Sunday, 21 November 2010

Conservatives Misread Lomborg's "Cool It"

Guest post by Jeff Perren

Several recent conservative commentaries offer a sympathetic review of Bjorn Lomborg's global warming documentary "Cool It."

These well-mannered gentlemen have been snookered.

According to the approving Spectator story, "Mr. Lomborg's thesis is straightforward: Global warming is real and humanity needs to do something about it."

PC has provided countless links pointing to data that radically undermine the scientific portion of that thesis. In the past ten years it's been exposed as incoherent, evidentially weak, and often supported by outright fraud.

The policy portion is even worse. The idea that "we" should do anything about the climate - beyond leaving individuals free to adapt to any changes that occur - is the fatal flaw in Dr. Lomborg's argument. No matter what we discover about the physics of the Earth, the politics of the world — not to mention human nature — make it clear that capitalism is the best cure... if there were any problem to solve.

Lomborg may be more skeptical and slightly less statist than many of his fellow Greens, but he still accepts their basic views. He's still committed to Comtean altruism, Roussean environmentalism, and garden-variety collectivism. He still touts a highly dubious hypothesis to justify them. Running around Africa crying over the poor doesn't change any of that.

Bjorn Lomborg is more dangerous than Al Gore precisely because he appears (and is) more moderate. Obvious con men like Gore expose their own racket before long. It's those who are more apparently reasonable - but still opposed to individualism and freedom - who do most of the damage today. Smiley-faced fascism is still fascist. Nanny may intend to be kind, but it's still unwise to give her $100 Billion of taxpayer funds and the power of the State in order to 'do good'.


  1. its raining monsoon here today in Christchurch dude, warm rain, but it is just another day, sometimes it is like it always used to be like this and what has changed except climate theory,

  2. Andrei at Homepaddock wrote.

    "Have you read Edward Lorenz’ (a first tier scientist) seminal paper “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow”?"

    "that paper in itself demonstrates that the bold claims being made for global warming are to coin a phrase unsustainable."


  3. Yawn. More laughable "research" from Lord Monckton, surely not?

  4. It is important to establish that we will accept whatever conclusion is supported by science -- but also show that we know that such conclusions would not/do not invalidate political principles.

    Whatever the trend (if any) of the earth's temperature, it's good to know, but whatever the trend, capitalism is the proper political system for man.

  5. or put it this way:

    no scientific conclusion can invalidate the fact that man has rights and that the proper purpose of a government is to protect them. Without exception, the solutions promoted by environmentalists to the problems supposedly caused by AGW violate the proper purpose of government, and most would be worse than allowing the "worst-case scenario" to happen.

  6. Sally,

    I have read Lorenz paper, though it's been several years. Can't quite see the connection between non-linear partial differential equations and AGW, pro or con.

    Is the idea that it would require knowledge of infinitely precise initial conditions, and therefore we can't predict the climate long range?

    Apart from the skepticism in that position, I think it misreads the lessons of non-linear dynamics. We can't predict, so chaos theory might say, the exact, short-term behavior, but there are discernible long-term patterns. That latter is compatible with AGW.

    There are much better reasons to doubt AGW, not least its incoherence and weak evidential support.


    Are you suggesting that Lord Monckton is (a) wrong, (b) a wacko, and (c) the only person out there who argues against AGW?

    Quite the contrary, there's Dr. Roy Spencer, Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. Patrick Michaels, and on and on. In fact, there are thousands who have serious and well-founded doubts about AGW.

    That said, even in the highly unlikely case AGW turns out to be true, Progressive political policies can't possibly turn out to be a good way to deal with it. They never are.

    But then, a cynic is unlikely to entertain that free-market hypothesis seriously.

  7. I never misread Lomberg. His position has always been that AGW is real. That was never his area of argument.

    There is a lot to agree with though.

    IF AGW is real, there may be a large number of benefits that must be considered before taking action.

    IF AGW is real, then the hysterical rantings of its advocates is completely counter-productive.

    IF AGW is real, then Kyoto is the wrong way to deal with it.

  8. The simplest demolishing of climate theory I've come across in 20 years is to be found on the link on this site to; and scroll to more ~ "Just how little CO2 is there in our atmosphere?"
    In 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2, of which only 1 produced by humans. That 1 (out of 85,800) is said to cause a catastrophe, while the other 32 do not.
    The laymans' guide to GW on same site also useful.
    Lomberg IS a believer in the insanity of AGW, but usefully shows humans coped previously and will cope again and no monies should be squandered.

  9. "In 85,800 molecules of air, 33 are CO2, of which only 1 produced by humans. That 1 (out of 85,800) is said to cause a catastrophe, while the other 32 do not."

    That sounds persuasive but, unfortunately, advocates can (and do) argue as follows:

    "You can stand safely next to a cliff for eons. But take a step forward and suddenly you are not so safe anymore."

    I'll take a look at the site, though. Thanks.

    P.S. Of course, over time, it becomes clear that the AGW crowd is all about preventing anyone from taking a step forward. :-)


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.