Page 7
Claim 1: Many species will do better in a warmer climate.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p. 997
Status of claim: - The trouble is that the page in question is not online. I'll have to take a look in the library next time I need to go along.
Claim 2: There will be less polar desert and more forest.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p. 998
Status of claim: - see above
Claim 3: Higher temperatures will mean more nesting birds and butterflies.
Source of claim: Arctic climate impact assessment, p.256
Status of claim: - see above.
Claim 4: The full enforcement of Kyoto would at, at best, save 0.06 bears per year, and would at most reduce global warming by 7% in 2100.
Source: The Kyoto Protocol: CO~ 2, CH~ 4 and climate implications.
Status of Claim: Accurate. In fact, if anything he understates the bleakness of Kyoto - a 7% reduction translates to 0.10 - 0.21C.
Overall status of the claims: Lomborg's conclusions as regards the polar bears and what can be done to protect them are supported by the data that he pulls together. Moreover, he relies on solid sources (with two exceptions that are not central to his claim): the International Arctic Science Committee, the IUCN etc. So, contra what that ridiculous fool Friel and his ventriloquist Begley, not to mention the excitable schoolgirls over at SB have said, he is neither dishonest nor inaccurate.
This is really sad stuff. Kyoto was only ever intended to be a preliminary agreement leading to the beginning of reductions in emissions-- no-one claimed it was, by itself, a solution. So, as usual, Lomborg's points are a combination of distractions and cherry-picking.
ReplyDeleteYou complained when I merely said you 'look like' a projecting denialist-- but you didn't hesitate to call me a Stalinist, or to cast stones at Friel without any effort to document you claims about him. So I'm done here-- colour me unimpressed.