROGERS
PUBLISHED: 15:51, Tue, Nov 14, 2017
A new study for the journal of the American Geophysical Union, Earth’s Future, looked at global annual temperature records from 1861 to 2005 which indicated there were 17 record hot years over that period.
Then experts examined whether or not those temperature records were being broken more frequently and if so, whether humans were to blame for that rise.
The findings show human influence has greatly increased the likelihood of record-breaking hot years occurring on a global scale.
Without human-caused climate change, there should only have been an average of seven record hot years from 1861 to 2005, not 17.
Further, human-caused climate change at least doubled the odds of having a record-breaking hot year from 1926 to 1945 and from 1967 onwards, according to the new study.
The scientists predict that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at high levels, the chance of experiencing new global temperature records will continue to increase.
Experts predict that by 2100, on average, every other year will break records.
Andrew King, a climate extremes research fellow at the University of Melbourne in Australia and lead author of the new study, said the new findings show how climate change is visibly influencing Earth’s temperature. (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/879523/global-warming-environment-climate-change-human-impact)

The 20th century warming trend is not a linear affair. The iconic climate curve, a combination of observed land and ocean temperatures, has quite a few ups and downs, most of which climate scientists can easily associate with natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions or El Nino events.
But one such peak has confused them a hell of a lot. The sharp drop in 1945 by around 0.3 °C – no less than 40% of the century-long upward trend in global mean temperature – seemed inexplicable There was no major eruption at the time, nor is anything known of a massive El Nino that could have caused the abrupt drop in sea surface temperatures. The nuclear explosions over Hiroshima and Nagasaki are estimated to have had little effect on global mean temperature. Besides, the drop is only apparent in ocean data, but not in land measurements.
Now scientists have found – not without relief – that they have been fooled by a mirage.
The mysterious post-war ocean cooling is a glitch, a US-British team reports in a paper in this week’s Nature. What most climate researchers were convinced was real is in fact “the result of uncorrected instrumental biases in the sea surface temperature record,” they write. Here is an editor’s summary.
How come? Almost all sea temperature measurements during the Second World War were from US ships. The US crews measured the temperature of the water before it was used to cool the ships engine. When the war was over, British ships resumed their own measurements, but unlike the Americans they measured the temperature of water collected with ordinary buckets. Wind blowing past the buckets as they were hauled on board slightly cooled the water samples. The 1945 temperature drop is nothing else than the result of the sudden but uncorrected change from warm US measurements to cooler UK measurements, the team found.
That’s a rather trivial explanation for a long-standing conundrum, so why has it taken so long to find out? Because identifying the glitch was less simple than it might appear, says David Thompson of the State University of Colorado in Boulder. The now digitized logbooks of neither US nor British ships contain any information on how the sea surface temperature measurements were taken, he says. Only when consulting maritime historians it occurred to him where to search for the source of the faintly suspected bias. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/05/postworld_war_ii_cooling_a_mir.html)

The sudden drop in temperatures in 1945 now appears to be an artefact of a switch from using mainly US ships to collect sea surface temperature data to using mainly UK ships. The two fleets used a different method. The temperature record is currently being updated to reflect this bias, but in essence it means that the cooling after 1940 was more gradual and less pronounced than previously thought.
...
After rising rapidly during the first part of the 20th century, global average temperatures did cool by about 0.2°C after 1940 and remained low until 1970, after which they began to climb rapidly again.
The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions. Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space.
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century
The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. (https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/)

 If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40's through the 70's, why would there be cooling?
It's important to understand that the climate has warmed and cooled naturally without human influence in the past. Natural cycle, or natural variability need to be understood if you wish to understand what modern climate forcing means. In other words modern or current forcing is caused by human industrial output to the atmosphere. This human-induced forcing is both positive (greenhouse gases) and negative (sulfates and aerosols).
...
After World War II, the industrial economies of Europe and the United States were revving up to a level of productivity the world had never seen before. To power this large-scale expansion of industry, Europeans and Americans burned an enormous quantity of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas). In addition to carbon dioxide, burning fossil fuel produces particulate matter—including soot and light-colored sulfate aerosols. Dr. James Hansen suspects the relatively sudden, massive output of aerosols from industries and power plants contributed to the global cooling trend from 1940-1970.
The result was the ozone layer was being destroyed increasing the risk of skin cancer, acid rain, and smog so thick, you could not see from one side of a city to the other.
“That’s my suggestion, though it’s still not proven,” Hansen said. “There is a nice record of sulfates in Greenland ice cores that shows this type of particle was peaking in the atmosphere around 1970. And then the ice core record shows a rapid decline in sulfates, right about the time nations began regulating their emission.” (Sulfates cause acid rain and other health and environmental problems.) (http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/40s-to-70s-cooling-co2-rising)

BOOKS, CULTURE, FEATUREJANUARY 18, 2017
Bjørn Lomborg’s Best-Selling Cool It Transformed Global Warming Debate
by Thomas M. Loarie
Cool It was written as a response to environmental activists who propagandize, exaggerate and use fear to create panic over climate risk. So groundbreaking, in fact, it was made into a major motion picture
Global warming has been a part of the global vernacular for more than 30 years, but in more recent decades, it has become a controversy of global proportions. Proponents on both sides have gone to great lengths to prove their side of the argument. Author Bjørn Lomborg wrote Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming (2010) as a response to environmental activists who propagandize, exaggerate and use fear to create panic over climate risk. The book was so groundbreaking that it transformed the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Sundance Award-winning director Ondi Timoner filmed a documentary with the same name based on the book and following Lomborg for almost a year. (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School as well as President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. He is the former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute (EAI) in Copenhagen who became internationally known for his best-selling and controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist (2001). He was named a Top 100 Global Thinker by Foreign Policy in 2011 and 2013 and as one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time Magazine in 2004.
In his book Cool It, Lomborg exposes the fear-mongering for what it is and suggests a middle ground for dialogue (between extremism on both sides of the issue). He shows how many of the approaches being touted today will make future generations worse off and outlines the “coolest options” which will do the most good throughout the century. We need to move from “the feel good to the do good” solutions. (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Cool It is a groundbreaking book that transforms the debate about global warming by offering a fresh perspective based on human needs as well as environmental concerns. Rather than starting with the most radical procedures, Lomborg argues that we should first focus our resources on more immediate concerns, such as fighting malaria and HIV/AIDS and assuring and maintaining a safe, fresh water supply-which can be addressed at a fraction of the cost and save millions of lives within our lifetime. He asks why the debate over climate change has stifled rational dialogue and killed meaningful dissent.
...
The article entitled “Promises to Keep Crafting Better Development Goals”, highlights the work of the Post-2015 Consensus project and the valuable knowledge the project is injecting into the post-2015 debate.
...
Paris commitments will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100. A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris climate summit. (https://www.lomborg.com/)

Lomborg vind ik geweldig, anderen hebben een ander standpunt:

Beautiful demonstration why economists should NEVER be allowed into any decision-making process ever. Their assumptions are dangerously based on short-term thinking, with important variable completely disregarded, and most egregiously with important science left unconsidered. Speakers like this make me deeply question the entire TED Talk venue. Oh yeah, the builders and the owners of the Titanic had a great boat. (https://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities/discussion?utm_campaign=eNewsletter&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8d_BgTbv0Wu5Jw-nfH5-AAGrMLvRBetYSYKO3IRf1AhJur-PhiBT4PYxe8DwkwbfxylvUU)

Bjørn Lomborg: the dissenting climate change voice who changed his tune
With his new book, Danish scientist Bjørn Lomborg has become an unlikely advocate for huge investment in fighting global warming. But his answers are unlikely to satisfy all climate change campaigners
Few statisticians can have inspired more passion than Bjørn Lomborg, the Danish academic who became famous as the author of the controversial (some would say contrarian) Skeptical Environmentalist, which set him up as perhaps the world's best-known critic of the dominant scientific view of global warming and the ensuing climate change.
Lomborg's prolific output has been almost matched by books rubbishing his work: critics have described him as selective, unprofessional and confused. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's climate change panel, has compared him to Adolf Hitler – for the statistical crime of treating human beings too much like numbers.
Meanwhile, Time Magazine declared Lomborg one of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2004. The respected Cambridge University Press (CUP) has published many of his books in the UK and the US, and the award-winning documentary maker Ondi Timoner and X-Men films producer, Ralph Winter, are about to release a film of his 2007 book Cool It (which carries the subtitle: the first optimistic film about global warming).
The Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty once declared Lomborg guilty of exactly that, but a government review later cleared him. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

But Lomborg's record on climate change is more nuanced than the stereotype suggests. From the beginning, he has said global warming is happening and is largely caused by humans. However, he has been consistently critical of what he sees as exaggeration of how much this matters, and of policies to tackle the problem. These would achieve too little and cost too much, he argues, meaning the money would be better spent on, say, reducing malaria and HIV/Aids, or extending clean water and sanitation.
In an example of the approach that enraged Pachauri, Lomborg argues in Cool It that predicted temperature rises could save more than 1.3 million lives a year. This, he says, is because many more people would be spared early cold-related deaths than would be at risk from heat-related respiratory fatalities. (Other academics reject his figures.) Lomborg concludes that because of imbalances in where deaths occur, the proposed extension of the Kyoto protocol to cut carbon emissions would "save 4,000 people annually in the developing world [but] end up sacrificing more than a trillion dollars and 80,000 people annually." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

Given this background, the title of Lomborg's new book immediately indicates a change of emphasis. It is called Smart Solutions to Climate Change: Comparing Costs and Benefits. This impression is reinforced by comments in the introduction that climate change is "undoubtedly one of the chief concerns facing the world" and "a challenge that humanity must confront".
Later in the book, reflecting on analysis by five economists of eight types of solution, he estimates that spending $100bn (£65bn) a year "could essentially resolve the climate change problem by the end of this century".
He finishes: "If we care about the environment and about leaving this planet and its inhabitants with the best possible future, we actually have only one option: we all need to start seriously focusing, right now, on the most effective ways to fix global warming." (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

In the space of four pages of Cool It, he writes that "climate change will not cause massive disruptions or huge death tolls", that "the general and long-term impact will be predominantly negative", and that it is "obvious that there are many other and more pressing issues".
"The point I've always been making," he explains now, "is, it's not the end of the world. That is why we should be measuring up to what everybody else says, which is we should be spending our money well."
This detailed analysis by economists of how best to spend money to help the world's people was first reported in his book Global Crises, Global Solutions in 2004. It has now been institutionalised in the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, of which Lomborg is the director, and is the model for the latest book on climate "solutions". (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/aug/30/bjorn-lomborg-climate-change-profile)

Lomborg argues that we need to regain our perspective. There are many other issues which are much more important than global warming – hunger, poverty and disease. He asks, “Isn’t it our ultimate goal to improve quality of life in the environment with solutions that can help more people, at a lower cost, and with a much higher chance of success?” (https://scenesmedia.com/2017/01/bjorn-lomborg-best-selling-book-transformed-global-warming-debate/)

Media attacks on Lomborg have been vicious, and he is often misrepresented as a climate change denier and ally of the powers of darkness and corporate hegemony. Tom Burke had published in the Guardian back in October 2004 a critique of Lomborg that was mostly character assassination, and in May of this year Johann Hari did the same thing in the Independent. From the other side of a fence seemingly impervious to rational discourse, the level of abuse may be less, but Lomborg's supporters are known also to engage in ad-hominem attacks on their opponents, and such behaviour is self-defeating for all concerned. (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/jul/24/argumentandconsensusonthe)

Lubach promoot kernenergie en van Lomborg kan ik er geen kritiek op vinden...

Raising Climate Literacy Through Addressing Misinformation

Lomborg had ik al enige tijd uit het oog verloren. Niet dat ik zijn stelling onzin vind, ik ben het er mee eens. Je moet de feiten weten van je gedachten, de oorzaken en gevolgen van eventuele plannen. Niet zeggen A is fout en we moeten B doen, zonder de gevolgen te overzien. Wat als B onbedoelde negatieve neveneffecten heeft, of A onbekende voordelen? Vaak zijn naast feiten ook overtuigen en vooroordelen aanwezig. Het onderscheid tussen feiten en meningen is niet zo duidelijk, zo blijkt. Soms heb je een bron die de stelling van Lomborg lijkt te steunen, maar vervolgens daar recht tegen ingaat. 'Cherrypicking' is daarbij een vaak gehoorde klacht. Dat is het selectief omgaan met data, iets wat bij wetenschap hoort... Tja, Lomborg zegt soms dingen die tegen je gevoel ingaan...

Voor wie hem niet kent:

Dr. Bjorn Lomborg is president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School. The Copenhagen Consensus Center is a think-tank that researches the smartest ways to do good. For this work, Lomborg was named one of TIME magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world. His numerous books include "The Skeptical Environmentalist", "Cool It", "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place" and "The Nobel Laureates' Guide to the Smartest Targets for the World 2016-2030." (www.lomborg.com/about)

Bjørn Lomborg is a political scientist, economist and the founder and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a US-based think tank which originated at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark.
According to his website, Lomborg is also an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School. He received his Ph. D. in Political Science at the University of Copenhagen in 1994.
He appears regularly on global lists of influential people, including Time magazine and Esquire, and he writes columns which appear in many of the highest circulating newspapers in the world.
He is best known as the author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It, two books downplaying the risks of global warming. Notably, Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles in the climate science arena (www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg).

Hij is geen klimaatwetenschapper, maar een milieubewuste statisticus, die vindt dat het gaat over wetenschap en feiten om onwetendheid te bestrijden. Sommigen zijn het niet met hem eens.

"Mr Lomborg's views have no credibility in the scientific community," Professor Flannery wrote (www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/bjorn-lomborg-centre-leaked-documents-cast-doubt-on-abbott-government-claims-20150422-1mqfnn.html).

Agnotology is the study of how and why ignorance or misconceptions exist. While misconceptions are a challenge for educators, they also present an opportunity to improve climate literacy through agnotology-based learning. This involves the use of refutational lessons that challenge misconceptions while teaching scientific conceptions (www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).

Niet iedereen is het eens met Lomborg:

Lomborg’s entertaining but misleading book Cool It!(Lomborg, 2007) (www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).

Specific anecdotes include the case of one student, who, referring to Lomborg’s writingin Cool It!, remarked, ‘‘He’s so convincing,’’ explaining that itwould be easy to accept Lomborg’s argument s in theabsence of information to the contrary. Another student,asking in class how Cool It! could have been published,considering the extensive errors documented at lomborg-errors.dk, prompted a valuable discussion of the publ icationprocess and served as a reminder that not all publishedwork, even from a reputable publisher, can or should bethought of as error-free (www.researchgate.net/publication/272810525_Raising_Climate_Literacy_Through_Addressing_Misinformation_Case_Studies_in_Agnotology-Based_Learning).

Nu ben ik ook een leek en geen wetenschapper, ik heb de data niet zelf gezien, beoordeeld en gewogen, dus kan geen uitspraken doen over de feitelijk waarheid van de stellingen. Ik kan wel aangeven dat ik het argument van Lomborg die verwijst naar wetenschappelijke artikelen eerder geloof dan dat van de anderen, al verwijzen die eveneens naar wetenschappelijke artikelen. Het voorbeeld in de tekst over Agnotology over ijsberen geeft ook aan dat door bij een dataset gedurende de tijd te kiezen voor de laagste of hoogste waarde van een gegeven foutenmarge, je het aantal ijsberen gedurende de tijd kan laten afnemen of toenemen. Statistiek is dus niet zonder meer te vertrouwen. Daarbij komt het feit dat gepubliceerd werk niet altijd foutenvrij en dus ook niet te vertrouwen is. Dat geldt eveneens voor mijn blog ;)

Altijd zelf blijven denken dus...

How To Explain Why You're A Vegetarian To Your Dinner Guests
Door John Tilston (Trafford Publishing, 12 mei 2004 - 100 pagina's)
Tilston gaat in hoofdstuk 4 in op de litanie die Lomborg heeft omschreven en bekritiseerd. Tilston gat vervolgens verder met de stelling dat of het doemdenken van de milieubeweging nu waar is of niet, we moeten toch eten. Hij gaat vervolgens in op het fenomeen dat landen hun statistiek over onder meer visvangst en dergelijke vervormen vanwege politieke redenen. Hij gaat volgens mij niet in op het feitje dat Lomborg zelf ook vegetarisch is.

Think organic food is better for you, animals, and the planet? Think again
BJØRN LOMBORG 12 JUNE 2016 • 5:33PM
In 2012 Stanford University’s Centre for Health Policy did the biggest comparison of organic and conventional foods and found no robust evidence for organics being more nutritious. A brand-new review has just repeated its finding: “Scientific studies do not show that organic products are more nutritious and safer than conventional foods.”
Likewise, animals on organic farms are not generally healthier. A five year US study showed that organic “health outcomes are similar to conventional dairies”. The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety found “no difference in objective disease occurrence.” Organic pigs and poultry may enjoy better access to open areas, but this increases their load of parasites, pathogens and predators. Meanwhile the organic regulation against feeding bee colonies with pollen supplements in low-pollen periods along with regulation against proper disinfection leads to sharply lower bee welfare.
Organic farming is sold as good for the environment. This is correct for a single farm field: organic farming uses less energy, emits less greenhouse gasses, nitrous oxide and ammonia and causes less nitrogen leeching than a conventional field. But each organic field yields much, much less. So, to grow the same amount of wheat, spinach or strawberries, you need much more land. That means that average organic produce results in the emission of about as many greenhouse gasses as conventional produce; and about 10 per cent more nitrous oxide, ammonia and acidification. Worse, to produce equivalent quantities, organic farms need to occupy 84 per cent more land – land which can’t be used for forests and genuine nature reserves. For example, to produce the amount of food America does today, but organically, would require increasing its farmland by the size of almost two United Kingdoms. That is the equivalent of eradicating all parklands and wild lands in the lower 48 states.
But surely organics avoid pesticides? No. Organic farming can use any pesticide that is “natural”. This includes copper sulphate, which has resulted in liver disease in vineyard sprayers in France. Pyrethrin is another organic pesticide; one study shows a 3.7-fold increase in leukaemia among farmers who handled pyrethrins compared to those who had not.
Conventional food, it’s true, has higher pesticide contamination. Although it is still very low, this is a definite benefit of organics. However, using a rough upper estimate by the head of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Toxicology, all conventional pesticide residues may cause an extra 20 cancer deaths per year in America.
This pales in comparison to the impact of organics. If all of the United States were to go organic, the cost would likely be around $200 billion annually from lower productivity. This is money we can’t spend on hospitals, pensioner care, schools, or infrastructure. ... This means that going organic in the US will kill more than 13,000 people each year. .... Norman Borlaug, who got the Nobel Prize for starting the Green Revolution, liked to point out that organic farming on a global scale would leave billions without food. “I don’t see two billion volunteers to disappear,” he said.
Essentially, organic food is rich people spending their extra cash to feel good. While that is just as valid as spending it on holidays, we should resist any implied moral superiority. Organics are not healthier or better for animals. To expand to any great scale would cost tens of billions of pounds while killing thousands. Indeed, a widespread organics revolution will increase environmental damage, and cut global forests.
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/12/think-organic-food-is-better-for-you-animals-and-the-planet-thin/)

The economist houdt Lomborg ook in de gaten:

Environmental hypocrisy in current politics runs deeper than photo opportunities: Bjorn Lomborg
Nov 22, 2011
When Denmark's new government ministers presented themselves to Queen Margrethe-II last month, the incoming development minister established his green credentials by rolling up to the palace in a tiny, three-wheeled, electric-powered vehicle. The photo opportunity made a powerful statement about the minister's commitment to the environment - but probably not the one he intended.
Christian Friis Bach's electric-powered vehicle was incapable of covering the 30 km from his house to the palace without running out of power. So, he put the electric mini-car inside a horse trailer and dragged it behind his petrol-powered CitroA«n for three-quarters of the trip, switching back to the mini-car when he neared the television cameras. The stunt produced more carbon emissions than if he had driven a regular car the entire distance.
...
Danish politicians - like elsewhere - claim a green economy will cost nothing, or may even be a source of new growth. This is not true. Globally, there is a clear correlation between higher growth rates and higher CO2 emissions. Further, nearly every green energy source is still more expensive than fossil fuels, even when calculating pollution costs. We don't burn fossil fuels simply to annoy environmentalists. We burn them because fossil fuels have facilitated virtually all of the material advances civilisation has achieved over the last few hundred years.
Politicians in Denmark and elsewhere argue as if this were no longer true: a transition to a green economy will create millions of new 'green jobs'. But, while green-energy subsidies generate more jobs in green-energy sectors, they also displace similar numbers of jobs elsewhere. This isn't surprising: either customers or taxpayers must finance subsidies. Electricity prices will increase, implying a drag on private-sector job creation. If the goal is to create jobs, public investment in other areas - such as healthcare - generates stronger, faster employment growth
(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/environmental-hypocrisy-in-current-politics-runs-deeper-than-photo-opportunities-bjorn-lomborg/articleshow/10823888.cms)

December, 2013
In an op-ed in The New York Times, Lomborg writes:
“There’s no question that burning fossil fuels is leading to a warmer climate and that addressing this problem is important. But doing so is a question of timing and priority. For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty.” (www.desmogblog.com/bjorn-lomborg)

Improving energy efficiency is a fashionable policy that governments worldwide promote. On paper, it seems a no-brainer: improving energy efficiency is sold as cost-reducing, job-creating, and planet-saving. Win, win, win – and the media often help close the deal, focusing entirely on all the supposed upsides. But there is another side – a downside – to the story.
After spending £240 million ($316 million), the United Kingdom ended government funding for its flagship energy-efficiency-loan program last year, after a scathing report from the National Audit Office showed the program was neither attracting people to sign up, nor delivering cost-effective energy-saving measures for those who did. The policy “did not persuade householders that energy efficiency measures are worth paying for,” according to the auditors, and “failed to deliver any meaningful benefit.” (www.lomborg.com/news/rethinking-energy-efficiency-policies)

On climate change, Pope Francis isn’t listening to the world’s poor
By Bjorn Lomborg September 23, 2015
The global elite has little idea what afflicts the poor, says Pope Francis. He’s right — but that observation sometimes applies to him, too.... In his US visit, the pope is already creating headlines about the urgent need to respond to climate change. Invoking the need to “protect the vulnerable in our world,” he calls for an end to humanity’s reliance on fossil fuels.
But do the world’s poor believe that carbon cuts are a top priority?
Both for the entire world and amongst the worst-off, climate comes 16th out of 16, after 15 other priorities. It’s not even a close race.
Poorly educated women from low-income countries are among the most vulnerable people on Earth, with the weakest voice in global discussions. Their top priorities are, again, health, education and jobs. Action on global warming ranks dead last. And in Africa, global warming also comes behind every other priority.
It’s only among those from the richest nations on Earth that global warming becomes more of a priority. Even then, it ranks 10th. The world’s poor overwhelmingly say they want better health care and education, more jobs, an honest government and more food.
Francis is right that the global elite often forget what the world’s poorest want. But it’s not action against climate change they clamor for, as he and many other well-meaning people claim.
(http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/)

Faced with this clear rejection, many climate campaigners somewhat patronizingly suggest that the poor don’t know what’s best for them. Warming, they note, worsens many problems afflicting vulnerable people — such as malaria.
Yes, rising temperatures mean malaria mosquitoes can become endemic in more places, possibly increasing infections, so not tackling global warming could worsen malaria.
But this is a blinkered way of looking at the world’s challenges, and leads us to the wrong responses.
Look at it this way: We could make a similar argument about malaria itself. If we don’t tackle it, millions will die — but a lot of other problems become worse, too. Lack of malaria treatment disrupts development, as sick children get fewer nutrients and their schooling suffers. Malaria-endemic societies have lower economic growth rates, so millions will be left in poverty longer.
What’s more, climate-change policies such as the cuts on fossil fuels are a terribly inefficient way to help malaria victims. The Kyoto Protocol’s carbon cuts could save 1,400 malaria deaths for about $180 billion a year.
By contrast, just $500 million spent on direct anti-malaria policies could save 300,000 lives. Each time climate policies can save one person from malaria, smart malaria policies can save more than 77,000 people.
This is true for a wide range of issues. Carbon campaigners are right that climate change could reduce agricultural yields. But helping directly with more research, better crop varieties, more fertilizers and less biofuels will cost much less and do much more good, faster.
The specter of worse hurricanes is often raised as an argument for cutting CO₂. But extreme weather mostly hurts the poor because they’re poor. When a hurricane hits Florida, few people die; a similar hurricane in Honduras or the Philippines can kill thousands and devastate the economy. Helping people out of poverty directly is thousands of times more effective than relying on carbon cuts.
Those who claim to speak for the poor and say that climate change is the world’s top priority are simply wrong. The world has clearly said it is the least important of the 16 priorities the UN focuses on (http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/).

And when those campaigners suggest the poor don’t know what’s best for them because carbon cuts will stop global warming from making all other problems worse, they’re wrong again. The poor are typically much better helped directly rather than via climate aid.
This doesn’t mean we should ignore global warming. It’s a real problem, and our advanced civilization can address multiple problems at the same time. But we need to tackle warming much more smartly, with fewer resources and more impact. And we should truly listen to the world’s poorest, and focus much more on their real priorities (http://nypost.com/2015/09/23/on-climate-change-pope-francis-isnt-listening-to-the-worlds-poor/).

Pick solutions that offer highest social and environmental returns: Bjorn Lomborg
By TNN | Aug 16, 2015,
Controversial Danish environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg, who upended conventional wisdom with his book, The Sceptical Environmentalist, has been on an interesting mission: to identify the top problems faced by the world, gather its best economists, scientists and thinkers and work out a list of things need to be fixed.
The UN has asked all its member countries what to focus on. Not surprisingly, when you ask that many countries and NGOs, you come up with lots of answers — they have come up with 169 targets, each one of which is long-winded and has all kinds of wishes. It makes us feel good but the truth is we're not going to be able to do this. If we're not going to fix everything, first look at where can we do the most good.
For the past 15 years, we've had the millennium development goals, which were just 18 targets — reduce poverty, reduce hunger, get kids to school, stop them from dying, stop their moms from dying, get clean drinking water and sanitation and so on. Very simple. The sustainable development goals, which is what the next set will be called, is an incredibly long document. There is no way this is going to energise the world, there is no way this is going to focus the attention of the world.
What we've done is, we've brought together 82 economists, 44 sector experts, all the UN organizations and basically looked across all these areas and asked, for each of these areas, what is the best you can put up. What is the social and environmental benefit for every rupee spent?
Why is this important?
Imagine you have gone into this really expensive restaurant and there are all these great dishes, but there are no prices and no sizes — it will probably make you feel uncomfortable ordering because you have no idea whether you will get something that will feed your party or just be an appetizer. You have no idea whether you will pay Rs 1,000 or Rs 1,00,000. That matters. We've tried to mark the prices and sizes of all these different choices. What you choose is now better informed.
...
It's not to say there are not a lot of important things in the world. But there are some things that are easier, cheaper, more effective to do. Let's do the smart things first.
(http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/interviews/Pick-solutions-that-offer-highest-social-and-environmental-returns-Bjorn-Lomborg/articleshow/48499526.cms)

Trade-Offs for Global Do-Gooders
The Global Goals were a culmination of a four-year process for setting priorities to help the world’s most disadvantaged people—a process beset from the start by horse-trading, haggling and endless consultation. In a bid not to offend anyone, the new development agenda is expected to include an incredible 169 targets for investment. Giving priority to 169 things is the same as giving priority to nothing at all (www.lomborg.com/).
(www.lomborg.com/news/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)
we looked closely at the value for money of more than 100 proposed targets. They were certainly not all equal. Some targets generate much higher economic, social and environmental benefits than others.
The natural political inclination is to promise all good things to everyone, which is how the UN ended up with a list of 169 targets. But analyses prepared by 82 top economists and 44 sector experts for the Copenhagen Consensus Center showed us that some of the targets are barely worthwhile, producing little more than $1 in social benefits per dollar spent, while others produce much higher social returns. These analyses used benefit-cost analysis, which is a way of comparing the amount of “good” that society gets from one investment instead of another, and expressing environmental, social and economic benefits in a single figure.
(www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/20/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)

One development target that should be prioritised over others is the eradication of tuberculosis (TB). This is a hidden disease – more than two billion people carry the bacterium that causes it and about 1.5 million people each year die from TB. But treatment is inexpensive and, in most cases, highly effective. Spending a dollar on diagnosis and treatment is a low-cost way to give many more years of productive life to many people.
Preventing childhood malnutrition is another excellent target. A good diet enables a child’s brains and muscles to better develop, leading to lifelong benefits. Well-nourished children stay in school longer, learn more and end up being much more productive members of society. The evidence suggests that providing better nutrition for 68 million children each year would produce more than $40 in long-term social benefits for every dollar spent
(www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2016/jul/20/we-must-focus-on-the-un-goals-that-are-the-best-value-for-money)
Bjorn Lomborg's Deception About 'Climate and Health Assessment' in Wall Street Journal
By Guest • Friday, April 8, 2016 - 09:48
This is a guest post by ClimateDenierRoundup originally published at Daily Kos.
A new op-ed in the Wall Street Journal by Bjorn Lomborg misses the mark, and while it’s not as bad as some of Lomborg’s misleading opinions, there can be no doubt that the deception is intentional.
Lomborg attacks the recently released Climate and Health Assessment, a comprehensive overview of how climate change impacts the American public by the US Global Change Research Program. He attacks the report’s finding that heat-related deaths from rising temperatures will outnumber the avoided cold-related deaths, which has been debated among legitimate scientists ...Lomborg claims the report, “hypes the bad and skips over the good.” He writes, “It also ignores inconvenient evidence—like the fact that cold kills many more people than heat.” Later, he reiterates his thesis statement, with the sentence, “Not once does this ‘scientific assessment’ acknowledge that cold deaths significantly outweigh heat deaths.”
Which is weird, because page 47 of the chapter on temperature and health states:
A recent analysis of U.S. deaths from temperature extremes based on death records found an average of approximately 1,300 deaths per year from 2006 to 2010 coded as resulting from extreme cold exposures, and 670 deaths per year coded as resulting from exposure to extreme heat (www.desmogblog.com/2016/04/08/bjorn-lomborg-s-deception-about-climate-and-health-assessment-wall-street-journal).Okee, dus de stelling is dat Lomborg liegt omdat het gestelde van Lomborg (kou is gevaarlijker dan hitte) in de tekst staat waarop Lomborg kritiek heeft dat het te negatief is. Er wordt niet aangegeven dat in dat Climate and Health Assessment in tegenstelling tot het gestelde van Lomborg positief nieuws staat....

JAN 22, 2016 Why Africa Needs Fossil Fuels
Africa is the world’s most “renewable” continent when it comes to energy. In the rich world, renewables account for less than a tenth of total energy supplies. The 900 million people of Sub-Saharan Africa (excluding South Africa) get 80% of their energy from renewables.
While a person in Europe or North America uses 11,000 kWh per year on average (much of it through industrial processes), a person in Sub-Sahara Africa uses only 137kWh – less than a typical American refrigerator uses in four months. More than 600 million people in Africa have no access to electricity at all.
All this is not because Africa is green, but because it is poor. Some 2% of the continent’s energy needs are met by hydro-electricity, and 78% by humanity’s oldest “renewable” fuel: wood. This leads to heavy deforestation and lethal indoor air pollution, which kills 1.3 million people each year.
...
Europe and North America became rich thanks to cheap, plentiful power. In 1800, 94% of all global energy came from renewables, almost all of it wood and plant material. In 1900, renewables provided 41% of all energy; even at the end of World War II, renewables still provided 30% of global energy. Since 1971, the share of renewables has bottomed out, standing at around 13.5% today. Almost all of this is wood, with just 0.5% from solar and wind.
...
Few in the rich world would switch to renewables without heavy subsidies, and certainly no one would cut off their connection to the mostly fossil-fuel-powered grid that provides stable power on cloudy days and at night (another form of subsidy). Yet Western activists seem to believe that the world’s worst-off people should be satisfied with inadequate and irregular electricity supplies.
In its recent Africa Energy Outlook, the IEA estimates that Africa’s energy consumption will increase by 80% by 2040; but, with the continent’s population almost doubling, less energy per person will be available. Although nearly one billion additional people will gain access to electricity by 2040, 530 million will still be cut off.
But the IEA outlines another possible future – what it calls the “African Century” – in which Africa’s governments and donors invest an extra $450 billion in energy. This would sharply increase the use of fossil fuels, reduce much of the most polluting renewables, and provide energy access to 230 million more people. Providing more – and more reliable – power to almost two billion people will increase GDP by 30% in 2040. Each person on the continent will be almost $1,000 better off every year.
In Western countries, environmental campaigners would focus on the downside – 300 million tons of additional CO₂ emissions in 2040, and higher outdoor air pollution from greater reliance on coal power – and ask why anyone would want to increase CO₂ and air pollution. But let’s look at the costs and benefits.
The almost four billion extra tons of CO₂ emitted over the next 25 years would cause about $140 billion in damage from global warming, using the US official (though, likely somewhat exaggerated) social cost figure. The increase in coal use would lead to more air pollution, costing about $30 billion during this period.
At the same time, Africa would become almost $7 trillion richer. Indoor air pollution would essentially be eliminated for about 150 million more people, with social benefits worth nearly $500 billion. And power would reach 230 million extra people, generating benefits worth $1.2 trillion.
In other words, the total costs of the “African Century,” including climate- and health-related costs, would amount to $170 billion. The total benefits, at $8.4 trillion, would be almost 50 times higher.
The same general argument probably holds for India and other developing countries. In China, for example, CO2 emissions have increased 500% since 1981; but the country’s poverty rate plummeted – from 89% then to less than 10% today.In wealthy countries, campaigners emphasize that a ton of CO2 could cost some $50 and should be taxed to reduce emissions. But for Africa, the economic, social, and environmental benefits of more energy and higher CO2 run to more than $2,000 per ton. Focusing on the $50 in cost and ignoring the $2,000 in benefits is willful blindness.
(www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/africa-needs-fossil-fuels-by-bj-rn-lomborg-2016-01)

“Global Warming May Be A Good Thing” – Bjorn Lomborg
MAY 6, 2016
Our climate conversation is lopsided. There is ample room to suggest that climate change has caused this problem or that negative outcome, but any mention of positives is frowned upon.
(https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2016/05/06/global-warming-may-be-a-good-thing-bjorn-lomborg/)

Danish author Bjorn Lomborg has articulated one of the most compelling arguments against the agenda of the climate alarmists – not by denying climate change, but by demonstrating how wasteful all government attempts are to control it.  For years, in books such as Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming, Lomborg has been the adult in the room, pointing out that hundreds of billions of dollars have been squandered on green energy even as one billion of the world's people go hungry.  Had those dollars been invested productively, the world would be a better place.  In this conclusion Lomborg is most certainly correct, and he has shown extraordinary courage in confronting the climate alarmists (www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/07/what_lomborg_leaves_out.html).