He's at it again! This guy never learns! You would imagine that after being found guilty of scientific dishonesty he might have changed his ways but frustratingly not (hat tip to RobinLove in the comments).
I wrote this in the comments.
Lomborg, your climate change denial is as nonsensical as your criticism of Tickell's article.
1. Tickell may use the extreme term 'extinction' but he doesn't predict 70-80 metre sea level rises by the end of the century. You claim he is "simply exaggerating by a factor of up to 400", whereas in reality he simply observes that these are the long-term end-points of complete melting of the ice caps without specifying a time scale upon which it would occur.
2. You don't state which models you base your criticism of Tickell's predictions of complete melting of the ice caps on. Its really irrelevant to both yours and Tickell's analysis as models become unreliable over scales of more than a century as it is simply impossible to predict the dramatic feedbacks involved. The IPCC reports are generally based on science that is a couple of years old, due to the lengthy process involved in carrying out cross-discipline research and drawing up up consensus reports. Therefore much recent science is neglected in their politically-influenced science-lite reports. I recommend James Hansen as an informed observer of the current progress of climate change and he certainly doesn't think that sea level rises will be restricted to less than a metre this century.
Of course, if you were a climate scientist and you had evidence that suggested otherwise I would consider your position but you're not and you don't.
3. Your assertion that CO2 has an atmospheric residence time of a century is correct but misrepresents reality. Individual molecules of CO2 may have a residence of that length but due to carbon cycling a molecule that is removed will be instantly replaced and so the total amount of CO2 released by anthropogenic activity remains in circulation for far, far longer.
4. Tickell does not, as you imply, specify a time-span within which "billions would die". See point one above.
5. I can't find the report by Gary Yohe anywhere on Google so I trust it has been buried because of the dubious methodology used to produce such bizarre conclusions. Given your previous record on misrepresentation and spin, I simply don't believe that you are presenting the IPCC statistic for average wealth in context.
6. You're sweeping statement that "all peer-reviewed, published economic models demonstrate that such an effort is a colossal waste of money" is clearly bullshit. No field of research offers such a clear-cut consensuse so you are lying. In fact the Stern Review concluded that combating climate change was essential for the stability of our economy. Strange how you fail to mention this, yes? I quote from the short executive summary:
"the Review estimates that if we don’t act, the overall costs and risks of climate change will be equivalent to losing at least 5% of global GDP each year, now and forever. If a wider range of risks and impacts is taken into account, the estimates of damage could rise to 20% of GDP or more."
In contrast, the costs of action – reducing greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change – can be limited to around 1% of global GDP each year.
7. Tickell does not advocate "more of the same" as you claim, he specifically endorses scrapping the current system based upon national allocations and recommends a quite different global carbon trading system based on taxing emissions at source.
8. I agree with you wholeheartedly that R&D into low carbon or carbon neutral energy projects is inadequate but I simultaneously reject your absurd postulation that increasing spending in this area will make spending on emission reductions unnecessary. The IPCC's climate model for emissions in 2050 that are unchanged from 2000- "scenario 3"- (and the best possible scenario that might occur if we halt all attempts to reduce emissions, also extremely unlikely given geopolitical reality) then we find that mean global temperature rises by an apocalyptic 2.8 to 3.2 degrees (see table SPM6, page 20).
Could you please unequivocally confirm here that this apocalyptic scenario is the one that you advocate?
How you manage to misrepresent established science so badly escapes me. I can only conclude that your analytical skills are grossly inadequate for the career you currently follow and advocate that you restrain yourself from any further comment on matters of such import until you can demonstrate the ability to reason clearly.
More climate science from Hansen.
I would have posted it if CiF would accept the comment.