Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture
Aug 22, 2020 22 tweets 9 min read Read on X
Peter Birch Sørensen anmelder min bog negativt i Politiken

Han baserer sig mest på studie, der ekstremt manipulerer data

Urimeligt verden skal spilde mere end $1000 milliarder baseret på alarmistiske gæt, fjernt fra mainstream økonomi

politiken.dk/kultur/boger/b…
Jeg bruger Nobelpristageren William Nordhaus' model for optimal klimapolitik

PBS hævder, at "stigende antal klimaøkonomer" er uenige

Men dette er misvisende — jo, altid nogen uenighed blandt økonomer, men de tre store modeller giver næsten samme resultater (næste tweet) Image
Her er de tre store IAM, som også Obama brugte til at estimere klima-skader, FUND, PAGE og DICE (Nordhaus)

De har meget ens estimater

Jeg bruger den sorte linie

(Og estimaterne burde om noget være *mindre negative* fordi dynamisk mere realistisk)
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Jeg bruger Nordhaus til at estimere skaderne ved ingen klimapolitik i 2100 til 3.6% af BNP.

Fun fact, 1.5°C rapporten fra FNs Klimapanel i 2018 (som alarmister kalder "domedagsrapporten"), vurderer det *mindre negativt* til 2,6%

p256, ipcc.ch/sr15/chapter/c… Image
Men PBS vil meget gerne at 2°C er fornuftigt, så han bliver sur over, at jeg kritiserer denne artikel:

nature.com/articles/s4155…

Lad os se, hvor godt PBS har det med artiklens antagelser Image
Her er mainstream estimaterne på klimaskader fra de tre mainstream modeller

Disse baseret på FNs klimapanel (p690, ipcc.ch/site/assets/up…)

Cirklerne viser alle peer-reviewed studier, med størrelsen afhængig af kvaliteten af studiet, nber.org/papers/w23646 Image
Næsten hele resultat fra Nature artiklen kommer fra *drastisk* forøgelse af skaderne ifht mainstream (FUND, PAGE og DICE)

De bruger kun denne artikel: link.springer.com/article/10.100…

Den bruger næsten de samme referencer

*men tilføjer 11 ikke-videnskabeligt publicerede estimater* Image
Politiken valgte at udelade denne pointe, da de renskrev mit interview med mig for søndagsavisen

— selvom jeg insisterede over 3 gange

(Overstreget kom ikke med)

politiken.dk/debat/art78754… Image
Nordhaus' mainstream resultat viser, at omkostningen ved 4°C er 2.9% af BNP

Den nye artikel eksploderer det tal til 11.9%

— 4-dobling af mainstream estimatet Image
Man kan selvfølgelig gøre en hvilken som helst politik økonomisk fornuftig, hvis man bare må eksplodere omkostningen ved at gøre intet:

"En bro til Samsø er omkostningseffektiv, hvis ikke-at-bygge-en-bro vil koste Danmark 11.9% af BNP"
Artiklen inkluderer blot tre nye estimater, der er højere end Nordhaus' højeste

Det laveste er Burke et al 2015, der estimerer 23% omkostning ved 4.3°C (nature.com/articles/natur…)

Studiet helt ærlige om, at det falder *langt* udenfor mainstream Image
Studiet antager at verden *ikke* vil tilpasse sig over 80 år, på trods af, at deres data faktisk viser, at verden *mere* end tilpassede sig fra 1960-2010

Hvis man bare baserer sig på deres *egne* data, giver det ikke -23% men +1,100%
sciencedirect.com/science/articl… Image
Deres studie er allerede falsificeret for udviklede økonomier (link.springer.com/article/10.100…)

Det betyder, at det ikke er -23% men -3% (Altså ligesom Nordhaus finder)
Et andet paper viser, at Burke et al er meget sårbart overfor mis-specifikation rff.org/publications/w…

De finder resultater fra -48% til +157%

Det mest sandsynlige outcome er minus 1-2% (ligesom Nordhaus)
Og endelig består Burke et al simpelthen ikke fnise-testen

Hvis man vil bruge deres resultater, skal man acceptere, at Island bliver verdens rigeste land (web.stanford.edu/~mburke/climat…), 16x rigere end USA

Og Mongoliet bliver verdens 7. rigeste land

— fordi det er så koldt Image
De to absolut højeste estimater på skader er end ikke videnskabeligt publicerede

Husk, Nordhaus/FNs samling af datapunkter er alle seriøse, videnskabelige studier, der typisk har brugt måneder og år til at finde de bedste estimater
De to top tal, der eksploderer omkostningerne ved klima stammer fra et ikke-videnskabeligt publiceret 2010 paper (nber.org/papers/w16136)

Forfatteren gætter bare ærligt på to tal: 6°C->-50% og 12°C->-99%

*Ingen data*

bare "arbitrary" and "iconic" Image
Forfatteren siger helt ærligt, at når han kalibrerer de to tal, der altså betyder allermest for den artikel, som PBS så godt kan lide, så er de helt frit gættet:

CITAT: "anybody's guess here is as good as mine" Image
Dette er ikke god videnskab
Dette er ikke okay
At eksplodere mainstream omkostningsestimaterne for at berettige en meget omtalt målsætning på 2°C er politisk bekvemt, men det er ikke god videnskab

Jeg ville gerne vide fra PBS, om han virkelig synes, det ovenstående er ok?
Så nej, Politiken havde ikke ret, da de skrev at studiet var på basis af "ny viden fra klimaforskere" — det er på basis af et estimat fra 2015, der kræver, at verden ikke vil tilpasse sig (selvom deres egne tal modbeviser det) og to "arbitrære" gæt fra 2010 Image
Det bør siges klart:

Det er ikke okay at menneskeheden skal bruge tusinder af milliarder dollar for meget på klima, baseret på mind-blowingly dårlig forskning, som baserer sig på "enhvers gæt er så godt som mit"

— specielt ikke når vi har enormt mange andre, vigtige udfordinger
PBS har også en del positive punkter (tak)

Men medierne overdriver ikke kun "undertiden" om klima (ellers ville 48% af verdens befolkning ikke tro, klima vil lede til menneskehedens udslettelse)

Og jeg har skrevet til fordel for en CO₂ afgift i mindst 13 år (Cool It fra 2007) Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Bjorn Lomborg

Bjorn Lomborg Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @BjornLomborg

Feb 20
Climate alarmists are annoyed that global climate-related disaster deaths have declined dramatically

Then they discovered how to cherry-pick deaths to look like they’re increasing

— just (indefensibly) remove the top 50 most deadly mega-disasters and rig the scales

🧵+refsImage
After manipulating their stats, they have the temerity to claim “Misinterpreting statistics could be harmful if it supports a discourse minimizing the importance of climate action”

I’m pretty sure misinterpreting statistics is wrong no matter what

, p7cred.be/sites/default/…Image
They show low death numbers from 1900s and 1910s, but these are likely wrong ()

They have left out at least two major catastrophes, likely missing at least 20-25 million deaths from the Chinese flood in 1906, leading to famine in 1906-07, and at least 2-10 million deaths from the Persian drought leading to famine in 1917-19


sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_f…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persian_f…Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 16
Gasoline, not electric cars:

Two-thirds of American's want their next car to be fossil fuel driven, with just 6% battery-electric

Deloitte new 2024 Global Automotive Consumer Study

Key trend: "Slowing EV (electric car) momentum"

deloitte.com/global/en/Indu…Image
Electric cars: Consumers worry

They worry about charging time, range anxiety,
cost, battery safety, and availability of charging infrastructure

deloitte.com/global/en/Indu…
Image
We're being told that electric cars will take over the US

But Biden's Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2050, 84% of all cars will still run on fossil fuels


Image
Read 4 tweets
Jan 14
Climate alarmists incessantly hype extreme weather

But global climate-related disaster costs are declining

This decline is not just evident globally but also for rich and poor countries, and for flood, flash flood, coastal flood, cold, drought, wind, and all damage

Why don't we hear this?

Notice, damage is measured in % GDP, as even the UN insists on measuring it (e.g. SDG 11.5.2, )

This is because the same flood or storm will create much more damage in a much richer world:

If there are twice as many houses, a flood will tend to damage twice as many houses

Update of academic paper:


unstats.un.org/sdgs/metadata/…
tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/global-disas…
Image
Cost of climate-related disasters has dropped nearly 5-fold since 1980

True for both richer and poorer countries and for all countries

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…Image
Cost of nearly all climate-related disasters have dropped dramatically over 1980-2016

True for both richer, poorer and all countries, at 50, 100, 200 and 400km

sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Image
Read 8 tweets
Jan 13
As cold envelops the Northern Hemisphere, stay warm!

Despite the climate narrative, almost everywhere cold is much more deadly than heat

Cheap and reliable energy to keep us warm used to be the hallmark of prosperous countries

no more because of our climate obsession

🧵+refsImage
Why is cold dangerous?

Because it causes outer blood vessels to constrict to conserve core body heat, driving up blood pressure

Here 2+ million measurements, 6 cities in the US

130+ is classified as high blood pressure
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29677012/
Image
Blood pressure up in cold

Mayo Clinic: "Blood pressure generally is higher in the winter and lower in the summer"

We see this over the year, here for 23,000 Chinese; markedly higher systolic blood pressure in winter months



academic.oup.com/eurheartj/arti…
mayoclinic.org/diseases-condi…
Image
Read 9 tweets
Jan 9
Despite breathless climate reporting about ever more fire

The US burned area last year was the lowest this century

It was less than 7% of the 1930s

Climate does increase the burned area

but zoning and forest management are much more important

Thread + refsImage
We actually have good decadal estimates of US burned area from 1900

2023 saw less than 3% of the area that burned each year in 1900s (1900-1909)



data credibility: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.…
nifc.gov/fire-informati…
Image
Climate change played a minor role in the wildfires that devastated California in the past three years, a panel of experts said

blaming most on land management and development.

"25% ...from climate change, and 75% is the way we manage lands"

eenews.net/stories/106202…
Image
Read 11 tweets
Jan 2
Congrats to Germany

Super-expensive but ineffective climate policies mean

De-industrialization

with small climate benefit


telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/…
archive.ph/uHOKy
Image
Germans pay ever more for power

Even before war in Ukraine, costs had increased more than 50% from 2000 to early 2022

to 35 euro-cents per kWh (or 38 US¢)


destatis.de/EN/Themes/Econ…
ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/e…
Image
Not surprisingly, Germans can afford ever less electricity, with consumption per person actually declining since 2017

lowcarbonpower.org/region/Germany
Image
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(